Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/10/26 at 2:56 pm to Go Go Gata
quote:
Florida has 10 (excluding '85)
No. SEC titles in...
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
2006
2008
That's 8.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 3:00 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
This is the biggest discrepancy on the list. There's no doubt the SEC gifted Texas an easy schedule in those first two seasons. And while trying to make sure every team played either Texas or Oklahoma, that meant Oklahoma got screwed with the toughest schedule imaginable. In regular season games, OU has had to face literally double the number of ranked opponents.
Sooners luv them some Sankey
Posted on 9/10/26 at 3:01 pm to AUTiger789
Put the Southern Conf titles on there as well.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 3:12 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
What your data shows, at least for the original ten members, is that "percentage of ranked conference opponents" seems to be loosely inversely related to the historical quality of the program in question. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that highly-ranked teams cannot play themselves.
Definitely a correlation but there are definitive exceptions. Auburn and Florida both have a historically better conference win% than Ole Miss for example, yet Ole Miss has gotten an easier all time SOS... by a pretty large gap.
Also, with Bama being far and away the #1 team all time in W% prior to these recent additions, they should for sure have had the easiest schedule of these things were correlated, but they don't.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 3:47 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
1984
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
2006
2008
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 9/10/26 at 3:57 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
And your conclusion is that Georgia (whose ranked opponent percentages are within about 1% of Bama and Tennessee) is somehow an unfair beneficiary of that obvious and predictable negative correlation that runs through the entire list.
That was pretty funny. Going over how many times we played Tennessee and Alabama, you would've thought we were in last by a mile.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 4:18 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Going over how many times we played Tennessee and Alabama, you would've thought we were in last by a mile.
UGA's weak conference schedule was most prominent up through the 1970s.
SEC Standings 1933-1979:
.720- Alabama
.627- Tennessee
.587- Ole Miss
.582- LSU
.556- Georgia
.522- Auburn
.442- Florida
.356- Kentucky
.333- Miss State
.313- Vanderbilt
Ranked SEC opponents played (1933-1979):
96- Miss State
93- Vanderbilt
93- Kentucky
85- Auburn
81- LSU
79- Alabama
75- Florida
75- Ole Miss
70- Tennessee
70- Georgia
The three worst teams up to that point indeed were top 3 in ranked teams played.
Tennessee and Ole Miss are perfectly correlated (TN: 2nd in Win%; 9th in ranked opponents played... OM 3rd in W%; 8th in ranked opponents played).
But what sticks out is Alabama... they played a much tougher schedule than their correlation would suggest.
And Georgia is just 5th in the standings but way far back in last place of ranked opponents played.
You plot these on a graph, and Auburn and Bama stick out as outliers who played a tougher schedule than they should have, and Georgia is by far the outlier when it comes to playing an easier schedule than they should based on their record.
It's literal math.
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 9/10/26 at 4:24 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Yea, came here to say this. Overall, this is just a dumb post.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 4:33 pm to Go Go Gata
quote:
quote:
Total Championships:
30- Alabama
16- Georgia
13- Tennessee
12- LSU
8- Auburn, Florida
6- Ole Miss
2- Kentucky
1- Miss State
Florida has 10 (excluding '85)
And Alabama pads their numbers.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 6:02 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
I'm just pointing out facts. There's no reason to get your parties in a wad. Just be glad you had that advantage.
I'm just pointing out that the numbers you posted do nothing to impugn Georgia's success. What they do is demonstrate a very strong (negative) correlation between success of the program and success of their opponents. By saying Georgia played a weak schedule over the decades, you've just acknowledged that Georgia is a strong program. Your anecdotes don't change the facts of why Georgia's (and Alabama's and Tennessee's) opponents over the decades tended toward suckage; they kept losing to strong programs like Georgia.
I understand why that bothers you; Auburn fans have been paying premium prices for a front row seat to witness the downside of that mathematical principle for the last 20 years. With no end in sight.
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 6:19 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News