Started By
Message
re: Football Kings of the South
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:12 pm to AUTiger789
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:12 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
I just don't think you can honestly lump 1946 in with those others when UT went 5 consecutive seasons in the middle with zero conference titles including a season they didn't even field a team. This is just not at all the same.
I mean, it is the same, but you want to create subjective guidelines. In 1943, over half the conference didn't field a team, so I don't see how that year can be included for anything fairly. The bottom line is that over 8 seasons, Tennessee won 4 SEC titles and had the second-highest winning percentage of the SEC era you listed. It's just you not wanting to include them because it is objectively better than one of the teams you listed. Whatever, you have been making subjective lists for years, with little reasoning for the guidelines you implement
3
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:20 pm to VFL67
quote:
I mean, it is the same, but you want to create subjective guidelines.
The irony.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:20 pm to VFL67
quote:
I mean, it is the same, but you want to create subjective guidelines.
It's not the same. If you start allowing teams to take 5-year gaps between conference titles, this entire list likely doubles. That's the whole point.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:23 pm to VFL67
quote:
Whatever, you have been making subjective lists for years, with little reasoning for the guidelines you implement
I literally spelled out the guidelines at the very beginning. What fits the criteria got listed.
Sorry you don't like the fact your team didn't have a period that made the cut, but when you go 5 consecutive seasons without a title I think it's a bit much to consider that team "King".
If you want to water it down, come up with your own list.
This post was edited on 7/2/26 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:34 pm to AUTiger789
Since full integration:
1. Bama (obviously a giant gap between them and everyone else)
2. UGA
3. UF
4. LSU
5. Aub
6. Vols
7. Ole Miss I guess?
1. Bama (obviously a giant gap between them and everyone else)
2. UGA
3. UF
4. LSU
5. Aub
6. Vols
7. Ole Miss I guess?
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:50 pm to AUTiger789
Meanwhile: 9uburn.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:52 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
you start allowing teams to take 5-year gaps between conference titles, this entire list likely doubles. That's the whole point.
So if Tennessee had won in 1938, 1940, 1943 (when over half the conference didnt play), and 1946 they would make the cut lol. Thats retarded
Whatever anyone would take Neylands run of dominance over Auburns 1910s disputed conference titles where they didnt even numerically win the conference lol
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:56 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
when you go 5 consecutive seasons without a title I think it's a bit much to consider that team "King".
We didnt even play 5 consecutive seasons cause of the war. If only Neyland had not decided to go be a general and serve his country so he could be called “King” of this conference by a twink in Birmingham despite not having a losing record to a single SEC team
Posted on 7/2/26 at 4:59 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The irony.
Is that what you call it?
Posted on 7/2/26 at 5:52 pm to VFL67
And then six months later....
No, the irony is you whining about subjective criteria. Let's check into some of your criteria when comparing coaches:
You, ma'am, are a massive hypocrite.
No, the irony is you whining about subjective criteria. Let's check into some of your criteria when comparing coaches:
quote:
Top 10 Finishes
Heupel 2 > Kiffin 1
Playoff Appearances
Heupel 1 > Kiffin 0
Weeks Ranked
Heupel 50 = Kiffin 50
First 5 Years
Heupel 45 Wins > Kiffin 44 Wins
First Round Draft Picks
Heupel at least 3 > Kiffin 2
Top 10 Wins
Heupel 3 = Kiffin 3
Ranked Wins
Heupel 11 > Kiffin 8
Wins in Death Valley
Heupel 1 > Kiffin 0
Wins against Bama
Heupel 2 > Kiffin 0
Wins against UGA
Heupel 0 < Kiffin 1
Highest CFP Ranking
Heupel #1 > Kiffin not number 1
You, ma'am, are a massive hypocrite.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 6:06 pm to SidewalkTiger
Thats objective quantitative criteria you idiot
You retard. You dont know the difference between subjective and objective. Not surprised
You retard. You dont know the difference between subjective and objective. Not surprised
Posted on 7/2/26 at 6:09 pm to VFL67
quote:
Thats objective quantitative criteria you idiot
You retard. You dont know the difference between subjective and objective. Not surprised
So much name-calling, but then they do say a hit dog will holler. And you're hollering extremely loud.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 6:11 pm to SidewalkTiger
You aren't going to be taken seriously if you don't include Ala's Rose Bowl wins in the 20's/30's. It was a big deal.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News