Started By
Message
re: Forde : Ranking 65 P5 Athletic Departments last 5 years
Posted on 7/3/19 at 4:12 pm to Lou2theZou
Posted on 7/3/19 at 4:12 pm to Lou2theZou
quote:
This takes all the sports nobody gives a frick about into consideration
Yes, it does. They are a part of the sports department overall.
0
Posted on 7/3/19 at 5:11 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
You don't weight sports when talking about an overall department.
Then it's invalid data because you refused to take into account important features.
Posted on 7/3/19 at 6:21 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Jesus, ole miss and state just suck at everything. Every metric system possible to compare them and they just don't measure up. They have always sucked and always will. It has got to suck being a sports fan in mississippi. Holy shite.
This post was edited on 7/3/19 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 7/3/19 at 6:46 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Stanford has I believe 12 more sports than UF.
Per sport we win more titles. That is what matters.
Per sport we win more titles. That is what matters.
Posted on 7/3/19 at 7:14 pm to ImayGoLesMiles
quote:
Jesus, ole miss and state just suck at everything. Every metric system possible to compare them and they just don't measure up. They have always sucked and always will. It has got to suck being a sports fan in mississippi. Holy shite.
This makes you sound dumb. With smaller budgets to work with in the SEC, MSU has been exceptional. Seems they didn't know about our Men's Tennis team for the last two years, but hey we never win a popularity contest, no matter what we do.
Posted on 7/3/19 at 8:47 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Forde
Posted on 7/3/19 at 8:48 pm to Reservoir dawg
6 pages over a fuggin Pat Forde article?
Y’all should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Y’all should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted on 7/3/19 at 9:12 pm to CBandits82
To be fair, it's just Forde aggregating data. Only the shitty puns are his.
Posted on 7/4/19 at 6:04 am to 3down10
quote:
Then it's invalid data because you refused to take into account important features.
As a matter of fact, you are taking into account every feature. YOU are the one wanting to focus on only one feature!
Posted on 7/4/19 at 6:08 am to 3down10
quote:
Football only Gump I believe. Because you can only be a "true fan" if you watch and spend all your time at every little sport a school has.
Thanks, That's dumb. Alabama is great at football. Who wouldn't focus on the sport they are best at?
Kentucky focuses on basketball....
Posted on 7/4/19 at 1:22 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
As a matter of fact, you are taking into account every feature. YOU are the one wanting to focus on only one feature!
If that was the case you wouldn't be treating track and field as equals to football or even basketball.
Not to mention there are many sports that are listed that very few schools even have. But yet, winning a "national championship" in a sport that few people even participate in results in higher rankings. Which is how Stanford ends up #1 in the DC year after year.
But you know what is the funniest thing about all this? While you and others sit here and talk about how it's all good that football and T&F are treated equally - even the authors of the article don't think so because the entire groupings for it are based on...football status.
So it's an article that takes the "65 P5", aka the power 5 football conferences and then uses all sports as equals. But hey, gotta count Stanfords "national championship" in water polo as equal to all else.
Sorry, it's fricking stupid and no surprise that someone like Forde would put out this garbage without a remote fricking clue.
Did you even read the article btw? It was mostly Forde looking for a way to dis the SEC and he takes multiple jabs at the SEC in it(as usual).
This post was edited on 7/4/19 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 7/4/19 at 2:34 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 7/4/19 at 5:10 pm to MykTide
quote:
quote: This thread sure did take an unexpected turn.
Not really.
I enjoy when Summer kicks some arse!
Most respected Bama poster besides Herman Frisco.
MykTide is on a rising trajectory.
Posted on 7/4/19 at 5:47 pm to 3down10
quote:
If that was the case you wouldn't be treating track and field as equals to football or even basketball.
On a personal level we do play favorites. When you are ranking an overall department it is the overall department...not just one sport.
quote:
Not to mention there are many sports that are listed that very few schools even have. But yet, winning a "national championship" in a sport that few people even participate in results in higher rankings. Which is how Stanford ends up #1 in the DC year after year.
We agree here. To me, for these rankings they should limit it to certain sports (the ones most schools participate in) and leave it at that. but...it is what it is. Even with them taking every sport, Florida still manages to compete with Stanford and some of the other schools. Kudos to Florida.
quote:Well, that is how the Director's Cup is done. I agree that it is not the ebst way it could be done, though. I would limit it, too. But they don't.
Sorry, it's fricking stupid and no surprise that someone like Forde would put out this garbage without a remote fricking clue.
quote:
Did you even read the article btw? It was mostly Forde looking for a way to dis the SEC and he takes multiple jabs at the SEC in it(as usual).
Isn't it based on the Director's Cup standings?
But to answer your question....no. I didn't. I mean, I don't really care. I was just trying to say how they come up with the Director's Cup standings, which it appears his article is based off of.
This post was edited on 7/4/19 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 7/5/19 at 2:51 pm to DawgsLife
Clemson has won two titles in men's soccer and has been to to two other men's soccer title games.
It is competitive in men's golf, with one national title, and usually makes the baseball tournament every year.
kind of a stretch to call it a football only university.
It is competitive in men's golf, with one national title, and usually makes the baseball tournament every year.
kind of a stretch to call it a football only university.
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 7/5/19 at 5:37 pm to Tillman
quote:
Clemson has won two titles in men's soccer and has been to to two other men's soccer title games.
It is competitive in men's golf, with one national title, and usually makes the baseball tournament every year.
kind of a stretch to call it a football only university.
Ooooookay. I never called Clemson a football University. Am I missing something?
Posted on 7/5/19 at 6:26 pm to SummerOfGeorge
It doesn't take being a FOG to realize football should be weighted more than other sports. Without football, many of the other sports would not exist at Alabama and many other schools.
On the other hand, it would be nice to see some of the other programs at UA be more successful. We've had periods of success with other programs at different times, it just so happens we've been struggling during our best football run of all-time.
That being said, I don't believe football success, and/or the money spent on football, should be related to the success of the other programs. If UA didn't know spending money on football was going to bring a return on the investment, the money wouldn't be spent on football.
Also, success of programs start with acquiring the right coach. Recently, UA has made solid hires in both baseball and basketball. I expect both programs to trend upward beginning next season. We may not be world beaters, especially in baseball, but I do think the programs are headed in the right direction. If the coaches begin winning more games, money will be spent on the programs. I believe that's the order, and I believe it's the correct order. Just my .02.
I see both sides of the argument being made, and I don't think looking at it from the extreme of either side is appropriate.
On the other hand, it would be nice to see some of the other programs at UA be more successful. We've had periods of success with other programs at different times, it just so happens we've been struggling during our best football run of all-time.
That being said, I don't believe football success, and/or the money spent on football, should be related to the success of the other programs. If UA didn't know spending money on football was going to bring a return on the investment, the money wouldn't be spent on football.
Also, success of programs start with acquiring the right coach. Recently, UA has made solid hires in both baseball and basketball. I expect both programs to trend upward beginning next season. We may not be world beaters, especially in baseball, but I do think the programs are headed in the right direction. If the coaches begin winning more games, money will be spent on the programs. I believe that's the order, and I believe it's the correct order. Just my .02.
I see both sides of the argument being made, and I don't think looking at it from the extreme of either side is appropriate.
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 7/5/19 at 7:31 pm to DawgsLife
i wasn't responding to anything you said, only to Forde's column.
there's no general post option on here that I see, you have to reply to somebody.
there's no general post option on here that I see, you have to reply to somebody.
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 7/7/19 at 6:41 am to Tillman
quote:
i wasn't responding to anything you said, only to Forde's column.
Gotcha. I try (sometimes) to be fair when I post, and certainly have no reason to be disrespectful towards Clemson (unless they are disrespectful towards Georgia or the SEC).
Posted on 7/7/19 at 11:19 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
12. Texas A&M
Best sports: women’s track & field, men’s golf.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News