I was driving to Atlanta on Wednesday through Columbia. Columbia is diehard Cock country and is one of the few metros that is 100% SEC. A particular radio host (who I don't remember the name) spoke about why the SEC > ACC. He simply said the ACC cannot win the big game and I tend to agree with him. We won the season series 6-4 but a battle (or small string of skirmishes) does not make a war.

Let's look back at BIG ACC-SEC matchups over the years that would've really solidified us as a premier conference and equalled the playing field against the SECers. And let's keep it restricted to the BCS Era:

1999 - UT defeats FSU (National Title)
2000 - LSU defeats GT (PB)
2002 - UF defeats MD (OB)
2003 - ugag defeats FSU (SB)
2005 - AU defeats VT (OB)
2006 - ugag defeats GT
2006 - UK defeats CU (MCB)
2006 - ugag defeats VT (PB)
2007 - AU defeats CU (PB)
2008 - Bamma defeats CU

The national stage and we fall flat on our faces. Not to mention our 1-9 mark in the BCS games. Now, why was it that we got beat in our game of the year ever since FSU's 2000 season? Coaching.

We haven't had premier coaches (besides Bowden) since the 90's. Bowden finally began to rust after his '03 Sugar Bowl debacle. That left us with a conference full of has been or never was coaches.

Expansion added Beamer. The Amato, Bunting, Roof, and Gailey departures improved the conference's coaching talent astronomically. And look what we have to show for it in 2008: a 6-4 record against our primary rival of a conference. I expect continued success against the SEC as we've shown in the NFL draft that we've had comparable talent all these years. Now, we have comprable if not superior coaching. What do you all think about the conference debate?