Nope, I will remind you that rent-a-games were not as prevalent back then. Now with rent-a-games including usually at least one 1-AA opponent each year, sometimes 2, W-L records are exaggerated these days. Also, I guess you checked the schedules of all those teams right? Strength of schedule isn't just for basketball, so no, I don't have a clue how good those teams were in years almost 50 years ago.

Miles, this is your opinion. You've voiced it a few times and I understand it's how you feel. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it the opinion of the majority or the minority. It's simply your opinion. I'm not going to attempt to sway your opinion. All I've done here is ask what you were basing the opinion on and that was answered.

I've seen things you've stated I don't agree with. I couldn't care less about those things because they are your opinions. Whether they are right or wrong is something everyone here will judge for themselves.

Personally, I think your criteria for what defines these teams is off. But, I'm not going to hold it against you and I'm not going to try to change your mind.

This is pretty damn simple.

You look at the 10-0, 1956 team at OU and see nine of those teams had a losing record? They weren't good football teams. When you look at those teams and see seven of them only had three wins or less on the season? They are pretty bad.

Now, '55 was a little better. Three of those ten teams had winning records.

Do the math. Out of 20 wins in two seasons, FOUR teams they beat had winning records.

As you just stated, rent-a-wins weren't prevalent back then. Their opponents, in a word?

BAD.

Let's look at Alabama opponents last season shall we? Out of the 12 opponents in regular season, 5 had LOSING records, 1 was 1-AA so that is definitely a losing record IF they played a 1-A caliber schedule. Florida and Miss State were only above .500 due to bowl wins. In the old days, .500 didn't get you in and Florida and MSU were .500 at 6-6. Soooo, before the bowl games, how many of Alabama opponents were above .500 on a 12 game schedule. A grand total of 4 teams out of 12 had records above .500 during the regular season...LSU, Penn State, Arkansas, and Auburn. That's it! Their opponents overall last season...BAD! They didn't play Georgia....they didn't play South Carolina...so their east opponents were a very down Tenn and a very down Florida team.

Miles may not give a gift game away again

Oh. My. Gawd.

You change the context of a conversation more than a speed reader turns pages.

i see some things never change

It was none other than you that started the attack on Oklahoma's strength of schedule in this thread wasn't it? Post #74 in this topic by YOU, "BTW, it's worth noting on the OU winning streak their schedule definitely wasn't close what we'd call difficult. It was a hell of a winning streak, no doubt."

Laughable now that the person who started attacking Oklahoma's schedule IN THIS THREAD during their 47 game winning streak is now accusing me of changing the subject. Nice con job if it had worked. My post you are complaining about is a direct rebuttal -- Alabama played 12 games in the regular season last year and only 4 teams had winning records in the regular season. Right on topic and a response to the attempted demeaning of Wilkinson and Oklahoma's 47 game winning streak.

You're right, I did bring up their strength of schedule. It was a side note—hence the BTW—placed in this thread that had nothing to do with the current conversation. It was a mere observation of their schedule and who they had played during that stretch of wins. If I had meant it to be a response to something contained in this thread, I'd of quoted the text.

"Right on topic" would be discussing attributes of great historical teams.

Technically, "right on topic" would be "LSU Odds to Take the SEC", but to be fair to me, you, and the poster who quoted his friend that thought that Alabama currently had a great historical program, these threads seem to wobble a bit from the original topic's title don't they....it is not just you...not just me...it is pretty much most of the posters. You did teach me something...apparently, I will not be accused of hijacking a thread if I use "BTW" and then make a statement. I have heard that is called a "side note", and I can even fill up about 60 lines after that listing 47 games and the opponent's record for each one.