One of the biggest debates in college football right now revolves around whether the SEC or the Big Ten is the tougher conference top to bottom.

For years, the SEC dominated the college football postseason, but Big Ten teams have now won the last three national championships (Michigan, Ohio State, and Indiana).

Still, plenty of fans and analysts feel like the SEC is the deeper conference, and that making it through the gauntlet of the SEC schedule is tougher than navigating the Big Ten schedule.

UCLA quarterback Nico Iamaleava, who spent the first two seasons of his career with the Tennessee Vols, has unique insight into life in both conferences, and he was asked for his thoughts on the debate at Big Ten Media Days this week.

“The SEC, they’re very prideful on being the best league out there,” said Iamaleava on the Cover 3 podcast. “But definitely, the Big Ten has showed them these past three years that the tide has shifted. … [But] I’m not gonna say too much. They (the SEC) already don’t like me.”

Iamaleava went a little more in depth during his session with Big Ten media.

“I think it’s two great leagues — two great physical leagues,” said Iamaleava. “I think the SEC brings a lot of physicality, but I think over the years it’s kind of leveled out in terms of the playing field. I think everybody is able to get high-level athletes, and we’re all able to piece it [together] evenly.”

“I wouldn’t say there’s any truth to that,” added Iamaleava when asked if the SEC is a deeper league. “I think there’s definitely a lot of tough SEC teams that every week is going to be a (tough) game. But I feel the same way in the Big Ten. I think strength of schedule can matter. But I think we pretty much have similar strength of schedule.”

The Big Ten vs SEC debate is getting old

I’ll be honest, I think this is the most tired “debate” in sports right now. Conference strength has always shifted in college football. And sure, the SEC was the class of the field for an extended period of time (which essentially ran parallel with the Nick Saban era at Alabama), but programs can’t stockpile talent like they could in the pre-NIL/portal era. As Iamaleava pointed out, everyone can get high-level athletes now.

As for the debate, no one that’s engaging in this argument is watching every snap of every game in both conferences. And that’s the only way you can get a true feel for each team. If we’re just looking at box scores and results, we’re missing the full picture. A 4-8 team can look bad on paper but be a tough matchup in reality. A team can win by 17 points, but the game can be much closer than the outcome looked on paper.

There’s a reason the NFL — and every pro sports league for that matter — doesn’t choose its postseason participants with a committee and strength of schedule metrics (which are really just an echo chamber of sorts). As long as there are humans on a committee deciding who gets into the playoff, there’s always going to be debates and disagreements.

That’s why I say take the top six teams from each Power-4 conference and build the playoff field that way (sorry Group of Six schools, get your own playoff). And if the SEC doesn’t like that because they think it’s not fair, then send Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M back to the Big 12 and let’s go back to when the conferences actually made sense.

Oh yeah, and Notre Dame needs to stop being pretentious and finally join a conference.

Imagine how much time that would free up for fans and the college football media. Instead of wasting time arguing about playoff resumes, we could actually focus on the competition on the field.