Why in the world would you ignore past history? That makes no sense.
Who do you think has a better chance of winning a national championship in the next five years, Nebraska or Iowa State? Nebraska, clearly. Why? Because we've been there before, we have a huge fan base, better facilities, better overall infrastructure, etc. The machine that is Nebraska Football is far larger than Iowa State, and that's based on past history, not just the last few years of success.
Okay, I'll play. Nebraska in your scenario because they have the better team and will probably continue to have the better team. That said...
Who do you think has a better chance of winning a national championship in the next five years, Oregon or Nebraska? Nebraska has a much better history. So does Harvard and Notre Dame. The answer is Oregon. In fact, if UNL played UO head to head, who would win? I'd give 17 points and take Oregon if the game were in Lincoln. In Autzen? Pffft, 28 maybe.
As far as last year's poll, I think all three highly ranked Pac 12 teams were ranked higher than Wisconsin or would have been had USC been eligible.
The media darling thing is BS too. 1 in 4 televisions in this nation reside in Big 10 country. If anything, the Big 10 has been overrated for years and most Nebraska fans agreed with that statement prior to joining the Big 10.
What's sad is we Nebraska fans are sounding more and more like Notre Dame fans. The longer we stay mediocre by our standards, the more we will hold onto past accomplishments.
The Pac 12 is a much better baseball conference. Arizona won the College World Series this year. My Beavers won it back to back in '06 and '07. UCLA, USC and ASU have won it also.
Academics is an interesting topic, Bucky. One of the reasons the Big 10 and Pac 12 have stuck with each other is because they respect each other's academic institutions. You say the Big 10 is better. I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Washington and USC speak for themselves.