Started By
Message
re: How Would You Rank SEC Programs Historically?
Posted on 1/20/14 at 6:43 pm to Cheese Grits
Posted on 1/20/14 at 6:43 pm to Cheese Grits
I really don't see how you can put Georgia lower than #3.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:00 pm to RB10
quote:
The point of this thread is a program's history, which includes the years before UF became relevant in the 80's, sorry.

Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:06 pm to Sampson
quote:
The point of this thread is a program's history, which includes the years before UF became relevant in the 80's, sorry.
Which is why you would have to assign some sort of system to weigh the eras of college football
Age 1 = start through WW II
Age 2 = 50's - 70's as the rise of the state schools
Age 3 = 70's - 00's as the rise of ESPN
Age 4 = 10's - ?? as the emergence of the Big 4 / Big 5
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:25 pm to WhiskerBiscuitSlayer
TAMU/Arkansas is a wash. We hold the head to head, therefore, we rank higher.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:29 pm to bgator85
quote:
It took decades to get over the hump and get an official championship, but doormat is a little extreme. After all UF has a higher winning percentage all time than Auburn, we had to pick up some wins pre-1990 right?
You do realize that before 1991 you had zero conference championships, right?
Auburn all time record 733-416-47 .633
Florida all time record 684-388-40 .633
all time head-to-head Auburn leads 43-38-2
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:33 pm to bgator85
quote:
After all UF has a higher winning percentage all time than Auburn
Let me know when .633 is a higher percentage than .633. Thanks

Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:35 pm to MrAUTigers


Bama
Tennessee
Georgia
LSU/Auburn/Florida
Doesn't matter
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:41 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
A&M and Mizzou have to be the last two, just because their "SEC history" is two years old.
sounds intelligent
So you think that A&M and Mizzou, with all of your two years of SEC experience, should be ranked ahead of other teams in "SEC program history"? That sounds pretty ignorant, IMO.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:42 pm to nc14
Go to CFB data wear house
Pick an era. I picked the past 50 years since I am I about that age. One could go back 75 or 100 years too
In the 50 yr and 75 yr range, we are ranked ahead of TAMU.
It is only when you go back 100 years that they pass us
I can see how some might rank them higher than us, but I can't, especially given the huge advantage in Head to head that we have over them.
Pick an era. I picked the past 50 years since I am I about that age. One could go back 75 or 100 years too
In the 50 yr and 75 yr range, we are ranked ahead of TAMU.
It is only when you go back 100 years that they pass us
I can see how some might rank them higher than us, but I can't, especially given the huge advantage in Head to head that we have over them.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:43 pm to Chronic
quote:
How Would You Rank SEC Programs Historically?
This seems fair enough...
When I was growing up it was UA then UT then everyone else. Now, I don't know that there's much difference between 2-6.
fwiw and jmo
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:46 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
psst. The B1G suckkkkkks.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:47 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
quote:
LSU would be #1 or #2 overall if Miles was somewhat competent
Miles is 5-4 versus Florida, what does that say about your coaches

Posted on 1/20/14 at 7:47 pm to nc14

Well, like someone said, does leather helmets and covered wagons really matter? At what point is it just a stat discussion?
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:01 pm to Chronic
Just like below. Grouped teams are very close.
I-A Winning Percentage 1869-2013 (145 years)
Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games
---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- -----
6 Alabama 0.71387 838 323 43 1204
9 Tennessee 0.68186 804 361 53 1218
12 Louisiana State 0.64925 753 396 47 1196
13 Georgia 0.64658 767 407 54 1228
15 Auburn 0.63036 726 416 47 1189
16 Florida 0.62913 684 395 40 1119
21 Texas A&M 0.60166 701 456 48 1205
28 Arkansas 0.58988 686 471 39 1196
48 Mississippi 0.55950 636 497 35 1168
54 Missouri 0.54642 645 531 52 1228
68 South Carolina 0.51460 577 543 44 1164
76 Vanderbilt 0.50000 582 582 50 1214
80 Kentucky 0.49589 582 592 44 1218
87 Mississippi State 0.48475 521 555 39 1115
I-A Winning Percentage 1869-2013 (145 years)
Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games
---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- -----
6 Alabama 0.71387 838 323 43 1204
9 Tennessee 0.68186 804 361 53 1218
12 Louisiana State 0.64925 753 396 47 1196
13 Georgia 0.64658 767 407 54 1228
15 Auburn 0.63036 726 416 47 1189
16 Florida 0.62913 684 395 40 1119
21 Texas A&M 0.60166 701 456 48 1205
28 Arkansas 0.58988 686 471 39 1196
48 Mississippi 0.55950 636 497 35 1168
54 Missouri 0.54642 645 531 52 1228
68 South Carolina 0.51460 577 543 44 1164
76 Vanderbilt 0.50000 582 582 50 1214
80 Kentucky 0.49589 582 592 44 1218
87 Mississippi State 0.48475 521 555 39 1115
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:05 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Well, like someone said, does leather helmets and covered wagons really matter?
Look at Michigan before the 50's = 10 MNC's
Since then they only have the 1 in 1997
Gators won all 3 of theirs in the post CFA era
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:11 pm to Chronic
quote:
12. Kentucky
13. Mississippi State

Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:19 pm to RB10
1. Bama
2. Tennessee
3. LSU
4. Auburn
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Texas A&M
8. Arkansas
9. Missouri
10. Ole Miss
11. Vanderbilt
12. South Carolina
13. Kentucky
14. Mississippi State
Before you bitch about Vanderbilt being too high, remember this thread is about HISTORICAL rankings. Vandy has 14 conference titles, which is 9 titles more than 12,13, and 14 combined.
2. Tennessee
3. LSU
4. Auburn
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Texas A&M
8. Arkansas
9. Missouri
10. Ole Miss
11. Vanderbilt
12. South Carolina
13. Kentucky
14. Mississippi State
Before you bitch about Vanderbilt being too high, remember this thread is about HISTORICAL rankings. Vandy has 14 conference titles, which is 9 titles more than 12,13, and 14 combined.
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:39 pm to reel_gator8
quote:
You almost had me til # 2 on the list. Historically? WTF has LSU done in SEC folklore?
As I stated, rankings are determined by the factors and weight. Who comes out 2d to 5 depends the methodology. College Football Data Warehouse's methodology ranks LSU 2d. Sorry of that hurt your feelings. I assume their ranks are unbiased, but you may certainly disagree with their methodology.
BTW, LSU has won an SEC championship in every decade of the conference's history, except two, the 1940s and the 1990s, so there is plenty of history there. And we a talking historically. Unfortunately for Ole Miss, the conference history is more than the 1960s. GT bailed in the 60s and the conference has been around for almost another 50 years, longer than GT was in the conference. You can't ignore those 50 years in ranking teams historically.
I think three teams have legitimate argument for no.2, Tennessee, UGA, and LSU based on the entire conference history. Since Florida didn't really become a power until the 1990s other than one tainted championship, I would place them at no.4, but of course that is somewhat subjective too.
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:41 pm to Chronic
1. Alabama
2. Tennessee
3. LSU
4. Auburn
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Texas A&M
8. Ole Miss
9. Arkansas
10. Missouri
11. South Carolina
12. Mississippi State
13. Kentucky
14. Vanderbilt
2. Tennessee
3. LSU
4. Auburn
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Texas A&M
8. Ole Miss
9. Arkansas
10. Missouri
11. South Carolina
12. Mississippi State
13. Kentucky
14. Vanderbilt
Posted on 1/20/14 at 8:47 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Let me know when .633 is a higher percentage than .633
You only get to the .633 when you include ties. If you calculate winning percentage without, UF is slightly higher.
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 8:58 pm
Popular
Back to top
