Started By
Message
re: The SEC's Big Ten
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:48 pm to BamaChemE
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:48 pm to BamaChemE
quote:
I think it's interesting that all of Alabama's losses are to Florida, and all of Florida's losses are to Alabama.
The pairings for the game are not very dynamic. LSU has only played UGA or Tenn. Until recently Bama had only played Florida.
1
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:48 pm to RB10
Judging from the winning percentage no, but if you go alphabetically then I could see it
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:53 pm to KCM0Tiger
And here's a list of the 6 teams that have won the SEC since splitting into divisions:
UGA, UF, UT, Bama, AU, LSU
tRealBig6. Always and forever.
UGA, UF, UT, Bama, AU, LSU
tRealBig6. Always and forever.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:54 pm to RB10
quote:Meh, I didn't put a lot of research into man. I just remember them going about the same amount of times.
Can you come up with even 1 decent reason why AU and UGA deserve to be ahead of LSU?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:54 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
I can get behind this but I would change the order up some
It was alphabetical not who has a better winning percentage or the most appearances
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:56 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
The pairings for the game are not very dynamic. LSU has only played UGA or Tenn. Until recently Bama had only played Florida
Yeah, that is kinda head scratching
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:58 pm to LSUNV
quote:
Yeah, that is kinda head scratching
Not really. The quality of the big 6 pretty much precludes any permanent opponents meeting in the SECCG.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:01 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
Not really. The quality of the big 6 pretty much precludes any permanent opponents meeting in the SECCG.
Good argument for permanent opponents to be done away with.
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:03 pm to KCM0Tiger
No one cares about appearances. It's just another way of saying we lost the big game.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:04 pm to LSUNV
quote:
Good argument for permanent opponents to be done away with
You'd understand if you had a real rival.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:06 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
You'd understand if you had a real rival.
So who's your "real" rival? Florida, Auburn, or Georgia Tech. Or are they all "real" rivals?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:08 pm to KCM0Tiger
Still looks like The Six to me :
#1 Louisiana State 4-1 @ 80%
#2 Florida 7-3 @ 70%
#3 Auburn 3-2 @ 60%
#4 Alabama 4-4 @ 50%
#5 Tennessee 2-3 @ 40%
#6 Georgia 2-3 @ 40%
Using the term Big Ten and relating it to the SEC
ps, pretty sure UK has won the SEC twice (1950 and 1976) , Mississippi State won it in 1941, and Ole Miss has won it about 1/2 dozen times.
pps, Vanderbilt has (2) SoCon Championships and (11) SIAA Championships (the conferences that became the SEC). As the PAC uses the old PCC records and the B1G uses the old Western Conference records seems fair the SEC should use the SIAA and SoCon ones.
ppps, Georgia Tech has 5 SEC titles and Tulane has 3. This means schools no longer in the SEC have more conference titles that the Tigers of Mizzou, and they have been gone since the 1960's.
#1 Louisiana State 4-1 @ 80%
#2 Florida 7-3 @ 70%
#3 Auburn 3-2 @ 60%
#4 Alabama 4-4 @ 50%
#5 Tennessee 2-3 @ 40%
#6 Georgia 2-3 @ 40%
Using the term Big Ten and relating it to the SEC
ps, pretty sure UK has won the SEC twice (1950 and 1976) , Mississippi State won it in 1941, and Ole Miss has won it about 1/2 dozen times.
pps, Vanderbilt has (2) SoCon Championships and (11) SIAA Championships (the conferences that became the SEC). As the PAC uses the old PCC records and the B1G uses the old Western Conference records seems fair the SEC should use the SIAA and SoCon ones.
ppps, Georgia Tech has 5 SEC titles and Tulane has 3. This means schools no longer in the SEC have more conference titles that the Tigers of Mizzou, and they have been gone since the 1960's.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:10 pm to BamaChemE
quote:
I think it's interesting that all of Alabama's losses are to Florida, and all of Florida's losses are to Alabama.
honestly not really when you think about permanent opponents
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:10 pm to Cheese Grits
We are relevant dammit.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:11 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
You'd understand if you had a real rival.
No, not really. You would still have a chance to play your "Rival" just not as often and it would be on a bigger stage only adding to the value
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:13 pm to spslayto
quote:
So who's your "real" rival? Florida, Auburn, or Georgia Tech. Or are they all "real" rivals
All 3 of course.
Tech is our biggest, but they're OOC so are irrelevant to the discussion (and life in general). UF is in our division so no worries there.
The DSOR is, obviously, the oldest rivalry in the south and one of the top 7 oldest in America. Dripping with history and tradition. Countless titles won and lost on that game. LSU doesn't have that so I'm not surprised you are so carefree about scrapping the permanent opponents.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:13 pm to LSUNV
quote:
You'd understand if you had a real rival.
LSU does have a rival, it's called their own fans. I've seent it with my own eyes.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:13 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
We are relevant dammit.
Maybe by B1G or B12 standards but the SEC is about brining home the national hardware. Win a MNC in football or at lest get to the Final Four in basketball as a member of the SEC to gain your relevance!
This is the SEC, second place is not an option.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:14 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
second place is not an option.
quote:
get to the Final Four in basketball
Posted on 5/15/14 at 1:15 pm to 870Hog
Our fans are kinda fickle
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News