Charles, You Egghead!

(Read Chuck's comment from yesterday...oh and I think you're speaking of either Eric Young or Orestes Destrade)

Anyone else getting a John Clayton/Sean Salisbury vibe here? As some of you may know, Chuck's favorite segment of Sportscenter was the "Coors Light Six Pack of Questions" pitting the ex-Viking against the "egghead" Clayton.

There are several holes in your argument. Let me begin where you are simply inaccurate. While West Virginia did beat the SEC Champion in the Sugar Bowl, it was Georgia, not Auburn. Impressive no less for the Mountaineers. By my count, and I counted twice, the Big East was 13-8 against BCS conference teams last year, not 14-7. I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter. BCS conferences have shitty teams too. The BE beat UNC twice, UVA, UK, Illinois, Maryland, Miami, Kansas State twice, IU, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest (7 bowl teams, 1 BCS). They lost to Wake twice, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan State, Virginia Tech and Kansas (5 losses, 4 bowl teams, 1 BCS bowl team). Again, by my count, the SEC was 14-9 against BCS conference teams, not 13-9. Beating California, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado, Duke (twice), FSU, Clemson (twice), Georgia Tech, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Virginia Tech (10 bowl teams, 2 BCS). They lost to Louisville, Michigan, USC, Missouri, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Oklahoma State (all 9 bowl teams, 4 BCS bowl teams). Either you were misinformed, did incorrect research, or you just made this up. Thus, your overuse of misleading stats in fact has come back to haunt you. Do you feel haunted? Because you are.

(Editor's Note: I compiled all of these statistics while I was supposed to be working, so they could be wrong. But they are at least very close to accurate and prove the point anyway--even if Chuck's records were right.)

Continuing the theme of competition, let's approach the bowl games. While it is true that the Big East was a perfect 5-o to the SEC's "pathetic" 6-3, let's look at who the teams played. The Big East beat Kansas State, Georgia Tech (beaten by UGA), Wake, Western Michigan, and East Carolina. Also, your precious BCS win over Wake is soiled due to a loss at home earlier in the season to, you guessed it, UK's bitch Clemson. The SEC, on the other hand, lost to Oklahoma State, Penn State, and Wisconsin (by a combined 16 points) while beating Clemson, Houston, Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Ohio State. Oh they also won the National Championship and Sugar Bowl by a combined 54 points (both scores 41-14). So in that aspect, although correct statistically, the numbers are misleading.

Furthermore, your point about the Big east being 18-13 against the SEC since 1990 is, while telling, extremely misleading. If ever a Big East-er starts an argument with "since 1990" immediately call bullshit. In 1990, the Big East had a few powerhouses that are no longer there (BC, Miami, VT). Also, UL wasn't in the BE until a few years ago.

Chuck, 35% of all people know you can use statistics to prove anything. 52% of the population are chicks; that doesn't mean that we're all gonna get laid.

The SEC is much stronger top to bottom than the Big East. There is no way to dispute that point. And you're right, the top teams are afraid to play UL and that is a bummer. But wouldn't anyone be? There is no reason to risk a loss when you already have to play the likes of Florida, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. The SEC placed 9 bowl teams last year of twelve. The Big East placed 5 of 8. While good, not quite as good. You mention that the SEC doesn't play every team in the conference each year saying, ""Scary depth"? How about the fact that the SEC plays only 66% of the teams in its conference every year?" I don't know what this means. Let's take Florida for example, a powerhouse in the SEC East. They play Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and LSU every year (and FSU). Why schedule another out-of-conference tough game? They need no help with their SOS, so why risk it? It sucks for UL because they need those games, but don't blame the SEC teams for being scared. I assure you, they are not. They still have tough OOC games, just not against UL. UGA-GT, UK-UL, Florida-FSU, Arkansas used to play USC, Vandy played Michigan last year, Tennessee-Cal, USC-Clemson, etc. Also, Georgia has agreed to play UL in a home and home in the future.

A major problem that I have forever seen with UL fans is that they are insecure to the point that rather than simply gloating about their own achievements, they instead constantly compare themselves to UK. Again, I understand that rivalries generally work this way. But be proud of what you were and are able to do with your program.

I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls here Chuck, but the collective balls of UL and Big East supporters everywhere. Anytime there is a forum for this argument, BE fans scream the same misleading numbers that you threw at me. I understand that it is frustrating for UL fans to have a superior football team than UK but get no love because of a lesser conference. Do not, however, try and assuage that anger by touting your conference as better than ours. It's not. It is 100% true that UK plays a better schedule than UL every year; even though it's not UL's fault. I'm also positive it's frustrating to go to Tuesday night games when they are playing Cincinnati.

In the end, we can all agree that UL is currently a (though not by much anymore) better football team than UK. It's just very frustrating for me to hear UL fans say that the Cards are with the likes of SEC powerhouses. They're not and probably never will be.

Hey, neither will UK, so isn't that good enough for you guys?