Started By
Message
re: The "New" SEC at 25 years - Ranking the programs since the 1st Expansion of 1992
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:54 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:54 pm to SummerOfGeorge
since you are talking about the conference expansion you should reference all sports including women's 100 meter freestyle
0
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:55 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Only SEC Title game appearances count as division titles.
And that's false, per the league itself.
And why in the world would you use Stassen over the actual records books in this day and age?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:57 pm to Korin
quote:
And that's false, per the league itself.
I didn't say this was the official per the SEC count. We all laugh at Ole Miss for that.
quote:
And why in the world would you use Stassen over the actual records books in this day and age?
Because adding up 25 years worth of data for 14 teams is........not worth a difference of 2-3 games that saves 75 minutes?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:58 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Very aware. I've written many times about the teams since 1998 to present that have been incredibly fortunate to have other teams fail when needed and the years that we were in contention it was basically the opposite.
Maybe you shouldn't have shite the bed against Ron Zook? Maybe you shouldn't have lost to a 6-6 South Carolina team (who didn't even go bowling) at home? Maybe you should've clocked the ball in the SEC title game?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:59 pm to SummerOfGeorge
My only two thoughts...
I understand using National titles as the first sort/weight, but for schools with the same number of natties, why fall all the way to overall win %?
I would think in that case it would be National titles, if tied, SEC titles, if tied, SEC divisional champs, if tied, SEC win %, if tied overall win %. Give more weight to playing within the conference than not (outside of the national titles).
Also, I think it is a little unfair to have aTm and Mizzou in the list. For the bulk of that 25 years they played elsewhere, and their matchups were different. Unfair to give them a ranking boost due to playing a completely different slate of teams for the bulk of the period.
I understand using National titles as the first sort/weight, but for schools with the same number of natties, why fall all the way to overall win %?
I would think in that case it would be National titles, if tied, SEC titles, if tied, SEC divisional champs, if tied, SEC win %, if tied overall win %. Give more weight to playing within the conference than not (outside of the national titles).
Also, I think it is a little unfair to have aTm and Mizzou in the list. For the bulk of that 25 years they played elsewhere, and their matchups were different. Unfair to give them a ranking boost due to playing a completely different slate of teams for the bulk of the period.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:59 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:Please dont engage Korin. He is so far beneath you in posting quality. That little pokemon should even be allowed to post in your threads
SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:00 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I didn't say this was the official per the SEC count.
Oh good, so we can just make stuff now contrary to what the SEC says?
quote:
Because adding up 25 years worth of data for 14 teams is........not worth a difference of 2-3 games that saves 75 minutes?
75 minutes if you're a retard maybe...
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:00 pm to PJinAtl
Yea - it's just hard to place them without it. I tried to take what league they were in into account, though the B12 wasn't a terrible league. And Missouri had 2 divisional titles in the SEC, too.
Auburn/Tennessee/Georgia could all be argued at #4 for sure.
Auburn/Tennessee/Georgia could all be argued at #4 for sure.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:01 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Please dont engage Korin. He is so far beneath you in posting quality. That little pokemon should even be allowed to post in your threads
Sorry you don't like facts?
What happened to LSU beating us by 30+ like you claimed? I thought we were pussies?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:01 pm to Korin
quote:
Oh good, so we can just make stuff now contrary to what the SEC says?
How about I change it to SECCG Apperances?
quote:
75 minutes if you're a retard maybe...
A "retard"? Really?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:03 pm to SummerOfGeorge
very hard to argue - good list
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:03 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
How about I change it to SECCG Apperances?
There you go. See, that wasn't so hard.
quote:
A "retard"? Really?
I bet you would've saved time using the actual records books.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:03 pm to Korin
quote:
I bet you would've saved time using the actual records books.
I can guarantee you that adding up 25 years of records for both SEC and Overall for 14 different teams would not have taken less time than running one macro on a website that spit out the data.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:05 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
10. SOUTH CAROLINA : 0 National Title, 0 SECCG Appearances, 1 SECE Title, 42.7% SEC Win, 52.8% Overall Win
Ummmm, I'm confused.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:06 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Sure it would've (especially when the site you use is notorious for having incorrect information). Do you even CFB Trivia, bro?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:09 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
Also, I think it is a little unfair to have aTm and Mizzou in the list. For the bulk of that 25 years they played elsewhere, and their matchups were different. Unfair to give them a ranking boost due to playing a completely different slate of teams for the bulk of the period.
Completely agree. 100%
Especially considering that both times Mizzou won the SEC East they were beaten by SC and finished below them in the polls.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:11 pm to scrooster
quote:
Especially considering that both times Mizzou won the SEC East they were beaten by SC and finished below them in the polls.
Sure about that?
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:12 pm to Commander Data
quote:
Would swap Tennessee and Auburn but it's pretty close.
1998 and 2012 is why. We were a combined 1-15 in the SEC. If we're even mediocre those years we move past UT, but we just completely shite the bed.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:13 pm to fillmoregandt
quote:
11. OLE MISS : 0 National Title, 0 SEC Title, 0 SECW Title, 40.1% SEC Win, 53.5% Overall Win
quote:
Wrong, according to the SEC, but whatever
I think it's cute that after 25 years, you're splitting hairs over a 'shared' division title
One in which OM clearly and decisively lost the tie-breaker
Posted on 4/19/17 at 2:14 pm to UAtide11
They got hardware from the SEC.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News