2010 SEC and Big Ten OOC football schedules

[BB73]

like i said, to me it shouldn't count.
but there ain't a whole ot of difference btween our Tulane and y'all Toledo.

I'd just like to point out that Toledo has a perfect record against TSUN. Does Tulane have a perfect record against Bama or Tennessee? :tongue2:

 

[jwinslow]

and yet RR vs Utah > Bama vs Utah

 

[Nutriaitch]

I'd just like to point out that Toledo has a perfect record against TSUN. Does Tulane have a perfect record against Bama or Tennessee? :tongue2:

they have winning record against Auburn.
does that count?

they also have the same number of SEC hampionships/Co-Championships as:
Kentucky, So Carolina, Vandy, Miss St., and Arky COMBINED.

and Miss St. fans wonder why we don't respect thier team.

 

[Gatorubet]

The SEC's dominance does not predate 2006. Their success does, but the Glendale upset was the beginning of your dominance as a conference. Before that you were very good.Some games? 1 game? Try the bulk of this decade.

Then statistical dominance in the BCS.

Which of the SEC #2 opponents were equally matched? There wasn't 1 comparable opponent in the last 7 years. You have to go all the way back to Maryland in 01.
Were you the best in the league 5 years ago? How about 6?

There is not much more that a team can do but win enough games, and/or their conference/ or be ranked high enough to get a BCS bid, and then win their game. Again, slide around and around trying to explain away the fact that when we get there - we win. You keep wanting to say that the teams in our conference that play in BCS games aren't as good as the record I trumpet - and the proof you use is that the SEC teams in the BCS games are better than the BCS opponents they play. OK then.

For someone who trumpets the 4 straight thing constantly, it's rather ironic to be calling me out for listing that streak.

Not in the context of the discussion. Which is the BCS history. Of course you don't want to look at that.

That's not a very good rebuttal.

:p Throw you a bone and you try to dig up my back yard.

No, I'm trying to analyze the teams involved in the SEC hypefest. I think there's a lot of inconsistency in the prestige & rankings of those not achieving things themselves.

Oh - I get that

Of the two of us, I'm willing to discuss your topics. When it comes to mine, apparently you are only interested in SEC=awesomerrss1!!!1!! and tossing our jabs about how bitter we are by resorting to weather, 1 game sample sizes and other coping mechanisms.

I guess we're not going to move on to the other subject after all.

Methinks thou dost protest too much jwins. If you only are willing to talk about the things you want to talk about in the order you want to talk about them, and my failure to follow your lead in the conversation is unwillingness, then we are at an impasse of sorts.

I think you are just having trouble working with the mess that Steve threw you in.

 

[jwinslow]

Then statistical dominance in the BCS.

Before 06, the SEC was not playing for NCs every year, nor sending two teams to the bcs. It's a very valid distinction in eras. I'm not claiming you were only great in those years, merely that the SEC was not the dominant conference before that year.

The SEC reputation was different before Glendale. It was still strong, just not nearly as lofty.

To be honest, I wasn't even trying to downgrade the SEC's run by limiting it to 4 years, I was simply listing the streak of dominance in NC games as admission that the SEC has been dominant. Apparently you want to have my cake and dance on it too.

There is not much more that a team can do but win enough games, and/or their conference/ or be ranked high enough to get a BCS bid, and then win their game. Again, slide around and around trying to explain away the fact that when we get there - we win. You keep wanting to say that the teams in our conference that play in BCS games aren't as good as the record I trumpet - and the proof you use is that the SEC teams in the BCS games are better than the BCS opponents they play. OK then.

You claimed that if teams were overrated, then they would be exposed in the BCS. My point is it's pretty hard to get exposed - or properly judged - when you're playing weak opponents in those BCS games.

Conference strength is almost never tied to the top dog (though the media usually confuses the two). Plenty of great programs come from weak or overrated conferences.

To judge the SEC's depth, I look at how the #2 BCS team fares, and how they stack up with similarly ranked 3-5 squads. The latter shows no superiority, and the former isn't a very good measuring stick.

Not in the context of the discussion. Which is the BCS history. Of course you don't want to look at that.

One of us is conceding points to the other. The other is mocking the refusal to concede points while refusing to do so themselves. Ironic.

Methinks thou dost protest too much jwins. If you only are willing to talk about the things you want to talk about in the order you want to talk about them, and my failure to follow your lead in the conversation is unwillingness, then we are at an impasse of sorts.

You said you'd discuss my topic if I admitted the SEC has been dominant. I admitted the SEC has been unparalleled recently, and rather than accept that, you strapped me back down on the interrogation chair and demanded more.

 

[BigWoof31]

you strapped me back down on the chair and demanded more.

This thread went from good to gay rather quickly.

 

[BayBuck]

Methinks thou dost protest too much jwins.

Methinks the title of this thread could accurately be changed to "SEC Fans Doth Protest Too Much". :tongue2:

 

[Gatorubet]

This thread went from good to gay rather quickly.

Tag - you're in the ring Woof. Defend our SEC Honor! :p

(right up to the ban and then throw the Mutt in... )

 

[jwinslow]

Let's try this a different way... how about a tangible example?

In 06, Arkansas made the CCG. They bucked the trend and scheduled a tough OOC home-n-home. Had they scheduled The Citadel instead of USC, they would have entered the CCG as a darkhorse for the NC at 11-1. Instead they were 10-2, ranked #8 and could not aspire to anything higher than a standard BCS berth.

In contrast, Florida scheduled 3 cupcakes and a .500 FSU team. Like Arkansas, they lost one heartbreaker in conference, but because they didn't test themselves OOC, they were in position to make the NC game in December with a CCG win. I get the limitations of the FSU rivalry, but the inequality still exists.


When SEC teams limit themselves to only challenges within the conference, it continues the circular logic of the SEC's strength (big upset? proves the strength, and the lower team shoots up the rankings). Without those OOC tests against quality programs, we can't properly analyze the actual strength of the conference. Instead we're left with LSU/Tenn vs Wisc/PSU, which folks tend to ignore... or beating up on weak BCS #2 opponents.



That's the source of the complaint, and this board harped on the SEC's tendency to stay in the south before the liftoff in 06. It's also not exclusive to the SEC, Wisconsin & Penn State tend to do the same thing.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

yeah. fuck penn state.

 

[BigWoof31]

When SEC teams limit themselves to only challenges within the conference, it continues the circular logic of the SEC's strength (big upset? proves the strength, and the lower team shoots up the rankings). Without those OOC tests against quality programs, we can't properly analyze the actual strength of the conference.

Well - I mean, that's what the bowl season is for correct? At least the BCS games?

And if I'm not mistaken - that 06 Arkansas team lost to PSU in the Cap One bowl, so their strength was tested and they weren't good enough.

 

[jwinslow]

And if I'm not mistaken - that 06 Arkansas team lost to PSU in the Cap One bowl, so their strength was tested and they weren't good enough.

Except that bowl season was said to prove the SEC was superior to the Big Ten (despite the 1-2 results), which goes along with my point about those games being ignored (when they should not be).

 

[cjmik_75]

like i said, to me it shouldn't count.
but there ain't a whole ot of difference btween our Tulane and y'all Toledo.

we own this state, and will outnumber our opponents, no matter what stadium in Louisiana hosts the game.

as gator pointed out, there was LSU music and chants at a Saint Super Bowl parade.

don't know for sure, but i'm confident the same can be said for OSU in the state of Ohio.




and my only point is that the gap in scheduling is not as big as some are saying (at least when talking about LSU and OSU).

y'all averaged half a road OOC game per year more than LSU did over the last 2 decades.

Only difference is, OSU has played Toledo twice in twenty years and LSU has played Tulane 9 times...I'd say that's a whole lot of difference.

And half a game per year over two decades = 9 or 10 games, that's every other year. And like I said most those years were not playing Tulane or Toledo.

 

[Nutriaitch]

And half a game per year over two decades = 9 or 10 games, that's every other year. And like I said most those years were not playing Tulane or Toledo.

sorry, my math was off.
y'all average a quarter of a game more than us.

 

[Steve19]

And I note that since I raised the issue of ranking, the focus has now changed from "OOC games" to "ranked OOC games". Which is fine. But you are going to have to come up with some reason why playing a highly ranked team in the South - whether home or away - is somehow less important than playing an OOC team out of the region (or even ranked OOC team out of region). I've explained why we'd rather earn home game revenue than not. Our AD would rather they ALL were home games, revenue wise. I mean, from a financial aspect, that is a no-brainer.

Ohio State playing ranked teams away from home in your OOC schedule has not seemed to help you in your post season contests with my conference.* So if the purpose of your doing so is to battle harden you so that you are really the better team than the chicken, ducking-out-of-OOC-game Gators (or fill in the SEC team), then your record against the SEC should reflect that battle hardened toughness in our head to head record. It does not. Which, it can be argued, sort of devalues the entire argument that playing ranked teams away from home in your OOC schedule leads to tougher teams being left out of the BCS and bowls, while pretender SEC teams are let in.

As I've said, if you let the ducking-the-tough-OOC-team SEC folks in, they should, like the ducking-the-tough-OOC-team ACC folks, suck so much that their lack of worthiness is displayed on the field, and that the SEC is finally exposed as the unworthy cowards they really are.

But what we find is that the SEC wins have a .737 winning percentage in BCS bowls. The Big-East is at .500. Big-12 at .438. The ACC has played 12 games, but won only TWO. The Big-10, which you point out as a laudable out of region OCC playing example, has won a little less than half.

Because what I keep hearing is how the SEC teams keep backing into bowl games we do not belong in due to our "ducking" the tough OOC games, and therefore getting in to BCS games due to our over inflated rankings. Good theory. Problem is, we kick everyone's asses in BCS games at a rate far greater than the other major conferences. So the argument that we do not deserve our unfairly high ranking is all well and good until you put on the pads, adjust the chin strap and take the field. At that point, it should make no difference how the SEC got in the back door, it is judgment day for the lazy, OOC game ducking pretenders, who should get theirs from the unfairly lower ranked and truly battle tested teams from the Big-10 and the Big-12. But a funny thing happens on the way to the pretender ass-whipping. It does not happen so much. In BCS National Championship games we are Perfect. 6 and 0. 1.000

So excuse me if I fail to see how the theory of unfair high ranking holds true when you look at how it plays out on the field.



Of your 12 OOC wins you were ranked higher than the team you beat in all but two games. In your three OOC losses you were ranked lower than the team that beat you in two out of three. 50% chance of winning away from home my ass. The win or loss followed the simple factor of ranking in a rather obvious statistical manner.



If when we get to the bowl games we win in a statistical manner that supports our allegedly inflated ranking, then the point you make is moot.



We'd like to see people get off our backs about unfair ranking unless and until they show up in the better bowl games (say - the BCS games) and kick our ass. But since we stand head and shoulders above every other BCS major conference in our conference winning record playing "in better bowl games", we'd like to see the Big-10 stop ignoring our record of wins on the field in those better games....oh wait. We don't win those because of our skill, we win those because they are held in the South. You know - the same regional advantage that is so much of a determinative factor in the ACC winning so many of their games in their own Southern back yard, and....oh.....yeah.....well, except for that.

Don't get me wrong. Playing away against good teams from OOC is harder than playing bad teams at home. Duh. But I think the real factor is the "good teams" part. Our theory is that our conference is strong enough that our conference is more than adequate to battle harden our teams in preparation for the upcoming off season, and that we are fairly ranked. Yours is that "avoidance of home and home series against ranked OOC teams inflates the rankings of SEC teams", so that the ducking of ranked OOC games caused an "unfair ranking increases their likelihood of playing in better bowl games, including the NC game."

Well, there is a simple way to verify the validity of that "unfairly ranked" issue in the better bowl games, including the NC game. Look at our BCS record. If you do that, your theory is, I respectfully submit, disproven by that record. We are 6 and 0 with BCS NC game appearances by four different teams. What the hell else do we have to do to prove that we are not adequately ranked besides win the game - shut everybody out?

(* Yes, it is a statistical anomaly that I do not throw in your faces at all, or hardly ever - but for this discussion it is something that can be raised as relevant to the discussion and not thrown in as smack - at least the record from 1990, which is the last twenty year period we are talking about. )

You're absolutely right. Playing OOC games at home, avoiding ranked OOC foes, and then playing bowl games in the South is not advantage.

Of course not. What was I thinking.