Sec fans should realize...

[Rolltide94]

What boggles me here is that you posted numbers and failed to see that it took 200 more non-conference games for the SEC to barely get above The Big Ten in number of ranked opponents and you still missed my point. My point being that the SEC had a lot of soft non-conference games out there. This tells me you're coming at this with a homer perspective and nothing more.

....and the Big 10 played a softer in-conference schedule and padded their numbers there....

This is the only conclusion I could draw since the SEC played 44 more ranked opponents in the 70's(despite your claims otherwise), even with playing 200 less conference games. (339 ranked EOY opponents vs 295 for the Big Ten).

I guess I can't blame them, I would play more conference games too if my winning % versus ranked OOC opponents was 13.5%.

So, in short, once you take off your B1G homer glasses, your point comes down to the Big 10 played 1 more conference game in the 70's than the SEC, but their overall SOS was slightly worse due to the Big 10 being shitty then.

 

[sakau2007]

....and the Big 10 played a softer in-conference schedule and padded their numbers there....

This is the only conclusion I could draw since the SEC played 44 more ranked opponents in the 70's(despite your claims otherwise), even with playing 200 less conference games. (339 ranked EOY opponents vs 295 for the Big Ten).

I guess I can't blame them, I would play more conference games too if my winning % versus ranked OOC opponents was 13.5%.

So, in short, once you take off your B1G homer glasses, your point comes down to the Big 10 played 1 more conference game in the 70's than the SEC, but their overall SOS was slightly worse due to the Big 10 being shitty then.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

 

[boxedlunch]

....and the Big 10 played a softer in-conference schedule and padded their numbers there....

True, which is completely beside the point, which you missed totally.

 

[boxedlunch]

....and the Big 10 played a softer in-conference schedule and padded their numbers there....

This is the only conclusion I could draw since the SEC played 44 more ranked opponents in the 70's(despite your claims otherwise), even with playing 200 less conference games. (339 ranked EOY opponents vs 295 for the Big Ten).

I guess I can't blame them, I would play more conference games too if my winning % versus ranked OOC opponents was 13.5%.

So, in short, once you take off your B1G homer glasses, your point comes down to the Big 10 played 1 more conference game in the 70's than the SEC, but their overall SOS was slightly worse due to the Big 10 being shitty then.

Name one this about that Big Ten that I that was untrue. Just one. You're an ass.

This was never a SEC/Big Ten discussion, which you almost miss which means you're a dumb ass.

 

[boxedlunch]

Of course you didn't say a thing about winning %, that would not play into your agenda....

Agenda? You're an idiot.

I stated two things.

The FACT that the SEC got more wins against non-SEC teams in the 70s and 80s than they did against SEC teams. That is a fact showed what was said originally was misleading.

Two, the SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule than other major conference. An easy to make point.

What agenda do you judge I have by those two statements? What's untrue about either?

 

[BamaTee1]

But that was the point I was making. However, as I pointed out with facts, the SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule than all other major conferences. Live in denial all you like.

Against non-SEC teams and including bowls and comparing by percentage from the 70s:

The SEC played fewer teams that finished ranked than all major conferences except the ACC (and calling the ACC 'major' is polite).

Fewer teams that finished top 10 than all major conferences.

More mid-majors, by far.

More non-"FBS" teams.

Fewer teams with winning records than all major conferences

Their opponents won less percent of their games than all-major conferences.


Can you explain why you feel in your heart of hearts that the SEC didn't play a weaker non-conference schedule?

Please provide link to all these ranked and unranked teams the conferences were playing in your referenced time period. That would be a great place to start. I read your responses to my posts and really question your reading skills! I talk about the 70's because you responded to a post I made that said "when I grew up" (which was in the 70's) You then took that to the early 90's and when I kept talking about the 70's you acted like I was changing course. I said Alabama was the Alpha dog but SEC still had more teams that were competitive on the national level then the other conferences. I didn't say Alabama single handedly dominated. By the way I was the one who brought up considering how many conference games were being played relative to OOC games and it was never meant to be a major issue. As for you not starting the thread who gives a shit,I got that wrong. You sound as idiotic as OP so excuse me!

Hey I got a great idea, lets see who was more dominant in the 50's and start a thread how dumb and arrogant SEC fans are for thinking the SEC has been dominant forever. The Ivy league kicked ass in the 1800's and early 1900's!

 

[sakau2007]

What exactly was the point? Whatever the point was, it was probably meant to imply that the SEC plays weak schedules. This same argument is being used today (SEC feasts on cupcakes wahhhhhhhhh) yet computers typically rank the SEC schedules among the best in the country year in year out.

 

[BamaTee1]

Agenda? You're an idiot.

I stated two things.

The FACT that the SEC got more wins against non-SEC teams in the 70s and 80s than they did against SEC teams. That is a fact showed what was said originally was misleading.

Two, the SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule than other major conference. An easy to make point.

What agenda do you judge I have by those two statements? What's untrue about either?

Again what the shit does that have to do with SEC not being dominant and the original message from OP saying that there was football before this recent SEC domination run? YOu state but provide absolutelt no proof or details. Anyone can say anything. I know Alabama played OOC games against USC, Missouri (when they were good), Notre Dame, Nebraska, Houston(when they were good), California,Washington,Baylor, Miami. Better then any damn team plays these days!

 

[boxedlunch]

Please provide link to all these ranked and unranked teams the conferences were playing in your referenced time period. That would be a great place to start. I read your responses to my posts and really question your reading skills! I talk about the 70's because you responded to a post I made that said "when I grew up" (which was in the 70's) You then took that to the early 90's and when I kept talking about the 70's you acted like I was changing course. I said Alabama was the Alpha dog but SEC still had more teams that were competitive on the national level then the other conferences. I didn't say Alabama single handedly dominated. By the way I was the one who brought up considering how many conference games were being played relative to OOC games and it was never meant to be a major issue. As for you not starting the thread who gives a shit,I got that wrong. You sound as idiotic as OP so excuse me!

Hey I got a great idea, lets see who was more dominant in the 50's and start a thread how dumb and arrogant SEC fans are for thinking the SEC has been dominant forever. The Ivy league kicked ass in the 1800's and early 1900's!

If you are incapable of looking at fact, why would you dispute the rather obvious statement I made? Somebody is being a homer here.

This is a schedule breakdown of division I teams in the 1970s. It contains the percent each conference played against each category. I decide to include bowl games because that would be more fitting for this conversation and while that raises the SEC numbers, the SEC still falls last in the major conferences in most every category:

College Football Trivia

Click on the numbers for breakdowns.

 

[boxedlunch]

Again what the shit does that have to do with SEC not being dominant and the original message from OP saying that there was football before this recent SEC domination run? YOu state but provide absolutelt no proof or details. Anyone can say anything. I know Alabama played OOC games against USC, Missouri (when they were good), Notre Dame, Nebraska, Houston(when they were good), California,Washington,Baylor, Miami. Better then any damn team plays these days!

It doesn't have a thing to do with the SEC not being dominant. If you weren't an idiot, you could follow the conversation. I responded to a guy who claimed the SEC had to make most of their wins against a supposed list of "tough" SEC teams. I pointed out the FACT that SEC teams did not get a majority of their wins against other SEC teams, contrary to what he said, and that the SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule.

You then responded with a "no way the SEC non-conference schedule was weak" line of thought, giving no facts to back that up, so I can only assume that you feel no conference your team was in could possible have a weak non-conference schedule. I then pointed out facts indicating the weak non-conference schedule. Granted, I didn't give all the number I could, but why waste time when I'm just dealing a homer who can't even see the point when he points out that it took the SEC to play more than 200 non-conference games than the Big Ten to get as many ranked opponents. You're blinding yourself to the facts, and now you're trying to change the conversation because you were wrong.

 

[boxedlunch]

What exactly was the point? Whatever the point was, it was probably meant to imply that the SEC plays weak schedules. This same argument is being used today (SEC feasts on cupcakes wahhhhhhhhh) yet computers typically rank the SEC schedules among the best in the country year in year out.

SEC schedules are not relatively weak today compare to a lot of other conferences. It your point that because they are relatively the same today, the same must have been true in the 70s?

 

[sakau2007]

SEC schedules are not relatively weak today compare to a lot of other conferences. It your point that because they are relatively the same today, the same must have been true in the 70s?

Nah, not my point at all. I guess my point was that SEC football was better in the 1970s than other conferences and it is better now than other conferences.

 

[boxedlunch]

Nah, not my point at all. I guess my point was that SEC football was better in the 1970s than other conferences and it is better now than other conferences.

The SEC wasn't better than all the other conferences in the 70s. If that's your point, I'll ask you to back it up.

 

[BamaTee1]

It doesn't have a thing to do with the SEC not being dominant. If you weren't an idiot, you could follow the conversation. I responded to a guy who claimed the SEC had to make most of their wins against a supposed list of "tough" SEC teams. I pointed out the FACT that SEC teams did not get a majority of their wins against other SEC teams, contrary to what he said, and that the SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule.

You then responded with a "no way the SEC non-conference schedule was weak" line of thought, giving no facts to back that up, so I can only assume that you feel no conference your team was in could possible have a weak non-conference schedule. I then pointed out facts indicating the weak non-conference schedule. Granted, I didn't give all the number I could, but why waste time when I'm just dealing a homer who can't even see the point when he points out that it took the SEC to play more than 200 non-conference games than the Big Ten to get as many ranked opponents. You're blinding yourself to the facts, and now you're trying to change the conversation because you were wrong.

This is going no where fast! Next we will be playing the actual football game on a computer and posting results. Those numbers tell us NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You really got SEC played a weak non conference schedule off that? First of all no one remembers any details from all those years. Lets get that out there first. We are all looking at some numbers on a chart. I can show you numbers from just 5 years ago and if you were not allowed to know anything that happened that year and were asked to tell us how you think things played out that season you wouldn't come close!

Overall 1970-1979 non-conference records:
Big Eight (240-108-6)--0.686
SEC (338-155-15)--0.680
MAC (209-133-5)--0.610
Southwest (178-133-12)--0.570
PAC-12 (188-153-12)--0.550
Independent (1749-1675-51)--0.511
Big West (181-183-8)--0.497
ACC (180-207-7)--0.466
Big Ten (137-159-8)--0.464
WAC (159-202-6)--0.441
Missouri Valley (136-256-6)--0.349

Against Game Ranked Teams
Big Eight (51-48-3)--0.515
SEC (53-53-5)--0.500
PAC-12 (39-78-6)--0.341
MAC (2-5-1)--0.312
Southwest (31-82-5)--0.284
ACC (24-68-0)--0.261
Big Ten (30-94-2)--0.246
Independent (117-365-6)--0.246
Missouri Valley (4-24-0)--0.143
WAC (7-43-0)--0.140
Big West (2-23-0)--0.080

Against Game Top 10
Big Eight (28-26-2)--0.518
SEC (18-28-1)--0.394
PAC-12 (26-46-5)--0.370
Southwest (14-48-2)--0.234
Big Ten (14-57-1)--0.201
Independent (30-181-2)--0.146
Big West (1-8-0)--0.111
Missouri Valley (1-9-0)--0.100
WAC (1-13-0)--0.071
ACC (3-43-0)--0.065
MAC (0-3-0)--0.000

Looks to me the SEC was basically the second strongest conference just off these dumb numbers provided by you. The Big eight had two very good teams (OU and Nebraska) and no one else!(already acknowledged).
So again what's your point? I said SEC in the 70's was more balanced with more depth and they were. So again, sticking with OP original point, how does this prove the SEC wasn't still strong as hell in the seventies?

 

[BamaTee1]

Also, below is a statement from your link. It says it only treats true conference games counted by the league as conference games. However, the SEC only played a 6 team conference schedule but would often play 8 SEC teams in a year. These computations only count the 6 official ones as conference games so half the crap you've been saying isn't near true or accurate! When it is not counting 1 or 2 extra conference (unofficial) as true conference games, by all ten members, that adds up to a hell of a lot of "non-conference" games that are really conference games! Again, if you are going to think numbers is all you need to tell a story you're not worth debating!


By definition, "conference games" are not necessarily all game played against a team in your conference and "conference records" are not necessarily the win/loss record against all the teams you played from your conference. Conference games have to be designated as games that count toward a team’s conference record and will sometimes include games against teams not in that conference. Further explanation is below in the Conference Game section.

 

[boxedlunch]

This is going no where fast! Next we will be playing the actual football game on a computer and posting results. Those numbers tell us NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You really got SEC played a weak non conference schedule off that? First of all no one remembers any details from all those years. Lets get that out there first. We are all looking at some numbers on a chart. I can show you numbers from just 5 years ago and if you were not allowed to know anything that happened that year and were asked to tell us how you think things played out that season you wouldn't come close!

Overall 1970-1979 non-conference records:
Big Eight (240-108-6)--0.686
SEC (338-155-15)--0.680
MAC (209-133-5)--0.610
Southwest (178-133-12)--0.570
PAC-12 (188-153-12)--0.550
Independent (1749-1675-51)--0.511
Big West (181-183-8)--0.497
ACC (180-207-7)--0.466
Big Ten (137-159-8)--0.464
WAC (159-202-6)--0.441
Missouri Valley (136-256-6)--0.349

Against Game Ranked Teams
Big Eight (51-48-3)--0.515
SEC (53-53-5)--0.500
PAC-12 (39-78-6)--0.341
MAC (2-5-1)--0.312
Southwest (31-82-5)--0.284
ACC (24-68-0)--0.261
Big Ten (30-94-2)--0.246
Independent (117-365-6)--0.246
Missouri Valley (4-24-0)--0.143
WAC (7-43-0)--0.140
Big West (2-23-0)--0.080

Against Game Top 10
Big Eight (28-26-2)--0.518
SEC (18-28-1)--0.394
PAC-12 (26-46-5)--0.370
Southwest (14-48-2)--0.234
Big Ten (14-57-1)--0.201
Independent (30-181-2)--0.146
Big West (1-8-0)--0.111
Missouri Valley (1-9-0)--0.100
WAC (1-13-0)--0.071
ACC (3-43-0)--0.065
MAC (0-3-0)--0.000

Looks to me the SEC was basically the second strongest conference just off these dumb numbers provided by you. The Big eight had two very good teams (OU and Nebraska) and no one else!(already acknowledged).
So again what's your point? I said SEC in the 70's was more balanced with more depth and they were. So again, sticking with OP original point, how does this prove the SEC wasn't still strong as hell in the seventies?

I would agree the SEC was basically the second strongest conference. For some reason, I suspect you think I'd disagree. You really won't address what's being said, will you?

1. The SEC won more games against non-conference teams in the 1970s
2. The SEC played a weaker non-conference schedule in the 70s. (which you disagreed with for no good reason)

Those are my points. That you keep trying to go off topic is interesting.

 

[boxedlunch]

Also, below is a statement from your link. It says it only treats true conference games counted by the league as conference games. However, the SEC only played a 6 team conference schedule but would often play 8 SEC teams in a year. These computations only count the 6 official ones as conference games so half the crap you've been saying isn't near true or accurate! When it is not counting 1 or 2 extra conference (unofficial) as true conference games, by all ten members, that adds up to a hell of a lot of "non-conference" games that are really conference games! Again, if you are going to think numbers is all you need to tell a story you're not worth debating!


By definition, "conference games" are not necessarily all game played against a team in your conference and "conference records" are not necessarily the win/loss record against all the teams you played from your conference. Conference games have to be designated as games that count toward a team’s conference record and will sometimes include games against teams not in that conference. Further explanation is below in the Conference Game section.

Name one SEC team in the 70s that played 8 SEC teams but only 6 conference games. Just one. Sheesh.

The numbers given were breakdowns of teams played against teams not in their conferences. You can see what you're getting in the description.

 

[sakau2007]

Name one SEC team in the 70s that played 8 SEC teams but only 6 conference games. Just one. Sheesh.

The numbers given were breakdowns of teams played against teams not in their conferences. You can see what you're getting in the description.

I don't know about 8 and 6, but his point remains that a lot of games played between two SEC teams did not count as "conference games"

 

[boxedlunch]

I don't know about 8 and 6, but his point remains that a lot of games played between two SEC teams did not count as "conference games"

Define a lot. In the 70s exactly 2 games were played between SEC teams that weren't conference games. Is 2 "a lot" in your world?

Regardless, for the purposes the chart, only the affiliation of the opponent matters.

 

[sakau2007]

Define a lot. In the 70s exactly 2 games were played between SEC teams that weren't conference games. Is 2 "a lot" in your world?

Regardless, for the purposes the chart, only the affiliation of the opponent matters.

is that so? i just looked at the 1970 season and looked up my own team, Auburn, and saw they played 1. so i assumed maybe it wasn't that uncommon. maybe i'm giving the bammer more credit for his research than i should.