Sec fans should realize...

[Rolltide94]

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.

Well your first point is obvious, because they played less conference games...duh.

And your second point is spurious at best and fraudulent at worst. Basing it on % ranked is ridiculous...Guess what...when your conference loses 86.5% of their games against ranked teams, what do suppose happens to those ranked teams...here's a shocker for you...they stay ranked...the Big 10...making shitty teams look good since the 70's...

...and your claim that this is not a Big 10 vs SEC thing is so ridiculous that only a rube would believe that.

 

[boxedlunch]

Well your first point is obvious, because they played less conference games...duh.

And your second point is spurious at best and fraudulent at worst. Basing it on % ranked is ridiculous...Guess what...when your conference loses 86.5% of their games against ranked teams, what do suppose happens to those ranked teams...here's a shocker for you...they stay ranked...the Big 10...making shitty teams look good since the 70's...

...and your claim that this is not a Big 10 vs SEC thing is so ridiculous that only a rube would believe that.

:rollseyes:

1. If you agree with a point, agree and more on. It was to point out the incorrect information of another post. I'm sorry the facts pain you so much.

2. The point was the number of weaker team played. If you don't want to play percentage, fine. The SEC played 242 non-majors in the 70s. The ACC was the next "major" at 147, the Big Eight next at 132. The SEC played about 100 more non-majors in the 70s. That's my point. I think it's unfair not to point out the percentages, but that's what you asked for (right after pointing out the number of games previously.

Vs Non-majors

 

[BamaTee1]

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.

Sometimes I find myself in the middle of some of the dumbest discussions or debates and think how did I get here. Who gives a shit who played more non-conference games or a weaker non-conference schedule in the 70's? Seriously, you have basically taken current BS and moved it to the 70's! The OP's topic is the SEC was not always dominant. Only the young think so. However, even though you have agreed the SEC was still one of if not the top conference in the 70's you decided to break that down to the above mentioned crap. Bye bye!

 

[boxedlunch]

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.

An SEC team has only played two "non-conference" games against SEC teams in history. That was LSU a couple years ago with the CCG and the bowl. The 6-8 he dreamed up never happened, despite his inference that it was frequent.

 

[boxedlunch]

Sometimes I find myself in the middle of some of the dumbest discussions or debates and think how did I get here. Who gives a shit who played more non-conference games or a weaker non-conference schedule in the 70's? Seriously, you have basically taken current BS and moved it to the 70's! The OP's topic is the SEC was not always dominant. Only the young think so. However, even though you have agreed the SEC was still one of if not the top conference in the 70's you decided to break that down to the above mentioned crap. Bye bye!

Look, the OP is full of crap. Do I have to say that in ever post when people post incorrect information.

Are you prohibiting people from responding to lies and bad opinion just because you can't follow the argument? Why don't you find an elementary school board so you can follow the argument instead of preventing people from responding to crap arguments. Or better yet, read the argument being made and don't assume anything is being said than what is said. It's no wonder you get in the middle of dumb discussions. You can't read and understand what's being wrote.

 

[sakau2007]

An SEC team has only played two "non-conference" games against SEC teams in history. That was LSU a couple years ago with the CCG and the bowl. The 6-8 he dreamed up never happened, despite his inference that it was frequent.

wait what? the sec conference championship games are never counted (to my knowledge) in a team's conference record. pretty sure missouri and auburn are both considered 7-1 not 7-2 and 8-1.

and like i said, in the 1970 season, auburn (the first season and first team i looked at), auburn played ole miss in a game that did not count towards conference records.

 

[Rolltide94]

:rollseyes:

1. If you agree with a point, agree and more on. It was to point out the incorrect information of another post. I'm sorry the facts pain you so much.

2. The point was the number of weaker team played. If you don't want to play percentage, fine. The SEC played 242 non-majors in the 70s. The ACC was the next "major" at 147, the Big Eight next at 132. The SEC played about 100 more non-majors in the 70s. That's my point. I think it's unfair not to point out the percentages, but that's what you asked for (right after pointing out the number of games previously.

Vs Non-majors

Great...but pointing out that teams are "non-major" is ridiculous if you are trying to say these weren't quality teams in the 70's. The fact that the majority of these teams were in the South has more to do with who they played than the quality of the team...or are you still trying to say that FSU was not a quality program in the 70's...You're talking about a completely different era of football...where independents weren't just the service academies and Notre Dame. We're not talking about playing Kent State, we're talking about playing Penn St. You can try to gloss over it if you want and pretend it's something it isn't, but the majority of the non-majors you are talking about the SEC playing were "major" programs then and are "major" programs now...their lack of "major" conference affiliation in the 70's does not turn them into patsies...as much as you would like to pretend it does.

 

[boxedlunch]

Great...but pointing out that teams are "non-major" is ridiculous if you are trying to say these weren't quality teams in the 70's. The fact that the majority of these teams were in the South has more to do with who they played than the quality of the team...or are you still trying to say that FSU was not a quality program in the 70's...You're talking about a completely different era of football...where independents weren't just the service academies and Notre Dame. We're not talking about playing Kent State, we're talking about playing Penn St. You can try to gloss over it if you want and pretend it's something it isn't, but the majority of the non-majors you are talking about the SEC playing were "major" programs then and are "major" programs now...their lack of "major" conference affiliation in the 70's does not turn them into patsies...as much as you would like to pretend it does.

I'm saying these weren't quality teams in the 70s. What in the world would make you think any different. Nice pontification, though. Much like your pontification that SEC teams were playing 2 SEC non-conference games a year. Total fiction, but it sounds nice when you have nothing to back you up. Non-majors won 26.8% of their games against major teams. They weren't good.

How about you come up with some FACTS instead just unsubstantiated garbage. You came up with this silly 6-8 conference games, which was just totally made, now nonsense that these mid-majors were really good teams anyway. The mid-majors the SEC played didn't have winning record (not counting the SEC games), and that's after playing 10% of their games against division II teams. You may in your heart of hearts wish they were good, or you may in your heart of heart wish the SEC didn't have a weak schedule, but your heart of hearts is not cutting it against the facts.

 

[boxedlunch]

wait what? the sec conference championship games are never counted (to my knowledge) in a team's conference record. pretty sure missouri and auburn are both considered 7-1 not 7-2 and 8-1.

and like i said, in the 1970 season, auburn (the first season and first team i looked at), auburn played ole miss in a game that did not count towards conference records.

You're correct. Conference championship games are not counted in the conference record. That was my point. LSU was the only team to play two SEC teams in a season that weren't "conference games". The CCG and the bowl.

 

[Rolltide94]

I'm saying these weren't quality teams in the 70s. What in the world would make you think any different. Nice pontification, though. Much like your pontification that SEC teams were playing 2 SEC non-conference games a year. Total fiction, but it sounds nice when you have nothing to back you up. Non-majors won 26.8% of their games against major teams. They weren't good.

How about you come up with some FACTS instead just unsubstantiated garbage. You came up with this silly 6-8 conference games, which was just totally made, now nonsense that these mid-majors were really good teams anyway. The mid-majors the SEC played didn't have winning record (not counting the SEC games), and that's after playing 10% of their games against division II teams. You may in your heart of hearts wish they were good, or you may in your heart of heart wish the SEC didn't have a weak schedule, but your heart of hearts is not cutting it against the facts.

Lol, now you don't even know who you're arguing with, because that 6-8 shit had nothing to do with me.

Again, I LOL at you thinking the non-major independents of the 70's are the same as today's mid-majors...all the non-major tag on the web site you keep linking to signifies is that the were not affiliated with a major conference...duh...that's why their called independents...Yes, there are some current mid-majors in there like Tulane and Louisville, but the ones that make up the majority of the SEC schedules of the 70's are not the Tulane and Louisville's of the world...they are teams like South Carolina(Southern 'til 52, ACC 'til 70, Independant 'til '91), FSU, Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech, West Virginia and Houston. You've already said that FSU wasn't a major team until the 80's, but since they finished the year in the top 25 3 times in the 70's and once at #6, I will take your opinion with a richly deserved grain of salt.

Speaking of facts, or lack thereof, take your statement in bold above and show me exactly which team that we are talking about that fits your profile. I'll be even more curious to see who all these Division II teams that they were playing are.

 

[boxedlunch]

Lol, now you don't even know who you're arguing with, because that 6-8 shit had nothing to do with me.

Again, I LOL at you thinking the non-major independents of the 70's are the same as today's mid-majors...all the non-major tag on the web site you keep linking to signifies is that the were not affiliated with a major conference...duh...that's why their called independents...Yes, there are some current mid-majors in there like Tulane and Louisville, but the ones that make up the majority of the SEC schedules of the 70's are not the Tulane and Louisville's of the world...they are teams like South Carolina(Southern 'til 52, ACC 'til 70, Independant 'til '91), FSU, Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech, West Virginia and Houston. You've already said that FSU wasn't a major team until the 80's, but since they finished the year in the top 25 3 times in the 70's and once at #6, I will take your opinion with a richly deserved grain of salt.

Speaking of facts, or lack thereof, take your statement in bold above and show me exactly which team that we are talking about that fits your profile. I'll be even more curious to see who all these Division II teams that they were playing are.

Okay, the 6-8 had nothing to do with you. I may have to reassess where you're coming from.

Again, the mid-major rankings came from the website you were using. If you want to give a good reason why they should be changed, feel free. That teams were ranked several times is not it. Boise State is still a mid-major despite being ranked several times.

 

[BamaTee1]

Okay, the 6-8 had nothing to do with you. I may have to reassess where you're coming from.

Again, the mid-major rankings came from the website you were using. If you want to give a good reason why they should be changed, feel free. That teams were ranked several times is not it. Boise State is still a mid-major despite being ranked several times.

If you knew how to comprehend reading instead of accusing others you might know something. I said the 6-8 crap. I thought the SEC played a 6 games conference schedule (10 teams) but many played more that didn't count in the official conference standings. I know Alabama played 8 games many times while others were only playing 6 and vice versa. Still not sure how they handled that.

 

[Rolltide94]

Okay, the 6-8 had nothing to do with you. I may have to reassess where you're coming from.

Again, the mid-major rankings came from the website you were using. If you want to give a good reason why they should be changed, feel free. That teams were ranked several times is not it. Boise State is still a mid-major despite being ranked several times.

Again, mid-major and non-major are two different things. Notre Dame is a non-major, Boise State is a mid-major...but neither label has anything to do with the quality of the team.

Why would I want them to be changed...I'm not the one making the ridiculous assumption that a non-major status is somehow an indication of the quality of the team, particularly during the 70's.

Still waiting for you to identify one of these mid-majors playing Division II teams that are peppering the SEC schedules of the 70's.

 

[boxedlunch]

Again, mid-major and non-major are two different things. Notre Dame is a non-major, Boise State is a mid-major...but neither label has anything to do with the quality of the team.

Why would I want them to be changed...I'm not the one making the ridiculous assumption that a non-major status is somehow an indication of the quality of the team, particularly during the 70's.

Still waiting for you to identify one of these mid-majors playing Division II teams that are peppering the SEC schedules of the 70's.

Notre Dame is not considered a non-major, but anyone. They were able to swing their own deal with the BCS.

As for as the "quality" of team. Generally mid-majors have less advantages, therefore the quality of team is affected. However, some mid-majors have done well. That's why looking at one category is limited. However, if you play a lot of mid-majors, the average team you are playing is weak. Again, the mid-majors the SEC teams played averaged a losing record, and that's while playing a lot of division II teams. Are you seriously arguing this set of teams were really strong? How did the SEC play so few ranked teams, or so many teams with losing records if these mid-majors were strong. Any way you look at it the SEC's non-conference schedule was weak. Do you have any facts that show otherwise?

 

[Rolltide94]

Notre Dame is not considered a non-major, but anyone. They were able to swing their own deal with the BCS.

As for as the "quality" of team. Generally mid-majors have less advantages, therefore the quality of team is affected. However, some mid-majors have done well. That's why looking at one category is limited. However, if you play a lot of mid-majors, the average team you are playing is weak. Again, the mid-majors the SEC teams played averaged a losing record, and that's while playing a lot of division II teams. Are you seriously arguing this set of teams were really strong? How did the SEC play so few ranked teams, or so many teams with losing records if these mid-majors were strong. Any way you look at it the SEC's non-conference schedule was weak. Do you have any facts that show otherwise?

I don't need you to explain to me what a mid-major is. I'm well aware of what it is and the fact that it is different from a non-major. Notre Dame was not in a major conference and there was no BCS in the 70's, so yes, Notre Dame is a non-major by definition. If anybody excludes them from a list of non-majors it is because people like yourself get their panties in a bunch calling a spade a spade.

What I need you to do is show me one of these mid-majors that played a lot of Division II teams that you keep telling us are all over the 70's SEC schedules or fuck off...

 

[boxedlunch]

I don't need you to explain to me what a mid-major is. I'm well aware of what it is and the fact that it is different from a non-major. Notre Dame was not in a major conference and there was no BCS in the 70's, so yes, Notre Dame is a non-major by definition. If anybody excludes them from a list of non-majors it is because people like yourself get their panties in a bunch calling a spade a spade.

What I need you to do is show me one of these mid-majors that played a lot of Division II teams that you keep telling us are all over the 70's SEC schedules or fuck off...

Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. I should have known.

I've shown you plenty. How about you showing me some facts that support your position. This "no team of mine could be in a conference playing a weak schedule" argument is getting old. While your at it, can you tell me why the 217 teams SEC teams played with a losing record were really good as undefeated teams, or whatever nonsense is coming next.

 

[Rolltide94]

Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. I should have known.

I've shown you plenty. How about you showing me some facts that support your position. This "no team of mine could be in a conference playing a weak schedule" argument is getting old. While your at it, can you tell me why the 217 teams SEC teams played with a losing record were really good as undefeated teams, or whatever nonsense is coming next.

You've shown me jack shit, I've asked you 4 times to show me 1 fucking team that supports what you are saying about mid-majors playing DII schools all over the SEC schedule and received nada...yet I'm the one that is not backing things up with facts, lol. Put up or shut up. You know you can't, so either admit that you are full of shit or produce an example, since you allege that they are all over the place it should be simple.

I have given you multilple examples of the teams they actually played including multiple years with the exact schedule of one of those teams. You know, that one that isn't a major and therefore in your mind not a quality team but finished 11-1 and #6 in the country...but weren't good 'til the 80's, lol.

Really? 217 opponents with losing records for a conference in a decade? At least I assume we are talking for a decade, because as usual you have given no context for the numbers you use. This is supposed to be a big revelation? Especially for a conference winning almost 50% of it's OOC games, and as you previously pointed out, that played more OOC games than anybody else. What's next for you? Water is wet?

 

[boxedlunch]

You've shown me jack shit, I've asked you 4 times to show me 1 fucking team that supports what you are saying about mid-majors playing DII schools all over the SEC schedule and received nada...yet I'm the one that is not backing things up with facts, lol. Put up or shut up. You know you can't, so either admit that you are full of shit or produce an example, since you allege that they are all over the place it should be simple.

I have given you multilple examples of the teams they actually played including multiple years with the exact schedule of one of those teams. You know, that one that isn't a major and therefore in your mind not a quality team but finished 11-1 and #6 in the country...but weren't good 'til the 80's, lol.

Really? 217 opponents with losing records for a conference in a decade? At least I assume we are talking for a decade, because as usual you have given no context for the numbers you use. This is supposed to be a big revelation? Especially for a conference winning almost 50% of it's OOC games, and as you previously pointed out, that played more OOC games than anybody else. What's next for you? Water is wet?

I've shown you plenty. You've just gone full homer and ignored it, or given some lame dismissal, like mid-major are the same as majors.

Let's take it again, so you can ignore it again:

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.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 242 teams that weren't major schools. The closest other major conference was the ACC who played only 147. That's 95 more than the next conference.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 232 teams that finished with a losing record. The next closest major conference had 157. That's 75 more than the next conference.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 23 division II/I-AA schools. The next closest major conference played 6, about one fourth the SEC's count.

Now, you want to claim that the SEC didn't play a lot of weak teams non-conference, without any evidence, but you're just being a homer.

College Football Trivia

 

[Rolltide94]

I've shown you plenty. You've just gone full homer and ignored it, or given some lame dismissal, like mid-major are the same as majors.

Let's take it again, so you can ignore it again:

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.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 242 teams that weren't major schools. The closest other major conference was the ACC who played only 147. That's 95 more than the next conference.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 232 teams that finished with a losing record. The next closest major conference had 157. That's 75 more than the next conference.

College Football Trivia

The SEC played 23 division II/I-AA schools. The next closest major conference played 6, about one fourth the SEC's count.

Now, you want to claim that the SEC didn't play a lot of weak teams non-conference, without any evidence, but you're just being a homer.

College Football Trivia

Congratulations! You've managed to yet again not cite one single team that fits your criteria.

Do you really think people are this stupid...or maybe it's you that can't interpret what you are looking at.

Let's put your aggregate numbers in perspective...In the 70's the SEC played more OOC games than any other conference PERIOD. Therefore it is not very surprising that they played more of everything than anybody else, whether it be unranked teams, teams with losing records or purple teams with polka-dot jerseys. Again, way to use numbers out of context. The SEC played 100 more OOC games than the next conference...so why is it surprising to you that the aggregate numbers showed you anything different.

Here's a comparison for you:

During the 70's the SEC played 436 games OOC, compiling a 281-134-21 record. Meanwhile the Big 10 played 238 games OOC compiling a 115-115-8 record. So yeah the SEC played almost twice as many OOC games as the Big 10 during the seventies. So exactly how surprising is it that they played more of every type of team.

Now as to your assertion that these were not major schools, I don't seem to be able to get through your thick head that there is no qualitative connotation attached to the label "non-major". Any independent is by definition "non-major" whether it be Tulane, Notre Dame, Florida State, Penn St. or Wichita State. If your not willing to look behind the numbers I guess I will have to do it for you.

Let's look at some of these teams with losing records you seem to want to harp on:

Georgia Tech 1979(4-6-1) Losses to Alabama, Auburn, Tenn, Georgia Tied FL. Wins vs Navy, Duke, Virginia
Georgia Tech 1974(5-6) Losses to Tenn & Georgia wins versus Clemson, Duke, Army, Navy
FSU 1976(5-6) Losses to Florida and Auburn Wins versus K-State, Boston College, Virg Tech, Southern Miss
FSU 1975(3-8) Losses to Florida and Auburn wins vs Clemson and Houston
Memphis 1978(4-7) Losses to Miss & Miss St Wins vs Houston, Vandy, Louisville
Memphis 1979(5-6) Losses to Miss and Vandy Wins vs Louisville & Cincy
Tulane 1974(5-6) Losses to Kentucky, Vandy, LSU, Miss Wins vs Army, West Virginia, Air Force, ULL
Tulane 1975(4-7) Losses to Vandy, Kentucky, LSU Wins vs Boston College, Virginia, Clemson, Miss.

Seems like many of these teams with losing records would have had winning records if they had not played so many SEC teams. Please attempt to say that I cherry picked these by presenting other examples.

Maybe they should have borrowed a page from Notre Dame. Notre Dame was 25-4 versus the Big 10 during the 70's...including 3 wins a season for many 8-3 and 7-4 teams during that span. Thanks Big 10 for keeping Notre Lame relevant all by yourselves.

Ok, your turn to dazzle us all with some more aggregate out of context bullshit.

 

[boxedlunch]

I said the SEC had a weaker non-conference schedule than the majors. If you think playing 75 more teams with a losing record than the nearest conference is not weak, then there's no helping you.