Started By
Message
Record vs final ranked teams since 2012
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:00 pm
1. SC: 10-5
2. Bama: 9-5
3. UGA 9-7
4. LSU: 6-7
5. UF: 6-10
6. OM: 6-12
7. AnM: 5-10
8. AU: 5-12
9. Mizzou: 3-10
10. MSU: 1-13
11. UT 1-14
12. Ark: 1-14
13. Vandy: 0-11
14. UK: 0-14
2. Bama: 9-5
3. UGA 9-7
4. LSU: 6-7
5. UF: 6-10
6. OM: 6-12
7. AnM: 5-10
8. AU: 5-12
9. Mizzou: 3-10
10. MSU: 1-13
11. UT 1-14
12. Ark: 1-14
13. Vandy: 0-11
14. UK: 0-14
14
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:01 pm to djsdawg
Amazing that we won 6.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:01 pm to djsdawg
Goes to show how meaningless Mizzu's East titles were.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:02 pm to djsdawg
quote:
since 2012
Why the arbitrary time frame?
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:03 pm to djsdawg
why 2012? Curious.
And why not also add losses to final "un-ranked"?
And why not also add losses to final "un-ranked"?
This post was edited on 8/8/15 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:05 pm to JayDeerTay84
Conference expansion I'd assume
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:06 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Record vs final ranked teams since 2012
Wonder what the record vs unranked teams was?
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:06 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
quote:since 2012 Why the arbitrary time frame?
SEC went to 14 teams in 2012.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:07 pm to SICEMDAWGS11
quote:
Conference expansion I'd assume
Well, ranked is ranked. Considering the bias is already applied to said rankings.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:07 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
And why not also add losses to final "un-ranked"?
Because he cant get his anti mizzou message out like that.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:07 pm to djsdawg
quote:
1. SC: 10-5
2. Bama: 9-5
3. UGA 9-7
4. LSU: 6-7
5. UF: 6-10
6. OM: 6-12
Big 6
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:09 pm to kilo
quote:
Because he cant get his anti mizzou message out like that.
I do think applying how many unranked teams the teams lost to would also give the better picture.
Just my 2 cents
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:10 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
I do think applying how many unranked teams the teams lost to would also give the better picture.
Of course it would. He has probably spent 3/4 of his posting here bitching and arguing about Mizzou. The butt hurt is real.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:12 pm to djsdawg
quote:
11. UT 1-14
12. Ark: 1-14
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:17 pm to kilo
quote:
Wonder what the record vs unranked teams was?
1. Bama 27-0
2. MSU 24-1
3. AnM 23-1
4. Mizzou 25-2
5. UGA 21-3
6. LSU 22-4
7. OM 18-3
8. AU 18-4
9. SC 19-5
10. Vandy 21-6
11. UF 16-5
12. UT 16-6
13.Ark 13-9
14. UK 9-13
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:17 pm to djsdawg
Even better indicator would be record vs SEC opponents with a winning conference record since 2012...Id be very interested to see those results.
This post was edited on 8/8/15 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:18 pm to djsdawg
So you beat the teams you are supposed to beat and lose to the teams you are supposed to lose to and you too can win the SEC East.
Riveting stuff champ.
Riveting stuff champ.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:23 pm to kilo
quote:
So you beat the teams you are supposed to beat and lose to the teams you are supposed to lose to and you too can win the SEC East. Riveting stuff champ.
I dont think you are supposed to lose games. While I understand your frustration, you should be thankful that Mizzou has been blessed with easy schedules to prop your record up.
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:24 pm to kilo
Was Mizzou supposed to lose to Indiana?
Posted on 8/8/15 at 10:25 pm to djsdawg
quote:
While I understand your frustration
What frustration? We are winning the division while you cant. Take a long look in the mirror and see if you can really find the "frustration"
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News