Started By
Message
re: Is there a consensus #2 football program in the SEC, historically?
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:46 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:46 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
quote:
My point is that it’s all subjective BS anyway…was UF the best team in 84…probably. Was UGA the best team in 1942, heck yes.
It’s the same argument I use when people shiz talk Spurrier. He won 6 SECC…what does it matter that some subjective poll only awarded him 1 NC. Especially since we’re talking about who’s the best among us SEC baws. UF has a commanding lead head to head with TN, does that mean they’re better historically, I don’t know buts it’s def a meaningful data point.
Eh national titles weren't mythical during much of Spurrier's time in Gainesville. He really had no excuse for not winning another one considering the SEC then wasn't what the SEC is now.
1
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:59 pm to MetroAtlantaGatorFan
My point is, we don’t have object NC claims…they’re all subjective. Even now it’s still an invitational tournament. The SECC is not perfect but at least it’s based on some degree of head to head.
Going back to OP’s question…is there a consensus #2 in the league. Clearly no…though you can make some strong arguments.
Going back to OP’s question…is there a consensus #2 in the league. Clearly no…though you can make some strong arguments.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:27 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
Uh no titles have been won on the field for awhile now. No SEC team that went undefeated and played at least 1 AQ/P5 OOC has ever been denied an opportunity under the Bowl Alliance, BCS, and CFP.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:57 am to Tornado Alley
That's ignoring LSU titles from 1908, 1936,1958, and 1962 according to the NCAA. It's all bullshite though because there was no title game to prove you were the best.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:53 am to stopitnow1
quote:
It's all bullshite though because there was no title game to prove you were the best.
By your logic, even the post-BCS titles are bullshite, because haven’t there been many years where the “best” or deserving teams were left out of the title game?
There’s always subjectivity involved if people are allowed who gets to play in the tournament to begin with.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 7:54 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:04 am to Tornado Alley
quote:
even the post-BCS titles are bullshite, because haven’t there been many years where the “best” or deserving teams were left out of the title game?
uh, no.
"Best" is a subjecdtive term based on nothign but the eye test, which is what the playoffs were meant to avoid.
"Most deseving" is objective and based on your resume of 12/13 games and what you've accomplsiehd on the field compared to your peers.
The playoffs have gotten it right every year and it's laughable to suggest that some teams have been left out. The ONLY argument that can be made for any kind of error is in the first year in 2014 due to the Big 12 having co-champions each with 1 loss (and no title game). Every other year though has been perfect.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:44 am to MetroAtlantaGatorFan
quote:
Not necessarily since we didn't even have uniform scheduling until the 80s.
Yes. And the fact that there used to be ties for the Championship and nowadays there aren’t. It was easier for a program to rack up a bunch of titles back in the old days where as the new expansion members have a much more difficult road to win a championship.
In 1989, 30% of the league won the SEC Championship.
Comparing number of SEC championships is actually one of the worst ways to try to rank all time success for several reasons:
1. There has never been consistent membership with some teams being SEC members for 90 years and others just 11. Two new ones coming in next year.
2. Inconsistent schedule strength. Over the years there have been some insanely east conference scheduling for some programs while others are forced to play an absolute gauntlet.
3. Inconsistent number of games played up through the late 1970s. As one poster noted, Alabama is the official SEC Champ of 1972 with a record of 6-1. Auburn beat Alabama at Legion Field but was 5-1 so they didn’t win the SEC. Bama’s extra game against Vandy was the only difference.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:46 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Comparing number of SEC championships is actually one of the worst ways to try to rank all time success
I just wanted to quote this for posterity because of how astoundingly dumb it is.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:48 am to AUTiger789
quote:
It was easier for a program to rack up a bunch of titles back in the old days
It was? Why did some teams not do so?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:09 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
It was? Why did some teams not do so?
There are a myriad of reasons for all different teams. For Arkansas, A&M, S Carolina, and Mizzou it was because they weren’t in the league to begin with.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:10 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
I just wanted to quote this for posterity because of how astoundingly dumb it is.
Why is it dumb?
Are you ready to claim Mississippi State and Kentucky as superior programs to Oklahoma and Texas next year?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:32 am to AUTiger789
Here is an example of how inconsistent schedule strength has been recently….. it was even worse back in the old days when teams got to choose how many or how few conference games they played in a season…. One would think in the modern era this would be better. It’s not.
Number of SEC regular season games played against Final AP ranked SEC opponents (2012-2022):
Arkansas- 44
Auburn- 40
Tennessee- 40
Texas A&M- 40
Miss St- 39
LSU- 37
Ole Miss- 37
Florida- 33
Vanderbilt- 33
Missouri- 32
Kentucky- 31
Georgia- 30
Alabama- 29
S Carolina- 29
The fact that in the modern era of football, you can have a league in which Arkansas has to play 4 Top 25 teams per regular season while South Carolina has to play just 2.6 such opponents is unbelievable.
Obviously Auburn, Tennessee, and Texas A&M have been subjected to a much more difficult path to get to an SEC Championship compared to some of those teams at the bottom.
You can try to dismiss these facts all you want, but there is no arguing the fact that the entire SEC East had had a huge advantage in being able to get to the Championship Game. There should never be this type of SOS discrepancy within a league. Thankfully this should finally be improved with the new format in 2024.
Number of SEC regular season games played against Final AP ranked SEC opponents (2012-2022):
Arkansas- 44
Auburn- 40
Tennessee- 40
Texas A&M- 40
Miss St- 39
LSU- 37
Ole Miss- 37
Florida- 33
Vanderbilt- 33
Missouri- 32
Kentucky- 31
Georgia- 30
Alabama- 29
S Carolina- 29
The fact that in the modern era of football, you can have a league in which Arkansas has to play 4 Top 25 teams per regular season while South Carolina has to play just 2.6 such opponents is unbelievable.
Obviously Auburn, Tennessee, and Texas A&M have been subjected to a much more difficult path to get to an SEC Championship compared to some of those teams at the bottom.
You can try to dismiss these facts all you want, but there is no arguing the fact that the entire SEC East had had a huge advantage in being able to get to the Championship Game. There should never be this type of SOS discrepancy within a league. Thankfully this should finally be improved with the new format in 2024.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:50 am to CP3LSU25
Lets see tenn make atlanta since decade
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:28 pm to MizzouTrue
quote:This is a loaded question...
Is there a consensus #2 football program in the SEC, historically?
The easy answer is, "historically", Tennessee. From the inception up through the 80's, the conference was #1 Alabama, with Tennessee as a clear #2.
What makes it tricky, is the last 3-4 decades.
Florida emerged under Spurrier to take over the conference, winning the SEC 6 times in a decade and played for 2 natties (won 1). This elevated them from a nobody, to one of the Big 6; since won 2 more BCS titles.
LSU, which was in the 3-4 rotation, has won 3 natties and played for a 4th in the past 2 decades.
Just in the past few years, UGA has won 2 and played for a 3rd.
And since LSU emerged around the turn of the century, both they and UGA have been contenders just about every season.
All this, while Tennessee fell out of grace for over a decade.
So yeah, Tennessee was the #2 "historically", but LSU, UGA and Fla have all caught up overall, to where it isn't cut and dried; and in the last 3 decades Tennessee is no higher than 5th or so. All those schools have been better for decades, and even Auburn has been stronger. And certainly Alabama, once Saban got it rolling, has pushed back to the top.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:46 pm to Hot_in_the_box
quote:
UT- 2nd most national titles (6)
Not even close and you won ONE NC in the last 70 years and that was due to one of the biggest flukes in the history of flukes.
There was no such thing as conference titles when UT played in the Southern conference.
quote:
UT- Tennessee has won 485 games, the highest home-field total in college football history for any school in the nation at its current home venue.
UT- 5th largest stadium in the country, and 2nd largest in the SEC.
All completely irrelevant.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:50 pm to RD Dawg
The way I'd call it:
Historically (over time)- where the team is most likely to be, when you randomly pick any date...
Alabama
Tennessee
LSU/UGA
Auburn
Florida
Accomplishments/composite-
Alabama
LSU/UGA/Florida
Auburn/Tennessee
I will say UGA just pulled into a tie with LSU and Florida, and Auburn is behind mostly because they didn't get credit for 2004, and lost to Fla State. I almost bump them ahead of Tennessee there. Florida doesnt have the overall success spread over time, but that phenomenal run in the 90's makes an impact here.
And none of this is a troll, Tennessee certainly has a good history. It's just that over the past 20-odd years, things have changed significantly. LSU has jumped, not because of winning SEC titles, but because they went ahead and won a bunch of national titles. That gives a boost, compared to winning the SEC and then maybe losing in the Sugar, back in the day. I wouldn't put UGA at the level I did, until the past 2 years. Until and unless Tennessee also grabs a few titles in this wave of dominance, they're going to stay on a lower tier.
Historically (over time)- where the team is most likely to be, when you randomly pick any date...
Alabama
Tennessee
LSU/UGA
Auburn
Florida
Accomplishments/composite-
Alabama
LSU/UGA/Florida
Auburn/Tennessee
I will say UGA just pulled into a tie with LSU and Florida, and Auburn is behind mostly because they didn't get credit for 2004, and lost to Fla State. I almost bump them ahead of Tennessee there. Florida doesnt have the overall success spread over time, but that phenomenal run in the 90's makes an impact here.
And none of this is a troll, Tennessee certainly has a good history. It's just that over the past 20-odd years, things have changed significantly. LSU has jumped, not because of winning SEC titles, but because they went ahead and won a bunch of national titles. That gives a boost, compared to winning the SEC and then maybe losing in the Sugar, back in the day. I wouldn't put UGA at the level I did, until the past 2 years. Until and unless Tennessee also grabs a few titles in this wave of dominance, they're going to stay on a lower tier.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:42 pm to Scoob
quote:
The easy answer is, "historically", Tennessee. From the inception up through the 80's, the conference was #1 Alabama, with Tennessee as a clear #2.
This is revisionist lore that for some reason folks want to believe but it isn’t necessarily true. Tennessee has never really been the SEC’s #2 program.
They were the premiere program of the South under General Neyland during the period of 1925-1952… yes, ahead of Alabama. But beginning in 1953, the Vol program began its long descent downwards. They had some intermittent good seasons between 1953-1989, but the vast majority of this time frame was characterized by mediocrity.
SEC Standings 1953-1989:
1. Alabama (178-64-12; 72.4%)
2. Auburn (148-86-7; 62.9%)
3. Georgia (125-89-12; 61.4%)
4. LSU (125-89-12; 58.0%)
5. Ole Miss (129-101-8; 55.9%)
6. Tennessee (124-98-12; 55.6%)
Weeks Ranked in AP Poll, 1953-1989
1. Alabama- 372
2. Auburn- 280
3. LSU- 262
4. Georgia- 225
5. Tennessee- 201
6. Florida- 189
That’s a 37-year period during which Tennessee performed as the SEC’s fifth best program.
I think a lot of people imagine that Bama and Tennessee were constantly battling it out for first and second place at the top of the standings, but that’s simply not the case for most of the SEC’s history.
Tennessee was the South’s dominant program for the most part from the 1920s - 1953. They were simply a decent program with moderate success for the next 40 years or so. They were very strong under Fulmer up through 2005. Then came the implosion from 2006-2021. We’ll see how it goes from here.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:53 pm to Scoob
quote:
Historically (over time)- where the team is most likely to be, when you randomly pick any date...
that's kind of a strange way to look at it. Historically to me means where they are on paper with all their accolades tbhroughout history, in other words take results from 1892 - 2022 and rank em based on that.
quote:
UGA just pulled into a tie with LSU and Florida
buddy there is no point in history that UF has had a better overall/all time proram than us. Sure they have obviously had sretches where they are the far better program in that moment, notably almost the entirety of 1990-2008. But again, this is a "historically/all time" discussion.
In 2008 I would have easily argued that UF is no worse than 4th with a rapidly gaining momentum heading torwards 3rd, as it relates to all time rankings. But since then LSU and UGA have only continued to surge while UT has fallen back, dropping UF down to 5th.
One thing is for sure, AU is definitely 6th of the big 6.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 3:07 pm to AUTiger789
Very informative post. 
But I think you're underselling Tennessee's success from 1953 to the first expansion. They were 289-143-19 in that span, behind only Bama and Auburn in terms of total wins and winning percentage.
Notable VOLS history from 1953 - 1992:
1956 - #2 in the country, SEC champions
1965 - 1973 - 81-19-3
1967 - #2 in the country, SEC champions
1974 - 1982 - floundered and averaged probably 7-4 each season
But I think you're underselling Tennessee's success from 1953 to the first expansion. They were 289-143-19 in that span, behind only Bama and Auburn in terms of total wins and winning percentage.
Notable VOLS history from 1953 - 1992:
1956 - #2 in the country, SEC champions
1965 - 1973 - 81-19-3
1967 - #2 in the country, SEC champions
1974 - 1982 - floundered and averaged probably 7-4 each season
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 3:14 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
buddy there is no point in history that UF has had a better overall/all time proram than us.
I would say Florida was ahead after the Urban Meyer years. Following the 2009 season, the Gators had 3 National Titles to Georgia’s 1. Georgia was just slightly ahead in all time AP poll points (#13 with 502 compared to UF #15 with 468). But 2 extra national titles was a big gap at that time.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News