re: Is there a consensus #2 football program in the SEC, historically?

quote:

---

it was my understanding "Big Six" means nothing more than the last and possibly only six teams to win the conference since Kentucky shared the title with Alabama in 1977

---

No. Not at all.

The conference underwent immense change in the mid 1960s with multiple major events taking place:

1. The implosion of Ole Miss football
Ole Miss was arguably the SEC’s premiere program up through the early 1960s

Weeks ranked in AP poll (1936-1963):
Ole Miss- 146
Georgia Tech- 135
Tennessee- 132
Alabama- 129
LSU- 89
Auburn- 77
Kentucky- 49
Georgia- 45
Miss St- 40
Florida- 38
Tulane- 33
Vanderbilt- 24

The Rebels were punished by AP voters in 1963 for the racial riots taking place in Mississippi. Beginning in 1964, Ole Miss began to fall towards the bottom of the SEC standings and it was evident their program had hit the skids.

2. Georgia Tech leaves the SEC after 1963

That same year, Georgia Tech left the SEC to join the ACC. The jackets were undoubtedly one of the SEC’s premiere programs so this was a huge deal.

3. Tulane leaves the SEC after 1965

This was not a big loss for the SEC as Tulane had largely struggled for the 15-20 years prior. Nonetheless it dropped the SEC to just 10 teams

All of these major changes happened during a 2-3 year period, and the fallout resulted in six programs rising to the top. Ole Miss settled out at a clear #7. And the three perennial doormats (Miss St, Kentucky, and Vandy) were almost constantly 8-10 in the standings except for a few fluke years (re: Kentucky in 1976).

Yes, it is true that only the Big 6 have won SEC titles since 1977, but the roots of the Big 6 began to sprout in 1964 with the exit of GA Tech and the struggles of Ole Miss.

quote:

---

I've never heard anyone other than Tiger Droppings posters reference the "Big Six." I honestly think the concept primarily exists on this message board.

---

quote:

---

You are quite right.

It's a concept no doubt developed by the LSU fans on this board in a vain effort to put their program on an equal footing with Alabama,

---

holy short sighted batman. The phrase has existed since we had divisions, you think it only came to prominence in 2003 once people starting registering for htis message board?

quote:

---

You are quite right.

It's a concept no doubt developed by the LSU fans on this board in a vain effort to put their program on an equal footing with Alabama, if not in the record books than at least in their fragile minds.

---

From a 1989 issue of The Tuscaloosa News:



LINK

I must not be as old as some of you on this board. I always thought the label "Big 6" came about when the conference expanded to 12 teams, i.e. Big 6/Little 6

I've had a history lesson in this thread. Thanks guys.

quote:

---

Vols aren't even on the same level as UF. Only 2 real titles and ZERO Heismans.

---

let's not get carried away

UF is pretty clearly 5th in the big 6 pecking order, IMO.

Let's be honest here. Pre 1998 is irrelevant due to there not being a national title game. How do we decide who's the best in any sport? Making it to or playing in the national title. Since 1998 the vols have 1 title(1998). LSU has 3 and ga has 2.

Bro...heisman is an irrelevant stat when comparing 2 programs unless it's practically dead even and you need to find an edge somewhere. It shoudln't be a foundational point to build a case on.

Tennesse has:

-More national titles, or at the very least an equal number.
-More SEC titles
-More wins
-More bowls
-Better bowl record
-A higher overall win %


I mean shite there's barely anything on-field related that UF does have an advantage in

quote:

---

Let's be honest here. Pre 1998 is irrelevant due to there not being a national title game

---

Naa, I don’t think anyone will ignore the first 100 years of intercollegiate football because LSU wasn’t that good before 2000.

Yu're starting to resemble that loser AU fan from earlier. Records vs other big 6 teams for instance is great when comparing 6 teams against each other. Much less important when comparing 2 speicifc teams.

You are trying to find roundabout oponent stuff to cit while ignoring the actual important things like titles, championships, and overall wins whcih are kind of important