Never said would. I said odds were better at losing to a TAMU. LSU. OU. Kentucky. South Carolina. Mizzou (don't care what they're ranked), not top tier then a VT/Duke.
Top tier (UGA, Bama, UT, Ole Miss, Tennessee) are probably more of a would scenario for me.
Fully understand any given day.. Not my point. I'm speaking on the grind of a schedule and not being able to have down weeks as often. It's just baffling to me to have explain this.
If you really think SEC isn't far superior to the ACC, there's no need in even debating it. We just disagree.
We already beat TAMU pretty handily last year, with a much worse team.
LSU would likely be a shootout, but given the "Big Game" Brian Kelly factor, would probably be a W for us on a neutral field.
Have you seen Oklahoma's passing Offense this season? Neither Jackson Arnold or Michael Hawkins have had more than 175yds in a game this year. What exactly do they do that would make them such a formidable threat?
South Carolina, same thing. Their QB's are purr garbage. Lanorris Sellers & Robby Ashford, I encourage you to look up their passing numbers & watch any of the games they've played this year, they'd easily be 2 of the worst QB's in the ACC.
Mizzou is legit, that'd actually be a tough game.
But, initially you actually did say we would lose 3+ games if we played a SEC schedule which is what started this whole debate. That's what I've been trying to get at from the start.
The idea that even the bad & the average teams from the SEC are just so far superior to the ACC or any other conference has already been proven to not be true. The bad teams in the SEC would be bad teams in every other P4, there's literally no delineation between bad to average teams across the board.
The separation happens at the top. The best teams in each conference are roughly about the same in terms of talent, with disparities at key positions like QB, WR, etc..
But no, there is no conference that's far superior to any other. It's just some are more top heavy than others.
