Started By
Message
3
Posted on 7/10/14 at 10:54 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
i feel like more modern success should be weighted heavier than 60 plus years ago and such.
:(
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:02 am to Tornado Alley
quote:
The 1908 LSU tigers scored 442 points and allowed only 11
I wish they had game film of matches back then. It's seriously bizarre how many teams from back then(including some old-timey Vandy teams) have blurbs along the "Team X scored one million points while giving up only two" lines. It sounds impressive to our modern ears, but the sheer number of teams that did stuff like that back in the late 19th/early 20th makes me want to watch the games to see exactly what the contemporary style of football looked like for the extent of a whole game.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:04 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
fwiw I could justify moving uga and uf up because i feel like more modern success should be weighted heavier than 60 plus years ago and such.
Since the premise is "history," I'd say the weight should be applied across the board.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:11 am to randomways
it could be and i don't find a problem with it being done either way. I feel like a more modern era say post ww2 is a better measurement. If you look back at old schedules they have high schools and military base teams on the schedule and what not
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:16 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
it could be and i don't find a problem with it being done either way. I feel like a more modern era say post ww2 is a better measurement. If you look back at old schedules they have high schools and military base teams on the schedule and what not
I'm not saying you shouldn't feel that way, just that it would be a separate list, one not centered on the generic "history." Nothing wrong with a list called "SEC teams ranked according to recent history."
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:18 am to randomways
a recent history one is a different list than a total history that puts different weights on the time the season occurred. Either way I think the list would be pretty close to the same, the only difference might be LSU in the 2 slot and UGA/UF being even closer to UT
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:28 am to REBEL5 AC
Looks about right.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:29 am to REBEL5 AC
quote:
Stop being racist. LSU made the top of the list for their recent success. Who cares when you did it? You did it. Why hasn't MSU won 6 conference titles, 3 NCs, and 23 bowl games? Y'all had a football team 60 years ago as well. You can't play the "you did it so long ago" card. Why? Because y'all have never done anything.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:31 am to Tornado Alley
quote:
It's going to take ten more years of poor results from Knoxville and a boom from Gainesville to make this happen.
We already have more titles and lead the series.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:34 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
heartbreakTiger
CFB Data Warehouse's rankings for the past 75 years (since 1939)
1) Alabama (#1 overall)
2) LSU (#9 overall)
3) Florida (#11 overall)
4) Tennessee (#12 overall)
5) Georgia (#13 overall)
6) Auburn (#15 overall)
7) Arkansas (#21 overall)
8) Texas A&M (#22 overall)
9) Ole Miss (#23 overall)
10) Missouri (#30 overall)
11) Kentucky (#39 overall)
12) Mississippi State (#41 overall)
13) South Carolina (#50 overall)
14) Vanderbilt (#59 overall)
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:36 am to Tornado Alley
I feel like that is a really accurate list. I would put ole miss over a&m though
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:41 am to Tornado Alley
What about going back to 1990? 
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:43 am to REBEL5 AC
quote:
I feel Ole Miss is ranked a little too low. Highest bowl win % in nation,
USC has a higher bowl winning percentage.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:43 am to Korin
quote:
We already have more titles and lead the series.
Wrong.
You both have three legitimate national titles.
I realize that Florida has been a truly elite team since the late 80s, but it's very hard to discount Tennessee's success before then too if we're doing a true historical ranking.
CFB Data Warehouse's decade rankings for Florida and Tennessee
2000s
#2 Florida
#14 Tennessee
1990s
#3 Florida
#6 Tennessee
1980s
#18 Tennessee
#20 Florida
1970s
#24 Tennessee
#25 Florida
1960s
#14 Tennessee
#16 Florida
1950s
#8 Tennessee
#26 Florida
1940s
#7 Tennessee
#54 Florida
1930s
#13 Tennessee
#70 Florida
I think that's far enough.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:47 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:Auburn is going to pass all you motherfrickers. We would have passed Florida and possibly Georgia in college football warehouse's rankings if we had just beaten FSU last year
looks right, LSU belongs at 3 for now. We are rapidly closing in on the dead program that is UT. id say within ten years LSU will be second, UGA 3rd UF fourth and UT down to 5th
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:48 am to REBEL5 AC
I'd reverse AU and Florida on that list. If you read the descriptions of the two teams in the links provided in the OP, it doesn't really make sense to rank the Gators ahead of AU.
Other than that, hard to argue with.
Other than that, hard to argue with.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:51 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
I'd reverse AU and Florida on that list. If you read the descriptions of the two teams in the links provided in the OP, it doesn't really make sense to rank the Gators ahead of AU.
Other than that, hard to argue with.
Naa.
Auburn has won one national championship since the original expansion.
Florida has won three and still has more conference championships than Auburn.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 11:58 am to hg
quote:You used to be cool, then the Auburn obsession began.
Auburn is too high
Posted on 7/10/14 at 12:01 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
fwiw I could justify moving uga and uf up because i feel like more modern success should be weighted heavier than 60 plus years ago and such.
What modern success are you talking abut for uga? East titles?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News