Started By
Message
A Barner's Take on SEC Pecking order:
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:11 pm
One way of looking at it...
quote:
Since 1992:
1. 96.500 - Florida
2. 58.375 - Alabama
3. 57.750 - Auburn
4. 49.625 - LSU
5. 48.500 - Tennessee
6. 38.125 - Georgia
7. 13.000 - Arkansas
8. 07.875 - Ole Miss
9. 05.125 - Mississippi State
10. 04.500 - South Carolina
11. 01.250 - Kentucky
12. 00.125 - Vanderbilt
Since 2000:
1. 89.375 - Florida
1. 87.250 - LSU
3. 78.500 - Auburn
4. 51.500 - Georgia
5. 50.500 - Alabama
6. 24.500 - Tennessee
7. 17.875 - Arkansas
8. 10.750 - South Carolina
9. 06.625 - Ole Miss
10. 04.000 - Mississippi State
11. 02.000 - Kentucky
12. 00.000 - Vanderbilt
Since 2006:
1. 89.000 - Florida
2. 74.250 - Alabama
3. 65.125 - LSU
4. 64.625 - Auburn
5. 28.250 - Georgia
6. 22.875 - Arkansas
7. 11.875 - Tennessee
8. 08.625 - South Carolina
9. 05.500 - Ole Miss
10. 04.750 - Mississippi State
11. 04.625 - Kentucky
12. 00.000 - Vanderbilt
Average for all three time frames:
1. 91.63 - Florida
2. 67.33 - LSU
3. 66.96 - Auburn
4. 61.04 - Alabama
5. 39.29 - Georgia
6. 28.29 - Tennessee
7. 17.92 - Arkansas
8. 07.96 - South Carolina
9. 06.67 - Ole Miss
10. 04.63 - Mississippi State
11. 02.63 - Kentucky
12. 00.04 - Vanderbilt
12
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:13 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
6. 22.875 - Arkansas
:big6:
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:14 pm to Indiana Tiger
UT is too low in the 90's
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:16 pm to Indiana Tiger
Why in the hell would you average those three time frames?
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:22 pm to Latarian
quote:
:big6:
Arkansas - A member of the Big 6 since 2006!
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:23 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
Arkansas - A member of the Big 6 since 2006!
print the damn t-shirts
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:25 pm to Aman
quote:
Why in the hell would you average those three time frames
Why in the hell are you so mad?
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:27 pm to Aman
LSU is still the best this year and that's all that matters.
This post was edited on 10/7/11 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:30 pm to 13SaintTiger
waste of time...
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:36 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Why in the hell are you so mad?
Probably because the whole analysis was designed to show this:
3. 66.96 - Auburn
4. 61.04 - Alabama
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:37 pm to allin2010
Poor Vanderbilt. 
This post was edited on 10/7/11 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:39 pm to Indiana Tiger
Too much emphasis put on an undefeated season. National Title should be at least 10 points higher than a no national title season, even if you are undefeated.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:43 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
A Barner's Take on SEC Pecking order:
More arbitrary time frames to make one feel all giddy about one's team.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:49 pm to Aman
quote:
Why in the hell would you average those three time frames?
Its called manipulating the time frame to best make your point. Every fan base does it - Auburn (like the Tiger Walk) did it first.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:51 pm to 13SaintTiger
InB4barnersonlycarebout30years
And wut not
And wut not
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:54 pm to bamascott2
quote:
More arbitrary time frames to make one feel all giddy about one's team
So the British should still claim they have the best navy in the world because they ruled the seas from 1765-1820....
Time frame doesn't mean shite...am I doin it right?
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:54 pm to JoshuaChamberlain
quote:
JoshuaChamberlain
You're too late.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:58 pm to JoshuaChamberlain
quote:
So the British should still claim they have the best navy in the world because they ruled the seas from 1765-1820....
Time frame doesn't mean shite...am I doin it right?
If you want to be a horses arse you are. What the bloody hell is so important about the last 30 years? Bryant died and Dye opened the check book? This period is relevent to Auburn fans because it showed a decline in Alabama football and a rise in Auburn football. You couldn't show your bias any more unless spelled it out. Basically it shows a fanbases desperation to be legit.
Which is funny since Auburn is a legitimate program and shouldn't have to cook the book to feel otherwise.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 5:59 pm to Indiana Tiger
Why would you average time frames like that? They are right. Your formula is redundant if you do that, and basically useless. Now, if you want to do rankings for the timeframes of 1992-1999, 2000-2005, and 2006-2010, you might have a legit reasoning. You'd also need to validate your reasoning for selecting those time frames. Why wouldn't you do 1992-2000 and 2001-2010?
That makes more sense.
That makes more sense.
Posted on 10/7/11 at 6:07 pm to stat19
quote:
If you want to be a horses arse you are. What the bloody hell is so important about the last 30 years? Bryant died and Dye opened the check book? This period is relevent to Auburn fans because it showed a decline in Alabama football and a rise in Auburn football. You couldn't show your bias any more unless spelled it out. Basically it shows a fanbases desperation to be legit.
Which is funny since Auburn is a legitimate program and shouldn't have to cook the book to feel otherwise.
Their inferiority complex is evident daily, isn't it?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News