ESPN: The 10 Teams With Easiest 2017 Nonconference Slates, LINK, Big Pretend & Big Frail Again!

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Yes, it is the same thing with every conference. You just made up an arbitrary designation of "bottom feeder" without any clearcut definition of what constitutes a "bottom feeder."

As far as your ranking stats, you are way off. I'll just give you one example. You mentioned how many teams each conference had ranked in the Top 10 over the last 5 years. Now, you didn't articulate this clearly, so I don't know if you mean total # of Top 10 finishes, or the different teams who were ever ranked in the Top 10 during this period. Here is the breakdown of each, for the 3 conferences you mentioned:

Total # of Top 10 finishes, last 5 years
SEC - 14
Big Ten - 12
ACC - 8

Different teams to finish ranked in Top 10, last 5 years:
SEC - 7 (Alabama, Florida, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Missouri, Georgia)
Big Ten - 6 (Ohio St, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Iowa, Penn St)
ACC - 3 (Florida St, Clemson, Georgia Tech)

The Big Ten was ahead of the ACC in either category, and just behind the SEC. That doesn't support your argument that the Big Ten doesn't have as many "elite" teams. That also doesn't support your argument that the ACC is more balanced than the Big Ten, since 6 Big Ten teams finished in the Top 10, double what the ACC had. I can do the same thing for your other claims if you want. Sounds like you are the one who didn't do your homework.

NOPE, I made nothing up, the Statistics how the Bottom Feeders from 3 & 5 years here, once again your can't argue facts so you cry and whine, and caught you again..... Big Ten has some BIG BOYS but also the most POOR BOYS and prefer to play MAC not SEC!
LINK OF HONESTY NOT ARBITRARY!
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin...=2012&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct

This is why many back in November like I posed above too, got it wrong when many argued in NOVEMBER the Big Ten should maybe put in 2 to 3 teams in the CFB Playoff, and after the Bowl Game and Seasons all wrote they beat up Bottom Feeders!

Now not only did I refute you, the Two Links above on CBS Sports Writers getting it wrong at different Times, and the Stats of Facts and now the Lies in your own Posts above calling it arbitrary makes you look silly, as I keep telling you SEC RULES and ACC had a GREAT YEAR, and they play each other more than the BIG PRETEND, BIG FRAIL, and POOR-11.

The ACC upgraded their QBs and Coaches the last few years. SEC has made changes trying to keep up with BAMA but both more competitive from Top to Bottom.

The Big Ten upgraded their Big Boy Coaches at OSU, Penn State, Michigan, Nebarska, and Wisconsin and kept their Steady eddies at NU, Iowa, MSU and too. But still got more wins off MAC and Big Ten POOR BOYS than any other Conference.

Now this year, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota all upgraded their Coaches and last year so did Maryland and Rutgers too! So, maybe the Cycles will change, but in the last 3 and 5 years they have been Bottom Feeders Wins making the Big Ten Top Boys look great until Post Seasons Bowls?

SEC & ACC have been playing better Football and against each other!

Now comeback and cry again but I'll leave you in your crib until you go to sleep on your own whining did you in now go to sleep with a pacifier.

 

[topdecktiger]

NOPE, I made nothing up, the Statistics how the Bottom Feeders from 3 & 5 years here, once again your can't argue facts so you cry and whine, and caught you again..... Big Ten has some BIG BOYS but also the most POOR BOYS and prefer to play MAC not SEC!
LINK OF HONESTY NOT ARBITRARY!
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin...=2012&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct

This is why many back in November like I posed above too, got it wrong when many argued in NOVEMBER the Big Ten should maybe put in 2 to 3 teams in the CFB Playoff, and after the Bowl Game and Seasons all wrote they beat up Bottom Feeders!

Now not only did I refute you, the Two Links above on CBS Sports Writers getting it wrong at different Times, and the Stats of Facts and now the Lies in your own Posts above calling it arbitrary makes you look silly, as I keep telling you SEC RULES and ACC had a GREAT YEAR, and they play each other more than the BIG PRETEND, BIG FRAIL, and POOR-11.

The ACC upgraded their QBs and Coaches the last few years. SEC has made changes trying to keep up with BAMA but both more competitive from Top to Bottom.

The Big Ten upgraded their Big Boy Coaches at OSU, Penn State, Michigan, Nebarska, and Wisconsin and kept their Steady eddies at NU, Iowa, MSU and too. But still got more wins off MAC and Big Ten POOR BOYS than any other Conference.

Now this year, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota all upgraded their Coaches and last year so did Maryland and Rutgers too! So, maybe the Cycles will change, but in the last 3 and 5 years they have been Bottom Feeders Wins making the Big Ten Top Boys look great until Post Seasons Bowls?

SEC & ACC have been playing better Football and against each other!

Now comeback and cry again but I'll leave you in your crib until you go to sleep on your own whining did you in now go to sleep with a pacifier.

You keep on with the personal insults. This shows a lack of maturity on your part.

I looked over the entire page you linked. I did not see the word "bottomfeeder" listed once. You just arbitrarily decided which teams you would count as "bottomfeeders." The website you linked doesn't say which teams are "bottomfeeders" and which ones aren't.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

You keep on with the personal insults. This shows a lack of maturity on your part.

I looked over the entire page you linked. I did not see the word "bottomfeeder" listed once. You just arbitrarily decided which teams you would count as "bottomfeeders." The website you linked doesn't say which teams are "bottomfeeders" and which ones aren't.

Nope they can't be insults when your own words betray you from Independent Links and you still whine and cry, now post whatever you need to make you feel better, i counted the teams under .500 and Big Ten has the most and plays MAC OOC and ACC & SEC play Tougher Teams in an within.

It is why the CFB Invite Committee only invited 1 Big Ten Team and they were blown away. It is far easier to have 10+ Wins Teams when playing more POOR BOYS in the BIG TEN and MAC too! At less in 2016 and last 3 and 5 years!

Sure all Conferences have Top Teams and Bottom Feeders but the other Conferences have changes in them as seen in the Stats, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and Illinois and play more games in the BIG TEN like you said 9, and then MAC OOC! This has been trend for the last few years. MSU was blown away last year too, and OSU this year. It is a Zero Sum Game when you play more Teams within with MAC, and more Big ten Bottom Feeders give Top BOYS and Edge to win 10+ Games.

SEC has less Bottom Feeders and they change, and SEC BIG BOYS plays more against the ACC BIG BOYS not MAC, now quit whining you just got it wrong and you claiming the Stats Independent Verified Numbers were not Arbitrary and why you are crying, and you just can't accept it, I call that a Kid!

I did not insult you, you insulted yourself!

 

[topdecktiger]

The point is even Pitt's joke glorified scrimmage game was against a decent team. Nova wasn't a average FCS team they were a playoff FCS team and it wasn't a one year blip a few years ago they were the best FCS team. Were they a BCS level team h*ll no but they weren't a complete joke of a team either. Still Pitt won that game without showing anything so its not like they were ever in danger of losing. But the whole PSU and OK st in the same year isn't smart. Play weaker P5 teams. Sure every now and then one will surprise and be good.

Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean they are good compared to FBS teams. Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean you are better than, say the average MAC team. Playing Villanova is not any harder than playing Bowling Green or Akron.

I won't argue conference strength, it bounces back and forth the ACC has been pretty damn good the last 3 years but I suspect that Pitt's division is going to take a step back this year. The difference is the topdecker. While PSU plays 10 P5's the 10 th is at best %50 of the time a top 40 team. Half the time its a indiana or RU some times it ends up as a NB. On the other hand Pitt is playing a OK ST who has consistently been a top 25 team. Thats the difference what people are arguing is that it makes no sense of Pitt to play OK st and PSU type opponents every year. Play PSU or OK ST then play RU,Kansas etc etc the other game. Basically to p5 one which has consistently been bad and one thats good. Most schools playing 10 P5's aren't playing teams at the level of OK ST or PSU as their 9th and 10th game. On average they are playing a 6-6 p5 team.

The problem with that is, you arbitrarily make Oklahoma St the "10th team" for Pitt, and then randomly picking out a weaker team for the opponent's "10th team." That's not how you do it. You take all 10 P5 teams for Pitt, and line them up vs. all 10 P5 teams for an opponent. Let's use Michigan St instead of Penn St (because people won't look objectively at a rival), and make a rough comparison of each team's P5 opponents.

Michigan St
Ohio St
Michigan
Penn St
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Indiana
Maryland
Notre Dame
Rutgers

Pitt
Penn St
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
Miami
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Syracuse
Virginia

I tried to list the teams roughly from best to worst. It's just an estimation, but it serves the purpose. Tell me how the teams on the second list are demonstrably better than the first. They both play Penn St, so that's a wash. Oklahoma St/Virginia Tech/Miami is no tougher than Ohio St/Michigan/Minnesota. Northwestern/Iowa/Indiana is a little easier than Georgia Tech/North Carolina/NC State. Still not murders' row. Duke/Syracuse/Virginia is not really any different than Maryland/Rutgers/Notre Dame. I'd say Michigan St's top 3 are a little tougher, Pitt's middle 3 are a little tougher, and the bottom 3 are a wash. So that comes back to my point. Pitt's 10 P5 teams aren't really any more difficult than what most other teams play.

 

[steel_curtain]

Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean they are good compared to FBS teams. Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean you are better than, say the average MAC team. Playing Villanova is not any harder than playing Bowling Green or Akron.



The problem with that is, you arbitrarily make Oklahoma St the "10th team" for Pitt, and then randomly picking out a weaker team for the opponent's "10th team." That's not how you do it. You take all 10 P5 teams for Pitt, and line them up vs. all 10 P5 teams for an opponent. Let's use Michigan St instead of Penn St (because people won't look objectively at a rival), and make a rough comparison of each team's P5 opponents.

Michigan St
Ohio St
Michigan
Penn St
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Indiana
Maryland
Notre Dame
Rutgers

Pitt
Penn St
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
Miami
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Syracuse
Virginia

I tried to list the teams roughly from best to worst. It's just an estimation, but it serves the purpose. Tell me how the teams on the second list are demonstrably better than the first. They both play Penn St, so that's a wash. Oklahoma St/Virginia Tech/Miami is no tougher than Ohio St/Michigan/Minnesota. Northwestern/Iowa/Indiana is a little easier than Georgia Tech/North Carolina/NC State. Still not murders' row. Duke/Syracuse/Virginia is not really any different than Maryland/Rutgers/Notre Dame. I'd say Michigan St's top 3 are a little tougher, Pitt's middle 3 are a little tougher, and the bottom 3 are a wash. So that comes back to my point. Pitt's 10 P5 teams aren't really any more difficult than what most other teams play.

-Pitt didnt even play NC State last year. Pitt played Clemson at Clemson. And Clemson put a complete mercy rule beatdown on Ohio State. Penn State also beat Ohio State. Heck, Ohio State would of lost 4 games playing Pitt's schedule last year.

 

[topdecktiger]

Nope they can't be insults when your own words betray you from Independent Links and you still whine and cry, now post whatever you need to make you feel better, i counted the teams under .500 and Big Ten has the most and plays MAC OOC and ACC & SEC play Tougher Teams in an within.

It is why the CFB Invite Committee only invited 1 Big Ten Team and they were blown away. It is far easier to have 10+ Wins Teams when playing more POOR BOYS in the BIG TEN and MAC too! At less in 2016 and last 3 and 5 years!

Sure all Conferences have Top Teams and Bottom Feeders but the other Conferences have changes in them as seen in the Stats, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and Illinois and play more games in the BIG TEN like you said 9, and then MAC OOC! This has been trend for the last few years. MSU was blown away last year too, and OSU this year. It is a Zero Sum Game when you play more Teams within with MAC, and more Big ten Bottom Feeders give Top BOYS and Edge to win 10+ Games.

SEC has less Bottom Feeders and they change, and SEC BIG BOYS plays more against the ACC BIG BOYS not MAC, now quit whining you just got it wrong and you claiming the Stats Independent Verified Numbers were not Arbitrary and why you are crying, and you just can't accept it, I call that a Kid!

I did not insult you, you insulted yourself!

And you have some problems with that analysis. Check out how many FCS teams the SEC plays. (The ACC too for that matter.) Check out how many CUSA/Sun Belt teams the SEC and ACC play. You are pointing out MAC teams for the Big Ten, but you fail to point out teams like FCS or Sun Belt for the ACC and SEC.

Also, the SEC and ACC don't play as many games against their "big boys" as the Big Ten, because they only play 8 conference. So, more ACC teams get to skip Clemson and Florida St. More SEC teams get to skip Alabama. Fewer Big Ten teams get to skip Ohio St or Michigan.

You also tried to count Notre Dame for the ACC, but they aren't an ACC team. You count Louisville as a Top 10 team for the ACC the last 5 years, but Louisville wasn't an ACC team for all 5 years. Conversely, Rutgers hasn't been a Big Ten team for all 5 years either, so Big Ten teams haven't had the benefit of beating Rutgers all 5 years. You also count Maryland as a bottomfeeder for the Big Ten, but ignore the fact that Maryland used to be an ACC team, so the ACC would have gotten the benefit of playing the bottomfeeder Maryland some of the time.

Like I said, you just arbitrarily decided that .500 was the cutoff for a "bottomfeeder." You ignore some other key stats. What is the Big Ten's overall record over the last 5 years? What is the ACC's overall record? What is the Big Ten's head-to-head record vs. the ACC over the last 5 years? You won't like the answer to those questions.

 

[topdecktiger]

-Pitt didnt even play NC State last year. Pitt played Clemson at Clemson. And Clemson put a complete mercy rule beatdown on Ohio State. Penn State also beat Ohio State. Heck, Ohio State would of lost 4 games playing Pitt's schedule last year.

Uhhhhh, yeah, I know Pitt didn't play NC State last year. I was comparing this year's schedule. You are also absolutely right that Clemson beat Ohio St last year. That still doesn't mean Oklahoma St is a tougher game than Ohio St, or Miami is a tougher game than Ohio St, or Georgia Tech is a tougher game than Ohio St, etc.

 

[steel_curtain]

And you have some problems with that analysis. Check out how many FCS teams the SEC plays. (The ACC too for that matter.) Check out how many CUSA/Sun Belt teams the SEC and ACC play. You are pointing out MAC teams for the Big Ten, but you fail to point out teams like FCS or Sun Belt for the ACC and SEC.

Also, the SEC and ACC don't play as many games against their "big boys" as the Big Ten, because they only play 8 conference. So, more ACC teams get to skip Clemson and Florida St. More SEC teams get to skip Alabama. Fewer Big Ten teams get to skip Ohio St or Michigan.

You also tried to count Notre Dame for the ACC, but they aren't an ACC team. You count Louisville as a Top 10 team for the ACC the last 5 years, but Louisville wasn't an ACC team for all 5 years. Conversely, Rutgers hasn't been a Big Ten team for all 5 years either, so Big Ten teams haven't had the benefit of beating Rutgers all 5 years. You also count Maryland as a bottomfeeder for the Big Ten, but ignore the fact that Maryland used to be an ACC team, so the ACC would have gotten the benefit of playing the bottomfeeder Maryland some of the time.

Like I said, you just arbitrarily decided that .500 was the cutoff for a "bottomfeeder." You ignore some other key stats. What is the Big Ten's overall record over the last 5 years? What is the ACC's overall record? What is the Big Ten's head-to-head record vs. the ACC over the last 5 years? You won't like the answer to those questions.

-In the last 5 years the ACC won 2 National Titles, played in 3 National Title games, and has 26 bowl wins. The ACC has more National Titles, has played in more National Title games, and has 8 more bowl wins over the Big Ten in the last 5 years. Besides the fact the ACC killed the Big ten in head to head last year in beating all its top teams. The Big Ten was also outscored in the last 2 playoff appearances 69-0. If the Big Ten makes it next year, at least score a field goal.

 

[topdecktiger]

-In the last 5 years the ACC won 2 National Titles, played in 3 National Title games, and has 26 bowl wins. The ACC has more National Titles, has played in more National Title games, and has 8 more bowl wins over the Big Ten in the last 5 years. Besides the fact the ACC killed the Big ten in head to head last year in beating all its top teams. The Big Ten was also outscored in the last 2 playoff appearances 69-0. If the Big Ten makes it next year, at least score a field goal.

See, this is the problem with message boards. People go ape shit. I'm not trying to boost up the Big Ten, or downgrade the ACC. The problem is, you have a few posters on here, trying to imply the Big Ten basically sucks, and that's simply not true. I'm just making the point that there isn't much difference between either conference. You can find stats to support one or the other. The problem is, you and some other guys are going so far over into the anti-Big Ten camp, you perceive my moderate position as pro-Big Ten.

 

[steel_curtain]

See, this is the problem with message boards. People go ape shit. I'm not trying to boost up the Big Ten, or downgrade the ACC. The problem is, you have a few posters on here, trying to imply the Big Ten basically sucks, and that's simply not true. I'm just making the point that there isn't much difference between either conference. You can find stats to support one or the other. The problem is, you and some other guys are going so far over into the anti-Big Ten camp, you perceive my moderate position as pro-Big Ten.

-I wouldnt be going that far except the Big Ten was so grossly overrated last year it was silly. The Big Ten had 6 teams in its conference with losing records. SIX. And of those bottom 6 teams, they had a combined 10 wins against P5 teams for all of them. And most of those 10 wins for all 6 of those teams combined came against Rutgers, the sorriest P5 team this decade. The bottom 6 of the Big Ten couldnt hold it together against the MAC. Heck, they wouldnt be able to hold it together against the FCS. That's how bad the bottom of that conference was.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Uhhhhh, yeah, I know Pitt didn't play NC State last year. I was comparing this year's schedule. You are also absolutely right that Clemson beat Ohio St last year. That still doesn't mean Oklahoma St is a tougher game than Ohio St, or Miami is a tougher game than Ohio St, or Georgia Tech is a tougher game than Ohio St, etc.

When Big Ten has less Bottom Feeders and plays a better OOC it will prove you right, but until then you can't ignore the facts Win-Loss numbers and having the most Bottom Feeders the last 3 and 5 years.

SEC played 17 FCS & MAC Teams!
ACC played 16 FCS & MAC Teams!
Big-10 played 16 FCS & MAC Teams!

Yet, ACC played 6 more Power Five Teams and and SEC played 5 more and played Tougher Teams within their Conferences than Big Ten, that is a significant difference.

I agreed where I could with you on both Topics but the Numbers are not with you in reality and SEC is far more Competitive Within and ACC is becoming more balance again with New Coaches that came in 2014 and 2015.Ten years ago the ACC had 6 Teams as Bottom Feeders but Big Ten still had 5 but the ACC got better..

Like I said, Rutgers and Maryland got new Coaches in 2015, and Illinois in 2016, and Indiana with Purdue in 2017. Minnesota too. I agree it goes in cycles but Big Ten has more Poor Boys that are eaten by the Big Boys, and 9 games within and the W-L Stats proved it not me.

I don't mind if you disagree, so be it.

 

[revampedpanthers]

Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean they are good compared to FBS teams. Being a playoff team in the FCS doesn't mean you are better than, say the average MAC team. Playing Villanova is not any harder than playing Bowling Green or Akron.



The problem with that is, you arbitrarily make Oklahoma St the "10th team" for Pitt, and then randomly picking out a weaker team for the opponent's "10th team." That's not how you do it. You take all 10 P5 teams for Pitt, and line them up vs. all 10 P5 teams for an opponent. Let's use Michigan St instead of Penn St (because people won't look objectively at a rival), and make a rough comparison of each team's P5 opponents.

Michigan St
Ohio St
Michigan
Penn St
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Indiana
Maryland
Notre Dame
Rutgers

Pitt
Penn St
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
Miami
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Syracuse
Virginia

I tried to list the teams roughly from best to worst. It's just an estimation, but it serves the purpose. Tell me how the teams on the second list are demonstrably better than the first. They both play Penn St, so that's a wash. Oklahoma St/Virginia Tech/Miami is no tougher than Ohio St/Michigan/Minnesota. Northwestern/Iowa/Indiana is a little easier than Georgia Tech/North Carolina/NC State. Still not murders' row. Duke/Syracuse/Virginia is not really any different than Maryland/Rutgers/Notre Dame. I'd say Michigan St's top 3 are a little tougher, Pitt's middle 3 are a little tougher, and the bottom 3 are a wash. So that comes back to my point. Pitt's 10 P5 teams aren't really any more difficult than what most other teams play.

Now look at indiana or Northwestern's schedules! Thats the point I am making. Last year Pitt played a tougher schedule than PSU or anyone in the b10. This year it will likely be a little easier because the crossover game won't include Louisville, fl st or clemson. But even without a tough crossover game Pitt's schedule is comparable to the best b10 schedules. My point is its stupid to play as tough of a schedule as there is in college football. Pitt should be playing Indiana or RU type of schedule not OSU or MI st.

 

[Pitt79]

Some of our future schedules seem easier.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/acc/pittsburgh-panthers.php

 

[topdecktiger]

-I wouldnt be going that far except the Big Ten was so grossly overrated last year it was silly. The Big Ten had 6 teams in its conference with losing records. SIX. And of those bottom 6 teams, they had a combined 10 wins against P5 teams for all of them. And most of those 10 wins for all 6 of those teams combined came against Rutgers, the sorriest P5 team this decade. The bottom 6 of the Big Ten couldnt hold it together against the MAC. Heck, they wouldnt be able to hold it together against the FCS. That's how bad the bottom of that conference was.

Yes, and I'm telling you that's an overreaction. You can't base everything on one year. In 2015, the ACC had 5 teams with losing records. In 2014, the ACC had 6 teams with losing records (just like the Big Ten did this year). You can find warts with any conference. Also, your assertion that the bottom 6 teams couldn't hold it together against the MAC isn't accurate. If you look at their record against G5 teams, that argument doesn't hold water.

If you are mad about the Big Ten being overrated, they aren't the only ones that get that. The SEC is overrated frequently. Look how many times SEC teams start out the year highly ranked, and look how many times said teams flop. (Texas A&M being a prime example.) Louisville was way overrated earlier this year also. You are also inaccurate about your # of wins for the bottom Big Ten teams. Right off the bat, they won 12 games against P5 teams. That's just from a cursory count I did. I would challenge you to do the same calculation for the ACC in 2015 & 2014. See what you come up with.

Again, I'm not making the case that the Big Ten is better. I'm telling you that the conferences are similar.

Now look at indiana or Northwestern's schedules! Thats the point I am making. Last year Pitt played a tougher schedule than PSU or anyone in the b10. This year it will likely be a little easier because the crossover game won't include Louisville, fl st or clemson. But even without a tough crossover game Pitt's schedule is comparable to the best b10 schedules. My point is its stupid to play as tough of a schedule as there is in college football. Pitt should be playing Indiana or RU type of schedule not OSU or MI st.

I have looked at these schedule, and your point still doesn't hold water. The 10 P5 teams Pitt plays are not demonstrably tougher than the 10 P5 teams the average school plays. Oklahoma St and Penn St don't make up the entire schedule. Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse, & NC State is not murders' row.

When Big Ten has less Bottom Feeders and plays a better OOC it will prove you right, but until then you can't ignore the facts Win-Loss numbers and having the most Bottom Feeders the last 3 and 5 years.

SEC played 17 FCS & MAC Teams!
ACC played 16 FCS & MAC Teams!
Big-10 played 16 FCS & MAC Teams!

Yet, ACC played 6 more Power Five Teams and and SEC played 5 more and played Tougher Teams within their Conferences than Big Ten, that is a significant difference.

I agreed where I could with you on both Topics but the Numbers are not with you in reality and SEC is far more Competitive Within and ACC is becoming more balance again with New Coaches that came in 2014 and 2015.Ten years ago the ACC had 6 Teams as Bottom Feeders but Big Ten still had 5 but the ACC got better..

Like I said, Rutgers and Maryland got new Coaches in 2015, and Illinois in 2016, and Indiana with Purdue in 2017. Minnesota too. I agree it goes in cycles but Big Ten has more Poor Boys that are eaten by the Big Boys, and 9 games within and the W-L Stats proved it not me.

I don't mind if you disagree, so be it.

I'm not ignoring facts. You are. By your own numbers, both the SEC and ACC played just as many G5/FCS teams as the Big Ten. That right there undercuts your argument.

You are also fudging the numbers. You say the ACC and SEC played 6/5 more P5 teams. That's a misleading stat. The SEC and ACC also play 14 more OOC games than the Big Ten. Your stat would only be relevant if all three conferences played the same amount of OOC games. It's also misleading because the Big Ten schools still played the same number of P5 teams on their overall schedule. They just play an extra conference team as a P5 team. That goes back to my point that Pitt still play 10 P5 teams, just like most other schools.

Also, saying the SEC & ACC played tougher teams in their conferences isn't true either. All the ACC schools didn't play Clemson. All the SEC schools didn't play Alabama. With the SEC East, that's especially not true, because that division was very mediocre. They had the benefit of playing the weaker teams in the conference, just like you complain about in the Big Ten.

Now, if you want to talk about stats, here are the OOC records for the 5 conference in the last 3 years:

2014
SEC - 55-12 .821
Pac 12 - 37-9 .804
Big Ten - 48-19 .716
ACC - 46-21.687
Big 12 - 24-13 .649

2015
SEC - 51-12 .810
Pac 12 - 35-9 .790
Big Ten 47-17 .734
Big 12 - 24-10 .706
ACC 41-24 .631

2016
ACC - 51-17 .750
SEC - 48-19 .716
Pac 12 - 29-13 .690
Big Ten - 35-17 .673
Big 12 - 23-13 .639

The Big Ten finished ahead of the ACC 2 of the last 3 years. If we go back further, you aren't going to get much better results. As I said before, I'm not say the ACC is bad or the Big Ten is good. I'm saying there is very little difference between the two conferences. You are spinning. You are only choosing numbers that support your point, and ignoring those that don't.