Started By
Message

SEC football was very top half-heavy this season
Posted on 11/24/12 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 11/24/12 at 10:59 pm
I'm talkin' won-loss records here - not cheerleaders or co-eds.
In SEC games, the top 7 SEC teams were 44-12, and
the bottom 7 teams were obviously 12-44.
There were 3 1-loss teams, 3 2-loss teams, and 2 winless teams.
And interestingly enough, Vanderbilt was one of the top 7 at 5-3.
This has to be some sort of record I would think.
East Division
Georgia (3) 7-1 11-1
Florida (4) 7-1 11-1
South Carolina (12) 6-2 10-2
Vanderbilt 5-3 8-4
Missouri 2-6 5-7
Tennessee 1-7 5-7
Kentucky 0-8 2-10
West Division
Alabama (2) 7-1 11-1
LSU (7) 6-2 10-2
Texas A&M (9) 6-2 10-2
Mississippi State 4-4 8-4
Mississippi 3-5 6-6
Arkansas 2-6 4-8
Auburn 0-8 3-9
In SEC games, the top 7 SEC teams were 44-12, and
the bottom 7 teams were obviously 12-44.
There were 3 1-loss teams, 3 2-loss teams, and 2 winless teams.
And interestingly enough, Vanderbilt was one of the top 7 at 5-3.
This has to be some sort of record I would think.
East Division
Georgia (3) 7-1 11-1
Florida (4) 7-1 11-1
South Carolina (12) 6-2 10-2
Vanderbilt 5-3 8-4
Missouri 2-6 5-7
Tennessee 1-7 5-7
Kentucky 0-8 2-10
West Division
Alabama (2) 7-1 11-1
LSU (7) 6-2 10-2
Texas A&M (9) 6-2 10-2
Mississippi State 4-4 8-4
Mississippi 3-5 6-6
Arkansas 2-6 4-8
Auburn 0-8 3-9
This post was edited on 11/24/12 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:00 pm to NorthEndZone
Ark, Tenn and Aub being dumpster fires simultaneously had a lot to do with that.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:01 pm to Latarian
Mizzou/Kentucky were garbage cans too.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:01 pm to NorthEndZone
quote:
And interestingly enough, Vanderbilt was one of the top 7 at 5-3.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:01 pm to Latarian
quote:
Ark, Tenn and Aub being dumpster fires simultaneously had a lot to do with that.
Don't leave us out of that equation.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:01 pm to NorthEndZone
The bottom eight were winless against the top six.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:01 pm to boXerrumble
yep, beat another ranked team (who was 2nd in the ACC).
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:02 pm to NorthEndZone
How bout dem DORES!!!!!

Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:02 pm to CockInYourEar
I'm actually intrigued by an SEC hater who says that the SEC is down.
How is it DOWN this year? Makes no sense
How is it DOWN this year? Makes no sense
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:03 pm to NorthEndZone
Top heavy is like 2 or 3 teams being good. You are talking about 50% of the league. That is not top heavy. That is depth.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:03 pm to BreakawayZou83
Mizzou struggling in its first year isn't that big of a surprise,
Ark (even without Petrino), Tenn and Aub all being horrible in the same year is rare, at least 1 or 2 are decent any given year.
Ark (even without Petrino), Tenn and Aub all being horrible in the same year is rare, at least 1 or 2 are decent any given year.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:03 pm to boXerrumble
quote:
I'm actually intrigued by an SEC hater who says that the SEC is down.
How is it DOWN this year? Makes no sense
How is it down? The top isn't as good as it has been in years past.. any of the top-4 teams would likely get absolutely blown out by any of the previous national champs in the last 10 years. The bottom is terrible.. and the middle is Moo St/Ole Miss.
Imagine 2012 Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida vs 2008 UF or even 2007 LSU.. or try 2011 Alabama.. it would just be murder. I would take 2006 LSU vs any of those teams and fully expect a 14-17 point victory ending on a knee.. and 06 LSU didn't win shite.
This post was edited on 11/24/12 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:05 pm to NorthEndZone
Posted a thread earlier asking why the SEC deserved 2 teams in the SEC based on the conference being down this year and I should have included these numbers to support my argument.
Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:06 pm to GreyReb
quote:
Top heavy is like 2 or 3 teams being good
I guess I should call it top-half heavy.
Popular
Back to top
7






