Sec fans should realize...

[boxedlunch]

Is the source out of your ASS on this one too? For somebody that likes to throw numbers around please allow the rest of us to laugh at where you are getting them from. Otherwise the rest of us will just start making up shit too.

If you have no ability to get numbers, what do you base your opinions on?

It's not hard to review schedules.

The SEC's "non-conference schedule" from 1970-1991 consisted of 1029 games. 193 of those opponents finished ranked. That's 18.8%. Compare that to the Big Ten who had 29.7% of their games against teams that finished ranked. The SEC's opponents in those games won 49.2% of their games. Compare that to the Big Eight who's opponents won 52.0% of their games. The SEC is easily lowest in either category.

And look at opponent that would have been considered mid-majors/non-IA. SEC teams played 52% of their games against those. The Big Ten played 25% of their non-conference games against the same. The SEC's non-conference schedule was rather weak back in the day, and it made up larger portion of their schedule than other conferences.

 

[boxedlunch]

Well, let's look at the actual games and teams played rather than just relying on you to spout whatever agenda you want:

During the 70's:

The SEC won 649 games...compiling a 649-466-23 record.

Of those SEC wins 311 were in conference...with a conference record of 311-311-8, no big surprise here wins have to equal losses.

OOC the SEC won 338 games compiling a 338-155-15 record

Now let's look at those games. Of the 338 wins,

Here's where they came from

Big 10 - 5
Big 8 - 17
SWC -33
Pac-12 - 18
ACC -46
Independent - 163
Other(WAC, Southern, MAC & such) - 56

Now let's talk about the "Independent" teams on this list...remember we are talking the 70's, so these are not some random yet to be invited to the Sun Belt I-AA teams.

The Independents of the 70's are Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Florida St., Miami, Southern Miss, Houston, Penn St., West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Pittsburg, Tulane, South Carolina, Louisville....These teams represent more than 90% of the 163 wins vs Independents with 77 losses.

So again, I will ask you to point out the LAME padded out SEC wins of the 70's

Perhaps you are too dense to understand that if the SEC was still playing the same OOC schedule today that they were playing in the 70's then Ohio St. might have been behind several 1-loss SEC teams prior to being dismantled by Michigan St.

BTW...during the 70's the Big 10 was 137-159-8 vs other conferences. Including a lovely 34-44-1 mark against these same Independant "patsies". Of course over that span the Big 10 did manage a 7-5 mark vs the SEC...which would be slightly more impressive if it didn't include a 4 wins vs Kentucky and 1 vs Vandy, lol...a 1970's scheduling trend which is pervasive throughout the Big 10 BTW...most common ACC opponent Duke and North Carolina....Southwest Conference it was TCU and Baylor.

So tell me again which conference was padding their win total in the 1970's...

Info is from sportshoop.la

SEC teams got 312 of their wins against SEC teams in the 70s. They got 327 of their wins against teams that weren't in the SEC in the 70s. I don't care how you spin it, 327 is more than 312. Don't pretend that the SEC got their wins mostly from playing a bunch of others SEC teams in the 70s.

 

[BamaTee1]

SEC teams got 312 of their wins against SEC teams in the 70s. They got 327 of their wins against teams that weren't in the SEC in the 70s. I don't care how you spin it, 327 is more than 312. Don't pretend that the SEC got their wins mostly from playing a bunch of others SEC teams in the 70s.

You make an asinine thread then get wrapped up in the wrong things. Who gives a shit on the numbers you're throwing out? I pointed it out as a small point, a very small point. Roll Tide is throwing much more relevant facts at you in opposition to your original post and you keep worrying about how many OOC and how many conference games. Alabama dominated the college world in the seventies more then any team. Are they in the SEC? Yet you're saying only recent has the SEC been dominant. Throw in Georgia, Tennessee, LSU and Auburn, you had more teams on the national scene than those two team leagues already mentioned!

 

[boxedlunch]

You make an asinine thread then get wrapped up in the wrong things. Who gives a shit on the numbers you're throwing out? I pointed it out as a small point, a very small point. Roll Tide is throwing much more relevant facts at you in opposition to your original post and you keep worrying about how many OOC and how many conference games. Alabama dominated the college world in the seventies more then any team. Are they in the SEC? Yet you're saying only recent has the SEC been dominant. Throw in Georgia, Tennessee, LSU and Auburn, you had more teams on the national scene than those two team leagues already mentioned!

I did not make this thread. You really make me wonder about you. Everything you read you seem to read wrong.

The point is, you can't compare teams that get wins two different ways and pretend it's the same things. SEC teams missed a lot of their conference opponents back in the day. You can't pretend they were playing them all and it was so awful. You also can't ignore that a lot of these teams got on the "national scene" for playing weaker non-conference teams.

I NEVER said the SEC has only been recently been dominant, nor do I believe it. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a 3rd grade reading level or something.

 

[Mike30142]

Team All-Time Rankings

1​

Alabama​

2506.63
712.43
899.20
560.00
335.00​

2​

Notre Dame (IN)​

2339.01
733.03
885.98
475.00
245.00​

3​

Southern California​

2271.59
701.47
820.12
395.00
355.00​

4​

Oklahoma​

2196.39
715.90
810.49
350.00
320.00​

5​

Michigan​

2179.54
732.91
931.63
235.00
280.00​

6​

Ohio St.​

2134.96
716.00
843.95
280.00
295.00​

7​

Texas​

2080.93
714.05
861.87
200.00
305.00​

8​

Nebraska​

2073.10
703.57
819.53
250.00
300.00​

9​

Louisiana St.​

1990.28
648.23
892.06
165.00
285.00​

10​

Tennessee​

1874.70
684.34
830.36
130.00
230.00​

11​

Georgia​

1836.03
647.20
918.83
65.00
205.00​

12​

Florida​

1808.19
632.34
835.85
150.00
190.00​

13​

Miami (FL)​

1765.10
631.09
654.01
250.00
230.00​

14​

Auburn (AL)​

1761.30
629.86
906.44
115.00
110.00​

15​

Georgia Tech​

1733.54
594.45
869.09
95.00
175.00​

 

[Rolltide94]

If you have no ability to get numbers, what do you base your opinions on?



And look at opponent that would have been considered mid-majors/non-IA. SEC teams played 52% of their games against those. The Big Ten played 25% of their non-conference games against the same. The SEC's non-conference schedule was rather weak back in the day, and it made up larger portion of their schedule than other conferences.

Really? what are you basing 52% on...it certainly isn't the teams they played...unless of course you are trying to say that the FSU, Penn States, South Carolina and Georgia Tech's of the world were mid-major back in the 70's....in which case you are just fucking stupid and unfortunately there is no cure for you.

I'm not questioning your ability to get numbers...you seem to be able to pull them out of your ass easily enough, I am questioning your ability to interpret them, which I am beginning to believe is highly suspect.

 

[Rolltide94]

SEC teams got 312 of their wins against SEC teams in the 70s. They got 327 of their wins against teams that weren't in the SEC in the 70s. I don't care how you spin it, 327 is more than 312. Don't pretend that the SEC got their wins mostly from playing a bunch of others SEC teams in the 70s.

I never made that point...I was simply pointing out that you sayng they got them against lesser competition is bullshit. If any conference was playing down in the 70's it was the Big 10. Take a look at the actual teams they played, not just the aggregate conference numbers.

 

[boxedlunch]

I never made that point...I was simply pointing out that you sayng they got them against lesser competition is bullshit. If any conference was playing down in the 70's it was the Big 10. Take a look at the actual teams they played, not just the aggregate conference numbers.

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?

 

[boxedlunch]

Really? what are you basing 52% on...it certainly isn't the teams they played...unless of course you are trying to say that the FSU, Penn States, South Carolina and Georgia Tech's of the world were mid-major back in the 70's....in which case you are just fucking stupid and unfortunately there is no cure for you.

I'm not questioning your ability to get numbers...you seem to be able to pull them out of your ass easily enough, I am questioning your ability to interpret them, which I am beginning to believe is highly suspect.

Not all teams that are major today, were major back then. The ACC notably was very mid-major like in the 50, 60s and 70s. Of the teams you listed, I'd say that all were majors, except Florida State until the 80s (and South Carolina in 1970).

You can get a list of non-major Division I teams here:

College Football Trivia


As this sort of thing is opinion, feel free to explain why you'd rate them as a major.

 

[boxedlunch]

Look, if you want to have a serious conversation about schedule make up, I'll get back to you later. I promise you that you won't find the SEC to have played a seriously tough non-conference schedule in the 70s (compared to other major conferences). I came down harder on the other guy I should have, but he annoyed me with his response (not to mention subsequent responses). I state a fact for the entire SEC for 1970-1991 and he comes back with numbers for Alabama in the 70s and says "I just don't see it". Well, you take one tenth of the teams, less than one half the years and are expecting to see similar results? What's with that?

If anything, his numbers did more to say the SEC was a one team conference in the 70s than anything else.

 

[Rolltide94]

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?

Here's what I've got

SEC vs Big 10 in the 70's

Record vs ranked teams 96-236-7...subtracting out their 49-169-3 record against ranked SEC teams leaves a 47-67-4 record against ranked OOC opponents in 118 games

Big 10 had a 35-254-6 record vs ranked opponents, subtracting their 20-158-4 record against ranked Big 10 teams that leaves a 15-96-4 record against ranked OOC opponents in 113 games.

So in my heart of hearts yes, I believe that 118>113 and that a 41% winning percentage vs OOC ranked is higher than a 13.5% winning percentage vs OOC ranked.

Please point out where any of my numbers are wrong and where you posted anything above that you can back up with actual numbers.

 

[Rolltide94]

Not all teams that are major today, were major back then. The ACC notably was very mid-major like in the 50, 60s and 70s. Of the teams you listed, I'd say that all were majors, except Florida State until the 80s (and South Carolina in 1970).

You can get a list of non-major Division I teams here:

College Football Trivia


As this sort of thing is opinion, feel free to explain why you'd rate them as a major.

Ok,

FSU 1970 (7-4) opponents:

Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Florida, Memphis, Baylor, South Carolina, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Kansas St., Houston

FSU 1979 11-1 Record

Opponents: Southern Miss, Arizona St, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Mississippi St, LSU, Cincinnati, South Carolina, Memphis, Florida, Oklahoma.

Similar opponents in 72-78

Sorry, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...it's probably a fucking duck.

 

[boxedlunch]

Here's what I've got

SEC vs Big 10 in the 70's

Record vs ranked teams 96-236-7...subtracting out their 49-169-3 record against ranked SEC teams leaves a 47-67-4 record against ranked OOC opponents in 118 games

Big 10 had a 35-254-6 record vs ranked opponents, subtracting their 20-158-4 record against ranked Big 10 teams that leaves a 15-96-4 record against ranked OOC opponents in 113 games.

So in my heart of hearts yes, I believe that 118>113 and that a 41% winning percentage vs OOC ranked is higher than a 13.5% winning percentage vs OOC ranked.

Please point out where any of my numbers are wrong and where you posted anything above that you can back up with actual numbers.

I didn't say a thing about winning percentage. This was about percent of games played against types of opponent. If you played 100 non-conference games and 10 were against ranked teams, then you played 10% of your games against ranked teams, regardless of how many you won.

SEC teams played 508 non-SEC teams in the 70s, 118 against teams that finished ranked. That's 23.2% of their games.

Big Ten teams played 304 non-Big Ten teams in the 70s, 113 against teams that finished ranked. That's 37.2% of their games.

37.2% > 23.2% The fact that the SEC teams played 200 more non-conference games quite obviously means they are going to play higher numbers. However, the fact that they played so many more is the point here. That's 390 non-SEC games they played against non-ranked teams, with a lot of mid-majors.

 

[boxedlunch]

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.

 

[sakau2007]

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.

Cool. And when they played those ranked teams they beat them over twice as often. So what exactly is your point...? That the SEC played a weaker average schedule but when they did they were far, far, far better than the Big 10 against good teams?

 

[boxedlunch]

Cool. And when they played those ranked teams they beat them over twice as often. So what exactly is your point...? That the SEC played a weaker average schedule but when they did they were far, far, far better than the Big 10 against good teams?

*Sigh*

That point was simple. The SEC played weaker non-conference teams than the other conferences and some of the wins they got were related to that.

 

[sakau2007]

*Sigh*

That point was simple. The SEC played weaker non-conference teams than the other conferences and some of the wins they got were related to that.

cool. point taken.

but when the SEC faced ranked OOC teams, they won more than 2 out of 5 times, compared to less than 1 out of 7 for the Big 10.

 

[boxedlunch]

cool. point taken.

but when the SEC faced ranked OOC teams, they won more than 2 out of 5 times, compared to less than 1 out of 7 for the Big 10.

The Big Ten was brutal in the 70s. Not surprising.

 

[Rolltide94]

I didn't say a thing about winning percentage. This was about percent of games played against types of opponent. If you played 100 non-conference games and 10 were against ranked teams, then you played 10% of your games against ranked teams, regardless of how many you won.

SEC teams played 508 non-SEC teams in the 70s, 118 against teams that finished ranked. That's 23.2% of their games.

Big Ten teams played 304 non-Big Ten teams in the 70s, 113 against teams that finished ranked. That's 37.2% of their games.

37.2% > 23.2% The fact that the SEC teams played 200 more non-conference games quite obviously means they are going to play higher numbers. However, the fact that they played so many more is the point here. That's 390 non-SEC games they played against non-ranked teams, with a lot of mid-majors.

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

So exactly how many is in a "lots of"?

You do realize with your subsequent argument of the Big 10 being "brutal" in the 70's that what you are really saying is that the Big 10 padded their win total against shitty Big 10 teams during the 70's...Right? I mean after all if your non-conference winning percentage is less than 50% you're better off playing teams in your own shitty conference....at least then one of the Big 10 teams has to win.

It would also be true by your logic that the SEC would have had a weaker schedule if they had scheduled nothing but Big 10 teams out of conference during the 70's...guess they were smart to stick with their "lots of mid-majors".

 

[RoboticDreams]

I regret opening this thread.