TiderinAZ hit on the point that proves Dabo - and, alas, some fellow posters - wrong.
I must have missed that part where Dabo said anything resembling, "The ACC is better than the SEC."
Can you show me where that is???
Because his exact point is true: the SEC is NOT what it was, plain and simple.
The overall records and bowl records of each conferences are points well-taken, but the quality of lower and mid-tier of the ACC is not as stacked with talent as the SEC.
Which would be relevant if he had said the ACC was better. He didn't.
Even when MSU was hanging around at 7-5, they had a handful of players that were NFL talent. They had players who could stack up with our own, many of whom could take our two deep. That's not true for most of the teams in the ACC, and, concerning Michigan and OSU, the same could be said for the Big 10.
This is irrelevant data.
"Oh, we played more guys who are playing in the NFL than the ACC did" doesn't even touch what he's saying.
South Carolina had 3 NFL picks, UVA had zero.
UVA 28 USCe 0 on the scoreboard.
Point being that when Alabama or LSU has been good, the rest of the our conference and division has also been good. It's made for a much more physical brand of football which means, yes, our players are dinged up and have more nagging injuries than others. That wasn't our problem in the NC game, but it is part of our experience - would be the same for any other SECW team - that does not quite affect Clemson.
What's funny is that this is nothing but an excuse because we lost.
If we had WON the game in January, everyone in Crimson Nation would be blowing the old, "See, they don't play anybody in the regular season and we get ready for those big foes with all those monsters, NFL draft picks, ad nauseum something something."
But since we lost, we simply pivot and say, "Well, they had an easier route to get to the game."
Fact is, the SEC is NOT what it was during the consecutive titles won era, which is all he was saying.