Started By
Message
re: Tiers in the SEC-2000-2010
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:15 pm to beatbammer
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:15 pm to beatbammer
quote:
If it wasnt for Auburns 2004 season the SEC would not have been in the driver seat for the NC every year.
disagree. I think yall were just really unlucky that year with Oklahoma and USC not losing a game.
0
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:16 pm to beatbammer
Bama was borderline irrelevant in the 2000's before Saban came along. Auburn was consistently a top 5-7 football program in the decade, Bama wasn't. Georgia and Bama is a better comparison.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:19 pm to beaverfever
Heck UGA was better then Bammer in the early 2000's
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:22 pm to AUTigLN11
LSU had as much right to be in that game as anyone else in the country. Regardless of the two triple overtime losses, they were still one of the top teams in the country in 2007. Kentucky and Arkansas were both 8-5 in 2007. Ohio State lost to Illinois who was 9-4. Hell, West Virginia lost to a 5-7 Pitt team
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:22 pm to bamaboy87
quote:
LSU had as much right to be in that game as anyone else in the country. Regardless of the two triple overtime losses, they were still one of the top teams in the country in 2007. Kentucky and Arkansas were both 8-5 in 2007. Ohio State lost to Illinois who was 9-4. Hell, West Virginia lost to a 5-7 Pitt team
I guess you didn't read my post at all.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:24 pm to AUTigLN11
The BCS is bull.. We need a playoff.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:25 pm to AUTigLN11
I did. And I am still waiting to hear why they are the least deserving champion in the BCS era. I'd say they were just as deserving as any other team
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:27 pm to MsGarrison
quote:Since 2000, UGA has won several more conference games than Bama. AUB has won 11 more.
Heck UGA was better then Bammer in the early 2000's
Posted on 1/17/11 at 7:50 pm to beaverfever
Sorry I misread the OP. My edited tiers just this decade:
Tier 1: LSU, UF
Tier 2: Auburn, Bama
Tier 3: Georgia
Tier 4: Arkansas, South Carolina, Miss State, Tenn
Tier 5: Kentucky, Ole Miss
Tier 6: Vandy
Tier 1: LSU, UF
Tier 2: Auburn, Bama
Tier 3: Georgia
Tier 4: Arkansas, South Carolina, Miss State, Tenn
Tier 5: Kentucky, Ole Miss
Tier 6: Vandy
Posted on 1/17/11 at 9:02 pm to bamaboy87
quote:
I did. And I am still waiting to hear why they are the least deserving champion in the BCS era. I'd say they were just as deserving as any other team
Because no other team lost two games. Much less two games to average teams. This may come as a shock to you, but winning your games is pretty important.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 9:27 pm to AUTigLN11
Auburn was the least deserving National Champ, IMO. They played with a professional.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 9:33 pm to Moustache
Alabama isn't in tier 1 for this decade if you break it up into 5 tiers like that.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 9:39 pm to packdaddy75
quote:
then Arky moves into Tier 2
no way Your dream season ended with a loss to shitty OSU and being ranked 4th out of all SEC teams
Posted on 1/17/11 at 9:41 pm to AUTigLN11
Least deserving because they lost 2 games? That makes no sense. They still won it. They were just as deserving as any other BCSNC winner. Including auburn this year
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:00 pm to GambitAUfan
My tiers are based on Win%, SEC Titles, NC's and my data is cfbdatawarehouse.com and is 2000-2010 only. The further you go back Bama is the clear top of tier 1 and really stands alone(damn that hurt)
National Rank 1st # my tier rank in (Tier)
7 (1) Louisiana State 0.76923 110 33 0 143 2SEC, 2 NC's
9 (1) Florida 0.75524 108 35 0 143 3SEC, 2NC's
10 (2) Georgia 0.73239 104 38 0 142 2SEC
11 (1 barely) Auburn 0.72340 102 39 0 141 2SEC, 1NC
24 (3) Tennessee 0.63571 89 51 0 140
38 (3) Arkansas 0.58696 81 57 0 138
43 (2) Alabama 0.57143 68 51 0 119 1SEC, 1NC I think some of the losses are due to vacated wins not sure it did not specify??
63 (4) Mississippi 0.50376 67 66 0 133
87t(4) Kentucky 0.42105 56 77 0 133
95 (4) Mississippi State 0.38931 51 80 0 131
114 (5) Vanderbilt 0.27907 36 93 0 129
National Rank 1st # my tier rank in (Tier)
7 (1) Louisiana State 0.76923 110 33 0 143 2SEC, 2 NC's
9 (1) Florida 0.75524 108 35 0 143 3SEC, 2NC's
10 (2) Georgia 0.73239 104 38 0 142 2SEC
11 (1 barely) Auburn 0.72340 102 39 0 141 2SEC, 1NC
24 (3) Tennessee 0.63571 89 51 0 140
38 (3) Arkansas 0.58696 81 57 0 138
43 (2) Alabama 0.57143 68 51 0 119 1SEC, 1NC I think some of the losses are due to vacated wins not sure it did not specify??
63 (4) Mississippi 0.50376 67 66 0 133
87t(4) Kentucky 0.42105 56 77 0 133
95 (4) Mississippi State 0.38931 51 80 0 131
114 (5) Vanderbilt 0.27907 36 93 0 129
This post was edited on 1/17/11 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:38 pm to beatbammer
quote:
Lets see... Auburn has 3 SECCG appearances, 2 SEC Championships, and 1 BCS Championship in that period. bammer has 2 SECCG appearances, 1 SEC Championship, and 1 BCS Championship in that same period.
So, using OBJECTIVE criteria, why would Auburn be Tier 2 but bammer Tier 1? Auburn as Tier 2 is a fair judgement compared to the championships both LSU and UF won in 2000-2010... but NOT if bammer is somehow Tier 1.
I said the same thing basically. if Bama is Tier1 then AU is damn sure Tier 1.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:41 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
RockyMtnTigerWDE
Glad you posted it, I was getting ready to. That's the numbers, plain and simple. "Rank" them how you will. I see you set out to placate the masses here by putting the "barely" qualifier next to Auburn's 1st tier ranking. With the same number of SECCs as UGA and only 2 less losses, and 1 BCSC, Auburn is, by total measure here, the #3 team in the SEC for the 2000s.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:41 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Auburn was the least deserving National Champ, IMO. They played with a professional.
Damn, that was clever.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:42 pm to bamaboy87
quote:
Least deserving because they lost 2 games? That makes no sense.
If you don't see the sense in that then I really can't help you.
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:44 pm to AUTigLN11
quote:
If you don't see the sense in that then I really can't help you.
Who should have gone to the game over LSU?
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News