Any SEC schedule vs. 2000 Oklahoma

[SteelClip49]

Every year we always hear about the SEC teams and the tough schedules they play but can any of their national title teams compare to what Oklahoma did in 2000?

defeated #11 Texas, 63-14 in Dallas- Texas finished #14

defeated #2 Kansas State, 41-31 in Manhattan- KSU finished #9, #8

defeated #1 Nebraska, 31-14 at Home- NU finished #8, #7

defeated #23 Texas A&M, 35-31 in College Station

defeated #8 Kansas State, 27-24 in Kansas City (above)

defeated #3 (def. Champs) FSU, 13-2 in Orange Bowl- FSU finished #5, #4


With that schedule and only ONE being a home game, please someone tell me there is a better season resume than this. I could be wrong but do chime in.

[soonermix]

i think the biggest issue is that the sec likes to claim that the conference as a whole is tougher than any other conference. where as we have at least a few bad teams every year they have a whole conference of basically middle tier teams that does have the chance to beat you if you don't play to the best of your ability.
so where the top of our schedule looks very impressive the bottom is probably pretty weak.

i am just throwing that out there for arguments sake.

[SouthFortySooner]

The SEC really should just have a conference championship and crown the winner Champion.

[badger]

The SEC really should just have a conference championship and crown the winner Champion.

My co-worker said almost the same thing before the 2007 season was over, that the SEC champion should have an auto bid the championship game, but then called the BCS a "sham" actually doing it. I called him on it, of course ;)

The argument you make for 2000's season is the same argument SEC teams make... their conference is tough, so saying "any SEC schedule vs. 2000 Oklahoma" is like them saying "any SEC schedule vs. any other schedule," really.

So, for the sake of argument, let's compare on the same merits, shall we? Here's the SEC national champions since then:

LSU 2007:
def. #9 Virginia Tech
def. #12 South Carolina
def. #9 Florida
lost #17 Kentucky
def. #18 Auburn
def. #17 Alabama
def. #14 Tennessee
def. #1 Ohio St

I know that not all these opponents finished ranked, but since you included them when they were ranked, where they were ranked, I'll do the same.

Florida 2006:
def. #17 Tennessee
def. #10 LSU
lost #10 Auburn
def. #25 Georgia
def. #8 Arkansas
def. #1 Ohio State

Auburn 2004:
(obligatory "they weren't champs!" line here)
Sorry, don't have the rankings, so I'm just going to list most likely ranked opponents here:
def. LSU
def. Tennessee
def. Arkansas
def. Georgia
def. Alabama
def. Tennessee
def. Va. Tech

LSU 2003:
(obligatory "USC one-peat, lol" line here)
def. #7 Georgia
def. #17 Auburn
def. #15 Ole Miss
def. #5 Georgia
def. #1 Oklahoma

Take it as you will, I don't think we would dispute that some national championship teams are better than others. However, your argument that SEC schedules aren't as tough as our 2000 schedule is a moot point, as there's no way to really compare. We could argue until our faces were OU red (crimson) that 1995 Nebraska is better than 2001 Miami. We could argue that 2000 Oklahoma is better than 2003 LSU, 2004 Auburn, 2006 Florida or 2007 LSU... but who really cares? We got our boy's trophy back, we got our team's glory back, and now if only we could get our old tuition rates back ;)

[RedstickSooner]

The 2000 season was magic. And, no, no team has beaten that kind of opposition since then. The Big-12 was loaded with amazing teams, and we beat everyone. Sometimes by the skin of our teeth, but a W is a W.

Has anyone else played the #1 and #2 team in the nation in back-to-back games like that?

[Fraggle145]

i think the biggest issue is that the sec likes to claim that the conference as a whole is tougher than any other conference. where as we have at least a few bad teams every year they have a whole conference of basically middle tier teams that does have the chance to beat you if you don't play to the best of your ability.
so where the top of our schedule looks very impressive the bottom is probably pretty weak.

i am just throwing that out there for arguments sake.

The reason i think the big XII doesnt get as much recognition as the SEC (having spent a short stint in SEC country) is that the mid-tier programs in the SEC have more well known/recognized names... I will try to break this down a little bit more later.

[Breadburner]

The 2000 season was magic. And, no, no team has beaten that kind of opposition since then. The Big-12 was loaded with amazing teams, and we beat everyone. Sometimes by the skin of our teeth, but a W is a W.

Has anyone else played the #1 and #2 team in the nation in back-to-back games like that?

Talk bout swagger..creativity...trickery...smashmouth....lun ch pails....We had it all then....

[SouthFortySooner]

I don't think the #1 and #2 teams are always the two best teams. The wickets in the SEC will say when their best beats each other the team dropping in the polls is still better than your/our team.