Jump to content

Who Wins the SEC First


Lobo97

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mojo1000 said:

One bad season happens when you get into a pattern then you should worry.

One bad season after a string of mediocre seasons ....they were average in the Big 12 and they are average in the SEC....

Edited by KirtFalcon
yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, WETSU said:

That’s a huge factor. 
 

A&M recruited top 10 caliber classes all throughout the late 80s and 90s. What happened in the 2000s for both A&M and Texas was not normal it was a product of Mack Brown being the best recruiter in the country for a decade. Mack slowing down led to more recruits not signing with Texas and going back to the more normal version of A&M and Texas splitting a little more in state recruits than the previous decade. 
 

This stance to me is much like Texas fans trying to get back to the Mack days. That’s impossible as it was the best decade from a wins standpoint in their history. That’s the peak not the normal. Texas will likely not get “back” to that in our lifetimes. Measuring recruiting and results based off that 2000-2010 stretch will cause lots of Texas to be disappointed for the foreseeable future.

It's easy to claim top classes when you can't pull the numbers to back it up. When I'm talking recruiting rankings from the early '00's to the mid '10's, those can be pulled up and validated. There's nothing to validate the late 80's, so let's concentrate on what we can, lol. 

 

Here's what gets me about people like you WET; you make these claims, such as, 'Texas fans trying to get back to the Mack days. That’s impossible as it was the best decade from a wins standpoint in their history. That’s the peak not the normal. Texas will likely not get “back” to that in our lifetimes'. For starters, that's just not accurate. Secondly, you then literally do that very same thing within your own argument.

Let me explain, from Texas' standpoint first. Yes, it's true that Texas had more success in one stretch of time under MB than any other stretch of time in program history. To add to that, however, that 'it's not the norm. They'll never get back to that in our lifetimes', is not only ridiculous, it's flat out stupid. You could take 90 wins away from Texas during their 9 year run of 10+ wins, not take ANY wins from anyone else, and do you know where Texas would rank in All Time wins? Still in the Top 15!! (Still ahead of A&M, by the way). 3 of their 4 NC's also occurred under coaches NOT named Mack Brown. EVERY program goes through down years. Even Alabama has. So to say that the success they had under MB was 'not the norm', simply isn't accurate.

Now let's go to A&M. "A&M recruited top 10 caliber classes all throughout the late 80s and 90s."...where's the proof in that? It certainly wasn't success on the field. Do you know how many 10+ win seasons A&M had in the 80's? 2. Coincidentally, the same number of bowl wins they enjoyed. They saw a little more success in the 90's, with 5 double digit win seasons (although 4 of those came in the early 90's, not late 90's), but once again, they saw 2 bowl victories. 

And that leads me to how you're doing the very thing you're accusing Texas fans of doing...taking ONE decade and acting like it's the 'norm'. Half of A&M's 10+ win seasons came in ONE decade...the 90's. Hell, outside the 90's, they've never had more than 2 double digit win seasons in ANY decade. 

 

Since 1960, Texas has had multiple double digit win seasons in every decade, except the last one. So if you want to talk 'norm', I'd counter your argument by stating that the last decade for Texas is NOT their norm. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

It's easy to claim top classes when you can't pull the numbers to back it up. When I'm talking recruiting rankings from the early '00's to the mid '10's, those can be pulled up and validated. There's nothing to validate the late 80's, so let's concentrate on what we can, lol. 

 

Here's what gets me about people like you WET; you make these claims, such as, 'Texas fans trying to get back to the Mack days. That’s impossible as it was the best decade from a wins standpoint in their history. That’s the peak not the normal. Texas will likely not get “back” to that in our lifetimes'. For starters, that's just not accurate. Secondly, you then literally do that very same thing within your own argument.

Let me explain, from Texas' standpoint first. Yes, it's true that Texas had more success in one stretch of time under MB than any other stretch of time in program history. To add to that, however, that 'it's not the norm. They'll never get back to that in our lifetimes', is not only ridiculous, it's flat out stupid. You could take 90 wins away from Texas during their 9 year run of 10+ wins, not take ANY wins from anyone else, and do you know where Texas would rank in All Time wins? Still in the Top 15!! (Still ahead of A&M, by the way). 3 of their 4 NC's also occurred under coaches NOT named Mack Brown. EVERY program goes through down years. Even Alabama has. So to say that the success they had under MB was 'not the norm', simply isn't accurate.

Now let's go to A&M. "A&M recruited top 10 caliber classes all throughout the late 80s and 90s."...where's the proof in that? It certainly wasn't success on the field. Do you know how many 10+ win seasons A&M had in the 80's? 2. Coincidentally, the same number of bowl wins they enjoyed. They saw a little more success in the 90's, with 5 double digit win seasons (although 4 of those came in the early 90's, not late 90's), but once again, they saw 2 bowl victories. 

And that leads me to how you're doing the very thing you're accusing Texas fans of doing...taking ONE decade and acting like it's the 'norm'. Half of A&M's 10+ win seasons came in ONE decade...the 90's. Hell, outside the 90's, they've never had more than 2 double digit win seasons in ANY decade. 

 

Since 1960, Texas has had multiple double digit win seasons in every decade, except the last one. So if you want to talk 'norm', I'd counter your argument by stating that the last decade for Texas is NOT their norm. 

They have never had a decade with the same number of wins they had from 2000-2010.

Their average win total all time is 7.06 wins per season. Their average losses are 3.14 per season.
 

In 2010-2022  they averaged 7.58 wins and exactly 5 losses. 
 

In 2000-2019 Texas averaged 11 wins per season and 1.9 losses. 
 

Please explain to me how that decade is not exponentially better than their average of 7-3 (which also combines that extremely good decade.) 

Texas has NEVER had a decade like that from a total wins standpoint. Yes they have had a couple of decades with multiple 10 win seasons, but never 10 years straight of it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s where we are different. Texas historically has been very good for 3-5 year stretches followed by 3ish years of just average results. That’s still incredible btw that’s not a dig. But what they did in the 2000s was string 10 straight amazing seasons together. That’s not normal. Having a good 3-4 year run followed by some rebuilding is normal for them and still great for everyone else.

Texas fans think I’m digging at them with this argument when I’m not. I’d trade any decade of football with you guys in a heartbeat. This isn’t a jealous Aggie thing. It’s just me pointing out you guys don’t walk on water with decade long runs like what Mack had and that this last decade might be a little closer to normal for you in the sec than ever getting back to that Mack level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WETSU said:

They have never had a decade with the same number of wins they had from 2000-2010.

Their average win total all time is 7.06 wins per season. Their average losses are 3.14 per season.
 

In 2010-2022  they averaged 7.58 wins and exactly 5 losses. 
 

In 2000-2019 Texas averaged 11 wins per season and 1.9 losses. 
 

Please explain to me how that decade is not exponentially better than their average of 7-3 (which also combines that extremely good decade.) 

Texas has NEVER had a decade like that from a total wins standpoint. Yes they have had a couple of decades with multiple 10 win seasons, but never 10 years straight of it. 

 

 

Did you read what I said, at all? lol

"it's true that Texas had more success in one stretch of time under MB than any other stretch of time in program history." - Pretty sure I acknowledged they had more success during that time than any other. You obviously then missed everything I said AFTER that statement as well. 

You act as if the lack of success in THIS decade is the 'norm'. I stated that since 1960, this has actually been the least successful decade for Texas...making it NOT the 'norm'. 

Avg wins, by decade:

60's - 8.6

70's - 8.8

80's - 7.3

90's - 7.4

00's - 11

10's - 7.1 ...the lowest of any decade, since the 60's, just as I stated. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyFootball said:

I don’t think any are really poised to do so, so I can’t really predict. Flip a coin, maybe?

Fair enough. I just thought it was an interesting question, looking at where each may go moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

Fair enough. I just thought it was an interesting question, looking at where each may go moving forward. 

For sure! 

Either team could have one of those seasons where cosmic pillars click into place and they go on a run and win it. Hard to predict something like that, though, with how far both teams are. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Here’s where we are different. Texas historically has been very good for 3-5 year stretches followed by 3ish years of just average results. That’s still incredible btw that’s not a dig. But what they did in the 2000s was string 10 straight amazing seasons together. That’s not normal. Having a good 3-4 year run followed by some rebuilding is normal for them and still great for everyone else.

Texas fans think I’m digging at them with this argument when I’m not. I’d trade any decade of football with you guys in a heartbeat. This isn’t a jealous Aggie thing. It’s just me pointing out you guys don’t walk on water with decade long runs like what Mack had and that this last decade might be a little closer to normal for you in the sec than ever getting back to that Mack level. 

And this gets us back on topic, lol.

 

I have to disagree, while also wondering why you would think this? 

Texas has always recruited well, we all know that. I do believe the intrigue of playing in the SEC will be higher among recruits than it was in the B12. I also think that if Texas can have success early, and by success I mean 8+ wins, that will also go a long way in securing more of the players that have started going to the other SEC schools. 

We may not see them pop off 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons, but I don't think we'll see what we've seen the last 10 years on a regular basis either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyFootball said:

For sure! 

Either team could have one of those seasons where cosmic pillars click into place and they go on a run and win it. Hard to predict something like that, though, with how far both teams are. 

Very true. And for the most part, outside of Alabama, that's exactly what we've seen throughout the SEC over the last 15 years. No one else has had the run Bama has, but there have still been a handful of other SEC programs win it all...Florida, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, and others who were close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lobo97 said:

Very true. And for the most part, outside of Alabama, that's exactly what we've seen throughout the SEC over the last 15 years. No one else has had the run Bama has, but there have still been a handful of other SEC programs win it all...Florida, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, and others who were close. 

Georgia is the only team that really competed with Bama. LSU, Florida, and Auburn all had the "dream season" I talked about where things clicked into place. For Auburn, they had that year in 2013 where they won a game on a Hail Mary (Georgia, I believe), beat Bama on the Kick 6, beat A&M due to a missed horsecollar tackle, and got Mizzou in the title game. Things just went their way that year lol! LSU just happened to have a year where they had a 5th year senior at QB and 2 coordinators who were leagues above everyone else, while Bama had a down year. Things just clicked into place for them and they ran the College Football table. Good for them, but clearly that was an anomaly. Florida won it exactly 15 years ago when the landscape of the SEC was different. 

So yeah, either A&M or Texas or OU COULD have a year where things just click into place and the SEC powers have a down year... Can't really predict that, though. So that's why I said flip a coin. Until Saban and Kirby retire, can't really bet against those guys. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KirtFalcon said:

One good season doesn't make up for decades of mediocrity  .....

But that isn't what you said. You said, "string of mediocre seasons". You were wrong. Don't move goalposts. 

Lol who am I kidding? Your feeble brain can't comprehend what moving goalposts is. Sorry I gave you the time of day. Proceed with your little schtick. 

  • LOL! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Georgia is the only team that really competed with Bama. LSU, Florida, and Auburn all had the "dream season" I talked about where things clicked into place. For Auburn, they had that year in 2013 where they won a game on a Hail Mary (Georgia, I believe), beat Bama on the Kick 6, beat A&M due to a missed horsecollar tackle, and got Mizzou in the title game. Things just went their way that year lol! LSU just happened to have a year where they had a 5th year senior at QB and 2 coordinators who were leagues above everyone else, while Bama had a down year. Things just clicked into place for them and they ran the College Football table. Good for them, but clearly that was an anomaly. Florida won it exactly 15 years ago when the landscape of the SEC was different. 

So yeah, either A&M or Texas or OU COULD have a year where things just click into place and the SEC powers have a down year... Can't really predict that, though. So that's why I said flip a coin. Until Saban and Kirby retire, can't really bet against those guys. 

I was just getting ready to respond with, Bama won't be what they are now forever, then read this last comment, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

And this gets us back on topic, lol.

 

I have to disagree, while also wondering why you would think this? 

Texas has always recruited well, we all know that. I do believe the intrigue of playing in the SEC will be higher among recruits than it was in the B12. I also think that if Texas can have success early, and by success I mean 8+ wins, that will also go a long way in securing more of the players that have started going to the other SEC schools. 

We may not see them pop off 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons, but I don't think we'll see what we've seen the last 10 years on a regular basis either. 

The reason is less to do with Texas and more to do with the competition. The sec is so much better than the big 12 or SWC. The depth of athletic talent is just different. The nfl draft proves this. While I’m not taking away from guys like Gundy and Campbell who build these tough hard nosed teams, it’s just not the same. Injuries start to pile up the tougher the schedule is typically because you have to have greater depth week to week. Yes the big 12 teams are good in a bowl setting and first or second week of the season against the sec sometimes, but that week to week grind is just tough and it’s not something you notice until you’re watching every single conference game. I’m not talking about reading scores and following team rankings. I’m talking about a 7-5 Miss st squad trotting out waves of 300 pound DL players and having 19 out of the starting 22 being 22 or 23 years old. That wears down a young team far more than just looking at a schedule and seeing a win or loss to miss st. The next week you get Bama. Then the next week you get lsu. Then you follow up with ole miss running plays ever 15 seconds…. It’s just a different animal. 
 

All that to say I think Texas will field more talented and better teams than they have in the past decade. Doesn’t necessarily mean more wins. They were far superior in the talent department (recruiting rankings) than their schedule the last decade. Do you honestly believe they get MORE wins when the talent they are facing week to week is on par or better? Again I’m not saying Texas is going to be bad, but to think just because they won 8 games this year and recruited a decent class doesn’t mean there are cold hard facts that correlate to wins. If we are basing win loss predictions on real life data and not historical numbers that are irrelevant to future predictions, one could argue Texas actually has lower chances moving forward than better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Yep. Thank goodness. But now Kirby is looking like he's going to become the new Saban. Sigh. 

What will be the telling sign is how he makes adjustments. It’s one thing to have a great run and have everything figured out now, how do you handle losing staff members. How does he handle rule changes that impact game play. How does he handle new schemes that seem to exploit weaknesses that were not there before. Saban has adjusted through the years better than anyone. Kirby learned from him so I think he will do fine but there’s plenty of coaches out there that looked unstoppable for 3-4 years just to fall off a step when key assistants leave or the game evolves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WETSU said:

The reason is less to do with Texas and more to do with the competition. The sec is so much better than the big 12 or SWC. The depth of athletic talent is just different. The nfl draft proves this. While I’m not taking away from guys like Gundy and Campbell who build these tough hard nosed teams, it’s just not the same. Injuries start to pile up the tougher the schedule is typically because you have to have greater depth week to week. Yes the big 12 teams are good in a bowl setting and first or second week of the season against the sec sometimes, but that week to week grind is just tough and it’s not something you notice until you’re watching every single conference game. I’m not talking about reading scores and following team rankings. I’m talking about a 7-5 Miss st squad trotting out waves of 300 pound DL players and having 19 out of the starting 22 being 22 or 23 years old. That wears down a young team far more than just looking at a schedule and seeing a win or loss to miss st. The next week you get Bama. Then the next week you get lsu. Then you follow up with ole miss running plays ever 15 seconds…. It’s just a different animal. 
 

All that to say I think Texas will field more talented and better teams than they have in the past decade. Doesn’t necessarily mean more wins. They were far superior in the talent department (recruiting rankings) than their schedule the last decade. Do you honestly believe they get MORE wins when the talent they are facing week to week is on par or better? Again I’m not saying Texas is going to be bad, but to think just because they won 8 games this year and recruited a decent class doesn’t mean there are cold hard facts that correlate to wins. If we are basing win loss predictions on real life data and not historical numbers that are irrelevant to future predictions, one could argue Texas actually has lower chances moving forward than better. 

This is where it will determine any success for Texas moving forward. 

First let me just say, I'm still not convinced Sark is the right guy. I'm still holding out hope, but he hasn't proven that to me yet. One thing he is doing, however, is recruiting well, and building depth! That's the part that lacked tremendously under Herman and Strong. Depth. I agree with you that Texas has superior talent than most of their competition over the last 10 years, but what they did not have was depth. That's something that has improved a lot over the last two seasons. I also agree that you must have depth to compete weekly in the SEC. Again, I think Texas is steadily improving in that area. 

That takes me back to Sark. He's entering year 3. He has talent. He has depth. He has mostly his guys now. Now it's time for him to show he can make the necessary halftime adjustments to put teams away in the second half. Five of Texas' losses under Sark, they had a halftime lead. And in each of them, they held a double digit lead in the 3rd quarter. Learn to finish those games, and we're having a different discussion as it relates to Texas right now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

This is where it will determine any success for Texas moving forward. 

First let me just say, I'm still not convinced Sark is the right guy. I'm still holding out hope, but he hasn't proven that to me yet. One thing he is doing, however, is recruiting well, and building depth! That's the part that lacked tremendously under Herman and Strong. Depth. I agree with you that Texas has superior talent than most of their competition over the last 10 years, but what they did not have was depth. That's something that has improved a lot over the last two seasons. I also agree that you must have depth to compete weekly in the SEC. Again, I think Texas is steadily improving in that area. 

That takes me back to Sark. He's entering year 3. He has talent. He has depth. He has mostly his guys now. Now it's time for him to show he can make the necessary halftime adjustments to put teams away in the second half. Five of Texas' losses under Sark, they had a halftime lead. And in each of them, they held a double digit lead in the 3rd quarter. Learn to finish those games, and we're having a different discussion as it relates to Texas right now. 

Agreed. But to be fair, If we are going to cheery pick 5 losses, Jimbo lost 5 games last year in single possession games where they had the ball under a 3 minutes left and a chance to drive to win. While I agree with you on sarks adjustments, you’re also not giving Jimbo 5 losses either where one or two plays on the final drive is a win, and how much differently are we looking at A&M and their future at 10-2 last season compared to 5-7.


This is why it’s very hard to look at wins and losses and think they are the end all be all of future successes. So many games are decided on just a handful of plays that really any given team can go from 5-7 to 10-2 in literally a second. All it takes is an inopportune holding call or a late controversial PI to completely change the perception. Everyone sees the final record but not just how close it was to being something completely different…. It’s why I look at so much more than just wins and losses to determine my predictions for the future. Next season the bounces might go your way into a complete change of direction sometimes. TCU is the perfect example. 

Edited by WETSU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my biggest knock on Jimbo while we are at it. He tries to shorten games with his play style. Basically you haven’t see. Him get blown out often, but he doesn’t blow anyone out either. Often times games you can put away you get a little too conservative and when you keep the score too close you give the other team chances to flip games on freak plays. Sark is bad about this at times as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Agreed. But to be fair, If we are going to cheery pick 5 losses, Jimbo lost 5 games last year in single possession games where they had the ball under a 3 minutes left and a chance to drive to win. While I agree with you on sarks adjustments, you’re also not giving Jimbo 5 losses either where one or two plays on the final drive is a win, and how much differently are we looking at A&M and their future at 10-2 last season compared to 5-7.


This is why it’s very hard to look at wins and losses and think they are the end all be all of future successes. So many games are decided on just a handful of plays that really any given team can go from 5-7 to 10-2 in literally a second. All it takes is an inopportune holding call or a late controversial PI to completely change the perception. Everyone sees the final record but not just how close it was to being something completely different…. It’s why I look at so much more than just wins and losses to determine my predictions for the future. Next season the bounces might go your way into a complete change of direction sometimes. TCU is the perfect example. 

To be fair, I wasn't comparing anyone, lol. 

 

I was specifically talking about the games in which Texas had double digit leads, in the 3rd quarter, and blew them. That's not the same thing as single possession games. Had I included those, it would've been more than what I listed for Texas. 

That said, of those 5 games you mention for A&M, that's a bit misleading. In 3 of those 5 games, A&M scored with very little time left, giving the perception that it was just a one possession game. That's not the same thing as what I shared regarding Texas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...