Started By
Message
"The SEC is so much harder than the Big 12"
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:46 am
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:46 am
You all say it, and maybe it is 100% true, but how do you explain these stats posted by Texas A&M if it is true?
It appears to me that Texas A&M has struggled against the top teams, has played about .500 against the middle teams, and has taken the bottom teams to the woodshed in both leagues.
I look forward to playing the SEC schedule this fall and I believe it will be harder for all teams based on the schedule format. But I also believe that a good Texas team will take care of business and a bad Texas team will get their arse handed to them. IMO, that was true in the Big 12 and that will be true in the SEC.
Serious question. How do these results imply that the SEC is so much harder than the Big 12?
It appears to me that Texas A&M has struggled against the top teams, has played about .500 against the middle teams, and has taken the bottom teams to the woodshed in both leagues.
I look forward to playing the SEC schedule this fall and I believe it will be harder for all teams based on the schedule format. But I also believe that a good Texas team will take care of business and a bad Texas team will get their arse handed to them. IMO, that was true in the Big 12 and that will be true in the SEC.
Serious question. How do these results imply that the SEC is so much harder than the Big 12?
35
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:51 am to BigBro
Without delving into the multitude of specific reasons why this logic is flawed, I'd just like to point out that you're comparing modern metrics with those from 20+ years ago.
Pio wasn't even born yet.
Pio wasn't even born yet.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:53 am to BigBro
quote:
explain these stats posted by Texas A&M if it is true?
Johnny Manziel.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:58 am to BigBro
Because Sumlin and Jimbo A&M were better than anything they ever fielded in the Big 12.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:00 am to BigBro
The third and fourth best teams in the SEC this year won 11 games each. The SEC had five teams win 10+ games this season alone.
The third and fourth best teams in the Big 12 won 10 and 9 games each. The Big 12 had three teams win 10+ games this year.
We can debate strength of conference, but the fact of the matter is there are more (and better) top end teams in the SEC than there are in the Big 12. I'll take our best five against the Big 12's best five any day of the week.
The third and fourth best teams in the Big 12 won 10 and 9 games each. The Big 12 had three teams win 10+ games this year.
We can debate strength of conference, but the fact of the matter is there are more (and better) top end teams in the SEC than there are in the Big 12. I'll take our best five against the Big 12's best five any day of the week.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:02 am to BigBro
They doubled their spending, upgraded everything, and out-recruited TU since 2012? SEC A&M doesn’t even resemble B12 A&M. They also got good timing with Johnny. In 2014 or 15 they had like 3 of the top 10 QBs all on their roster. Not saying that was a good idea as all 3 left, but they were able to do it.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:03 am to BigBro
Let's compare some talent:
31. Kentucky
32. Arkansas
34. SMU
40. Texas Tech
46. Baylor
49. Houston
50. West Virginia
53. UCF
55. Oklahoma State
58. Vanderbilt
60. Iowa State
62. Kansas
Look at just the top 20 in talent:
Big 12
6. Texas
9. Oklahoma
19. TCU
SEC
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
4. Texas A&M
8. LSU
15. Florida
16. Tennessee
18. Auburn
31. Kentucky
32. Arkansas
34. SMU
40. Texas Tech
46. Baylor
49. Houston
50. West Virginia
53. UCF
55. Oklahoma State
58. Vanderbilt
60. Iowa State
62. Kansas
Look at just the top 20 in talent:
Big 12
6. Texas
9. Oklahoma
19. TCU
SEC
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
4. Texas A&M
8. LSU
15. Florida
16. Tennessee
18. Auburn
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:04 am to BigBro
quote:
how do you explain these stats
It just means more
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:07 am to BigBro
quote:
Serious question. How do these results imply that the SEC is so much harder than the Big 12?
Serious answer: recruiting improved, lots of hype for them coming into the SEC. Heisman winner Johnny Manziel. Curious to know why you didn’t show Missouri. I’d like to see how that looks on paper.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:14 am to BigBro
quote:
posted by Texas A&M if it is true?
You’ll soon see that if Aggy spent as much time building a football program as their posters do to find irrelevant stats, they’d have been able to:
1. Print on that empty plaque.
2. Finish Jimbo’s 77mil
3. Win a division
4. Win the sec
5. Win a national championship
6. Stop bragging about meat judging.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:21 am to BigBro
I think you're out of your mind if you think Colorado was one of the two top teams in the Big XII North from 2000 - 2011. Colorado had a losing record in seven of those eleven seasons.
I think we ought to point out A&M has a 23-2 record, combined, against Arkansas, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt. From 2012 - 2023, those teams went a combined 194-240 (44.7% winning percentage). 44% of A&M's SEC wins come against these three teams alone. It's similar to OU and Tennessee where about 25% of their all-time wins come against programs with losing records all-time (Iowa State and Kansas State for OU and UK and Vandy for Tennessee).
Similarly, I think you're glossing over A&M's record versus good SEC teams. They're 7-30 against SEC teams with 9+ wins since joining the conference.
In conclusion, just because A&M has beaten up on a bunch of shitty SEC teams doesn't mean our conference is weaker.
I think we ought to point out A&M has a 23-2 record, combined, against Arkansas, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt. From 2012 - 2023, those teams went a combined 194-240 (44.7% winning percentage). 44% of A&M's SEC wins come against these three teams alone. It's similar to OU and Tennessee where about 25% of their all-time wins come against programs with losing records all-time (Iowa State and Kansas State for OU and UK and Vandy for Tennessee).
Similarly, I think you're glossing over A&M's record versus good SEC teams. They're 7-30 against SEC teams with 9+ wins since joining the conference.
In conclusion, just because A&M has beaten up on a bunch of shitty SEC teams doesn't mean our conference is weaker.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:26 am to BigBro
quote:
BigBro
quote:
Texas A&M
quote:
Texas A&M
quote:
Texas A&M
quote:
Texas A&M
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:36 am to BigBro
And yet here you are....
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:39 am to BigBro
quote:
Serious question. How do these results imply that the SEC is so much harder than the Big 12?
In the scientific community we call these type of flawed studies “false equivalency variables”
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:49 am to BigBro
You will find out when you travel to places like Baton Rouge, Oxford and Athens instead of Lubbock, Waco and Lawrence.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:53 am to BigBro
the answer is that texas A&M got way better, spent a shite ton more money and resources, recruited better, had better teams, and then did the exact same on the field because the teams they were playing against were all better as well.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:59 am to BigBro
quote:
How do these results imply that the SEC is so much harder than the Big 12?
Ags had a generational talent named Mike Evans who routinely beat double teams and single-handedly changed games. Don’t kid yourself. SEC’s harder.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:10 am to BigBro
....and A&M was your sample?
Umkay.
I love stats. They ALWAYS tell the whole story. Especially cherry-picked ones.
Umkay.
I love stats. They ALWAYS tell the whole story. Especially cherry-picked ones.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:11 am to BigBro
I’ll answer. It’s easier than the Big 12.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:25 am to BigBro
quote:
"The SEC is so much harder than the Big 12"
That's what she said
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News