OSU and the Big 12 vs Power 5 Conferences Data

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#82
I don’t know. And I don’t know why I would care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay.....
Case closed then

It's simply harder to run the table now because the. Non Blue Bloods have closed the gap.

And... they've closed the gap because of the scholarship limits.

Otherwise, if you're going to make the case that, instead, it's because they play more games and it's not because of the reduced scholarship limits, and those extra games are ALL against non blue bloods, then you need to answer the % of time OU lost to non blue bloods while in the Big 8 to make that case.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#83
I don’t know. And I don’t know why I would care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay.....
Case closed then

It's simply harder to run the table now because the. Non Blue Bloods have closed the gap.

And... they've closed the gap because of the scholarship limits.

Otherwise, if you're going to make the case that, instead, it's because they play more games and it's not because of the reduced scholarship limits, and those extra games are ALL against non blue bloods, then you need to answer the % of time OU lost to non blue bloods while in the Big 8 to make that case.
It’s definitely harder because of more games. It MAY be also harder because the competition on average is tougher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,328
14,881
1,743
#84
Your evidence is what?
My fuzzy memory and what seems like common sense. The numbers may not support it, but you probably remember when OU and Nebraska went scorched earth and signed every kid with a spark of potential just to avoid competing against them. That was the whole purpose of the scholarship limit. I'm not sure of the actual results but the intent was to narrow the gap.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,328
14,881
1,743
#85
I get the feeling I wandered in, in the middle of a slap fight with no intent of taking sides. Just a random nugget.
 
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#86
It’s definitely harder because of more games. It MAY be also harder because the competition on average is tougher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The games added are Non Blue Blood games.

So.. to make the claim that adding more Non Blue Blood makes it harder, then you need to provide data on the % of time OU lost to a non blue blood in conference during that period.

Then compare that to the improvements those Non Blue bloods have made since the scholarship limits have been put in place by providing the % of time OU has lost to Non Blue Bloods in conference since.

It's harder for OU to run the table now because the Non Blue Bloods have closed the gap.

And... they've closed that gap because of the scholarship limits.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#87
It’s definitely harder because of more games. It MAY be also harder because the competition on average is tougher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The games added are Non Blue Blood games.

So.. to make the claim that adding more Non Blue Blood makes it harder, then you need to provide data on the % of time OU lost to a non blue blood in conference during that period.

Then compare that to the improvements those Non Blue bloods have made since the scholarship limits have been put in place by providing the % of time OU has lost to Non Blue Bloods in conference since.

It's harder for OU to run the table now because the Non Blue Bloods have closed the gap.

And... they've closed that gap because of the scholarship limits.
I’m arguing one simple point. It’s harder to win 9 straight games than 7 straight games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,803
2,435
743
35
tractor
#88
I didn't include SWC data, only Big 8/Big 12 because it's relevant to us. OU, Nebraska, and Texas account for 85% of those undefeated seasons in conference play. Since we joined the Big 8 we've won 1 conference championship outright (2011) and shared one with Colorado and OU (1976). We haven't gone undefeated in conference play since 1945. So, yeah, it's an entirely reasonable goal.

What on earth does "compensatable" mean?
Put it as a bonus in the coaching contracts.
 
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#89
I’m arguing one simple point. It’s harder to win 9 straight games than 7 straight games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And I'm argiung that it's harder for OU to win 7 straight games against Non Blue Bloods now than it was to win 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods then.

OU has lost 15 Conference games against Non Blue Bloods since 2010.

One might also count their loss to Texas A&M in three Cotton Bowl right after A&M had left.

And... that's during a period of time where, they've been, by far, the most dominant team in the league and have made 2 playoffs.
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#90
For instance...
OU won 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the Decade of the '70's 5 different times.

And they finished the decade with an 8 game winning streak in Conference against Non Blue Bloods, then won their first Conference game against a Non Blue Blood im 1980.

So.. make that 6 times they won 9 Conference games in a row against Non Blue Bloods in the Decade of the '70's.

In the last decade OU has won 7 Conference games in a row against Non Blue Bloods just 4 times.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#91
I’m arguing one simple point. It’s harder to win 9 straight games than 7 straight games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And I'm argiung that it's harder for OU to win 7 straight games against Non Blue Bloods now than it was to win 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods then.

OU has lost 15 Conference games against Non Blue Bloods since 2010.

One might also count their loss to Texas A&M in three Cotton Bowl right after A&M had left.

And... that's during a period of time where, they've been, by far, the most dominant team in the league and have made 2 playoffs.
Harder for 7 straight then vs 9 straight now?

You’re confused, or insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#92
For instance...
OU won 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the Decade of the '70's 5 different times.

And they finished the decade with an 8 game winning streak in Conference against Non Blue Bloods, then won their first Conference game against a Non Blue Blood im 1980.

So.. make that 6 times they won 9 Conference games in a row against Non Blue Bloods in the Decade of the '70's.

In the last decade OU has won 7 Conference games in a row against Non Blue Bloods just 4 times.
OU played 9 conference games a season in the 70’s?

Yep, you’re confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#94
Harder for 7 straight then vs 9 straight now?

You’re confused, or insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OU played 9 conference games a season in the 70’s?

Yep, you’re confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See my above posts....
They're not hard to understand.
To Recap....
It was easier for OU to win 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the 70's than it it has been for them to win 7 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the last decade.

So.... No matter how many times you double down on the sarcasm, your claim that it's harder for OU to run the table now simply because they play 2 more conference games, both against Non Blue blood teams, as I've clearly shown, simply is not true.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#95
Harder for 7 straight then vs 9 straight now?

You’re confused, or insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OU played 9 conference games a season in the 70’s?

Yep, you’re confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See my above posts....
They're not hard to understand.
To Recap....
It was easier for OU to win 9 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the 70's than it it has been for them to win 7 straight Conference games against Non Blue Bloods in the last decade.

So.... No matter how many times you double down on the sarcasm, your claim that it's harder for OU to run the table now simply because they play 2 more conference games, both against Non Blue blood teams, as I've clearly shown, simply is not true.
For the umpteenth time - it was easier to run the conference table when there was a 7 game conference schedule than it is to run the table with a 9 game conference schedule.

You’re so locked-in on “blue blood” nonsense you can’t even step back and consider the elementary concept of - it’s easier to win 7 straight than it is to win 9 straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#97
For the umpteenth time - it was easier to run the conference table when there was a 7 game conference schedule than it is to run the table with a 9 game conference schedule.
That's because the quality, or less thereof of the non Blue Bloods before the scholarship limits, not because there are simply more games in Conference.

Which.... before you interjected, was the topic being discussed.

We were discussing whether or not the Scholarship limits had closed the gap between the Non Blue Bloods and the Blue Bloods.

I was/ an showing proof that it has.

Seriously?

7 games or 9 games. I’ll go out on a limb and say 9 games.
So.. as you can see, when you interjected you were talking about 9 games vs 7.

You were not talking about 9 games NOW vs 9 games then.

That is a pivot you've had to make because, after you posted this, I point blank showed you that it was easier for OU to win 9 games in a row against Non blue bloods then as it is for them to win 7 games in a row against Non Blue Bloods now.

Heres your next quote
What are the chances KU could beat OSU in a single game? Maybe 5%?

What are the chances KU could beat OSU once if given 10 chances? 50%?

In and of itself, more games makes it harder to go undefeated.

Quality matters too, but it’s somewhat independent of quantity.
So.... clearly you understood that the conversation revolved around Non Blue Bloods.

But... since your premise of simply adding more games was wrong, you know, the one you went out on a limb on, you've had to pivot to this.
You’re so locked-in on “blue blood” nonsense you can’t even step back and consider the elementary concept of - it’s easier to win 7 straight than it is to win 9 straight.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,212
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#98
So...is it easier or harder than it used to be to run the table?
Your original question is above.

My singular point. It is harder to run the 9-game conference schedule now than it used to be to run the 7-game conference schedule then.

What do you not get?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you not get?
Where did I ever mention blue bloods?
Where did I ever say anything about a 9 game schedule in the 70’s?
Where did I ever say anything about a 7 game schedule in the 2000’s?
Where did I ever mention scholarship limits?

My example of KU and OSU was ONLY to illustrate the elementary concept of statistical probabilities - which is why it’s harder to run the table now than then. I used KU and OSU to make it easier for you to understand. I guess I failed.

One last time - I was only addressing YOUR question.
It’s harder to run the table now in a 9-game schedule than it was back then when it was a 7-game conference schedule. Period.

I don’t care about scholarship limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 14, 2010
4,571
2,095
1,743
#99
The scholarship limits and whether they have closed the gap between blue bloods and non blue bloods was the conversation when you jumped in.

I've shown that, shown you knew that, then shown your premise to be wrong.

You're had to pivot and are now filibustering to try and remove yourself from those facts.