CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on June 03, 2025, 11:53:34 AM
-
Since we only have one year of mega-conference data I'm obviously looking at 2024 here.
A couple early points:
In the SEC the contrast between Florida and Mizzou is stark. Mizzou finished a game better at 5-3 vs 4-4 for the Gators but the Gators did it while facing nearly all of the best teams in the league. They lost to all three SEC playoff teams:
- in OT in Knoxville
- by two TD's in the WLOCP
- by a lot in Austin
Their other loss was to 5-3 aTm. Those are all "good" losses. The Gators also beat two teams that finished 5-3 in the SEC (LSU and Ole Miss). That 2-4 record against SEC teams that finished with winning records isn't great but it is a hell of a lot better than Mizzou did in those games:
- Lost by 31 in College Station
- Shutout 34-0 in Tuscaloosa
- Lost by 4 at USCe
Two points:
- Florida's .500+ SEC opponents were better than Mizzou's
- Florida's record against .500+ SEC opponents was better than Mizzou's
Florida was a better team, plain and simple. They finished with a worse record because they played a tougher schedule.
Now coming home to our league, the following is sorted by cumulative league record of league opponents (this is one of the league's tiebreakers and was THE tiebreaker that sent PSU to the B1GCG instead of IU):
(https://i.imgur.com/87dhUE9.png)
Indiana is the real outlier here and it helps to explain the gaudy record that they put up in 2024. They only played two B1G teams that finished .500+ in the league (tOSU and Michigan). In those games they barely survived Michigan at home and got smoked in Columbus. They missed:
- 9-0 Oregon
- 8-1 Penn State
- 6-3 Illinois
- 6-3 Iowa
- 5-4 Minnesota
If the Hoosiers had played four or five of the .500+ teams like most of the league did they very likely would have lost another game or two.
Here it is sorted by wins over .500+ teams:
(https://i.imgur.com/ksE9viM.png)
Oregon had some good luck in the scheduling department too. I'm not trying to take away from their accomplishment, going 9-0 is great but . . .
They only had one challenging road game, their road opponents were:
- 0-9 Purdue
- 3-6 Wisconsin
- 3-6 UCLA
- 5-4 Michigan
They got Ohio State at home and won by a single point. They got Illinois at home. Those two plus Michigan are the only .500+ teams that they played. Would they have finished 9-0 if their schedule had included Penn State in Happy Valley, Indiana in Bloomington, and Iowa in Kinnick?
I point all of this out because, going forward, it is going to matter pretty much every year. There are going to be teams like Indiana that are pretty good but not great that get a lucky draw and end up in the CFP and there are going to be teams like Florida that are frankly probably better than Indiana that get a tough draw and end up around .500.
-
So, you're saying matt rhule has a chance?
And coach prime
-
Wisconsin had Oregon beat and the OC shit the bed (and got fired the next day).
-
Wisconsin had Oregon beat and the OC shit the bed (and got fired the next day).
They were up 7 with more than a quarter to go.
Had them beat seems like quite an overstatement.
-
They were up 7 with more than a quarter to go.
Had them beat seems like quite an overstatement.
One more score and it's over. The D gave up 16 points. To Oregon.
16. They averaged 35.
-
Comparing the strongest and weakest B1G schedules:
UCLA played the toughest schedule. Their B1G opponents went 51-30. They played three of the top-4 teams and five of the eight .500+ teams. UCLA went 0-3 and 1-4 in those games respectively. That said, they had the same number of wins over .500+ teams that Indiana had. Looking at the two and how they did against the B1G teams from #1 through #18 (order is winning percentage with ties broken by opponent winning percentage):
- Oregon: UCLA lost by 21 home
- Penn State: UCLA lost by 16 away
- Indiana: UCLA lost by 29 home
- Ohio State: IU lost by 23 away
- Illinois: n/a
- Iowa: UCLA won by 3 home
- Michigan: IU won by 5 home
- Minnesota: UCLA lost by 4 home
- Washington: IU won by 14 home, UCLA lost by 12 away
- USC: UCLA lost by 6 home
- Rutgers: UCLA won by 3 away
- UCLA: IU won by 29 away
- MSU: IU won by 37 away
- Nebraska: IU won by 49 home, UCLA won by 7 away
- Wisconsin: n/a
- Northwestern: IU won by 17 away
- Maryland: IU won by 14 home
- Purdue: IU won by 66 home
Indiana was clearly a better team but I would argue that they weren't 3-6 vs 8-1 better. Indiana's record was propped up by their easy league SoS while UCLA's record was dragged down by their brutal league SoS.
Look at their record against the bottom-7 teams in the league (#12-#18):
They were both undefeated but that was two-thirds of IU's schedule. Other than that they only had Washington and Michigan at home and Ohio State on the road. For UCLA this was only one freaking game.
Another interesting tidbit is that I think that HFA will pull the West Coast teams toward .500. Good West Coast teams will get dragged down by all the difficult road trips to eastern schools while bad West Coast teams will be propped up by all the home games against jetlagged eastern opponents.
-
Another interesting tidbit is that I think that HFA will pull the West Coast teams toward .500. Good West Coast teams will get dragged down by all the difficult road trips to eastern schools while bad West Coast teams will be propped up by all the home games against jetlagged eastern opponents.
Four of these things are not like the others.
(https://i.imgur.com/JzKK7v8.png)
-
6 of those things.
-
Tennessee had a weak-ass schedule, too. 2 opp ranked in the preseason wound up stinking (NCST & OU) and they basically played Bama, UGA, and that's it. Florida had them beat, but gave it away in OT.
So while the Vols fans were eager for a big-boy opponent in the playoff, they were not as good as their record. Hence the pounding.
-
Tennessee had a weak-ass schedule, too. 2 opp ranked in the preseason wound up stinking (NCST & OU) and they basically played Bama, UGA, and that's it. Florida had them beat, but gave it away in OT.
So while the Vols fans were eager for a big-boy opponent in the playoff, they were not as good as their record. Hence the pounding.
If folks are gonna keep on about records, are we gonna have to stop using conference standings?
-
One more score and it's over. The D gave up 16 points. To Oregon.
16. They averaged 35.
In that case, I’ve seen a lot of UW teams beat through the years, but then someone screwed up.
(Oregon was a quite good team. UW wasn’t. UW put most of what it had into being close, it wasn’t enough. Oregon’s defensive front just beat that ass. Wasn’t much answer there)
-
If folks are gonna keep on about records, are we gonna have to stop using conference standings?
hey, just adjust the tiebreakers every season
-
Tennessee had a weak-ass schedule, too. 2 opp ranked in the preseason wound up stinking (NCST & OU) and they basically played Bama, UGA, and that's it. Florida had them beat, but gave it away in OT.
So while the Vols fans were eager for a big-boy opponent in the playoff, they were not as good as their record. Hence the pounding.
I did the same table for the SEC, here it is:
(https://i.imgur.com/iRds09f.png)
Same story as in the B1G really. There is a HUMONGOUS difference between playing MissSt's "SEC Schedule" of all three CFP teams and 7 out of 8 being teams that finished .500 or above and playing Texas' or Tennessee's "SEC Schedule" of just one CFP team and only 3 out of 8 being teams that finished .500+.
Alabama REALLY stands out here not as good or bad per-se, but just weird. Judging by games against the .500+ teams, the Tide were the best team in the SEC. They went 4-1 against .500+ SEC teams. That is more wins and a better wining percentage than any other team. So far, so good. Problem: Judging by games against the teams that did NOT finish .500 or above the Tide were one of the worst teams in the SEC. They lost not just one but two games to teams that finished below .500 (Vandy and Oklahoma). In the SEC only Bama, Kentucky and Auburn lost more than one game to sub .500 teams.
-
Bring back divisions, and their consistent annual match-ups.
-
Mark, of the YT Voice of College Football channel, had an idea about using the previous season's standings to create schedules. Everyone gets an equal schedule based on W-L record of the previous season.
It's better than bullshit "randomness" - ask OU fans about their first SEC schedule when compared to Texas'.
-
It's better than bullshit "randomness" - ask OU fans about their first SEC schedule when compared to Texas'.
The Texas/Oklahoma difference is stark:
- Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24
- Texas played one CFP opponent, Oklahoma played two.
- Texas played three SEC teams that finished .500 or better, Oklahoma played seven
- Texas played five SEC teams that finished below .500, Oklahoma played one.
I have no doubt that Texas was better than Oklahoma last year. When they met in Dallas the Longhorns won 34-3. That said, if they trade schedules I think it is very likely that Texas ends up 6-2 or 5-3 instead of 7-1 and that Oklahoma ends up 3-5 or 4-4 instead of 2-6.
-
6 of those things.
8, if we're counting schools that don't border Great Lakes.
-
Good memory.
-
This conference expansion gimmick has really messed up UGA's OOC slates going forward.
-
wait til they're playin 9 conference games
-
The Texas/Oklahoma difference is stark:
- Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24
- Texas played one CFP opponent, Oklahoma played two.
- Texas played three SEC teams that finished .500 or better, Oklahoma played seven
- Texas played five SEC teams that finished below .500, Oklahoma played one.
I have no doubt that Texas was better than Oklahoma last year. When they met in Dallas the Longhorns won 34-3. That said, if they trade schedules I think it is very likely that Texas ends up 6-2 or 5-3 instead of 7-1 and that Oklahoma ends up 3-5 or 4-4 instead of 2-6.
What did A&M's look like in comparison? Yes, I'm that lazy . :)
-
Well keep in mind for comparing relative SOS that A&M and OU each played Texas, while Texas was dragged down by playing A&M and OU. Just saying. :)
Also, if you're going to attempt to compare the relative W/L opponent record like this...
- Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24
...then you are going to need to remove the games played against Texas, and OU, respectively. Because Texas delivered 7 of those losses to its opponents, while OU gifted 6 of those wins to its opponents.
Actual valid records for relative comparison are 23-33, 34-22. There's still a sizeable delta, but it's not quite the same.
-
Ohio State's record is always good because it doesn't have to play Ohio State.
-
I used to say that jokingly about Alabama. But of course, you can't penalize the best for being the best.
-
It's obviously true. A top team often will have a weaker schedule as a result. Texas this year is an exception.
It's nice to see "Texas back" among the Big Boys, I think. I wouldn't mind seeing USC recover as well, but don't expect it. Nebraska is just too scary when they are great.
Now it seems Illinois is, um, "back"???
Purdue once had some pretty spiffy competitive teams that could upend OSU.
I noticed our lifetime record vs Texas went from 1-4 to 3-4 in one season. I say "our" as if I was on the team somehow.
I predict Colorado will end up 9-4 and some NFL team will get a prime new coach.
-
Well keep in mind for comparing relative SOS that A&M and OU each played Texas, while Texas was dragged down by playing A&M and OU. Just saying. :)
Also, if you're going to attempt to compare the relative W/L opponent record like this...
- Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24
...then you are going to need to remove the games played against Texas, and OU, respectively. Because Texas delivered 7 of those losses to its opponents, while OU gifted 6 of those wins to its opponents.
Actual valid records for relative comparison are 23-33, 34-22. There's still a sizeable delta, but it's not quite the same.
This is definitely a fair point, I'm just not doing it because it is a tremendous amount of work.
Also, yes, Texas' schedule IS easier because they didn't have to play Texas. Same goes for:
I used to say that jokingly about Alabama. But of course, you can't penalize the best for being the best.
Ohio State's record is always good because it doesn't have to play Ohio State.
If you look at the SEC teams, most of the winning teams' opponents had a sub .500 record and most of the losing teams' opponents had a winning record. That is just math.
If you are Mississippi State and you went 0-8 then there are 15 SEC teams that you could potentially play and the cumulative record of those 15 teams is 64-56 so, on average, your SEC opponents are going to be .500+ and for Mississippi State they were, 41-23. Conversely if you are Texas and you went 7-1 then there are 15 SEC teams that you could potentially play and the cumulative record of those 15 teams is 57-63 so, on average, your SEC opponents are going to be <.500 and for Texas they were, 24-40.
I think what probably matters more is the # of games against CFP teams and the # of games against .500+ teams. Texas still gets kinda screwed there by being good because there were only three CFP teams and since Texas was one of them, they could only possibly have played two. Similarly, there were eight .500+ teams but since Texas was one of them they could only possibly have played seven.
Texas played one CFP team (UGA) and three .500+ teams (UGA, UF, aTm). Oklahoma played two CFP teams (TX, TN) and SEVEN .500+ teams. That is the part that is nuts. Only one of Oklahoma's SEC opponents finished below .500. That is a LOT of tough games.
Sure, part of it is that Oklahoma had to play Texas which was .500+ and CFP while Texas got to play Oklahoma which went 2-6 but even if you just toss that game out, in Texas' other seven SEC games they played 1 CFP team (UGA) and three .500+ teams (UGA, UF, aTm). In Oklahoma's other seven SEC games they still played a CFP team (TN) and six .500+ teams.
-
It's obviously true. A top team often will have a weaker schedule as a result.
It might be true, but it's often presented as a reason why a team performs well, and it's inadequate for that purpose. A great team has an "easier" schedule because they're better than everyone else, not the other way around.
-
What did A&M's look like in comparison? Yes, I'm that lazy . :)
aTm's 2024 SEC opponents had a cumulative SEC record of 31-33 so pretty average. They weren't really good like Oklahoma's opponents (40-24) nor really bad like Texas' opponents (24-40). The Aggies played one CFP team (TX) and five .500+ teams losing to the CFP team and going 3-2 against the winning teams.
The 3-2 record against .500+ teams is actually VERY good. It is the same as UGA and the three wins over .500+ SEC teams trails only Bama (4). That part of their record would have been enough to make the CFP. What kept aTm out was two things:
- The home loss to Notre Dame OOC, and
- The loss to Auburn
Auburn finished 2-6 on a relatively weak SEC schedule. There is no way that aTm should have lost that game.
-
I'm saying when it comes to the calculated SoS, a top team will tend to have a weaker valuation than teams that play said team.
It's autonomous. Or tautonomous. Or something. Inherent.
New word.
-
Well keep in mind for comparing relative SOS that A&M and OU each played Texas, while Texas was dragged down by playing A&M and OU. Just saying. :)
Also, if you're going to attempt to compare the relative W/L opponent record like this...
- Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24
...then you are going to need to remove the games played against Texas, and OU, respectively. Because Texas delivered 7 of those losses to its opponents, while OU gifted 6 of those wins to its opponents.
Actual valid records for relative comparison are 23-33, 34-22. There's still a sizeable delta, but it's not quite the same.
There is another mathematical problem that I have with this argument and I remember it from back when the BCS Formula used the exact same adjustment that you are proposing here.
Forget about Texas vs Oklahoma because they play each other and are rivals. Walk through this hypothetical for me:
Lets say that Texas and Tennessee do NOT play each other but that they play the EXACT same eight SEC opponents and that those SEC opponents had a cumulative record of 32-32. Now lets say that Texas had a great year and went 7-1 while Tennessee had a terrible year and went 1-7. If I understand your proposal here we would adjust their opponent records to exclude the games against the team in question so:
- Tennessee's SEC opponents are 25-31
- Texas' SEC opponents are 31-25
This makes no sense to me because Tennessee and Texas played the EXACT same eight teams. How can you say that Texas played a tougher schedule when their schedule was literally EXACTLY the same as Tennessee's?
-
There is another mathematical problem that I have with this argument and I remember it from back when the BCS Formula used the exact same adjustment that you are proposing here.
Forget about Texas vs Oklahoma because they play each other and are rivals. Walk through this hypothetical for me:
Lets say that Texas and Tennessee do NOT play each other but that they play the EXACT same eight SEC opponents and that those SEC opponents had a cumulative record of 32-32. Now lets say that Texas had a great year and went 7-1 while Tennessee had a terrible year and went 1-7. If I understand your proposal here we would adjust their opponent records to exclude the games against the team in question so:
- Tennessee's SEC opponents are 25-31
- Texas' SEC opponents are 31-25
This makes no sense to me because Tennessee and Texas played the EXACT same eight teams. How can you say that Texas played a tougher schedule when their schedule was literally EXACTLY the same as Tennessee's?
Texas and Tennessee actually did play very similar schedules, as I recall, so you might be able to move this away from being a thought experiment and into the real world.
But moving back to reality, when I see Texas' conference opponents being 24-40, the way you used the numbers, and I see that 7 of those 40 losses were directly because they played Texas, then what I'm taking away from that, is that nearly 20% of the Texas' opponents' losses, were to one team-- Texas.
-
SEC schedules tend to look a lot tougher in preseason it seems.
-
SEC schedules tend to look a lot tougher in preseason it seems.
I've been assured for decades that every SEC team is a rolling ball of flaming butcher knives, and that any win against any SEC team was far more important than any win against a non-SEC team.
And now this year all of a sudden I'm being told that Texas had an easy schedule, despite playing the best team in the SEC. Twice.
It's great for laughs anyway.
-
Texas and Tennessee actually did play very similar schedules, as I recall, so you might be able to move this away from being a thought experiment and into the real world.
They did play pretty similar schedules but they also had pretty similar records so the adjustment is a moot point. It matters when we are comparing 7-1 Texas to 2-6 Oklahoma.
But moving back to reality, when I see Texas' conference opponents being 24-40, the way you used the numbers, and I see that 7 of those 40 losses were directly because they played Texas, then what I'm taking away from that, is that nearly 20% of the Texas' opponents' losses, were to one team-- Texas.
I get it and I'm don't 100% disagree I'm just not sure the appropriate way to adjust it or if there is an appropriate way.
Lets look at a team that Texas beat and that beat Oklahoma:
Nevermind, there isn't one. This is the problem with mega-conferences. in 2024 Texas had the following SEC wins:
- MissSt
- Oklahoma
- Vandy
- Florida
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- aTm
Oklahoma had the following SEC losses:
- Tennessee
- Texas
- USCe
- Ole Miss
- Mizzou
- LSU
Texas also lost to UGA while Oklahoma also beat the two Alabama schools so Texas and Oklahoma, despite playing in the same league, had ZERO common opponents. That is just weird.
I've got to go back to hypothetcal land:
Suppose that Texas beat "team x" and that "team x" beat Oklahoma and that "team x" finished 4-4 in the SEC.
If we delete games against the team in question then "team x" is a 4-3 team on Texas' schedule and a 3-4 team on Oklahoma's schedule. That makes no sense to me because it is the same freaking team. You can't say that Texas' schedule is tougher because it isn't, it is EXATLY the same.
-
Yeah, but Texas joined the SEC right around when NIL relegated it into a glorified G5.
.
I've been assured for decades that every SEC team is a rolling ball of flaming butcher knives, and that any win against any SEC team was far more important than any win against a non-SEC team.
And now this year all of a sudden I'm being told that Texas had an easy schedule, despite playing the best team in the SEC. Twice.
It's great for laughs anyway.
.
-
I've been assured for decades that every SEC team is a rolling ball of flaming butcher knives, and that any win against any SEC team was far more important than any win against a non-SEC team.
Well, this is obviously true, and has been, even Vandy. I would admit that beating an Ohio State level team is at least equal to beating say South Carolina on the road.
-
Purdue once had some pretty spiffy competitive teams that could upend OSU.
We've also has some pretty shitty uncompetitive teams that could upend OSU. :57:
-
We've also has some pretty shitty uncompetitive teams that could upend OSU. :57:
We've pulled those numbers. It is so strange. Purdue just has that effect on Ohio State. If you look over the last 50 years, Purdue's record against Ohio State is better than a whole lot of teams that have been a lot better than Purdue overall.
-
Texas also lost to UGA while Oklahoma also beat the two Alabama schools so Texas and Oklahoma, despite playing in the same league, had ZERO common opponents. That is just weird.
This sums up a really bad situation in my view. It's incredible, literally.
-
We've pulled those numbers. It is so strange. Purdue just has that effect on Ohio State. If you look over the last 50 years, Purdue's record against Ohio State is better than a whole lot of teams that have been a lot better than Purdue overall.
I know. And when it all boils down, it's probably just a function of randomness. I doubt there's any logical, schematic, or style of play "reason" why Purdue has done so well over the years. I think it's just that when you have a bunch of outcomes over a bunch of years, it's a large data set and there will ALWAYS be random statistical outliers that make no sense whatsoever.
Still fun to tweak Buckeye fans about it tho :57:
-
I've been assured for decades that every SEC team is a rolling ball of flaming butcher knives, and that any win against any SEC team was far more important than any win against a non-SEC team.
And now this year all of a sudden I'm being told that Texas had an easy schedule, despite playing the best team in the SEC. Twice.
It's great for laughs anyway.
Well, I mean, really, Texas did just play a buncha SWC/Big 12 teams last year so don't laugh just yet ;)
In seriousness, obviously a UT program in good shape would've always competed at the top end of the SEC (though maybe not in the pre-Sark era for a decade or so), but the Buckeye did make a good point about NIL. I don't know how much Texa$ i$ deploying it$ capabilitie$, but should they choose, Texas can basically nuke the rest of us now in a way they wouldn't have been able to in the past. I wonder if we've seen the last of "down" Texas teams.
-
I know. And when it all boils down, it's probably just a function of randomness. I doubt there's any logical, schematic, or style of play "reason" why Purdue has done so well over the years. I think it's just that when you have a bunch of outcomes over a bunch of years, it's a large data set and there will ALWAYS be random statistical outliers that make no sense whatsoever.
Still fun to tweak Buckeye fans about it tho :57:
Statistically, I agree.
Once upon a time I pulled each Big Ten team's record against each other Big Ten team for something like 50 years. Over that 50 years Ohio State had the best overall record and, IIRC, Indiana had the worst with Michigan second best and, IIRC, Minnesota second worst.
So, in theory, each team should have their worst record against tOSU, second worst against M . . . second best against Minnesota, best against Indiana.
That general pattern did apply but every team had an outlier or two.
-
The train horn sound effect is our Kryptonite.
-
Well, I mean, really, Texas did just play a buncha SWC/Big 12 teams last year so don't laugh just yet ;)
In seriousness, obviously a UT program in good shape would've always competed at the top end of the SEC (though maybe not in the pre-Sark era for a decade or so), but the Buckeye did make a good point about NIL. I don't know how much Texa$ i$ deploying it$ capabilitie$, but should they choose, Texas can basically nuke the rest of us now in a way they wouldn't have been able to in the past. I wonder if we've seen the last of "down" Texas teams.
It’s funny because 4 years ago A&M took a lot of heat for doing the exact same thing. It’s rumored that Texas is spending $30-35 MM this year.
-
It’s funny because 4 years ago A&M took a lot of heat for doing the exact same thing. It’s rumored that Texas is spending $30-35 MM this year.
The rumors are wrong. Kirk Bohls is the idiot "journalist" who "reported" it and Sarkisian called him out directly and said it was a fabrication.
The problem is, he included the ~$20M that EVERY school will be able to pay to ALL of its athletes, under the House rule. Which may or may not happen, but even if it does, it will apply to EVERY school.
Actual NIL for Texas will be in line with what UT has been spending. Still toward the top, for sure.
-
... but the Buckeye did make a good point about NIL. I don't know how much Texa$ i$ deploying it$ capabilitie$, but should they choose, Texas can basically nuke the rest of us now in a way they wouldn't have been able to in the past. I wonder if we've seen the last of "down" Texas teams.
Didn't notice this until Gigem quoted it.
Texas is among the top NIL schools and should remain so, but Oregon has even more resources they can bring to bear. Ohio State and Miami are also among the top NIL schools. Texas A&M should be, and likely will be, after they've digested the massive coaching buyouts.
With respect to the SEC specifically, Texas is definitely at the top. Georgia and Tennessee do very well. I think Florida is pretty good here, though I haven't heard a lot of specifics. And of course Texas A&M once they get all the buyouts sorted.
The ones we expected to suffer in the new landscape, are. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss. They are just not going to be as competitive wrt NIL.
-
The ones we expected to suffer in the new landscape, are. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss. They are just not going to be as competitive wrt NIL.
That's interesting, and yet Bama still seems to be recruiting well, SO FAR.
Coaching will be the main differentiator for elite programs. And luck.
-
Alabama's recruiting okay, but they're starting to lose a lot of head-to-heads against better-resourced programs.
-
Coaching will be the main differentiator for elite programs. And luck.
this had ALWAYS been so
-
Barry $witzer didn't agree. He'd tell you it's the Jimmys and the Joes, not the X's and the O's.
-
Barry $witzer didn't agree. He'd tell you it's the Jimmys and the Joes, not the X's and the O's.
Hugh Freeze would say it's not the Jimmy and Joes, or the X's and O's, it's the $ and hoes.
-
Barry $witzer didn't agree. He'd tell you it's the Jimmys and the Joes, not the X's and the O's.
Barry had better jimmys & Joes because he was the head coach in charge of cheating in recruiting
other sooner coaches haven't been so successful
-
Barry had better jimmys & Joes because he was the head coach in charge of cheating in recruiting
other sooner coaches haven't been so successful
Barry $witzer would also tell you, "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."
-
the sweatshirt was ALWAYS tryin
-
The sweatshirt quit trying in 2020.
(https://i.imgur.com/RGQ1UY9.png)
-
King Barry
(https://i.imgur.com/ACwyrXv.jpeg)
Barry Sweatshirt
(https://i.imgur.com/dEUDYOw.jpeg)
-
King Barry never quit trying.
Sweatshirts were rare for him. He was more of a polo or pullover guy. Sometimes a sweater.