Someone explain what this means to MSU..........

he Big Ten is obviously better than everyone else, but the SEC is still superior on average. With Oklahoma and Texas, the SEC's average SP+ rating last year would have been 11.7; with USC and UCLA, the Big Ten's average would have been 8.9.

If we think broader and more historically, the SEC still has an edge.

Using 25-year averages for each program -- an incredibly broad look at program health and consistency of power -- here's how a Big Ten-SEC challenge would take shape if we set up games between the conferences' best programs, second-best programs and so on.

Best: No. 1 Ohio State (23.7 average) vs. No. 2 Alabama (23.0)

Second-best: No. 3 Oklahoma (21.9) vs. No. 7 USC (18.9)

Third-best: No. 4 Georgia (20.8) vs. No. 11 Michigan (16.6)

Fourth-best: No. 5 Florida (19.6) vs. No. 15 Wisconsin (15.5)

Fifth-best: No. 6 LSU (19.4) vs. No. 16 Penn State (15.2)

Sixth-best: No. 9 Texas (17.0) vs. No. 18 Nebraska (14.6)

Seventh-best: No. 17 Auburn (15.2) vs. No. 25 Iowa (11.3)

Eighth-best: No. 19 Tennessee (13.8) vs. No. 30 Michigan State (9.8)

Ninth-best: No. 20 Texas A&M (13.4) vs. No. 34 UCLA (8.4)

10th-best: No. 29 Arkansas (10.3) vs. No. 49 Purdue (4.7)

11th-best: No. 33 Missouri (8.7) vs. No. 51 Minnesota (4.5)

12th-best: No. 37 Ole Miss (7.6) vs. No. 56 Maryland (2.0)

13th-best: No. 38 South Carolina (7.6) vs. No. 68 Northwestern (-0.5)

14th-best: No. 50 Mississippi State (4.6) vs. No. 75 Illinois (-2.1)

15th-best: No. 62 Kentucky (0.9) vs. No. 79 Indiana (-3.9)

16th-best: No. 86 Vanderbilt (-5.3) vs. No. 97 Rutgers (-7.5)

The SEC still holds at least a slight advantage in 15 of those 16 matchups and averages a 12.4 rating to the Big Ten's 8.2. That's certainly noteworthy.

Good Grief!
TMI?

14th best? Thanks Croom and JOMO. Well add Jackies last 3 years in there also.

Wow, 50th and doesn't even include what's left of PAC 12, ACC, ND, etc. We better hope college FB never goes to a couple of super conferences governed by Fox and ESPN/disney.

All that matters is what you did last season and what you do this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeshouldveflanked

All that matters is what you did last season and what you do this season.

---

Correct! In this day of Instant Gratification, last year is old news. Our 48% winning % in our history of football means nothing. This is a new year.

Actually I do understand what you are trying to say.

There is a modern era of football(started around 1972). Then there is a modern modern era of football(started in 1990). Then there is the Post Modern Era of Football(started in 2014).

What will be the NEXT Era of Modern football? Stay tuned!

Those are some strange rankings for the order of teams in both conferences

Hard for me to believe we are that low. We are what one of 3 SEC teams to go to 10 or 11 straight bowls? That is consistency and not a program that would be third from bottom in the SEC. We had the 3 bad years of JWS and 5 bad Croom but had several good JWS teams and all the Mullen years. List doesn't make sense to me. OM sucked most of those years, how are they that high. Mizzou? USC sucked some in there too as did UK.

Its obvious that Bama isn't pulling its weight. They need to tighten up!**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

Hard for me to believe we are that low. We are what one of 3 SEC teams to go to 10 or 11 straight bowls? That is consistency and not a program that would be third from bottom in the SEC. We had the 3 bad years of JWS and 5 bad Croom but had several good JWS teams and all the Mullen years. List doesn't make sense to me. OM sucked most of those years, how are they that high. Mizzou? USC sucked some in there too as did UK.

---

If they did it for the last 10 years we'd be much higher. Over last 10 years we'd be middle of the pack.You could do it with any time frame you wanted and it would change the results accept for maybe the blue bloods.