Started By
Message
re: 1992 Expansion Question
Posted on 6/27/15 at 12:47 pm to Cheese Grits
Posted on 6/27/15 at 12:47 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Free Shoes was good, but not great.
They finished in the top 5 14 years in a row. That's not great?
quote:
Much of their success was aided by easier schedules and the ability to keep fresh
Except they played more end-of-season ranked teams in the 90s than any other program except for us.
quote:
Put any Bowden team from the 90's with that schedule and pretty sure they go 10-3 and not 13-0.
Edit: Honestly, how old are you? The SEC in the 90s was nowhere near as strong as it's been the past decade.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 12:48 pm
2
Posted on 6/27/15 at 1:22 pm to Korin
quote:
Edit: Honestly, how old are you? The SEC in the 90s was nowhere near as strong as it's been the past decade.
Its funny to see the younger posters assume the SEC has always had the strength as a conference it has enjoyed since the early 2000s.
Prior to Spurrier at Florida, Bama was the only consistent power from the SEC on a National Level, sometimes Tennessee or LSU enter the mix, Tennessee more so more often.
Spurrier taking over Florida saw the league turn into a two team race and others in the league focus on catching up.
Prior to this the Big10 was the only real power conference, the Pac8 (SC UCLA), Big 8 (Nebraska, OU) and SWC (Texas, Arkansas) were all two team leagues with the SEC (Bama, Tenn/LSU).
The independents at the time had a much larger role in the national landscape than any one conference.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 1:22 pm to Korin
quote:
Honestly, how old are you? The SEC in the 90s was nowhere near as strong as it's been the past decade.
Old enough to remember a 12 team SEC that included Georgia Tech and Tulane.
Here is an observation from an old fart. The SEC has always been great but viewed by how the national media chooses to present it. Back in the early days of southern football the teams that would become the SEC were kicking arse and taking names. Problem was the biggest media empires were not in the south so who really knew elsewhere in the USA?
From post war to the late 70's the NCAA was the monopoly of the B1G and PAC and the Rose Bowl was their primary arm of supremacy. As it only took B1G and PAC teams those 2 conferences could always be accorded MNC status even if they never played teams in the Big 8, SWC, or SEC. If not for the Supreme Court and the CFA it would probably still be that way today.
I know most folks in Florida think football started with Charlie Pell but I have news for you, it has a much greater history. The difference is exposure and we have the Fiesta Bowl and the Miami vs Penn State to probably thank for that. Neither was a B1G or a PAC team and the TV ratings set records. That crack in the armor allowed the Big 8, SWC, and SEC to slip through that crack and diminish the power of the Rose Bowl. Sure it is still a big game but teams from outside this two were flexing their national media values.
The BCS, good or bad, gave SEC teams more chances to get that exposure. Winning it helped them keep it. Winning also helped the B12 but they let outsiders pull them apart (granted this was from internal issues). Unlike you, I do not view the SEC as being up or down internally as good teams have always been there and will continue to be there. I am not of the age where I let some talking heads tell me what to think.
quote:
Except they played more end-of-season ranked teams in the 90s than any other program except for us.
Show me the data? I posted links of all those years and they did not look to terrible to me. Some big games with lots of winnable games in between to rest and regroup. Subtract Florida and Miami from the FSU regular season schedules during the 90's then add back the total MNC's of opponents since 1980 (the beginning of the modern era of college football)
Posted on 6/27/15 at 1:55 pm to Cheese Grits
They played 51 eos ranked teams in the 90s (going 38-12-1). Only we played more (53, going 30-22-1).
https://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.php?fry=1990&thy=1999&yrk=on&sortby=GP&allop=1&cres=1
https://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.php?fry=1990&thy=1999&yrk=on&sortby=GP&allop=1&cres=1
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:31 pm to boxedlunch
quote:
Arkansas went 8-10 in the Southwest in their last two seasons. Your definition of "dominate" seems to be different than mine.
Those two seasons came after Arkansas announced it was leaving. At the time of the announcement Ark was coming off back to back SWC championships.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:33 pm to tkeefer
quote:
Those two seasons came after Arkansas announced it was leaving. At the time of the announcement Ark was coming off back to back SWC championships.
By any rational definition, "at the time of expansion" means 1992.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:40 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Free Shoes was good, but not great.
In the 90s, FSU was not great, they were fantastic. Probably the best long-term run of that high quality in years. The best winning percentage against a top 2 schedule. It doesn't get much better than that.
Your insistence that FSU didn't play a good schedule just speaks to your ignorance. In the 90s, Florida State played more ranked opponents than anybody. More opponents that finished ranked than anybody except Florida. More top 10 opponents and opponents that finished top 10 than anybody BY FAR. FSU's opponents won more games than anybody else's opponents. And yet they still won more games than anybody.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:44 pm to boxedlunch
Doesn't show ignorance as much as age. Many on this board believe the sec has dominated football since the beginning of time.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:47 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Show me the data?
Show you the data? You're shooting your mouth off and you've not looked at any data? No wonder your posts reak of ignorance.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:54 pm to boxedlunch
I would love to see SEC teams play FSU ever year.
They would then understand Clemson's pain. lol
Their recruiting would be even better if they were in the SEC due to all the free marketing that the SEC benefits from ESPN and other sports outlets.
They would then understand Clemson's pain. lol
Their recruiting would be even better if they were in the SEC due to all the free marketing that the SEC benefits from ESPN and other sports outlets.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:55 pm to Jamie Lannister
We play them every year and lead the series.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:56 pm to Jamie Lannister
I think sec teams are well aware of what it feels like to have a tough schedule.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:57 pm to Jamie Lannister
You realize ESPN runs the ACC also, right?
Posted on 6/27/15 at 2:58 pm to lefty08
your tough schedule is overstated.
the proof of that is a SEC team usually goes undefeated or only 1 loss in conference play.
I agree that SEC has the most historically consistent programs but form year to year there are only about 3 really good teams in the SEC and then a bunch of mediocre ones and a few bad ones.
the proof of that is a SEC team usually goes undefeated or only 1 loss in conference play.
I agree that SEC has the most historically consistent programs but form year to year there are only about 3 really good teams in the SEC and then a bunch of mediocre ones and a few bad ones.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:12 pm to lefty08
quote:
I think sec teams are well aware of what it feels like to have a tough schedule.
Unless their name is Florida, they don't understand playing a schedule as hard as Florida State had in the 90s.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:17 pm to lefty08
is there an ACC network run by ESPN?
The good thing about the new playoff system is it will be difficult for Sec to win it every year. Much of the hype around Sec is based on them winning it all the time in the BCS era.
The good thing about the new playoff system is it will be difficult for Sec to win it every year. Much of the hype around Sec is based on them winning it all the time in the BCS era.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:20 pm to Jamie Lannister
What does that have to do with your argument. The ACC is ran by espn. Where are your games shown?
It's not our problem you guys don't have a network. Make one. Of it would be profitable espn would gladly acceot
It's not our problem you guys don't have a network. Make one. Of it would be profitable espn would gladly acceot
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:22 pm to Korin
Here is the actual games LINK
+51 = Total games on list
(10) = Subtract bowl games as Free Shoes did not play these during the regular season (i.e. BB approved schedule)
(10) = Subtract mandated Florida game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
(09) = Subtract mandated Miami game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
----------------------------------------------------------------
+22 = Teams ranked when Free Shoes played them
Now lets look at the ACC schools in that number 22
09-29-1990 H Virginia Tech : Hokies were not in ACC yet, but they fished season with 6-5-0 record
10-05-1991 H Syracuse : Cuse not in ACC yet, but got beat by ECU and lost bowl game (10-2-0 in B E)
09-19-1992 V N.C. State : Wolfpack finished (9-3-1) in ACC
09-26-1992 H Wake Forest : Deacons finished (8-4-0) in ACC
10-10-1992 H North Carolina : Heels finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-11-1993 H Clemson : Taters finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-18-1993 V North Carolina : Heels finished (10-3-0) in ACC
09-03-1994 H Virginia : Hoos finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-24-1994 H North Carolina : Heels finished (8-4-0) in ACC
11-19-1994 V N.C. State : Wolfpack (9-3-0) in ACC
11-02-1995 V Virginia : Hoos finished (9-4-0) in ACC
09-28-1996 H North Carolina : Heels finished (10-2-0) in ACC
10-18-1997 H Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (7-5-0) in ACC
11-08-1997 V North Carolina : Heels finished (11-1-0) in ACC
10-24-1998 V Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (10-2-0) in ACC
11-07-1998 H Virginia : Hoos finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-11-1999 H Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (8-4-0) in ACC
Sure some of these ACC schools may have finished ranked but were they really Top 25 type teams or just the 3rd or 4th ACC team that gets ranked just for being in the ACC? Almost all have 9 or fewer wins 9including bowls) so maybe 1 to 4 games have potential validity of the 22?
This is what you have left!
10-20-1990 V Auburn : (8-3-1) in the SEC
08-29-1991 N BYU : (8-3-2) in the WAC
09-28-1991 V Michigan : (10-2-0) in the B1G
11-13-1993 V Notre Dame : (11-1-0) as IND
08-31-1998 N Texas A&M : (11-3-0) as B12
No ranked OOC teams (outside of FL) for 6 of 10 years!
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1999
+51 = Total games on list
(10) = Subtract bowl games as Free Shoes did not play these during the regular season (i.e. BB approved schedule)
(10) = Subtract mandated Florida game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
(09) = Subtract mandated Miami game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
----------------------------------------------------------------
+22 = Teams ranked when Free Shoes played them
Now lets look at the ACC schools in that number 22
09-29-1990 H Virginia Tech : Hokies were not in ACC yet, but they fished season with 6-5-0 record
10-05-1991 H Syracuse : Cuse not in ACC yet, but got beat by ECU and lost bowl game (10-2-0 in B E)
09-19-1992 V N.C. State : Wolfpack finished (9-3-1) in ACC
09-26-1992 H Wake Forest : Deacons finished (8-4-0) in ACC
10-10-1992 H North Carolina : Heels finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-11-1993 H Clemson : Taters finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-18-1993 V North Carolina : Heels finished (10-3-0) in ACC
09-03-1994 H Virginia : Hoos finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-24-1994 H North Carolina : Heels finished (8-4-0) in ACC
11-19-1994 V N.C. State : Wolfpack (9-3-0) in ACC
11-02-1995 V Virginia : Hoos finished (9-4-0) in ACC
09-28-1996 H North Carolina : Heels finished (10-2-0) in ACC
10-18-1997 H Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (7-5-0) in ACC
11-08-1997 V North Carolina : Heels finished (11-1-0) in ACC
10-24-1998 V Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (10-2-0) in ACC
11-07-1998 H Virginia : Hoos finished (9-3-0) in ACC
09-11-1999 H Georgia Tech : Wreck finished (8-4-0) in ACC
Sure some of these ACC schools may have finished ranked but were they really Top 25 type teams or just the 3rd or 4th ACC team that gets ranked just for being in the ACC? Almost all have 9 or fewer wins 9including bowls) so maybe 1 to 4 games have potential validity of the 22?
This is what you have left!
10-20-1990 V Auburn : (8-3-1) in the SEC
08-29-1991 N BYU : (8-3-2) in the WAC
09-28-1991 V Michigan : (10-2-0) in the B1G
11-13-1993 V Notre Dame : (11-1-0) as IND
08-31-1998 N Texas A&M : (11-3-0) as B12
No ranked OOC teams (outside of FL) for 6 of 10 years!
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1999
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:27 pm to Cheese Grits
There's so much wrong with this post. I'll let someone else take care of it.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 3:47 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
+51 = Total games on list
(10) = Subtract bowl games as Free Shoes did not play these during the regular season (i.e. BB approved schedule)
(10) = Subtract mandated Florida game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
(09) = Subtract mandated Miami game (again out of BB's scheduling control)
Wow. I knew you were ignorant, but wow. You're just hater and I didn't think that.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News