Does Conference Comparisons Equal Individual Performance?

I was in the middle of those Saturday "Honey-Do's" when I came across an old article from my local paper's sports page from over a year ago. Don't ask me how putting away food in the hallway got me into my shop, cleaning up a few things there. So, I read this article again, and it makes just as little sense this time around as it did last time. I don't know who wrote it because it doesn't say; however, it is short enough that I can just type the whole thing here so you understand what I'm talking about:

It just doesn't add up
"College bowl game results suggest the Big Ten has inferior talent. NFL teams say differently.
"A Chicago Tribune study revealed the talent in the Big Ten, in NFL terms, is superior to the talent in the Pac-10 and Big 12. The only conferences with advantages over the Big Ten are the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
"In the last five drafts, 166 Big Ten players were chosen, third highest among conferences. The SEC led the way with 192 players, followed by the ACC with 176. The Pac-10 had 157 while the Big 12 had 143.
"If you break it down to first rounders, the Big Ten also fared well. The conference has had 28 such players in the last five drafts.
"That makes it difficult to explain a 1-6 Big Ten record in bowl games this year (losses to three teams from the Big 12, and one each from the SEC, Pac-10 and ACC), and a 9-20 mark over the last five years."

That was in the Spokesman Review on January 11, 2009 when I cut it out of my paper in Spokane, WA. I'm wondering where the real connection between how awful the Big Ten did in bowl games after the 2008 season involving 7 teams versus the amount of individuals selected in the NFL draft. Sounds like a stretch that I would attempt, if I haven't already. However, I had to pick out the flaw in the Chicago Tribune's "study" by recognizing the different amount of teams that are in each of the aforementioned conferences in football. According to the numbers (straight up), they are absolutely accurate; however, with the author of this article neglecting other factual points that should be made, I will oblige by tweaking it myself.

So, if we are to base the strength of conferences on the amount of players selected in the last five years (when the article was written 1/09), the only consistency I found was that the SEC was still the top (barely), the Big Ten was still in the middle, and the Big 12 was still the bottom (by a lot). Instead of using only the amount of individuals being drafted, to be accurate on accounts of "as a conference", one must use and average system to find the true order of how strong or good a conference as a whole looks. With that said, I have the SEC with 192 players drafted and divided by the 12 teams within the conference, you get an average of 16 players per team over the five year span that the author is referencing. According to the article, the ACC had 176 players with 12 teams in its conference, meaning an average of 14.67 players per team over five years. Now, the Big Ten was mistakenly proclaimed that it was inferior to the ACC, but with my statistics it is not. The Big Ten had 166 players but only 11 teams, beating the ACC with an average of 15.09 players per team over the five years. Of course, those who know me will know exactly what I'm going to say because of my love of the Pac-10. So, the article says that the Pac-10 had drafted 157 players over that same five year span, however, the Pac-10 has only a mere 10 teams, meaning that the average is just under the super powers of the SEC (sorry about the sarcasm) with an average score of 15.7 players per team. Oh, and the Big 12 ended up with the lowly average of 11.92 players per team.

I think it a little sad that the Chicago Tribune can't even make their conference look better than that if they are going to actually call it a "study" and actually publish the results and can't even say that it is better than the ACC when it should. So, is it just me, or is the article a little bazaar? I like the article a bit because it shows me that people all over try to make the Pac-10 out to be an inferior conference in whatever way they can, but if someone looks through all the mumbo-jumbo, they actually see that the Pac-10 is, indeed, at least, second best in the nation. I can take that - if the facts prove so - which they obviously did.