Started By
Message
re: Big 14 rankings - THE END ALL BE ALL, THE ALMIGHTY SEC RANKINGS
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:18 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:18 pm to SummerOfGeorge
So LSU only has 2 national championships and 2003 isn't recognized. Yep I'm not listening to this at all!
2
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:18 pm to LSUtiger89
quote:
So LSU only has 2 national championships and 2003 isn't recognized. Yep I'm not listening to this at all!
You guys are pretty bad at reading.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:24 pm to LSUtiger89
You have to change it to AP only until BCS started (then playoffs although that is not currently relevant). No one (except USCw) recognizes anyone but LSU as 2003 champs.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:24 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
Cfbdatawarehouse already does this, and their points system isn't nearly as gay. Plus you can search by decade, quarter century, etc. much better source of info.
Meh. They put too much weight in Sugar Bowls that LSU went to when they were shitty and undeserving.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:27 pm to CNB
quote:
(No message)
...what an incredibly tier 4 thing to say
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:37 pm to PurpleandGeauld
quote:
You have to change it to AP only until BCS started (then playoffs although that is not currently relevant). No one (except USCw) recognizes anyone but LSU as 2003 champs.
I've said roughly 100 times that you can go ahead and add 10 pts to LSU if you want for 2003. Still in basically the same place.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:47 pm to SummerOfGeorge
This system massively overweights Arkansas-- look at the conference titles.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 3:49 pm to montanagator
quote:
This system massively overweights Arkansas-- look at the conference titles.
As mentioned earlier, if you can come up with a better way to measure the A&M and Arkansas years in the SWC be my guest.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:00 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
...what an incredibly tier 4 thing to say
Not gonna lie, Laughed my arse off at that.
This post was edited on 12/22/15 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:14 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Why would you omit the UPI and, later, the Coaches polls? And 10 win seasons are starting to matter a lot less now than they used to. Back when Vandy was the preeminent program in the precursor to the SEC, programs only played 1 or 2 games a season. The 10 win bit is arbitrary. Lower it to 1 win seasons to give us our due credit.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:17 pm to randomways
quote:
Why would you omit the UPI and, later, the Coaches polls?
Honestly, it was the easiest way without using school reported titles. It is the most streamline way to do it.
quote:
And 10 win seasons are starting to matter a lot less now than they used to.
I agree, but that change didn't happen until the advent of the 12th game which was in the mid to late 2000s. That's only 10% of the time period covered, really.
quote:
Back when Vandy was the preeminent program in the precursor to the SEC, programs only played 1 or 2 games a season. The 10 win bit is arbitrary. Lower it to 1 win seasons to give us our due credit.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:26 pm to SummerOfGeorge
What would actually be perhaps the most representational would be breaking down wins as a percentage of total games played. But that would require lots and lots of data entry work, so it's fair enough to just go with a solid number. And, obviously, it still doesn't account for the strength of schedule.
Really feels like it's been longer since the number of games expanded. Guess we're all completely acclimated now.
Really feels like it's been longer since the number of games expanded. Guess we're all completely acclimated now.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:38 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
For what time frame are you looking at? And I had zero idea what it had LSU ranked. I haven't looked at it in a while, and not at the rankings when I did. For some reason on my phone it is loading and freezing halfway....just before it puts up the teams. Not sure if it is reception or due to something else such as what was said earlier with it being malware....which is exactly why I haven't copied and pasted as I said I would. But go figure you would like it except for the fact that it doesn't have TN
I think all-time has LSU at #2, really could care less though, I was just being petty
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:42 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Tell your buddy Nick his NC at LSU doesn't count.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:46 pm to I-59 Tiger
quote:
Tell your buddy Nick his NC at LSU doesn't count.
Yeah, right. You know how your grandma always quoted that old-timey Southern saying, "Never get in a crotch-punchin' fight with a midget?" Wise words indeed in situations like this.
All of y'all's grandmas did say that, right? It wasn't just mine, I hope.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:48 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Seriously cant win. Use all titles? Bammer bias. Only use AP? Anti LSU
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:54 pm to SummerOfGeorge
This pretty much mirrors total NCAA victories, except Auburn would be a lot higher.
Alabama #3 or #4 All-Time nationally I believe
Tennessee Around #8 All-Time
Georgia #11
LSU (gaining on the Puppies) #12 (And #8 in Bowls)
Auburn #15
Alabama #3 or #4 All-Time nationally I believe
Tennessee Around #8 All-Time
Georgia #11
LSU (gaining on the Puppies) #12 (And #8 in Bowls)
Auburn #15
Posted on 12/22/15 at 4:55 pm to montanagator
quote:
This system massively overweights Arkansas-- look at the conference titles
Why is that?
Arkansas and aTm always played a full conference slate every season in the SWC.
For you new SEC fans, prior to the mid 1980's, SEC teams would only play a 5-6 game conference slate.
To say Arkansas or aTm should be discredited, or that conference titles shouldn't matter, I'd urge you to learn the history of your own league. At least when Arkansas won a conference title, it was done with a true/full conference schedule.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 5:16 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Not bad but I would have given more weight to the big time bowls instead of having the Sugar Bowl the same weight as the Tax Slayer Bowl.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 5:20 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
Would actually agree with you
Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton were the premier bowls prior to 1992. Definitely not on the same level as the Independence, etc.
Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton were the premier bowls prior to 1992. Definitely not on the same level as the Independence, etc.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News