First off, have really enjoyed the discussion and have admired you and Wrigley's contributions over the years. Have been a follower for years but until recently didnt think it was wise to join in because of the position i held.
The ACC/SEC comparison is used to highlight how a perception of toughest can be misleading. Most people who follow college football would think that the SEC is the toughest conference in football because of the recent history, the draft prospects, and the recruiting. I know I did and many analyst were right there in the boat with me. But the head to head vs a perceived weaker conference (ACC) shows other wise. I am merely trying to point out that the metric of recent glories, college recruits and prospects shouldn't be the only ones used in determining the toughest conference. Based off of this formula for determining the toughest then the match up between Scotland (sandhills best) vs Mallard Creek (meck best) should be a lopsided victory for Mallard Creek correct? Mallard Creek has way more college players, prospects, and championships than Scotland so they must be a lot better right?
Again i am not trying to ruffle feathers, just enjoying the debate. At the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Thank you both for being rational and analytical.
I don't recall anyone using Mallard Creek's college recruits or prospects as a scale or formula on how tough the conference is. My opinion is based on how the teams would match up outside of the conference. I would imagine Sandhills have some very competitive games within the conference. I just don't see them as a big threat outside the conference from top to bottom. Definitely not in the toughest conference in the State conversation.
Scotland has 75% of their starters returning with the #1 RB in the nation from a 14-1 team. You do the Math. MC has 4 starters returning. Why would they be a lot better?