![:wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
I also agree with this: through 3 teams, the Big 10 wins. CFP committee will show that. Fair enough. And if I'm an Ohio State fan, I'm thrilled where things stand after this past weekend, because Ohio State is now one of maybe 5 or 6 teams that controls its own destiny: win out and you're in. (Caveat: I'm not so thrilled with how Ohio State looked last weekend –- haven't looked at all like a playoff team for a couple weeks now.)
But 4 top-10 teams is a joke: Nebraska is not a top-10 team. Voters are stupid. Nebraska is still getting extra credit for barely surviving a *ranked* Oregon (at home!)...that's now 1-4 in the Pac-12. Voters aren't capable of processing much more than record, so they see a 1-loss power-5 team and fail to notice that their best win was, what, Northwestern? Or the 8th best team in the Pac-12? Now, if Nebraska beats Ohio State, then Nebraska is legit in the top 10...but then Ohio State would no longer be a top-10 team. So I don't think the CFP committee will be as kind to Nebraska, and then I don't think the 4-in-the-top-10 thing will last in any ranking system.
I think that, conference as a whole, the Pac 12 is better than the Big 10. AP/coaches polls don't assess this; Sagarin, FPI, etc. do. And they say the Pac-12 is better, and it's not really all that close. Better in the middle, better by simple average, less garbage at the bottom, etc. And the middle matters: it's not just about the top 2–3 teams (see: Ohio State vs Penn State
![:o](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)