Jason King wrote a rude article about the Big Ten that denigrated Iowa ("mediocre"), Terrelle Pryor ("not a facilitator"), the Big Ten ("bullshit"..yes, he referred to the Big Ten as bullshit), and the Iowa/OSU game ("had to be drunk to watch it"). There will be no link to this cliched editorial of his, because that would be giving him hits. If you want to read the piece, you can find it. It's actually better than Tom Dienhart's Penn State takedown article from last year, which we duly destroyed.

Obviously attacking another person's article is not usually our thing here, so let's just take a quick look at some weird misconceptions that King seems to hold and then

Scores in the teens and 20s may be enough to win in the offensively challenged Big Ten, but it won’t cut it Jan. 1 in Pasadena in a game that promises to be somber for the Buckeyes.

Florida 24, South Carolina 14...Alabama 13, LSU 3...Florida 29, Mississippi State 19...Alabama 12, Tennessee 10....

Needless to say, the top two teams in the nation have played numerous games in the teens and 20's. However, the teams at the top of the SEC have excelled in BCS games, so they are exempt from this kind of discussion. But how in the world can you predict the result of OSU's Rose Bowl matchup...when you don't even know who they play?

Luckily, they had the chance to celebrate Saturday, when fans threw roses at them from the stands and mobbed them during an on-field party that could’ve become dangerous. Pryor said his main goal was getting to the locker room.

"Those kids were drunk," he chuckled.

After sitting through that game, could anyone blame them?

I also agree that a contest featuring top-level defenses, a brilliant performance by a converted wide receiver, a vicious comeback, and a game winning field goal...was so bad that I would have to be hammered to survive it.

But enough of me attacking useless, one-sided articles that get trotted out yearly by Yahoo! writers. Instead, let's take a quick look at the top 6 teams in the SEC, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10, Big East, and Big 12. Which conference is deepest? Is the Big 10 really as mediocre as King (and everyone else) suggests?

SEC

After LSU (who I believe is a good team after watching both of their close losses to UF and Bama), the cupboard is bare. Auburn has three bad losses (UGA, ARK, Kentucky) and Georgia's defensive coordinator is gone after this year. Although Ole Miss (preseason top 5) has badly disappointed, they seem to be improving. Three solid teams up top and three big name programs in various states of building.

ACC

Miami, UNC, and BC are similar teams, struggling to find consistency, while red-hot Clemson can carve out a nice Bowl berth with two wins to finish the season. VT and GT are the rocks here - I wouldn't want to face either.

Big 12

After last year's offensive fireworks/lovefest, it's surprising to see the conference-wide weakness. Texas is solid and OSU (barring an upset in Norman), will have a 10-2 finish. Nebraska almost beat VT and their stock has been boosted by the struggles of Kansas and Oklahoma.

Pac 10

Bama Hawkeye famously called this the best conference in football. Four ranked teams and some big non-conf wins will do that for you. USC beat Ohio State, Cal beat Minnesota....and Stanford is the "it" team in CFB. But there is no stand out team here, so why do people have googly eyes over the Pac 10? I think it's because there are some feel good stories here; Stanford and OSU overachieve, while Cal and Oregon have won enough games to not be disappointments.

Big East

Not a whole lot going on here after Cinci/Pitt. At least the Panthers are winning games that they always lose.

Big Ten

Good to see so many wins at the top. OSU and Iowa have quality victories, but the early season loss to USC looks bad now. Wisconsin is a physical, talented team - Wisky v. Ole Miss/USC/Oklahoma would be a great game.

Conclusion

Insulting the Big Ten is usually a no lose proposition, especially in the context of comparing it with other conferences. This year's results don't back this idea, instead speaking to a general theme amongst all the conferences - 2 or 3 top 20 teams and little else intriguing to think about. Because really, what's the difference between Michigan State and Georgia?

When people like King write a Big Ten hating article, they use a tired, snotty form of writing. These writers imply that the Big Ten has an antiquated approach to football with little results. Will BCS wins or a great Bowl performance in '09 change this? I hope we find out.