Rivalries and Conferences (Split from LSU v. OSU Offensive Personnel Thread)

[Nordberg]

The teams in the SEC tend to root for each other against non conference teams because in the past the SEC got no respect throughout the nation. All of the sports writers and poll people were located on the coasts and we would seldom get the publicity the others did. The perception has changed in the media, but we still stick together

So this is just an SEC thing? I believe this happens in all conferences. I root for all Big 10 team when they play non-conference teams. Yea I would love Meat-chicken to go 0-12, but would rather other teams in the Big Ten to dominate out of conference opponents. I would say that USC fans were rooting for Oregon to beat M*ch*gan. Rooting for your teams conference happens in all conference.

 

[OSUBucksfan09]

How bout the Big 12, with 7 titles over the span? With Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas and Nebraska. Your point?????
Plus the Big East had Pitt winning one.

By ur logic, the Big 12 is the best. . .

 

[Tigertracker]

Nonsense. No respect? Are you friggin serious? What's with Bama's retro titles then? No respect? You're not the fucking Pac 10 with its East Coast bias crap. You're simply in the south. Give me a damn break.

Alabama got respect, the conference didn't. Don't bother telling me it wasn't true, I lived through it and saw it first hand. The odds are that I have been a season ticket holder longer than you've been walking.

Yeah? How nice. 2 of them are relevant. Florida and LSU.

I think you need to get a better handle on the meaning of "relevent", If OSU had to play them every year I bet they would become "Relevent" pretty damn quick.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Alabama got respect, the conference didn't. Don't bother telling me it wasn't true, I lived through it and saw it first hand. The odds are that I have been a season ticket holder longer than you've been walking.

OK, Father Time, you're old enough to remember when the SEC didn't get any respect. When exactly was that? Prior to 1950? Tennessee seemed to be respected enough to win a Title in 1951, Auburn split with OSU in 1957, LSU grabbed the 1958 Title. Alabama won multiple times in the 60s and 70s. Georgia 1980, then a 12 year break to Bama in 92, Florida 96 Tennessee 98 and so on.. So, were you talking prior to 1950? Or, are you just all upset that Alabama was the only team in your conference consistently worth a shit in the 60s and 70s?

Using Bama's titles as a book end (1961 and 1978) the winning pct. for SEC Confernce members, ranked nationally in th 1960s:

Rank..Team......Pct..Wins..Loss..Tie
3.....Alabama...806...88....20.....3
10....LSU.......752...80....25.....4
14....OleMiss...708...74....29.....5
20....Tennessee.691...72....31.....4
25....Florida...667...68....33.....4
30....Auburn....638...66....37.....2
49....Georgia...590...58....39.....8
102...SouthCar..397...38....59.....5
112...Miss.St...366...35....62.....4
118...Kentucky..356...34....63.....4
131...Vandy.....277...25....70.....6

And the 1970s (and rather than use 1978, I'll just take it to 1980):

Rank..Team......Pct..Wins..Loss..Tie
1.....Alabama...891..107....13.....0
14....Georgia...709...82....33.....2
25....LSU.......650...74....39.....3
30....Aubrun....616...68....42.....2
34....Tennessee.607...69....44.....3
53....SouthCar..530...60....53.....1
56....Florida...526...59....53.....3
66....OleMiss...490...54....56.....0
74....Kentucky..459...50....59.....2
100...Miss St...357...39....71.....2
104...Vandy.....328...35....73.....3

Note: Arkansas was not considered in either tally due to them having not been SEC at the time, and the issue here is SEC's reputation at the time. Arkansas' success in the 60s and 70s therefore did not assist the SEC at all.

The 1960s saw the SWC "dominate" the landscape in terms of W/L records with Texas and Arkansas ending up in the top 10. The Pac 10 had two as well, with ASU edging out USC in terms of wins for the decade. Ohio State was the Big 10's lone rep, and Nebraska the Big 8s. SEC had, again, Bama and LSU, with Bama collecting Titles in 61, 64 and 65. The "disrespected SEC" also found themselves with with the following final rankings in 1961 - 1 Bama 4 LSU 5 Mississippi. In 1962 Mississippi, Bama and LSU all were ranked top 10. 1963, the SEC was against disrespected in to only have 3 teams in the final top 10, Auburn, Ole Miss and Bama 1964, The disrespect continued with Bama winning the title and LSU ranking 7th, followed up by the same disrespect in 1965 - a Bama title and LSU 8th. Only one SEC team made it in 1966 and it was Bama and in 1967 the disrespected SEC had 2 teams ranked, Tenny and Bama

The 1970s saw the Big 8 have two teams - Oklahoma and Nebraska - ranked in the top 10 wins. The Big 10 had two as well, Ohio State and Michigan, also in the top 10 wins. Pac 10 had 1 (USC) and there were two major independents, Notre Dame and Penn State in the top 10. Along with Central Mich and Boise State rounding it out. And you're bitching to me about respect? Seems to me your conference used to be rated correctly. Alabama and a shit load of also rans. Just like the Big Ten was the Big two and little 8. Just like the Pac 10 was USC and the Big 8 was Nebby and Oky... In fact, in the 1970s, this conference rankings shit was still some 20 years distant. In those days, the bowl game was still considered a reward for a season, and not a "final playoff game" of any kind.

A quick look at final rating reveals this from the 1970s final top ten finishes for SEC teams:
1970 - 2
1971 - 3
1972 - 2
1973 - 1
1974 - 2
1975 - 1
1976 - 1
1977 - 2
1978 - 1
1979 - 1
1980 - 2

There seems to be no disrespect here, especially when you consider that in 1978 and 1979 the 1 team rated won the NC. What it looks to me is that the "mighty SEC" like every other friggin conference suffers ups and downs. Thats reality, not disrespect.

Tired of me handing you your ass yet?

Yeah? How nice. 2 of them are relevant. Florida and LSU.
I think you need to get a better handle on the meaning of "relevent", If OSU had to play them every year I bet they would become "Relevent" pretty damn quick.

Sure, I need a better hand on the word Relevant. Of course, Louisiana is the only state in the nation which has it's legal foundation in the Napoleonic, but it's I who needs help with the word relevant. Gotcha.

Yes. Two are relevant. As you can see from my extensive research above, it's actually quite typical for a "power conference" to have 2 relevant teams at during any given season. In the Big Ten it's typically Ohio State and Michigan. In the Big 8 it was OU and Nebby. Now it's OU and Texas... and so on.

Indeed, I think it may be YOU who needs an update on the word relevant an its meaning. Relevant doesn't mean "good" as you seem to think. It does mean "having demonstrable bearing on the matter" however.

"If OSU had to play them every year I bet they would become "Relevent" pretty damn quick."

Likewise, if LSU had to play in the Big 10 instead of the SEC, every Big Ten team would become "relevant" pretty damn quick. What's your friggin point?

You can pick up your ass at will-call.

 

[BB73]

Likewise, if LSU had to play in the Big 10 instead of the SEC, every Big Ten team would become "relevant" pretty damn quick. What's your friggin point?

You can pick up your ass at will-call.

It appears that BKB is also Mili.

 

[Tigertracker]

How bout the Big 12, with 7 titles over the span? With Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas and Nebraska. Your point?????
Plus the Big East had Pitt winning one.

By ur logic, the Big 12 is the best. . .

Do you see anything in my post saying who is the best? Read what the post says, not what you think it says. We were discussing what constitutes a great conference versus a great team in a conference. I would certainly call the B12 a great conference.

 

[Tigertracker]

OK, Father Time, you're old enough to remember when the SEC didn't get any respect. When exactly was that? Prior to 1950? Tennessee seemed to be respected enough to win a Title in 1951, Auburn split with OSU in 1957, LSU grabbed the 1958 Title. Alabama won multiple times in the 60s and 70s. Georgia 1980, then a 12 year break to Bama in 92, Florida 96 Tennessee 98 and so on.. So, were you talking prior to 1950? Or, are you just all upset that Alabama was the only team in your conference consistently worth a shit in the 60s and 70s?

Using Bama's titles as a book end (1961 and 1978) the winning pct. for SEC Confernce members, ranked nationally in th 1960s:

Rank..Team......Pct..Wins..Loss..Tie
3.....Alabama...806...88....20.....3
10....LSU.......752...80....25.....4
14....OleMiss...708...74....29.....5
20....Tennessee.691...72....31.....4
25....Florida...667...68....33.....4
30....Auburn....638...66....37.....2
49....Georgia...590...58....39.....8
102...SouthCar..397...38....59.....5
112...Miss.St...366...35....62.....4
118...Kentucky..356...34....63.....4
131...Vandy.....277...25....70.....6

And the 1970s (and rather than use 1978, I'll just take it to 1980):

Rank..Team......Pct..Wins..Loss..Tie
1.....Alabama...891..107....13.....0
14....Georgia...709...82....33.....2
25....LSU.......650...74....39.....3
30....Aubrun....616...68....42.....2
34....Tennessee.607...69....44.....3
53....SouthCar..530...60....53.....1
56....Florida...526...59....53.....3
66....OleMiss...490...54....56.....0
74....Kentucky..459...50....59.....2
100...Miss St...357...39....71.....2
104...Vandy.....328...35....73.....3

Note: Arkansas was not considered in either tally due to them having not been SEC at the time, and the issue here is SEC's reputation at the time. Arkansas' success in the 60s and 70s therefore did not assist the SEC at all.

The 1960s saw the SWC "dominate" the landscape in terms of W/L records with Texas and Arkansas ending up in the top 10. The Pac 10 had two as well, with ASU edging out USC in terms of wins for the decade. Ohio State was the Big 10's lone rep, and Nebraska the Big 8s. SEC had, again, Bama and LSU, with Bama collecting Titles in 61, 64 and 65. The "disrespected SEC" also found themselves with with the following final rankings in 1961 - 1 Bama 4 LSU 5 Mississippi. In 1962 Mississippi, Bama and LSU all were ranked top 10. 1963, the SEC was against disrespected in to only have 3 teams in the final top 10, Auburn, Ole Miss and Bama 1964, The disrespect continued with Bama winning the title and LSU ranking 7th, followed up by the same disrespect in 1965 - a Bama title and LSU 8th. Only one SEC team made it in 1966 and it was Bama and in 1967 the disrespected SEC had 2 teams ranked, Tenny and Bama

The 1970s saw the Big 8 have two teams - Oklahoma and Nebraska - ranked in the top 10 wins. The Big 10 had two as well, Ohio State and Michigan, also in the top 10 wins. Pac 10 had 1 (USC) and there were two major independents, Notre Dame and Penn State in the top 10. Along with Central Mich and Boise State rounding it out. And you're bitching to me about respect? Seems to me your conference used to be rated correctly. Alabama and a shit load of also rans. Just like the Big Ten was the Big two and little 8. Just like the Pac 10 was USC and the Big 8 was Nebby and Oky... In fact, in the 1970s, this conference rankings shit was still some 20 years distant. In those days, the bowl game was still considered a reward for a season, and not a "final playoff game" of any kind.

A quick look at final rating reveals this from the 1970s final top ten finishes for SEC teams:
1970 - 2
1971 - 3
1972 - 2
1973 - 1
1974 - 2
1975 - 1
1976 - 1
1977 - 2
1978 - 1
1979 - 1
1980 - 2

There seems to be no disrespect here, especially when you consider that in 1978 and 1979 the 1 team rated won the NC. What it looks to me is that the "mighty SEC" like every other friggin conference suffers ups and downs. Thats reality, not disrespect.

Tired of me handing you your ass yet?



Sure, I need a better hand on the word Relevant. Of course, Louisiana is the only state in the nation which has it's legal foundation in the Napoleonic, but it's I who needs help with the word relevant. Gotcha.

Yes. Two are relevant. As you can see from my extensive research above, it's actually quite typical for a "power conference" to have 2 relevant teams at during any given season. In the Big Ten it's typically Ohio State and Michigan. In the Big 8 it was OU and Nebby. Now it's OU and Texas... and so on.

Indeed, I think it may be YOU who needs an update on the word relevant an its meaning. Relevant doesn't mean "good" as you seem to think. It does mean "having demonstrable bearing on the matter" however.

"If OSU had to play them every year I bet they would become "Relevent" pretty damn quick."

Likewise, if LSU had to play in the Big 10 instead of the SEC, every Big Ten team would become "relevant" pretty damn quick. What's your friggin point?

You can pick up your ass at will-call.

All of that is amusing coming after reading on this board about how OSU gets no respect. Mighty funny that OSU can have the record it has but the vast majority of you claim no respect from anyone. It is the same thing I am saying about the past in the SEC, but you claim it is not possible. Winning does not equal respect, if you don't believe me just read the posts on this board, all of these people can't be wrong, can they?
I am also curious what our using the Napoleonic code has to do with anything. We also have Parishes instead of counties is that relevent also? Somehow I get the impression that you think you are special, you're not. Do you think for one minute that if your conference had 4 teams in the final BCS poll that you wouldn't be talking about how powerful your conference is? I bet they would be relevent then, wouldn't they?

 

[Flocka]

Do you think for one minute that if your conference had 4 teams in the final BCS poll that you wouldn't be talking about how powerful your conference is? I bet they would be relevent then, wouldn't they?

Not to speak for BKB, but I think this is part of what he touched on before. We do support our conference, but we understand there are other conferences, and that not one is always the best. I think it's great to support your conference, but many times it seems SEC fans fail to recognize there is more out than the all mighty SEC. (not necessarily referring to you Tigertracker)

 

[OCBucksFan]

I think you need to get a better handle on the meaning of "relevent", If OSU had to play them every year I bet they would become "Relevent" pretty damn quick.

When do you see Tennesee, Auburn or Georgia playing for a title? Georgia can win all their games but they will lose to Florida, or they will beat Florida and lose two other games to teams they should beat. Auburn is so hit and miss it's not funny, they can look great but they will find a way to lose, and Tenn has been recently all offense, no defense.

We have a lot of teams that are like that too, Penn state and Wiscy come to mind, they will find a way to lose to either Michigan or Ohio State, that doesn't mean they aren't tough opponents, that just means they aren't relevant in the national title picture.

I agree with BKB here, Florida and LSU are your two National Champ threats, Michigan and Ohio State are ours, Texas and Oklahoma the BigXII's. That's not saying those other teams suck, it just means that the talent level and coaching level is better than the rest on most years.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

All of that is amusing coming after reading on this board about how OSU gets no respect. Mighty funny that OSU can have the record it has but the vast majority of you claim no respect from anyone. It is the same thing I am saying about the past in the SEC, but you claim it is not possible. Winning does not equal respect, if you don't believe me just read the posts on this board, all of these people can't be wrong, can they?

Yes. they can be wrong. But, in the case of Ohio State presently they are not. Why can I say this? Because what one hears about Ohio State does not match up to Ohio State's record over the past... pick a set of years. To illustrate, this is Ohio State's 3rd BCS title appearance in 6 years. Only Florida State (3 in 3 years (98-00)) is better. But.. is Ohio State talked about as a "dynasty?" Nope. Not even close. The only reason they're any good, as we all know, is because the Big 10 sucks.

The SEC is enjoying present success. No question about it. Some of it is warranted, some of it is not. One cannot dispute three BCS titles (Tenny, LSU and Florida). But, when I hear about how great the SEC is because of how Kentucky is doing, I call bullshit. It's really just that simple. I wouldn't call bullshit if Illinois doing well was not seen as evidence of how bad the Big Ten is. But... sadly, that's the way it is. At the end of the day, the truth is, the SEC and the Big Ten are virtually equal. Each conf. has great teams, each conf has shit teams. In any given year, there may be more of one and not of the other. Right now, this year, I'd obviously give the nod to the SEC. I would not do that every year by default as is the apparent zeitgeist.

I am also curious what our using the Napoleonic code has to do with anything. We also have Parishes instead of counties is that relevent also? Somehow I get the impression that you think you are special, you're not. Do you think for one minute that if your conference had 4 teams in the final BCS poll that you wouldn't be talking about how powerful your conference is? I bet they would be relevent then, wouldn't they?

I brought up the Napoleonic code because I found your comment about me not knowing the definition of relevant extremely amusing considering what I do for a living.

I don't think I'm special. I think I am presenting an argument backed up by evidence. We can argue about that evidence, what it actually means and so on. But as for my "special" nature, it seems to me you're projecting (that's a term from psychology, and I should note, what I do for a living isn't Psych.).

I'm not backing off my "relevancy" remarks. You have "4 teams in the final BCS standigs" Would you like to take a look at how many the Big Ten has? The answer is 3. Ohio State, Illinois and Wisconsin. How "down" is the Big Ten now? My position is, of those three, 1 is relevant. Ohio State. (incidentally, I need to amend something I said above, when I said the relevant teams this year were LSU and Florida, I should have said LSU and Georgia. My mistake. Happens).

If you want to use relevant as "teams with a legitimate chance at a title in any given season, before the games are played" then I'd be willing to say the SEC presently has 3 teams qualifying. LSU, Georgia, Florida. There might be a fourth in any given year, picking between the likes of Auburn or Tennessee and, historically, Alabama. For the Big Ten, I would call the following teams "relevant" in this sense, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin. 3 teams. In any given year you might also hear noise from Iowa, Illinois (I include them because they are on the upswing) or, on the rarest of occasions MSU, or even occasionally Purdue, though I would personally take them out of the equation here in favor of Illinois as each program is going in separate directions.

At this point, I have backed up my positions with evidence. I have done what we Lawyers call "argued" a position on the presentation of evidence to support said argument. What you have done is "testified" about your personal expirience and appear to rest on it. So... I ask the jury (that's the people reading this) do you believe Tiger? Or, do you believe me? You are perfectly free, jurors, to give 100% weight to Tiger's testimony if you find it credible. Likewise, you are allowed to give it no credibility at all. It's up to you to decide.

 

[Tigertracker]

When do you see Tennesee, Auburn or Georgia playing for a title? Georgia can win all their games but they will lose to Florida, or they will beat Florida and lose two other games to teams they should beat. Auburn is so hit and miss it's not funny, they can look great but they will find a way to lose, and Tenn has been recently all offense, no defense.

We have a lot of teams that are like that too, Penn state and Wiscy come to mind, they will find a way to lose to either Michigan or Ohio State, that doesn't mean they aren't tough opponents, that just means they aren't
relevant in the national title picture.

I agree with BKB here, Florida and LSU are your two National Champ threats, Michigan and Ohio State are ours, Texas and Oklahoma the BigXII's. That's not saying those other teams suck, it just means that the talent level and coaching level is better than the rest on most years.

Consider this about the teams he claims are not relevent. If LSU had not intercepted that pass late in the Tenn. game there is a very strong possibility that Georgia would be the team you would be playing for the NC. Auburn went undeafeated a couple of years ago and normally would have been in the NC game. At the begining of each season there are 5 or 6 SEC teams that have a realistic chance at winning the conference, in the last 10 years there have been 5 different teams do so. I can't think of another conference that has that much balance. So to call any one of these teams irrelevent is very wrong in my opinion.

 

[sandgk]

relevent relevent

This may not be relevant to the thread, but boy when others actually spell the word correctly - in direct response to continued misspelling - it certainly makes that poor speller look dumber than they wish to come across.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Consider this about the teams he claims are not relevent. If LSU had not intercepted that pass late in the Tenn. game there is a very strong possibility that Georgia would be the team you would be playing for the NC. Auburn went undeafeated a couple of years ago and normally would have been in the NC game. At the begining of each season there are 5 or 6 SEC teams that have a realistic chance at winning the conference, in the last 10 years there have been 5 different teams do so. I can't think of another conference that has that much balance. So to call any one of these teams irrelevent is very wrong in my opinion.

And in 1994 Penn State beat the shit out of everyone. Cry me a river re: Auburn.

Possible Big 10 winners in any give year, Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan State (despite the fact that they, like Arkansas have a history of always falling apart) Iowa and now Illinois. In basketball, this argument would be a "Rejection"

Finally, in the last ten years the following have won Big 10 Titles
Past 10 years:
2007 Ohio State
2006 Ohio State
2005 Ohio State Penn State
2004 Iowa Michigan
2003 Michigan
2002 Ohio State Iowa
2001 Illinois
2000 Michigan, Northwestern, Purdue
1999 Wisconsin
1998 Michigan Ohio State Wisconsin

Lets see... by my count thats... 8 different teams in 10 years. Now.. what were you saying again? Ah, yes "I can't think of another conference that has that much balance."

Well, now you can.

 

[Pheasant]

LSU really doesn't have a deep rivalry with any team at this time. The closest would probably be Auburn, but we are certainly not their biggest game. We have had very "Interesting" games with them for the last decade. Ole Miss at one time was as intense a rivalry to us as Mich. is to you. OSU vs Mich is a great rivalry, but it is no greater than Army/Navy, Texas/OK, Alabama/Auburn, Ga/ Tenn and many others are to those respective schools.

The Game is bigger than that. It matters well outside the boundaries of the schools.

Consider this about the teams he claims are not relevent. If LSU had not intercepted that pass late in the Tenn. game there is a very strong possibility that Georgia would be the team you would be playing for the NC. Auburn went undeafeated a couple of years ago and normally would have been in the NC game. At the begining of each season there are 5 or 6 SEC teams that have a realistic chance at winning the conference, in the last 10 years there have been 5 different teams do so. I can't think of another conference that has that much balance. So to call any one of these teams irrelevent is very wrong in my opinion.

The big 10 has had 8 champions (or co-champions) in the past 10 years.

edit: bathroom breaks in the middle of a reply make you look stupid...or slow...must be that Big 10 sloth.​

 

[BB73]

Yes. they can be wrong. But, in the case of Ohio State presently they are not. Why can I say this? Because what one hears about Ohio State does not match up to Ohio State's record over the past... pick a set of years. To illustrate, this is Ohio State's 3rd BCS title appearance in 6 years. Only Florida State (3 in 3 years (98-00)) is better.

For the sake of accuracy, Oklahoma had 3 BCS title game appearances in 5 seasons (following '00, '03, and '04). Perhaps the last one was forgotten since they didn't show up.