Connect with your Facebook Account

• Contact

Football Articles

55

An Interesting Tidbit

Posted by EyesOfTX on October 24th, 2008 under Football

Jerry Scarborough had an interesting bit of trivia in his latest instant update last night. In it, he pointed out that, since mid-October of the 2004 season, the Texas Longhorns are 15-2 against nationally-ranked opponents.

That’s quite a record, and it intrigued me enough to go double-check it just to be sure. Sure enough, Jerry’s dead on: If you begin this exercise with the Longhorns’ 28-20 win over #24 Missouri on Oct. 16, 2004, Texas is indeed 15-2 since that point in time against teams ranked in the Top 25.

That really is very impressive, and it becomes even more impressive when you compare it the program’s records against ranked opponents in the past. For example, prior to October 16, 2004, Mack Brown’s record against ranked opponents at UT was 12-14, which includes the 2004 loss to #2 Oklahoma.

This gives Mack an overall record against ranked opponents at Texas of 27-16, which is a bit of a comedown from 15-2, but his winning percentage of .627 is still very impressive when compared to the records of other UT coaches in the modern era:

John Mackovic: 7 wins, 16 losses, 2 ties - Winning percentage of .320.

David McWilliams: 7 wins, 11 losses - Winning percentage of .389.

Fred Akers: 24 wins, 16 losses, 1 tie - Winning percentage of .605.

Darrell Royal: 27 wins, 25 losses, 3 ties - Winning percentage of .518.

These numbers tell us several things. First, that the program took a definite turn for the better beginning with the 2004 season. Second, that the uptick has remained in effect after the departure of Vince Young, despite the disappointing finishes to the last two seasons. Many of us tend to forget that, prior to the injury suffered by Colt McCoy in the KSU game in 2006, the Longhorns were in the middle of the national championship picture for the second straight season.

Another interesting point in all of this is that the Longhorns’ record since Oct. 16 2004 against non-ranked opponents - 32-4 - comes to virtually the same winning percentage as the team’s record against ranked opponents, a good indication that the coaches have done a great job of keeping the team on an even keel and playing at a consistent level regardless of the opposition. Obviously, we’ve seen disappointing exceptions to that, but in the context of the modern history of this football program, those have been few and far between in recent years.

All of which leads me to repeat the rather sunshine-pumping conclusion to the last Good, Bad and Ugly: There really never has been a better time to bleed burnt orange.

Hook ‘em!!!

Article Tags:

, , ,

More from this Barker


Share This

  • StumbleUpon

55 Responses

  1. TXinDC said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:44 am

    Which are the two losses? Ohio State in 06-07, and… my mind draws a blank.

  2. Shockthenation said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:49 am

    OU last year.

  3. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:50 am

    This probably reflects the time it took for Texas to shake off the negative lingering effects of the SWC. For the most part, it seems UT has been gradually improving the further we get away from our SWC days, but the numbers, while better than the past, are probably still a little misleading and not as impressive as they would seem on the face.

    Don’t forget the overblown and overrated conference we happen to play in, for instance, like the array of overrated teams this year. None of the teams aside from OU we play in conference this year really actually deserve their rankings. Outside of the VY 2005 years, Texas has beaten no one of any significance up til OU this year. So I would not be one to rush out and call any of these stats all that impressive, considering who we are and what we have been capable of.

  4. Nordberg said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:54 am

    Jesus, shut the fuck up steven.

  5. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am

    I swear, now I can’t even tell the differnce between the real steven and the fake steven.

  6. haddly said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    Wait. Mizzou was #4 when we beat them in 2004? Is that true?

  7. Uncle Rico said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    i think both the fake and real steven fucking suck. what a douche.

  8. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 6:59 am

    Wait. Mizzou was #4 when we beat them in 2004? Is that true?
    ==========================================

    Oops. Typo. #24.

  9. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:01 am

    “Jesus, shut the fuck up steven.”

    Again, Nerbooger, I’ll shut up if you can tell me how I am wrong. Until you can do so, you might want to take some of your advice. And so far, records would show that you haven’t had much luck in that department.

  10. haddly said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:02 am

    Thanks Eyes. Either way, amazing statistic. Here’s to 15-2 come tomorrow evening.

  11. I miss echeese said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:03 am

    It’s remarkable how many of the latest Carnival comment sections end with steven’s posts…

  12. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:04 am

    Uncle Rico, why, cause you think the truth sucks too? Like I said to Nerdbooger, tell me how I am wrong before you go off being another one of them poo poo spouters.

  13. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:05 am

    It’s remarkable how many of the latest Carnival comment sections end with steven’s posts…

    Maybe I just excel at summing things up and tying up loose threads.

  14. Stuck in MN said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:08 am

    In fairness to the records of DKR and Akers, the rankings only went to 20 when they were coaching. Since a coach would presumably have a better record against 21-25 than against top 20, they might be getting a little shortchanged on their percentages.

  15. Huckleberry said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:13 am

    Either way, the 15-2 over the last 17 is a sick, sick record.

    Then again it makes the losses to unranked A&M and Kansas State teams all the more difficult to comprehend.

  16. Phenomenal Smith said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Posnanski wrote an article in SI, which I’m sure has been discussed somewhere on BC, about Brown’s record against ranked opponents. It’s ridiculously good - 21-4 in last 25 games.

  17. Phenomenal Smith said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:33 am

    So, assuming Posnanski is right, Mack Brown started out 6-12 against ranked opponents.

  18. The Stos said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Steven,

    Your stirring the pot, that’s not a bad thing. It makes people think. Now, your motives seemed to be set in the fact that you’re a prick, but it is still healthy for a society to have people like you around.

    Looking back to 2004. We beat Tech, they whipped Cal in the Holiday Bowl. So they were an accurately ranked Top 25 team. Remember, these statistics are talking about ranked teams, not Top 5 or MNC contenders, just ranked. We also beat #12 Michigan in the Rose Bowl that year

    2005: We beat #4 Ohio State at their place.We also beat an overrated #10 Texas Tech, but they were at least a top 25 team. Them we beat the best college football team ever assembled.

    2006: We beat #14 OU and #17 Nebraska, who I believe beat Michigan in the Alamo Bowl.

    2007: We beat #12 Arizona State in the Holiday Bowl.

    That my friend is how you are wrong. W eplayed legitimate competition. Also, you meade your statement, without any real facts. Now it is your turn to show how I am wrong.

  19. HenryJames said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:40 am

    This is a bit misleading. That Missouri team that we beat in 2004 lost 5 of their last 6 games and finished 5-6. They were #24 when we played them, but they didn’t finish anywhere near the Top 25.

    Anyone know what the numbers are against teams that actually finished in the Top 25?

  20. The Stos said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:40 am

    I just realized Nebraska beat Michigan in the Alamo Bowl the year before I stated that they had. 2006 was the year we hung on against Iowa.

    Bad memory, I must have blocked it out.

  21. Vasherized said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:41 am

    Those four losses to KSU and A&M in back to back years are as hard to comprehend as any loss we’ve suffered this decade, save some early beatdowns from OU. Ultimately it built up enough bile in Mack Brown to catalyze the urgency we saw in the Arizona State game which has surprisingly spilled over into this season.

    Regarding the babbling Hydra-headed sycophant that is steven, we need to look into a Webexorcism.

  22. PatronSaint said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:50 am

    “Another interesting point in all of this is that the Longhorns’ record since Oct. 16 2004 against non-ranked opponents - 32-4 - comes to virtually the same winning percentage as the team’s record against ranked opponents, a good indication that the coaches have done a great job of keeping the team on an even keel and playing at a consistent level regardless of the opposition.”

    Hm. I think it proves just the opposite. We play up to good teams and down to bad teams, thus we are equally likely to beat (or get beat by) a good team as a bad team.

  23. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:50 am

    HJ: That’s all true, but that’s the only way the records are kept by UT. I also suspect that there might be a team or two that was not ranked when we played them but ended up ranked at season’s end in there as well.

    At any rate, even if it’s 13-2 rather than 15-2, it’s still a pretty impressive stat.

  24. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am

    Patron Saint: If we played down to bad teams, it would not follow that our winning percentage against them would be about 89%.

  25. Callkevin said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am

    “In fairness to the records of DKR and Akers, the rankings only went to 20 when they were coaching.”

    To give Royal even more credit, they stopped at 10 from 1962-67.

  26. dasmithjones said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 7:59 am

    Vasherized-

    WORD!

    It just absolutely amazing and encouraging the way Mack has shifted the team attitude paridigm. I still have to remember to do a reality check from time to time.

    Steven: I shun thee!

    Shun- verb
    1. avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of
    2. expel from a community or group [syn: banish]

    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

  27. PatronSaint said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am

    I disagree Eyes. It isn’t the raw percentage that is important, it is the level of play that is indicated by the percentage.

    If you win X% against a capable opponent, and that same X% against poor opponents, that implies that you played better against good teams than against poor teams — you would have to to have the same winning percentage.

    To take it to a more tangible sense, if we won 50% of our games against OU and 50% against Baylor, I would say that we are not on an even keel. In one case, we are holding our own against talent-equals. In the other case, we are shitting the bed against scrubs half the time.

  28. El Duderino said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am

    “You’re not wrong Walter, you’re just an asshole.”

    Steven = Walter

  29. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 8:43 am

    “Now, your motives seemed to be set in the fact that you’re a prick”

    Glad to be appreciated for a change, but, I’m sorry, if you haven’t noticed, the truth can sometimes be a real d*ckhead and can act like wrench in all the gratuitous hoopla and whooping. Just go ask the Ags of all people. I think no more needs to be said on the matter.

    Remember I said teams of significance not just ranking. You gonna sit there and tell me that NU, ASU, OU with no QB in 2006 were teams of sinificance, although they may have been ranked. And before VY 2004, what team of significance did Mack ever manage to beat, aside from the declining NU teams of the late 90’s.

    As I said before, we have been steadily improving as we get further away from our SWC days. It’s basically taken a decade for us to recover from our weakness in the SWC and reclaim our spot in the CFB landscape.

    And as we know, UM has been in dramatic decline ever since VY and 2004. They have not been the same UM of old and neither has the entire B10.

    Not saying that the record is not good, just saying it is not as impressive as the record seems to indicate. And part of Mack’s lack of significant wins is because we never schedule any teams of note to play, like a USC, and we rarely end up playing one in conference, like the enitre SEC. All I was saying was that Texas could and should be better than this, notwithstanding records and stats which may indicate otherwise.

  30. Huckleberry said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Mack Brown is 17-16 at Texas versus teams that finished the year ranked in the AP Poll through 2007. That includes a 9-2 record against such teams in his last 11 games, meaning he started 8-14 against such teams.

    9-2 against teams that finish ranked is also ridiculously good.

  31. Black Scholes said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    I’m torn as to which is more annoying - the content of steven’s posts or the length.

  32. Trips Right said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am

    Black, I think those things compliment each other like peanut butter and jelly.

  33. Mysterious Package said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am

    Steven is no bueno.

  34. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Need I remind anyone that the truth and reality can sometimes be annoying and long. Still waiting for someone to show me how I was wrong, and if you all can’t, what’s with all these sideshow rants? In all honesty, it makes you all look worse than me. Having numbers doesn’t always make you right. Possibly, the long and annoying history of the world has shown this to be the case, time after time, and all this group ranting and raving might just be another one of those examples of such.

  35. Uncle Rico said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 10:14 am

    i think steven’s response sucked and agree with black scholes. if you are going to be dumb, please be brief.

  36. PatronSaint said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am

    “In all honesty, it makes you all look worse than me.”

    No.

  37. The Stos said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Steven,
    Did you ignore how people have pointed to strong teams we’ve beaten. Hell it started out as a simple point of how we’ve been doing better and better, and you’re not wrong when you say that we have gotten better the further we’ve gotten from the SWC. WHy can’t you agree without also disagreeing.

    Ahh…attention. You like it. I see now. It doesn’t mattter if anyone posts a counter argument that has merit, you ignore it and ask for someone to refute you again.

    Stir it up and make people think, but don’t be contrarian just for the hell of it.

  38. sexytractor said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Long time lurker here. Just wanted to sound off on this steven sucking thing.

    steven:
    I’m sure you might simply dismiss this comment. But the reason your responses suck is because you take things that are opinion and state them as if they are fact. You cant prove something thats subjective. And to call everyone else an idiot for not being able to, well you tell me what that makes you.

  39. Stuck in MN said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I apoligize if this has been mentioned and I missed it while trying to avoid the minefield of steven posts, but relying on end of season rankings would unfairly tilt the record downward via automatic selection.

    If you beat a team, they will of course have one more loss and be less likely to be ranked, but if you lose to them they will be more likely to be ranked. I bet we have never beaten the number one team in the nation applying those metrics.

  40. sexytractor said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Honestly, it doesnt matter whether or not these teams we beat are deserving of their ranks. All that matters is that these teams were media darlings and we beat them to a pulp. Can you honestly tell me that the insignificance of our past victories caused you to enjoy the mizzou beatdown any less?

    Enjoy this horns team and quit trying to qualify their wins. Things will play out how they will in the end. Just enjoy the ride.

  41. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Last time I post on this issue. Look, Stos you already gave me a list of the ranked teams we beat, and I responded that those are not what I consider to be significant teams. What, you think this Mizzou team which was ranked that we beat was one, also?

    Rankings may mean something, but, come one, they very often do not reflect the true strength of a team, and, in the B12, they almost never do. How is saying that a QB-less OU team, a flimsy ASU team, and any NU team in the Callahan era were not significant and legit teams, how is that subjective? Sure, of course, there is a subjective element there, but, what the hell, there is a subjective element in everything. Objectively speaking (and there is enough objectivity here to speak this way), those were not great victories over a legitimate contender. They were not like the victory at OSU in ‘05. Now that is a significant win in my book.

    And outside of all this steven hate verbiage thrown around here, most of these posters would actually agree with me, even if they would never admit it. Just as I would agree to caress their taints ever so gently should we ever meet in person. Isn’t that why that OSU victory was such a big f*cking deal around here? Wasn’t cause it was one of those very rare victories against a legit team? And doesn’t all that indicate that I am more right about all of this than most around here seem to want to admit?

  42. flamingmonkeyass said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Steven it’s obvious to anyone who reads the BC that the only “teams of significance” to you are teams in the SEC. We get it. You think the SEC is a great confrence. You know what? It is. Why don’t go find a Bama blog and live there for a while? You can talk about your mighty SEC speed and how slow it looked Thursday night against a Big East also ran.

    God I pray we make it to the NC game and have a shot at Alabama. Does that confrence even know you’re allowed to have more than two receivers on the field at one time. Oh that’s right, one team does, the Gators. If I’m not mistaken they’re the team that hung half a hundred on the best defense in the SEC right? Yeah there’s some great teams in that confrence. I bet their champion might even finish in the top half of the Big XII this year. If they played in the North.

  43. TheElusiveShadow said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Goodness…

    “Rankings may mean something, but, come one, they very often do not reflect the true strength of a team, and, in the B12, they almost never do.”

    Sure, rankings are never perfect, but how does this diminish a win over a quality opponent? Why do rankings mean less in the Big 12? What arguments do you have to support this? All I see is an unsupported assertion.

    “Sure, of course, there is a subjective element there, but, what the hell, there is a subjective element in everything. Objectively speaking (and there is enough objectivity here to speak this way), those were not great victories over a legitimate contender. They were not like the victory at OSU in ‘05. Now that is a significant win in my book.”

    You do realize that OU’s only losses were a VERY controversial one to Oregon, Texas, and a wacky game to undefeated Boise State. ASU was in the weak Pac-10, but they WERE the co-champions along with USC. In either case, if you don’t use rankings or other objective elements as others do here, then all you have is your baseless opinion that our Big 12 wins mean nothing.

    “And outside of all this steven hate verbiage thrown around here, most of these posters would actually agree with me, even if they would never admit it.”

    They sure don’t seem to, but you appear to like living in a delusion that you argue well and everyone else is just being difficult.

    “Isn’t that why that OSU victory was such a big f*cking deal around here? Wasn’t cause it was one of those very rare victories against a legit team?”

    No, it was because it was simply a huge win that truly put us in control of our national title dreams. Do all games need to be #2 vs #4 at the Horse Shoe to be called significant or legit? I didn’t think so, because then a great many games in the SEC would also be thrown out the window.

    “And doesn’t all that indicate that I am more right about all of this than most around here seem to want to admit?”

    So, your argument is:

    A) We celebrated a huge win against the Buckeyes in 2005.
    B) We don’t celebrate that much over every win.
    Therefore,
    C) All those other wins were not significant.

    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and refrain from explaining the obvious logical flaws. Surely you can figure it out on your own, but from my brief readings here, that seems unlikely. Indeed, you do get a kick out of being “right,” as shown here:

    “It’s remarkable how many of the latest Carnival comment sections end with steven’s posts…

    “Maybe I just excel at summing things up and tying up loose threads.”

    Or perhaps many simply get tired of arguing with a brick wall.

    Please don’t come to Burnt Orange Nation. For your own good. If you do, we will rip you. Good day.

  44. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    I’d respond in douche kind, but I am afraid The EYES OF TEXAS is erasing and editing my posts, so I will refrain until later.

  45. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Yes, I did erase one of your comments, steven. Given that your behavior is much like that of a lab rat in a drug testing lab, I thought I’d see if I could throw you into a fit of even higher rage than you’ve already displayed by deleting one of your least idiotic comments today.

    I’m happy to report the experiment was a resounding success. Thanks.

  46. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Yea, that’s one way EYES to show ‘ole steven is wrong. Just erase and edit his posts. What you so afraid of by the way? I’m afraid of contact with a woman. And by the way, do you even know the true meaning of your namesake? Cause I sure as hell do and I can only assume you do as well. And don’t get me started on that. I’m already busting out laughing. Without that edit button of yours, you know, you do not stand a chance, even with all these lackey posters around here.

  47. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    :)

  48. steven said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    And quit acting as if it was your decision to make, son. That’s what I say after I get them from the playground into my van.

  49. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    :) :)

  50. DanielMason said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Steven: “Objectively speaking (and there is enough objectivity here to speak this way)…”

    Inigo Montoya: “You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    If you really understood that word, you surely would not have changed metrics in midstream from “ranked”, which is an actual objective measure, to “significant,” which of course is completely subjective.

    In conclusion, yer brain don’t work too good, which would probably be okay if you weren’t such a grating, joy-sucking contrarian.

  51. Kilgorehorn said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Has anyone ever considered just ignoring steven until he gets bored and goes away?

  52. Chairman of the Commission for Anti-Steven Policy said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Has anyone ever considered just ignoring steven until he gets bored and goes away?

    Uh, yeah. Yeah, sure. We’ve thought about that. We’ve thought about that a lot, actually. Sure. That’s right. In fact, it was going to be the centerpiece of our second draft of the Biannual Report on Multilateral Anti-Steven Policy and its Global Implications. It should have been in the first draft, too, but there was a typo. You know how that goes.

  53. EyesOfTX said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    That tactic actually works on sane people. Thus, ineffective in this instance.

  54. Kilgorehorn said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    How do you know it doesn’t work?
    Every thread I have read someone responds to the idiot.

  55. groover said:

    October 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    steven = eeyore

    “it’ll never work . . . .”

Leave a Reply

Follow Us

Related Articles

Hot Forum Topics

Activity