BONG used to resort to this when facts started flying as well. Keep his memory alive, MJ.
p.s. From 1992-1999 UF played 46 ranked teams. During that same time, FSU also played 46 ranked teams. "Charmin soft."
Bama-F$U 2017
- Thread starter Michi-Gator
- Start date
BONG used to resort to this when facts started flying as well. Keep his memory alive, MJ.
p.s. From 1992-1999 UF played 46 ranked teams. During that same time, FSU also played 46 ranked teams. "Charmin soft."
So, what happened between 1992 and 1997? That is over half the time frame you guys proclaim to be your golden years.
Simply put, your team benefited from playing a Charmin Soft ACC schedule. Even you own coach said as much. Who are you and me a danoleman to argue with the great Bobby Bowden?
Ahh...excuse, excuses, excuses.
What was your excuse for you 1997 Sugar Bowl loss to Florida? What was your excuse the next year when you lost to Florida in the Swamp? With Florida playing two QBs? What was your excuse for only scoring 2 points against Oklahoma?
The FSU fan base has more excuses than any other fan base I have ever encountered.
Huh? What do you mean "what happened?" FSU went 65-7-1, won a title, 3 Orange Bowls, and 2 Sugar Bowls. Are trying to suggest that 1992-1997 wasn't a successful period for FSU football? I mean what are you even talking about at this point?
Perhaps. I won't check your numbers. But if you are anything like some other FSU fans, you sometimes count ranked teams as their ranking when you played them, at other times you count ranked teams as their final ranking. And some of your fans do that to gain maximum benefit for FSU. I am not saying you are doing this, but it does happen quite a bit
But let's say you are right. Are all ranked teams created equal? When a team pays a bunch of 15 to 25 ranked teams, is that the same thing as playing a bunch of top ten teams? Plus, what about depth of competition? Both conferences have some bottom feeders. But what about the middle of the pack in both conferences? Are those teams equal? That also makes a difference. I will argue that top to bottom in nay given year, it would be very unusual for the ACC to be tougher than the SEC. Not saying it won't happen once in awhile, but it is the exception rather than the rule
I say again. FSU played in a Charmin Soft Conference and by in large played a Charmin Soft Schedule. FSU only had to get up for one, two or maximum three games a year; Florida, Miami and the bowl games.` And none of the above teams were in the ACC for a majority of those years.
Most years, every other team in the ACC over that time period were mediocre to pathetic. So, playing in the ACC gave FSU a distinct advantage, record wise. Your own coach even said this. More than once.
Why do I say this?
Let's look at the record of ACC teams to SEC teams from 1992 to now.
Over that time period, the ACC and the SEC have met right around 233 times. Probably less, as the list I have includes Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, VaTech and Louisville the whole time, and excludes Maryland. I'll let you make that adjustment if you think it helps your case. I don't think it will. In fact, just glancing at the numbers, I think it hurts your case, but maybe not a whole lot.
Anyway, using the above assumptions, the record across 233 games is 127 wins by the SEC and 105 wins by the ACC. And one tie.
And since you are so keen on Sagarin, I am pretty sure you are aware that he ranks the SEC higher than the ACC most years.
So, we can conclude that the SEC was tougher and remains tougher. You guys benefited from that. At least until the NC game.
Had FSU been in the SEC, FSU would not have remotely even approached winning 67 games over that period.
I was talking about your inability to find conference SOS and individual team SOS prior to 1998. It is tough to do, but the number are available.
Oh wait, let me guess, you were thinking about Nebraska. Well.....considering your '93 team barely beat the '93 version of the Huskers, chances are the '95 Husker team would have taken the '93 Noles to the woodshed too. Maybe not to the tune of 62-24, but could easily see by 2 or 3 touchdowns. That Husker team was just that good.
OK, so for each 8 of those opponents were each other. Now for FSU, I'd say at least 6, maybe 7, more were Miami when they were in the Big East. Throw in other occasional OOC opponents like aTm ('98 season opener), ND ('93 & '94 I believe).
During that time Florida's overall SOS was weighted toward conference opponents, FSU's toward OOC opponents. At that time, and until Bama in 2011, winning your conference was pretty much a necessity to playing for the MNC. And objectively speaking running a gauntlet of Duke, Maryland, NCSU, Wake, UVa (and in more recent years throwing in BC, Pitt, Cuse) does not stack up, year in and year out, to Bama, Auburn, LSU, UGa, UT. Look at Georgia's schedule for this upcoming year....not only UF, UT, Mizzou, and Carolina in their division, but they also draw Bama and Auburn from the West. And if they clear that to win the East, they get to play in the SECCG (an added hurdle in SEC in '90s that ACC did not have).
And it's not the opponents on an individual basis, it's the cumulative effect week after week. I think it was Richt who even alluded to that being a critical difference between SEC and ACC. Something about only having to really gear up for a game 2 or 3 times a year when he was at FSU.
[QUOTE="Rushie, post: 242898, member: 824"
Look at Georgia's schedule for this upcoming year....not only UF, UT, Mizzou, and Carolina in their division, but they also draw Bama and Auburn from the West. And if they clear that to win the East, they get to play in the SECCG (an added hurdle in SEC in '90s that ACC did not have).[/QUOTE]
How is UF, UT, Mizzou and Carolina any better than Miami, Georgia Tech, BC and Clemson? Objectively they aren't. I don't think any one of those teams would be favored by more than a few points if they played each other round robin.
The SEC east is not that good right now until someone steps up and beats Alabama or Auburn when it counts.
Look at Georgia's schedule for this upcoming year....not only UF, UT, Mizzou, and Carolina in their division, but they also draw Bama and Auburn from the West. And if they clear that to win the East, they get to play in the SECCG (an added hurdle in SEC in '90s that ACC did not have).[/QUOTE]
How is UF, UT, Mizzou and Carolina any better than Miami, Georgia Tech, BC and Clemson? Objectively they aren't. I don't think any one of those teams would be favored by more than a few points if they played each other round robin.
The SEC east is not that good right now until someone steps up and beats Alabama or Auburn when it counts.
"Had FSU been in the SEC, FSU would not have remotely even approached winning 67 games over that period."
Your hate for FSU is showing. During that time UF won 64 games playing in the SEC (Tennessee won 59). There's no logical reason to believe that FSU wouldn't have posted a similar record. Unless you're going to suggest that UF was much better than FSU from 92-97.
Perhaps. I won't check your numbers. But if you are anything like some other FSU fans, you sometimes count ranked teams as their ranking when you played them, at other times you count ranked teams as their final ranking. And some of your fans do that to gain maximum benefit for FSU. I am not saying you are doing this, but it does happen quite a bit.
Final rankings would be an interesting stat, but you would also have to include context. UF was 27-18-1 (.598) vs. ranked teams from 1992-1999. FSU was 37-8-1 (.815). Naturally, one would expect UF's opponents to finish ranked higher than FSU's during that period. In part due to winning at a higher clip.
But let's say you are right. Are all ranked teams created equal? When a team pays a bunch of 15 to 25 ranked teams, is that the same thing as playing a bunch of top ten teams?
UF's average ranked opponent was #9.39. FSU's was #11.5. A slight advantage for UF, but nothing to write home about.
Plus, what about depth of competition? Both conferences have some bottom feeders. But what about the middle of the pack in both conferences? Are those teams equal? That also makes a difference. I will argue that top to bottom in nay given year, it would be very unusual for the ACC to be tougher than the SEC. Not saying it won't happen once in awhile, but it is the exception rather than the rule
Depth of competition sounds like SEC code for "Our mediocre teams are the bestest. Trust us." If you want believe that 5-6 South Carolina could hang with '92 FSU or that 8-4 Ole Miss would give FSU's '99 team a run for their money - be my guest.
Most years, every other team in the ACC over that time period were mediocre to pathetic. So, playing in the ACC gave FSU a distinct advantage, record wise. Your own coach even said this. More than once.
So now we're glossing over 40% of the games? You do realize from 1992-1999 FSU beat UF 6 times, Miami 6 times, Southern Cal twice, Nebraska twice, Notre Dame twice, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, etc. What does that have to do with playing in the ACC?
Anyway, using the above assumptions, the record across 233 games is 127 wins by the SEC and 105 wins by the ACC. And one tie.
So the SEC has a .547 winning % over the ACC? That seems to suggest what a lot of people think: that the SEC is better than other conferences but not by nearly as much as their fans think.
Well.....considering your '93 team barely beat the '93 version of the Huskers, chances are the '95 Husker team would have taken the '93 Noles to the woodshed too.
'95 Nebraska was probably the best CFB team of the last 30 years. So, yeah, they probably would have beaten '93 FSU.
Your hate for FSU is showing. During that time UF won 64 games playing in the SEC (Tennessee won 59). There's no logical reason to believe that FSU wouldn't have posted a similar record. Unless you're going to suggest that UF was much better than FSU from 92-97.
Perhaps. I won't check your numbers. But if you are anything like some other FSU fans, you sometimes count ranked teams as their ranking when you played them, at other times you count ranked teams as their final ranking. And some of your fans do that to gain maximum benefit for FSU. I am not saying you are doing this, but it does happen quite a bit.
Final rankings would be an interesting stat, but you would also have to include context. UF was 27-18-1 (.598) vs. ranked teams from 1992-1999. FSU was 37-8-1 (.815). Naturally, one would expect UF's opponents to finish ranked higher than FSU's during that period. In part due to winning at a higher clip.
But let's say you are right. Are all ranked teams created equal? When a team pays a bunch of 15 to 25 ranked teams, is that the same thing as playing a bunch of top ten teams?
UF's average ranked opponent was #9.39. FSU's was #11.5. A slight advantage for UF, but nothing to write home about.
Plus, what about depth of competition? Both conferences have some bottom feeders. But what about the middle of the pack in both conferences? Are those teams equal? That also makes a difference. I will argue that top to bottom in nay given year, it would be very unusual for the ACC to be tougher than the SEC. Not saying it won't happen once in awhile, but it is the exception rather than the rule
Depth of competition sounds like SEC code for "Our mediocre teams are the bestest. Trust us." If you want believe that 5-6 South Carolina could hang with '92 FSU or that 8-4 Ole Miss would give FSU's '99 team a run for their money - be my guest.
Most years, every other team in the ACC over that time period were mediocre to pathetic. So, playing in the ACC gave FSU a distinct advantage, record wise. Your own coach even said this. More than once.
So now we're glossing over 40% of the games? You do realize from 1992-1999 FSU beat UF 6 times, Miami 6 times, Southern Cal twice, Nebraska twice, Notre Dame twice, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, etc. What does that have to do with playing in the ACC?
Anyway, using the above assumptions, the record across 233 games is 127 wins by the SEC and 105 wins by the ACC. And one tie.
So the SEC has a .547 winning % over the ACC? That seems to suggest what a lot of people think: that the SEC is better than other conferences but not by nearly as much as their fans think.
Well.....considering your '93 team barely beat the '93 version of the Huskers, chances are the '95 Husker team would have taken the '93 Noles to the woodshed too.
'95 Nebraska was probably the best CFB team of the last 30 years. So, yeah, they probably would have beaten '93 FSU.
Are you trying to make a case the ACC is closer to the SEC today, or that is was closer to the SEC back in the day?
Neither is a very good position.
Of course there is a reason FSU would have done worse if they played in the SEC over that time period. FSU had roughly the same record as UF over the same time period. Yet FSU played an easier schedule.
Final rankings are the ONLY GOOD way to compare.
Final rankings? And how do you asses the quality of unranked teams?
Then find a way to objectively counter it. You like Sagarin. Go and look at conference strength ranking. Or use some other objective way to rank conferences.
I went back and looked at Sagarin since 1998, the first year they ranked conferences. Of the 17 years since, the SEC is ranked higher than the ACC in 14 of them. The only years that the ACC was higher were years, oddly enough, when FSU was not on top. Those years were 2003, 2004 and 2005
You mean, other than playing in the ACC means you had an overall, Charmin soft schedule?
Of course you will interpret it that way. Not the right way, but high marks for trying.
Last edited:
MJ,
You're backpedaling. You keep saying FSU played a "Charmin soft" schedule in the 90's due to the ACC. You also say that SOS rankings are "out there". Well, post those rankings from 1992-1999 then. You won't do it because they won't agree with your thesis. Here are Sports Reference SOS rankings of ACC FSU in the 90's. I've never heard of Sports Reference so I have no clue how reputable they are.
Charmin soft FSU:
1992: #12
1993: #21
1994: #10
1995: #45
1996: #13
1997: #10
1998: #5
1999: #13
Murderer's Row UF:
1992: #9
1993: #25
1994: #12
1995: #16
1996: #17
1997: #4
1998: #46
1999: #8
You can believe that FSU played a Charmin soft schedule in the 90's. Just don't expect anyone else (except BONG) to think that opinion is rooted in reality.
You're backpedaling. You keep saying FSU played a "Charmin soft" schedule in the 90's due to the ACC. You also say that SOS rankings are "out there". Well, post those rankings from 1992-1999 then. You won't do it because they won't agree with your thesis. Here are Sports Reference SOS rankings of ACC FSU in the 90's. I've never heard of Sports Reference so I have no clue how reputable they are.
Charmin soft FSU:
1992: #12
1993: #21
1994: #10
1995: #45
1996: #13
1997: #10
1998: #5
1999: #13
Murderer's Row UF:
1992: #9
1993: #25
1994: #12
1995: #16
1996: #17
1997: #4
1998: #46
1999: #8
You can believe that FSU played a Charmin soft schedule in the 90's. Just don't expect anyone else (except BONG) to think that opinion is rooted in reality.
How is UF, UT, Mizzou and Carolina any better than Miami, Georgia Tech, BC and Clemson? Objectively they aren't. I don't think any one of those teams would be favored by more than a few points if they played each other round robin.
The SEC east is not that good right now until someone steps up and beats Alabama or Auburn when it counts.[/QUOTE]
If you are looking only at current conditions, I don't disagree with you. But I'm looking at this from the standpoint of 20+ years. Not that a team like Carolina has been consistently very good or great since joining the SEC, but at same time they are (and were for many years before '92) a border rival of Georgia. That alone translates to a greater intensity and focus in preparing for that game than say Clemson vs Wake or FSU vs GT. Yes, the schools are in bordering states but that's about it.
Or consider this, since the original expansions of the SEC and ACC heasing into the '92 season, 5 SEC teams have won a combined 11 MNCs while ACC has 3.....all by 1 team. You can also look at the number of teams from each conference to play in BCS bowl games and their cumulative won-loss total since '98. Both clearly show that the SEC is stronger and deeper.....overall. Will that be the case every year? Certainly not....and the East division has clearly been the weaker half of the SEC the last 5-6 years.
Those teams were used as examples of a tough SEC schedule. I just asked how they were any better than the 4 examples FSU will play this year.
I believe it because it happens to be true.
FSU went 62-2 over the ACC during that period. FSU had, at worst, a three game schedule during that period. Rarely were any of those big games against an ACC opponent.
And UF went 56-8 in regular season SEC games during that same time. Yet, for some insane reason, you keep suggesting that posting a record like that was impossible in the SEC.
Fair point hardliner. In expansion, the ACC has indeed tried to bolster their football SOS. Good for them. After an initial bolster, I do not think it has worked very well.
The ACC first added Miami and VaTech, right? VaTech was a player on the national scene for a brief time. But only a brief time. And the perception of adding Miami was a huge thing, at least initially. But Miami went sharply down hill after Davis left and has not recovered.
As I pointed out earlier, if one looks a Sagarins conference rankings since 1998, inclusive, the SEC is ranked higher in 14 of 17 years. The only years where the ACC was higher was right after VaTech and Miami were added. But when those two programs started to struggle, the ACC fell back to their normal position of 4 or 5 out of the six or seven major conferences. Hell, the last four observations, the ACC is around 7 in each year. I say around 7 because two years ago Sagarin started ranking divisions within conferences.
So, you can compare individual additions to the SEC compared to the individual additions to the ACC if you like. But those additions have not hurt the SEC very much and the additions to the ACC have not helped them very much
Well, I am not bragging about 8 loses, but that is 4 times the loses FSU suffered. Plus, the SEC won three National Titles over that time period, with three different programs. And many programs not winning national titles ended up in the top ten most years. That suggest the SEC is both strong, and deep. By comparison, the ACC won two titles, but with only one program. Hell, I'll bet an ACC program not named FSU rarely cracked the final top ten in any of those years. If ever. I have not looked it up, so I will acknowledge factual evidence to the contrary if it is available.
Oh hell. I cheated. I went back and looked. From 1992 to 2001, there were a minimum of 2 SEC programs ranked in the final top ten in every year. Often there were three. Only twice did an ACC program not named FSU end up in the final top ten rankings. And both of those times it was UNC, led by Butch Davis.
Last edited:
I provided my initial financial numbers. You can research what they would have been for FSU if you want. Keep in mind the SEC voted to retract the offer for admission. I recall it being the LSU AD with the giant ovaries. Of course we owned their ass back then so it's understandable.
LOL, noles actually believe they play a tough schedule. Guess they've forgotten what conference they play in. The ACC year in and year out doesn't pass the eye test. Check out the head to head SEC v ACC over the last fews years. Not even close.
MJ was specifically referring to the 90's. Yes, FSU did play tough schedules in the 90's. I do not much care about the ACC vs. the SEC. I care about FSU and they've been doing quite well vs. both of those leagues over the last few years.
You put way too much stock in those rankings dude. If your schedule is so good, why does everyone but noles think the ACC sucks and (under the old system) why were you in constant danger of being shut out of a title game if you had one loss?
The eye test is more reliable, that's why.
Again, you and MJ are morphing this into an ACC-SEC debate when the discussion was about FSU's schedule from 92-99. You might be surprised to know that FSU did not solely play ACC teams during the 90's. 77% of their OOC games were against ranked teams. MJ has stated that FSU played a 2 games schedule when they played 46 ranked teams in 8 years. Craziest 2 game schedules I've ever seen.
Curious, as I honestly don't know....Were they ranked when you played them or at the end of the season?
Not much difference. 26 of FSU's 34 OOC opponents from 92-99 were ranked at the time of the game. 25 of 34 finished the year ranked. Obviously, there were some teams that were ranked at game time that finished unranked and vice versa.
We can certainly talk about that...for this year. This conversation has meandered a bit. It started out by complimenting FSU for recognizing it had to beef up it OOC schedule, given that it plays in the ACC. A conference schedule that does not give FSU any kind of benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the selection committee.
You did indeed. Yet it was you that made the assertion that FSU made the right decision...at the time... by joining the ACC. The only way to objectively compare is to also share the SEC numbers over the same period.
You made the assertion, you make the analysis
You should. Because the SEC is better than the ACC by almost any objective measure. The SEC is stronger that the ACC in most sports. The SEC members receive far more financial benefit than the ACC members.
So, name the top ten ACC teams over that period. Teams not name FSU. UNC had two teams ranked in the top ten over that period. They did it twice. Only twice.
By contrast the SEC never had fewer than two teams ranked in the top ten over the same period. And often had three.
If you want to expand the analysis to include top twenty and top twenty five, by all means. The ACC and FSU schedule will not benefit by that expansion.
For the third time, why are you trying to twist this into a SEC/ACC thing? You claimed that FSU played a "Charmin soft schedule" and then failed to provide any facts that supported that claim. I provided a bunch that show it to be nonsense and now you're arguing with yourself about the SEC and ACC. To be fair, I know why you're doing it. Because if you ignore the 23 games FSU played against Miami, Nebraska, Florida, and Notre Dame from 1992-1999 (this doesn't even include Southern Cal, Texas A&M, Tennessee, Southern Miss, La. Tech, etc.) suddenly your claim doesn't seem so silly. Let's just not pretend like the debate was ever about anyone saying that the ACC was better than the SEC.
Trust me dude, you'll be going in circles with MJ for days and he will keep posting arguments irrelevant to the original topic. You cornered him and he has no way out. Now he's trying to create a separate gator friendly argument on this board. It's not even worth it to continue with him.
