Sec fans should realize...

[boxedlunch]

Yeah, because only SEC opponents would have not had a losing record when they loss to their opponents. How about counting teams that had a winning record only because they beat an SEC teams. You are going beyond stupid. Unfortunately for you, I knew some idiot would bring this up.

Removing the head to head game from the final record, SEC teams played 197 teams with a losing record. The next closest major conference would be the ACC with 136. That's a difference of 61. If you playing 61 more losing teams by your criteria is not weak, then there's no helping you.

College Football Trivia

 

[Rolltide94]

Yeah, because only SEC opponents would have not had a losing record when they loss to their opponents. How about counting teams that had a winning record only because they beat an SEC teams. You are going beyond stupid. Unfortunately for you, I knew some idiot would bring this up.

Removing the head to head game from the final record, SEC teams played 197 teams with a losing record. The next closest major conference would be the ACC with 136. That's a difference of 61. If you playing 61 more losing teams by your criteria is not weak, then there's no helping you.

College Football Trivia

Are you retarded or something....Did I not just point out that they played over a 100 OOC games more than the ACC and 200 more than the Big 10. Couple that with their OOC winning percentage during the 70's being 65% vs 41% for the ACC and the real shock is that it is only 61 given that the SEC won 150 more OOC games than the ACC and lost 50 less.


It's not rocket science...even if just the winning percentage of the SEC and ACC were reversed this would mean the ACC opponents would have lost 50 more games and the SEC opponents would have won 59 more.... or plus 1 or minus 1 for every other team on their schedules over a decade...what do you suppose that would have done for the losing records of both ACC and SEC opponents. Given that 80% of the team records fall between 4-7 and 7-4 I would suggest the impact of a game or two here or there would be significant.

Again, no big revelations here, just basic arithmetic, teams that win more than they lose tend to have opponents that lose more than they win and vice versa.

Maybe you better stick to subjective arguments...your grasp of even basic math skills seem rudimentary.

BTW...I'm still waiting for you to produce one of these "mid-majors" with DII teams all over their schedule that the SEC teams played throughout the 70's.

 

[BamaTee1]

Originally posted by boxedlunch:

SEC teams played 390 non-SEC teams that were not ranked. The closest major conference was the ACC who played 304, 86 less than the SEC.

Of course! There were more teams in the SEC then the majority of other power conferences in the seventies. Rolltide, don't feed the troll! Move on, it's not worth it...

 

[boxedlunch]

Are you retarded or something....Did I not just point out that they played over a 100 OOC games more than the ACC and 200 more than the Big 10. Couple that with their OOC winning percentage during the 70's being 65% vs 41% for the ACC and the real shock is that it is only 61 given that the SEC won 150 more OOC games than the ACC and lost 50 less.


It's not rocket science...even if just the winning percentage of the SEC and ACC were reversed this would mean the ACC opponents would have lost 50 more games and the SEC opponents would have won 59 more.... or plus 1 or minus 1 for every other team on their schedules over a decade...what do you suppose that would have done for the losing records of both ACC and SEC opponents. Given that 80% of the team records fall between 4-7 and 7-4 I would suggest the impact of a game or two here or there would be significant.

Again, no big revelations here, just basic arithmetic, teams that win more than they lose tend to have opponents that lose more than they win and vice versa.

Maybe you better stick to subjective arguments...your grasp of even basic math skills seem rudimentary.

BTW...I'm still waiting for you to produce one of these "mid-majors" with DII teams all over their schedule that the SEC teams played throughout the 70's.

I know full well the SEC played more OOC than the ACC. However, I'm playing by your rules. You said, and I quote:

"Basing it on % ranked is ridiculous..."

You said that because the percentages made the SEC looks so bad, and you thought changing the conditions would change it. Guess what, it doesn't. If you look at the flat numbers, the SEC looks even worse. I KNOW THAT. That's why I used percentages, but you're too big of an idiot to realize that percentages are the way to go.

If you use percentage, the SEC' schedule looks weak. If you use number, the SEC' schedule looks weak. If you look at ranked opponents the SEC's schedule looks weak. If you look at major opponents, the SEC's schedule looks weak. If you look at teams with a losing record, the SEC's schedule looks weak. If you look at winning percentage of opponents the SEC's schedule looks weak. It doesn't matter how you look at it, the SEC's schedule looks weak. All you do is complain about the facts and try to explain why they don't show what they obviously show. You've complained when using percentage, you've complained when not using percentages. How about coming up with some facts to support what you claim. You can't because it's not true.

 

[boxedlunch]

Of course! There were more teams in the SEC then the majority of other power conferences in the seventies. Rolltide, don't feed the troll! Move on, it's not worth it...

I made two statements:

1. The SEC did not have more wins against SEC teams than they did against against non-SEC teams.

This is a FACT. It's a fact that showed you don't know what you're talking about, which is why you don't want to hear it. It remains a fact anyway.

2. The SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule.

This is so obvious, as shown by the endless fact I gave, that it doesn't even required a response. However, this pains you claims so much you come up with silly argument of why the facts don't show what they do.

If you guys can't deal with facts, just drop it. You look goofy.

 

[BamaTee1]

I made two statements:

1. The SEC did not have more wins against SEC teams than they did against against non-SEC teams. Who cares and what does that mean to you?

This is a FACT. It's a fact that showed you don't know what you're talking about, which is why you don't want to hear it. It remains a fact anyway.

2. The SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule. Prove it! Stll have not seen your proof. do me a favor and just list all the non-conference teams Alabama played. I sure remember Nebraska twice, notre Dame twice, Missouri twice, Southern Cal twice, Houston, Virginia Tech, California, Miami twice, Maryland, TCU, SMU, Nebraska twice, Louisville, Washinton, Georgia Tech, Baylor, Clemson and more. That would be considered brutal in todays format of scheduling. You just say shit and prove nothing

This is so obvious, as shown by the endless fact I gave, that it doesn't even required a response. However, this pains you claims so much you come up with silly argument of why the facts don't show what they do.

If you guys can't deal with facts, just drop it. You look goofy.

Fixed it and feel free to prove the above wrong!

 

[BadMotoWeazal]

Kiss the rings!!!!

 

[boxedlunch]

Fixed it and feel free to prove the above wrong!

1. It means you're full of crap. You inferred the SEC got most of their wins against the other SEC teams. The facts are, you're wrong.

2. I did prove it, with stat after stat after stat after stat after stat after stat after stat after stat. The fact that you clowns are huge homers just means you ignore it.


The funny thing is the other guy wouldn't accept my stats when I gave percentage by conference, then wouldn't accept my stats when I gave overall numbers by conferences. It doesn't matter how many stats I give, you guys are going to ignore them and stick you heads in the sand.

 

[boxedlunch]

The 70s non-conference schedule, put in order of strength of schedule. Notice which conference is the last of the major conferences:

College Football Trivia


One more thing to support my argument. If the fact that the SEC played SO MANY more teams with a losing record doesn't do it for you, then you're just blind. Again, more information you have to ignore in order to pretend the SEC's non-conference schedule was weak.

 

[Voltaire26]

All this ....

... non SEC fans should realize that the SEC is easily the best conference in the NCAA. We can argue about 2nd.

Case Closed