Comments for Big Ten vs SEC All Time Stats

Comments for
Big Ten vs SEC All Time Stats

Average Rating

Click here to add your own comments

Sep 22, 2008
Rating

Revised Record on Big 10 vs. SEC
by: Buckeye Bill

The college football data warehouse website starts in 1881 and goes through the present. I see now what you are talking about with late addition of Penn State. Their record however against the SEC is 16-16. If you back out those numbers from my original record. The Big 10 against the SEC all time is 79-73-7.

Sep 23, 2008
Rating

Get a clue Bill
by: Jeffrey

I love people that look at some website that somebody else did and without understanding any of it feel they are experts on the information.

Getting historical conference membership records takes a little more than just removing one team. Membership of a conference changes several times over it's history. For instance, Michigan State was not a member of the Big Ten until the 50s. Chicago was until the 30s. The SEC didn't even exist until the 30s. Georgia Tech and Tulane dropped from the SEC. That you think you've got an accurate count by dropping Penn State is a sure sign to give this sort of thing up and leave it to others.

Teams that represented the SEC currently have a record of 65-46-2 when they played teams that represented the Big Ten. That's a fact.

Sep 24, 2008
Rating

Sorry, Bill
by: Jeffrey

The tone of my comment was out of line. Must be too much caffine.

Sep 24, 2008
Rating

Revised Record on Big 10 vs. SEC
by: Buckeye Bill

Jeffrey,

No offense taken. I understand the passion. I went back and sorted the Big 10 teams record using the criteria of when they joined the Big 10. The web site cfbdatawarehouse.com allows you to sort by year (I did not know that the first time)It still shows the overall record in favor of the Big 10 by 77-71. I did not have time to go through each SEC team and when they joined or left the SEC, as I was having a brain cramp trying to figure out how to match each team. Basically though, all Big 10 teams were in the conference from 1896 on, with the exception of Mich. St, which joined in 1953 and PSU, which joined in 1993. There are some stunning statistics though that I find interesting. Michigans overall record against the SEC is 20-5 and Ohio State's record is 7-11. This makes me sad, being an OSU grad and a Michigan hater. I actually root for the SEC when and only when they are playing Michigan. I would urge you to visit that website, as it allows you to sort every statistic you could imagine. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

Revised Record on Big 10 vs. SEC
by: Buckeye Bill

I finally figured out how you came up with the winning record of the SEC over the Big 10. I painstakingly went through every year of every current SEC school using only their record when they officially joined the SEC and it was called the SEC. It is true that you then have a winning record over the Big 10. The problem is, you automatically drop any losses by SEC from the Big 10 simply because they change the name from the Southern Conference to the SEC in 1933. I'll give you 2 examples. Kentucky's record all time vs. the Big 10 is 24-31 and Vanderbilt's is 7-17. If you take only their record since 1933, it becomes 20-20 and 4-5 respectively. That automatically takes away 23 losses from their records. Come on...that is almost laughable. You will not get an argument from me that right now, in this era, that the SEC is the best conference in college football. They obviously are, but don't distort the past records simply because one conference changed names.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

I'm not an SEC Guy
by: Jeffrey

Bill,

It would be improper to say I have a lead over the Big Ten for a lot of reasons, but that fact my team is in the Big Ten would be a big one.

While it may take the lead away from my conference, after years of research and running numbers it makes less and less sense to me to run numbers by wedging teams into the conference/division/whatever they are currently sitting in. It's certainly not historically accurate and you have to fudge some things to do it. Penn State played South Carolina in the 40s, 50 years before either team considered joining their respective conferences. To pretend that these teams represented the Big Ten and SEC seems a little silly to me. We don't rewrite conference records when team changes conference, why rewrite non-conference numbers?

To see what's included in these click these links:

Big Ten teams vs SEC:

http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_record.php?fry=1933&thy=2008&confname=Big%20Ten&oppconf=SEC&jrc=on&iall=on

1. Minnesota (4-1-0)--0.80000
2. Michigan (12-4-0)--0.75000
3. Penn St. (4-2-0)--0.66667
4. Iowa (3-3-0)--0.50000
5. Indiana (16-18-0)--0.47059
6. Michigan St. (1-2-0)--0.33333
7. Ohio St. (3-10-1)--0.25000
8. Wisconsin (2-8-0)--0.20000
8. Purdue (1-4-0)--0.20000
10. Northwestern (0-6-1)--0.07143
11. Chicago (0-2-0)--0.00000
11. Illinois (0-5-0)--0.00000

Big Ten vs SEC teams:

http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_record.php?fry=1933&thy=2008&confname=Big%20Ten&oppconf=SEC&vtm=on&jrc=on&iall=on

1. Mississippi (1-0-0)--1.00000
1. Georgia Tech (1-0-0)--1.00000
1. Arkansas (3-0-0)--1.00000
4. Vanderbilt (5-5-1)--0.50000
4. Tulane (2-2-0)--0.50000
4. Kentucky (16-16-0)--0.50000
7. Alabama (3-5-0)--0.37500
7. Auburn (3-5-0)--0.37500
9. LSU (3-6-1)--0.35000
10. Tennessee (4-8-0)--0.33333
10. Florida (4-8-0)--0.33333
12. Georgia (1-7-0)--0.12500
13. South Carolina (0-2-0)--0.00000
13. Mississippi St. (0-1-0)--0.00000

The total being (46-65-2)--0.41593

As for Vanderbilt and Kentucky, a lot of SECers like to down play these games because they are two of the all-time lower tier teams in the SEC. However, when Michigan and Ohio State were playing these teams, they were very good. Michigan, of instance, played a series of 8 games vs. Vanderbilt from 1905-1923 when Fielding Yost's brother-in-law was coaching Vanderbilt. Over that period, Vanderbilt was one of the best teams in the south, if not the best. Of course, Michigan was no slouch and dominated the series.

In the years prior to the 20s, southern football wasn't all that. Starting in the 20s is when it really started to take off.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill
by: Jeffrey

You didn't just say that the Southern Conference changed it's name to the SEC in 1933, did you? You've got to be kidding me. You've never heard of the Southern Conference? It definiately did not become the SEC and it is still with us today.

The SEC became rather different than the SoCon when it formed. First of all, the SoCon was a rather messy of almost 30 teams. When the conference first formed, it wasn't even giving out conference championships, nor did it have uniformed scheduling.

The Southern vs the Big Ten included games with teams that have never been in the SEC. Not to mention those games played against Chicago which would not be counted using current conference. To include that and claim it's the same conference would be silly. That's one of the examples of what I mean by wedging stats to fit a mold by using current anything.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

And I don't like your website
by: Jeffrey

And am, of course familiar with it, but you insult my imagination if you think that's the extent of statistical information that I can imagine. I'd go as far to say that statistically, that site is a piece of crap.

Also, I don't approve of the way he picks and chooses what's a "fact" and what's not. To me, if you can find it in a team media guide, it ought to be a fact. He's got his own way of figuring it out. When I want facts, I'll consult some place I can get facts, it won't be that website.

Also, his opinions are slanted to the SEC, if you've not noticed.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

Conference names
by: Buckeye Bill

My head really hurts now. I did not mean to say that the Southern Conference changed its name. What I was saying was that a Big 10 team beat a current SEC team even though it was in the Southern Conference at the time. All of the current SEC teams were in the Southern Conference, with the exception of Arkansas and South Carolina, prior to 1933. Are you saying that a win over say, Kentucky, prior to 1933 does not count because it was not SEC then. If so, then I get your argument.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

2 = 2
by: Jeffrey

Simply put, things are as they are. The SEC did not form until 1933, so saying games played represented the SEC prior to 1933 is not putting things in their proper historical place. Certainly the SEC conference could have no effect on a game played prior to it's formation.

I do believe that being in a conference impacts a team. For instance, money collected from the bowl agreements from the Big Ten, helps the Big Ten build better football teams (though it's not helping much now). So, yeah, I don't see how chalking up games to "The SEC" prior to the SEC can be proper. However, if you're interested in which teams were better at certain period of times, reviewing team in their current conference is proper. I have no problem with people using current conference affliation, provided it's used with a proper viewpoint.

Let me explain. I'm not someone who believe that because conference A has a 5-3-1 record against conference B, that means conference A is better. That's nonsense. It takes an examination of what team played from each conference to even get in the neighborhood of saying which conference is better. If conference A had a 7-0 team beating the tar out of a team from conference B that went 0-7, I'd have to say that the win be conference A would be pretty much expected and irrelevant to a conference strength argument. Similarly, I'm not going to tell you the SEC is better because they've got around a 20 or so game edge in the series, nor is the Big Ten composed of better teams because it's current conference member have an edge over the current conference members of the SEC. That' great for bragging rights, but in telling us which conference is better, it's a load of nonsense.

cont...

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

Cont
by: Jeffrey

Which is also why I feel looking at historical membership is the way to go because it's a little difficult to compare the Big Ten to the SEC when 1 team went 0-0 in conference as an independent which the other might have gone 3-4 in the ACC. How those teams would be relevant to the conference at the time is a little hard to tell when they weren't even in those conferences. I can tell you that it seems certain that the Big Ten teams were certainly better than SEC counterparts in the early 1900s because matchups of the teams that would be in those conference are dominated by the Big Ten. If that's the information we seek, viewing Kentucky and Vanderbilt as SEC teams gives us good information and is certainly in play.

So I ask, just what is it that we are trying accomplish when stating conf A is X vs conf B? If it's to state a fact, we need to view it historically factually. If it's to state conf A is better than conf B, what would be the point? The record does not prove that anyway without deeper examination. Examining by current conference can be useful for some things but not for much.

BTW, you do notice that the site you are quoting does try to use historical conference in some respect, however is unable to pull it off. I believe the reason you see current conference there is that the site is unable to get you historical.

Sep 25, 2008
Rating

I think we agree
by: Bill

Hey! I think we can agree on most of what you say. Let's go have a beer now, it's almost 5:00.
The problem in the Big 10 for the most part when it comes to recruiting is simply weather. It's tough to say to a recruit its great to play in cold weather and forget about all those pretty girls down south, they'll just get you in trouble. Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan really have no problem recruiting talent just due to sheer tradition and television time, but the rest of the conference is screwed. Wisconsin somehow does put together a decent program however most of the time. It's amazing to me how OSU can consistently pull great talent out of the state of Florida. For instance Jaamal Berry from Miami Palmetto next year. He either doesn't like pretty women, hates hot weather, or just can't wait to see how corn is really grown. Can you imagine Pete Carroll's recruiting speech. "Son, you see those song girls in the white sweaters over there or we're 5 minutes from the beach and Hollywood" Give me a break man. How hard can it be.

Sep 26, 2008
Rating

pretty girls argument
by: Anonymous

dude, lemme just say this.. telling people that there are not any pretty girls up in the northern half of the country is just plain stupid.

Believe me, there are some of the most spectacularly beautiful and sexy ladies up here all over the place. You just havent been around apparently or you'd know that.

They just have more clothes on in the winter, more layers to have to peel off.

But, up here.. come spring, its like playboy channel all of a sudden. girls start dressin in the hottest stuff everywhere.

Oct 24, 2008
Rating

The facts in the NCAA record books for all to view.
by: Anonymous

Their records indicate an all-time record of 95-89-7 against the SEC. I don't know when you started your record keeping stats, but you can check it out for yourself ?? Oh, and in National Championship games head to head Big Ten 6... S.E.C. O ??? So you are all bark and no bite!!! LMFAO!!!

Oct 31, 2008
Rating

You're a liar, Anonymous
by: Jeffrey

95-89-7 is in no NCAA record book anywhere. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Jun 19, 2009
Rating

Anonymous must be secluded
by: Mike

The comment by Anonymous dated October 24, 2008 stating that the Big 10 was 6-0 against the SEC in National Championship games shows a typical Big 10 (or 11 because they cannot count) fan. Do I recall Florida destroying Ohio State for the 2006 title? Followed by LSU doing the same for the 2007 title. Both games clearly after the post date.

Jul 24, 2009
Rating

SEC / Big Ten
by: Michael

Teams that are currently in the SEC, their all time record against teams that are currently in the Big Ten, is 96-90-7.

That is what CFBdatawarehouse.com uses in it's criteria. It is fact because I went over the records of every single team that is in the Big Ten and SEC right now and looked up their individual year-to-year win-loss records to find out and found it correct.

Here is the overall SEC record vs. Individual Big Ten teams:
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/vs_conf_byteam.php?confid=22

And Overall Big Ten Record vs. Individual SEC teams:
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/vs_conf_byteam.php?confid=177

I'm sorry, but it is no less than true, the Big Ten is the only conference in the NCAA that has a winning record against every other conference.

Jul 24, 2009
Rating

Michael, you're wrong
by: Jeffrey

First of all, even if you count by current conference affliation (and I don't know why you would), but the Big Ten still has losing records against some conferences (the Ivy League being the obvious one).

However, I don't get the reason why people count by current membership. When Penn State played South Carolina in the 40s, both teams were decades away from even thinking about joining their respective conferences. To that this was "The Big Ten" vs. "The SEC", is rather stupid. Neither was representing their said conference.

History does not change because a current event changed. We don't go back and recalculate conference records to include games played against the new member in previous conference records. For instance, when Arkansas joined the conference, the SEC didn't go back and say, hey Mississippi lost to Arkansas in 1954, therefore did not win the conference that year and we take their championship away. That would be stupid, and yet people think it's natural to do the same thing with non-conference records (even though conference do not do this, but why let official records get in the way of an argument).

The FACT of the matter is that THE Big Ten has a losing record to THE SEC. While current membership of each conference has the Big Ten leading. Either is correct to say, but if you're attributing records to THE conferences, you must use historical affilation or be factually incorrect.

Aug 23, 2009
Rating

Big Ten v SEC indicators
by: Rob Stephens

What this argument shows is that you can lie with statistics. One problem with this analysis of Conference A versus Conference B is that there are teams that have left and been added to the various conferences. Also some conferences are older than others. Like a research paper for a journal, the overall important thing is to be upfront about the methodology used to make whatever assertion is being made, because there may be important strengths and weaknesses to the methodology.

It appears the author used the methodology that the record of the SEC versus the Big 10 is comprised solely of games played when the one respective team was a member of the SEC and the other team in game was a member of the Big Ten at the time that the game was played. The strength of this methodology is that it will show what what a league schools did to each other while they were members of the league.

One weakness of the methology is that records of teams that are no longer in the conference may be included in the current conference record. If this methodology is followed through completely, it will include records of teams that either no longer have a team or that are part of another conference now. For example among former SEC members, Georgia Tech is now in the ACC, Tulane in Conference USA, and Sewanee is a Division III program. Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, Chicago does not participate in the conference athletics anymore and like Sewanee, competes in Division III

Another weakness of the methodology is that the current strength of the conference, in terms of history and tradition, is not being fully examined. Part of the reason schools join a conference is that already existing schools in the conference deem the new school to be worth of membership based on The ACC wanted Miami (FL) because of its football tradition. The Big Ten wanted Penn State because of its football tradition and is probably being judicious about picking a 12th member. Part of the reason that the SEC took in Arkansas and South Carolina, is that they were probably seen as more worthy than Memphis and East Carolina, for example. Part of why they are seen as more worthy is history and tradition, including their ability to compete against other schools based on their wins and losses.

Showing the records of the current members of the Big Ten versus the current members of the SEC would also be an important indicator, in addition to the indicator that presents just when both teams were members of the respective conference at game time. Either methodology may be useful in different circumstances and I don't think either one is self-evident to be used. I just think whoever writes a commentary should explain why they used which measure.

Aug 25, 2009
Rating

Nice comment
by: Jeffrey

Rob, it's a pleasure to see someone who has some idea of what they are talking about present their ideas.

My problem with current conference/historical conversations is that you often have people like the original poster here who really has no idea that there's a difference between the two. Generally, they see some website that has done the work and make assumptions about it without bothering to understand it and then they pass on ignorant comments.

You are correct that either was (and there's another method that can used as well) are beneficial, depending on what you are looking for. It's important to understand which you are looking at to know what it tells you.

However, I believe that when you are referring to conference, you must use historical to give an accurate description. Saying "THE" SEC vs. "THE" Big Ten, you must use historical configurations to be accurate. Using current configurations you should describe it differently. Let's fact it, when Penn State played South Carolina in the 40s, it most certainly was not "THE" Big Ten vs. "THE" SEC.

History does not change when current events change, history will always be history and you can't attribute accomplishments to a conference when done by teams outside of the conference. Grouping current members together is useful for somethings, but you can't say it's "THE" Big Ten vs. "THE" SEC. Instead, saying it's current member of the conferences is the proper description.

Sep 03, 2009
Rating

I do not understand what jeff keeps repeating
by: gator hater

Look Jeff, great idea on how you are conveying what you are saying. However, no one really cares about who did what 200 years ago.

When most college football fans talk about best vs best, they are talking about in relative terms. You know this so why would you continue to argue a moot point?

Ok, let's look at something that is relatively important. Over the past 20-30 years, relative, yes, what are the records of the Big 10 vs SEC?

Looking at historical data would make us recognize Harvard, Princeton and Yale's national championships...laughable really. Then we have to rely on the old adage, well, they played who was put in front of them, orly??????

Sep 14, 2009
Rating

Don't be a moron, hater
by: Jeffrey

Who said that historical data has anything to do with who's best now? History is just that, history. When looking at history, why in the world would you choose to ignore part of it? Facts are fact, whether you like them or not.

I also fail to see why 30 years ago is relevant but farther back is not. History is history. Nobody from those teams are still playing and only a handful of coaches are still with their team. Sounds like another gator that wants to ignore their bad period.

Aug 07, 2010
Rating

SEC WEATHER ADVANTAGE
by: Anonymous

I wonder how you would factor in all bowl games are home games for the SEC. It would be funny to see the SEC come to Columbus in December.
PS. I spoke to a Alabama offensive lineman who played for Bear Bryant.
He said Woody Hayes and Bear Bryant tried to play each other, but were always trying to schedule when it was to their advantage.
Woody wanted to play late in the season and Bear wanted to play early.
Obviously, they considered the weather factor to be greatly advantagous.

Nov 27, 2010
Rating

More Big Ten Whining
by: Bill from Selma

I'm just curious as to one thing that absolutely puzzles me: why do Big Ten teams ALWAYS complain about the weather in the South in January but they NEVER complain about the weather in Pasadena on the same day?

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to College Sports Discussion

Return to Big Ten vs SEC All Time Stats

Top of this Page