Online Now 3119

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2278
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3078
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

The .700 Club (The 8 blue bloods vs each other all-time)

  • Elite "7", look at Nebraska bringing the LULZ.

    SCirish843

  • SCirish843 said...

    Elite "7", look at Nebraska bringing the LULZ.

    5 > 4

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hskr4Life23 ●

  • SkullyMaroo said...

    Touching on what others have posted, these numbers are skewed! Bama not having a conference mate or rival that is a "blue blood" hurts the perception these numbers give off. This means Bama played most other blue bloods in bowl games, which means they were almost always playing good teams, especially when Bowls were limited. It's not like other teams who played each other yearly. You have to be careful when looking at numbers like these because they don't give the complete story.

    You can always scew stats to say whatever you want to say.

    For instance, with a minimum of 1000 games played, Bama plays more top 20 teams (in terms of winning %) than any other "blue blood". UTk (9th), LSU (11th), UGA (12th), UF (13th), AU (14th), and can add aTm (20th).

    No other team comes close to that.

    This post was edited by Macdaddy7930 on 1/2/2013 at 5:14 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Macdaddy7930 ●

  • Hskr4Life23 said...

    5 > 4

    also 3-0 vs the Irish.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hskr4Life23 ●

  • Hskr4Life23 said...

    5 > 4

    How many whats vs whats?

    SCirish843

  • SCirish843 said...

    How many whats vs whats?

    titles since they stopped wearing leather helmets.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hskr4Life23 ●

  • Hskr4Life23 said...

    titles since they stopped wearing leather helmets.

    I dunno when they stopped, started wearing plastic helmets in '38 though so I might still have more shrug

    SCirish843

  • SCirish843 said...

    I dunno when they stopped, started wearing plastic helmets in '38 though so I might still have more shrug

    yea, i meant since they started using facemasks, got my football gear timeline mixed up. I need to double check better when I am skewing the timeline to work in my favor.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hskr4Life23 ●

  • Hskr4Life23 said...

    yea, i meant since they started using facemasks, got my football gear timeline mixed up. I need to double check better when I am skewing the timeline to work in my favor.

    If you're not good at skewing facts on a predominantly SEC based board you're gonna have a bad time.

    SCirish843

  • Macdaddy7930 said...

    You can always scew stats to say whatever you want to say.

    For instance, with a minimum of 1000 games played, Bama plays more top 20 teams (in terms of winning %) than any other "blue blood". UTk (9th), LSU (11th), UGA (12th), UF (13th), AU (14th), and can add aTm (20th).

    No other team comes close to that.

    There's only 8 teams who are in the .700 club. Pretty hard to skew that. It is what it is. Alabama's played only 38 games against the elite teams.

    Maybe Alabama is in the .700 club because they haven't played 135+ plus games against the other elite like the other 7 teams have. Should Bama be booted from the .700 club for weak strength of schedule. Maybe the minimum amount of games played to qualify should be 50.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • Hskr4Life23 said...

    well no wonder, weak schedule imo. The other blue bloods were beating each other up while Bama slid by. stir

    Wow, even if you add in games vs Georgia and Florida, Alabama still has fewer games played than USC, Michigan, ND, and Oklahoma. Slackers indeed.

    Alabama has played Florida 38 times and Georgia 64 times despite being in the same conf. for around 90 years. That's some real deceptive SEC scheduling right there. Alabama's played Auburn 71 times and LSU 76 times.

    Meanwhile non conf foes SC & ND have played 84 times.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    Wow, even if you add in games vs Georgia and Florida, Alabama still has fewer games played than USC, Michigan, ND, and Oklahoma. Slackers indeed.

    Alabama has played Florida 38 times and Georgia 64 times despite being in the same conf. for around 90 years. That's some real deceptive SEC scheduling right there. Alabama's played Auburn 71 times and LSU 76 times.

    Meanwhile non conf foes SC & ND have played 84 times.

    Not all of the rivalries stretch the entire history of the conference. The Auburn series even took an extended break for several years. And you chose not to add Tennessee, who is historically the second best SEC program and one of our longest rivals (more games played than against any of the teams you mentioned).

    FortWorthTide

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    There's only 8 teams who are in the .700 club. Pretty hard to skew that. It is what it is. Alabama's played only 38 games against the elite teams.

    Maybe Alabama is in the .700 club because they haven't played 135+ plus games against the other elite like the other 7 teams have. Should Bama be booted from the .700 club for weak strength of schedule. Maybe the minimum amount of games played to qualify should be 50.

    Should the other 7 teams be booted because they haven't played the most games against top 15 programs? Because Alabama would be number one in that category by a wide margin. Pick your stats however you want, but claiming Alabama has the weakest SOS of that group is laughable. This thread started out more reasonably than most (with a fellow Trojan even agreeing with some of my points, and you acknowledging a few). Now you're pushing it in the direction of a troll thread. I'm sure myself and several others would be happy to have an intelligent discussion if you're actually willing to return to it.

    This post was edited by FortWorthTide on 1/2/2013 at 7:17 PM

    FortWorthTide

  • Funny that you mention the .700 club vs each other but only use the last 50 years ('63-'12). Why not use all time? Oh yea, that's because SC is only 69-64. Again skewed stats.

    Here are a few interesting stats:

    SC's record (winning %) the last 50 years ('63-12) is good enough for 8th (409-159-15; 583 games); Bama is 6th (424-156-5).

    SC's bowl record during this timeframe is 21-14; however when they aren't playing in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10, they are 7-8.

    Also worth noting in the last 50 years, that SC has missed making a bowl 13 times. Bama has only missed a bowl 6 times over the last half century.

    SC isn't quite as good as you think, but continue to screw your stats. Life gets tough when you can't pick on the Big 10.

    This post was edited by Macdaddy7930 on 1/2/2013 at 9:24 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Macdaddy7930 ●

  • FortWorthTide said...

    Not all of the rivalries stretch the entire history of the conference. The Auburn series even took an extended break for several years. And you chose not to add Tennessee, who is historically the second best SEC program and one of our longest rivals (more games played than against any of the teams you mentioned).

    Michigan refused to play ND for about 40 years after they couldn't play high school teams anymore and after they hired Fielding Yost who was a renowned bigot....but nobody likes to talk about the "harvard of the west" like that.

    SCirish843

  • SCirish843 said...

    Michigan refused to play ND for about 40 years after they couldn't play high school teams anymore and after they hired Fielding Yost who was a renowned bigot....but nobody likes to talk about the "harvard of the west" like that.

    I do.

    signature image

    devidee

  • devidee said...

    I do.

    cheers

    SCirish843

  • SCirish843 said...

    cheers

    Notre Dame's all time schedule. You act like we were the only school to play high schools.

    http://www.collegefootball.bz/notre-dame

    UMWolverines

  • UMWolverines said...

    Notre Dame's all time schedule. You act like we were the only school to play high schools.

    http://www.collegefootball.bz/notre-dame

    Thanks for proving my point, our schedules get weaker when we were down, when we were good we were playing top 5 schedules every year. And a 'down' schedule for us is top 25...only 2 teams that haven't played a D1-AA school...ND and Texas.

    SCirish843

  • Macdaddy7930 said...

    Funny that you mention the .700 club vs each other but only use the last 50 years ('63-'12). Why not use all time? Oh yea, that's because SC is only 69-64. Again skewed stats.

    Here are a few interesting stats:

    SC's record (winning %) the last 50 years ('63-12) is good enough for 8th (409-159-15; 583 games); Bama is 6th (424-156-5).

    SC's bowl record during this timeframe is 21-13; however when they aren't playing in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10, they are 7-7.

    Also worth noting in the last 50 years, that SC has missed making a bowl 13 times. Bama has only missed a bowl 6 times over the last half century.

    SC isn't quite as good as you think, but continue to screw your stats. Life gets tough when you can't pick on the Big 10.

    Read the O.P. again, it shows the last 50 years and all-time. Not sure how you missed that. You do know that up until 1975 only the Pac12 champ went to a Bowl. That's why Bama has a few more bowl wins than SC, but SC has the best bowl win pct of any team in the nation with at least 30 bowl games played.

    Anyways, I would say that if USC has only 3 more losses than Bama but played like 60 more games than Bama did against the other top 7 teams, then your stat makes SC look pretty good.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    Read the O.P. again, it shows the last 50 years and all-time. Not sure how you missed that. You do know that up until 1975 only the Pac12 champ went to a Bowl. That's why Bama has a few more bowl wins than SC, but SC has the best bowl win pct of any team in the nation with at least 30 bowl games played.

    Anyways, I would say that if USC has only 3 more losses than Bama but played like 60 more games than Bama did against the other top 7 teams, then your stat makes SC look pretty good.

    Actually Bama has played 585 games over that time, so only two more than SC.

    I can also understand why the PAC12 didn't want anyone, but their champ to play in bowl games. Congrats on beating up the Big 10, but 7-8 outside of the Rose isn't very good.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Macdaddy7930 ●

  • Outside of sec, the other conferences are at best dominated by three teams historically meaning an inflated winning % for the top 2 or 3 teams from those conferences. The SEC has tenn, uga, , ole miss, au, uf and lsu that could easily argue for 2nd place in the sec all time or be relegated 7th. Big 8 was ou and Nebraska, swc was tx, big 10 was um and osu and the PAC 10 was just USC. Georgia tech was also a power in the sec at one time. So Alabama built their .700 winning percentage a large portion of the top 15 all time programs where as other blue bloods played no one of stature except each other. The point about Alabama usually met an upper level blue blood in a major bowl is also valid.

    petermah

  • FortWorthTide said...

    Should the other 7 teams be booted because they haven't played the most games against top 15 programs? Because Alabama would be number one in that category by a wide margin. Pick your stats however you want, but claiming Alabama has the weakest SOS of that group is laughable. This thread started out more reasonably than most (with a fellow Trojan even agreeing with some of my points, and you acknowledging a few). Now you're pushing it in the direction of a troll thread. I'm sure myself and several others would be happy to have an intelligent discussion if you're actually willing to return to it.

    I apologize for going that direction, that was more for a certain few people that never want to have an intelligent discussion.

    You do have some valid points and have some numbers I'll share when I get home later about what you said. Probably be able to post it by morning.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • Macdaddy7930 said...

    Actually Bama has played 585 games over that time, so only two more than SC.

    I can also understand why the PAC12 didn't want anyone, but their champ to play in bowl games. Congrats on beating up the Big 10, but 7-8 outside of the Rose isn't very good.

    You obviously missed the post that shows how USC and the Pac12 have the best record in the big 5 traditional new years day bowls and BCS MNCG.

    That record only got better and more dominate after 1975. That's why the SEC made the bowl tie ins the way they did in 98. Notice they wanted no part of the Pac. What's funny is even without SC, the other Pac 12 teams had a better win% than current SEC members do in the big 5 bowl games all-time.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    You obviously missed the post that shows how USC and the Pac12 have the best record in the big 5 traditional new years day bowls and BCS MNCG.

    That record only got better and more dominate after 1975. That's why the SEC made the bowl tie ins the way they did in 98. Notice they wanted no part of the Pac. What's funny is even without SC, the other Pac 12 teams had a better win% than current SEC members do in the big 5 bowl games all-time.

    You obviously missed 7-8 in non-Rose Bowls and 2-5 against Bama. You can continue to troll the SEC and even Bama, but Natty's and head to head is all that matters.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Macdaddy7930 ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports