ChatterBoxOfTheSEC

9. Tennessee
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 0 Final Fours (0), 2 Elite 8s (70), 11 Sweet 16s (220), 25 2nd Rounds (175), 25 Appearances (75). Total = 540 × 0.75 = 405.
Regular Season Points: 12 Titles (180), 6 Tournaments (42). Total = 222 × 0.15 = 33.3.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 30,000 ÷ 100 = 300. Total = 300 × 0.10 = 30.
Total Score: 468.3.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Bernard King (10,197 pts + 1,668 ast + 2,775 reb = 14,640),
Dale Ellis (9,405 pts + 1,209 ast + 1,988 reb = 12,602),
Allan Houston (4,969 pts + 822 ast + 949 reb = 6,740),
Tobias Harris (5,858 pts + 803 ast + 2,305 reb = 8,966),
Ernie Grunfeld (3,419 pts + 833 ast + 1,259 reb = 5,511),
C.J. Watson (3,362 pts + 1,315 ast + 886 reb = 5,563),
Grant Williams (2,115 pts + 352 ast + 1,141 reb = 3,608),
Ron Slay (limited data, est. 1,000 pts + 200 ast + 300 reb = 1,500),
Chris Lofton (minimal NBA, est. 100 pts + 20 ast + 30 reb = 150),
Tony Harris (minimal NBA, est. 50 pts + 10 ast + 20 reb = 80).


10. Auburn
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 1 Final Four (80), 2 Elite 8s (70), 10 Sweet 16s (200), 12 2nd Rounds (84), 12 Appearances (36). Total = 470 × 0.75 = 352.5.
Regular Season Points: 5 Titles (75), 5 Tournaments (35). Total = 110 × 0.15 = 16.5.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 35,000 ÷ 100 = 350. Total = 350 × 0.10 = 35.
Total Score: 404.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Charles Barkley (38,744),
Chuck Person (6,611),
Chris Morris (2,919),
Marquis Daniels (2,904),
Isaac Okoro (2,590),
Jabari Smith Jr. (2,429),
Walker Kessler (2,087),
Mamadi Diakite (760),
Sonny Smith (est. 450),
KT Harrell (est. 150).


11. Mississippi State
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 1 Final Four (80), 2 Elite 8s (70), 7 Sweet 16s (140), 13 2nd Rounds (91), 13 Appearances (39). Total = 420 × 0.75 = 315.
Regular Season Points: 6 Titles (90), 4 Tournaments (28). Total = 118 × 0.15 = 17.7.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 25,000 ÷ 100 = 250. Total = 250 × 0.10 = 25.
Total Score: 357.7.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Bailey Howell (5,711 pts + 671 ast + 2,570 reb = 8,952),
Jeff Malone (8,090 pts + 1,141 ast + 1,281 reb = 10,512),
Erick Dampier (4,236 pts + 588 ast + 3,921 reb = 8,745),
Rickey Brown (2,503 pts + 286 ast + 1,555 reb = 4,344),
Jarvis Varnado (limited data, est. 1,000 pts + 200 ast + 800 reb = 2,000),
Wiley Peck (limited data, est. 1,000 pts + 150 ast + 700 reb = 1,850),
Jim Ashmore (limited data, est. 800 pts + 100 ast + 600 reb = 1,500),
Arnett Moultrie (676 pts + 50 ast + 497 reb = 1,223),
Quinndary Weatherspoon (575 pts + 103 ast + 228 reb = 906),
Craig Sword (minimal NBA, est. 100 pts + 20 ast + 50 reb = 170).


12. Vanderbilt
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 0 Final Fours (0), 1 Elite 8 (35), 7 Sweet 16s (140), 15 2nd Rounds (105), 15 Appearances (45). Total = 325 × 0.75 = 243.75.
Regular Season Points: 7 Titles (105), 3 Tournaments (21). Total = 126 × 0.15 = 18.9.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 25,000 ÷ 100 = 250. Total = 250 × 0.10 = 25.
Total Score: 287.65.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Clyde Lee (3,927 pts + 554 ast + 4,159 reb = 8,640),
Will Perdue (2,890 pts + 424 ast + 2,954 reb = 6,268),
Damian Jones (1,773 pts + 188 ast + 1,220 reb = 3,181),
Luke Kornet (1,791 pts + 313 ast + 1,059 reb = 3,163),
Festus Ezeli (1,083 pts + 98 ast + 1,130 reb = 2,311),
Jeff Turner (1,707 pts + 243 ast + 989 reb = 2,939),
John Jenkins (1,341 pts + 186 ast + 369 reb = 1,896),
Saben Lee (1,117 pts + 509 ast + 384 reb = 2,010),
Aaron Jones (limited data, est. 500 pts + 50 ast + 300 reb = 850),
Darius Garland (1,112 pts + 392 ast + 158 reb = 1,662).


13. Texas A&M
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 0 Final Fours (0), 0 Elite 8s (0), 7 Sweet 16s (140), 15 2nd Rounds (105), 15 Appearances (45). Total = 290 × 0.75 = 217.5.
Regular Season Points: 8 Titles (120), 2 Tournaments (14). Total = 134 × 0.15 = 20.1.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 30,000 ÷ 100 = 300. Total = 300 × 0.10 = 30.
Total Score: 267.6.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
DeAndre Jordan (6,336 pts + 740 ast + 8,984 reb = 16,060),
Khris Middleton (6,989 pts + 1,803 ast + 2,391 reb = 11,183),
Acie Law IV (1,332 pts + 514 ast + 322 reb = 2,168),
Donald Sloan (1,513 pts + 678 ast + 508 reb = 2,699),
Bernard King (1,426 pts + 231 ast + 609 reb = 2,266),
Winston Crite (769 pts + 156 ast + 535 reb = 1,460),
Antoine Wright (1,429 pts + 253 ast + 581 reb = 2,263),
Alex Caruso (1,218 pts + 584 ast + 540 reb = 2,342),
Josh Carter (limited data, est. 500 pts + 100 ast + 200 reb = 800),
Danuel House (1,242 pts + 233 ast + 548 reb = 2,023).


14. Georgia
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 1 Final Four (80), 1 Elite 8 (35), 3 Sweet 16s (60), 13 2nd Rounds (91), 13 Appearances (39). Total = 305 × 0.75 = 228.75.
Regular Season Points: 2 Titles (30), 1 Tournament (7). Total = 37 × 0.15 = 5.55.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 35,000 ÷ 100 = 350. Total = 350 × 0.10 = 35.
Total Score: 269.3.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Dominique Wilkins (24,668 pts + 2,677 ast + 6,935 reb = 34,280),
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (6,567 pts + 1,132 ast + 1,978 reb = 9,677),
Vern Fleming (5,070 pts + 2,057 ast + 1,503 reb = 8,630),
Anthony Edwards (5,568 pts + 1,136 ast + 1,614 reb = 8,318),
Jumaine Jones (2,553 pts + 357 ast + 1,397 reb = 4,307),
Jarvis Hayes (2,303 pts + 312 ast + 797 reb = 3,412),
Willie Anderson (1,229 pts + 352 ast + 413 reb = 1,994),
Litterial Green (1,036 pts + 479 ast + 215 reb = 1,730),
Shandon Anderson (1,490 pts + 331 ast + 668 reb = 2,489),
Charles Mann (limited data, est. 100 pts + 50 ast + 50 reb = 200).


15. South Carolina
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 1 Final Four (80), 1 Elite 8 (35), 4 Sweet 16s (80), 9 2nd Rounds (63), 9 Appearances (27). Total = 285 × 0.75 = 213.75.
Regular Season Points: 5 Titles (75), 1 Tournament (7). Total = 82 × 0.15 = 12.3.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 30,000 ÷ 100 = 300. Total = 300 × 0.10 = 30.
Total Score: 256.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Alex English (17,199 pts + 3,591 ast + 4,351 reb = 25,141),
Kevin Garnett (3,561 pts + 644 ast + 1,725 reb = 5,930),
Sindarius Thornwell (621 pts + 132 ast + 246 reb = 999),
PJ Dozier (747 pts + 223 ast + 298 reb = 1,268),
Brian Winters (2,360 pts + 512 ast + 399 reb = 3,271),
Renaldo Balkman (1,105 pts + 155 ast + 856 reb = 2,116),
John Roche (1,106 pts + 404 ast + 162 reb = 1,672),
Tom Boswell (933 pts + 201 ast + 508 reb = 1,642),
Chris Silva (490 pts + 70 ast + 438 reb = 998),
Hassani Gravett (limited data, est. 100 pts + 50 ast + 50 reb = 200).


16. Ole Miss
Postseason Points: 0 Titles (0), 0 Runner-Ups (0), 0 Final Fours (0), 0 Elite 8s (0), 2 Sweet 16s (40), 10 2nd Rounds (70), 10 Appearances (30). Total = 140 × 0.75 = 105.
Regular Season Points: 3 Titles (45), 2 Tournaments (14). Total = 59 × 0.15 = 8.85.
NBA PAR: Top 10 sum ˜ 20,000 ÷ 100 = 200. Total = 200 × 0.10 = 20.
Total Score: 133.85.
Top 10 NBA Players by PAR:
Johnny Neumann (2,279 pts + 580 ast + 528 reb = 3,387),
Justin Reed (1,763 pts + 228 ast + 744 reb = 2,735),
Sean Tuohy (limited data, est. 1,500 pts + 500 ast + 500 reb = 2,500),
Gerald Glass (limited data, est. 1,200 pts + 300 ast + 400 reb = 1,900),
Rod Barnes (limited data, est. 1,000 pts + 200 ast + 300 reb = 1,500),
Terence Davis (1,016 pts + 222 ast + 438 reb = 1,676),
Murphy Holloway (limited data, est. 800 pts + 100 ast + 400 reb = 1,300),
Ansu Sesay (751 pts + 121 ast + 366 reb = 1,238),
Keith Carter (limited data, est. 600 pts + 150 ast + 200 reb = 950),
Breein Tyree (minimal NBA, est. 100 pts + 20 ast + 30 reb = 150).

quote:

---

All of that and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

---

In the United States, the average cost of a regular cup of coffee varies by state. As of 2024, Hawaii stands out as the most expensive state, with an average price of $4.89 per cup, nearly 59% higher than the national average of $3.08.

Other states with above-average coffee prices include California ($3.88), Washington ($3.69), Arizona ($3.51), and Massachusetts ($3.49).

Conversely, states like Maine offer more affordable options, with an average price of $2.60 per cup.

These variations are influenced by factors such as local economic conditions, cost of living, and regional demand for specialty coffee.

Reacting poorly to losing a football game — or any competition — can harm both the individual and team dynamics. Emotional outbursts or blame-shifting show a lack of resilience, sportsmanship, and self-control, which are essential traits for personal growth and team success. Such behavior can negatively impact relationships with teammates and coaches, eroding trust and camaraderie, which are critical in team sports.

Moreover, losing is an inevitable part of competition, and how one handles it reflects character. Responding constructively — by identifying areas for improvement and committing to work harder — fosters growth and sets a positive example. Acting immaturely or lashing out, however, can create a negative environment, discourage others, and damage a person’s reputation both on and off the field.

Sports are also about life lessons, teaching perseverance, accountability, and respect. Poor reactions to losses can undermine these values, while composure and grace under pressure demonstrate maturity and a commitment to improvement. Winners are often those who learn from setbacks rather than letting them define their attitude or behavior.

The 2004 Kentucky Wildcats football team, coached by Rich Brooks, struggled through a tough season, finishing with a 2–9 record. Their offense was a pro-style system led by offensive coordinator Ron Hudson, who resigned late in the season after a series of underwhelming performances. Joker Phillips, the wide receivers coach, took over play-calling duties toward the end of the year. The team ranked near the bottom of the SEC offensively, reflecting issues with both execution and consistency.

Kentucky relied primarily on Shane Boyd as their starting quarterback, though other players, including backup Andre Woodson, saw limited action. The Wildcats' offensive struggles were compounded by a lack of production both in the passing and rushing games. They scored only 18 offensive touchdowns throughout the season (11 rushing, 7 passing), further highlighting their challenges in generating points against SEC opponents and beyond.

Despite their record, the team showed flashes of competitiveness, including a close loss to Tennessee in their final game. The season was marked by rebuilding efforts and served as a stepping stone for future improvements under Brooks’ tenure

Alabama was excluded from the 2024 College Football Playoff despite the new 12-team format due to their 9-3 record and missing the SEC Championship game. The playoff committee prioritized SMU, which had a stronger win-loss record and an ACC title game appearance, even with a less challenging schedule. Alabama's three losses and lack of a standout late-season win hurt their case in a competitive field, as other teams from smaller conferences were given a chance in the expanded structure

The lowest-scoring game in the SEC during the 2004 football season was the South Carolina vs. Mississippi State game on October 2, 2004.

Game Details:
Final Score: South Carolina 10, Mississippi State 7
Location: Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina

Key Players: South Carolina’s Syvelle Newton, and Mississippi State’s Omarr Conner.

Why It Was the Lowest Scoring:
Defensive Battle: This game was a defensive struggle with both offenses struggling to find any rhythm. South Carolina’s only touchdown came from a Syvelle Newton touchdown pass, and Mississippi State’s only score was a touchdown pass from Omarr Conner.
Both teams combined for only 17 total points, marking the lowest-scoring game in the SEC that season.
This matchup was characterized by poor offensive execution and strong defensive play, with both teams failing to capitalize on opportunities. South Carolina's victory was crucial for their bowl eligibility in a relatively low-scoring affair.

Plagiarism is unethical and dishonest. It involves using someone else's work, ideas, or expressions without proper acknowledgment, stealing intellectual property. This undermines creativity, academic integrity, and trust. Always give credit to original authors and create your own work to maintain fairness and respect in all fields.

Kirby Smart is widely regarded as a better coach than Brian Kelly due to his success in building a dominant program at Georgia and consistently competing for national championships.

1. National Championships and Consistency: Smart has led Georgia to two College Football Playoff National Championships (2021, 2022) and has consistently fielded one of the most complete teams in the country. In contrast, Kelly, while successful, has not reached a national title game at LSU, and his teams have struggled against top-tier opponents.

2. Recruiting: Smart has excelled in recruiting, regularly landing top-ranked classes and creating depth across all positions. His focus on elite talent acquisition has transformed Georgia into a powerhouse, while Kelly's recruiting has been solid but not consistently at the same elite level as Georgia's.

3. Development and Culture: Kirby Smart has created a culture of sustained excellence at Georgia, emphasizing tough defense, discipline, and team chemistry. His coaching has produced multiple NFL-caliber players, particularly on defense. Kelly, though a strong recruiter and strategist, has faced criticisms about his team’s performance in big games and his inability to build sustained dominance like Smart has at Georgia.

Overall, Smart's ability to recruit, develop players, and deliver championships sets him apart as a superior coach compared to Brian Kelly.

A potential move for Texas A&M from the SEC to the Big Ten would be a highly unlikely and complex decision, but there are several reasons why an athletic program might consider such a shift, even if it seems far-fetched. Here are some potential factors that could drive such a decision:

1. Financial Considerations
TV Rights & Media Revenue: The Big Ten's lucrative media deals, especially with networks like Fox and ESPN, have historically outpaced other conferences, including the SEC. If Texas A&M sees an opportunity for greater revenue sharing in the Big Ten, they could be motivated to consider the move.
Long-Term Financial Stability: The Big Ten, with its national presence and large media contracts, might offer more long-term financial security for Texas A&M's athletics department, which is always a major factor in realignment decisions.

2. Academic Prestige
The Big Ten is often viewed as a conference with a strong emphasis on academics, with schools like Michigan, Northwestern, and others holding high academic reputations. Texas A&M might find that moving to a conference with more academic peers could benefit its overall institutional image and partnerships.

3. Competitive Balance
Football Recruiting: Texas A&M, despite being in the SEC, might feel that joining the Big Ten offers a more favorable path to playoff contention. The SEC is incredibly competitive, with schools like Alabama, Georgia, and LSU constantly dominating, while the Big Ten (while strong) could provide a less daunting challenge year-to-year.
Basketball & Other Sports: The Big Ten is known for having strong programs in basketball, wrestling, and other sports, which could offer Texas A&M more competitive balance across its athletics programs.

4. Geographic and Recruiting Considerations
Regional Influence: The SEC has traditionally dominated recruiting in the southern United States. While Texas A&M has benefited from its Texas roots, moving to the Big Ten could give them access to a new recruiting base in the Midwest and Northeast, which may help diversify their recruiting pool.
Travel & Logistics: While moving to the Big Ten would involve significant travel, particularly for teams in the western part of the conference, Texas A&M might value the regional rivalries and historic matchups (such as with Michigan, Ohio State, and others).

5. Rivalry and Conference Alignment
Rivalries: The SEC's strength, particularly in football, could be overwhelming, and Texas A&M may find it difficult to establish consistent rivalries. The Big Ten might offer opportunities for new rivalries and alignments that are more favorable to A&M’s athletic identity.
Long-Term Stability: The SEC and Big Ten are the two dominant conferences in college athletics, and both are continually growing. Texas A&M may believe that shifting to the Big Ten provides them with better future prospects, especially if the Big Ten expands further or re-aligns.


Conclusion
Though highly improbable given the strength of Texas A&M's current position in the SEC, a move to the Big Ten could theoretically offer Texas A&M advantages in terms of financial growth, academic standing, and competitiveness across a variety of sports. However, the logistics and implications of such a move would be massive and would require careful consideration of all potential risks and rewards.

To compare Alabama and SMU's arguments for the College Football Playoff (CFP) based on computer rankings, strength of schedule, resume strength, and SP+, we need to examine several key aspects.

1. Computer Rankings (SP+ and FEI)
SP+ (Bill Connelly): This metric evaluates a team’s offensive, defensive, and special teams efficiency. Historically, Alabama has been a top-ranked team in SP+ due to its elite recruiting, depth, and overall consistency. SMU, while competitive, typically doesn’t rank as highly as Alabama in SP+, often sitting outside the top 25.
FEI (Football Outsiders): Similar to SP+, FEI adjusts for schedule strength and accounts for team efficiency. Alabama’s rankings in FEI are usually in the top 10, given their dominance over a tougher schedule, while SMU would be ranked lower, likely in the 30-40 range.

2. Strength of Schedule
Alabama: Alabama plays in the SEC, which is widely regarded as one of the toughest conferences in college football, consistently producing high-ranking teams. They face numerous ranked teams, including high-tier opponents like Georgia, LSU, and other SEC contenders. Even Alabama's non-conference games typically come against Power Five opponents.
SMU: The American Athletic Conference (AAC), where SMU competes, is competitive but not on the same level as the SEC. SMU might face a few ranked teams per season but lacks the depth of competition that Alabama regularly encounters. This impacts SMU's strength of schedule and its argument for the CFP, as the committee often favors teams from Power Five conferences with a stronger overall schedule.

3. Resume Strength
Alabama: With multiple ranked wins from both conference and non-conference opponents, Alabama typically has a stronger resume in terms of notable victories. Their wins against top-tier SEC teams, especially those in the playoff conversation, give them a powerful argument for CFP inclusion.
SMU: While SMU might have a few impressive wins, their resume usually lacks the depth of ranked victories that Alabama consistently earns. Additionally, a weaker conference schedule hurts their overall strength of resume, especially when compared to a Power Five team like Alabama.

4. SP+ Comparison
Alabama: As a perennial top-5 team in SP+, Alabama typically benefits from their high efficiency on both sides of the ball. They are considered a championship-caliber team year after year due to their roster depth, coaching, and consistency against high-level competition.
SMU: SMU’s SP+ ranking is typically lower, and while they might have a strong offense, their defensive and overall efficiency usually don’t match Alabama’s elite levels. This is crucial in comparing playoff caliber teams, as SP+ values balanced, high-efficiency play on both sides of the ball.


Conclusion:
Alabama has a much stronger argument for the College Football Playoff based on computer rankings, strength of schedule, and overall resume strength. Their success in the SEC, along with top-tier efficiency metrics (SP+ and FEI), makes them a consistent playoff contender. SMU, while competitive, typically lacks the depth of ranked opponents and the overall efficiency to match Alabama’s credentials for CFP inclusion. Even with a strong record, SMU would likely fall short compared to Alabama due to the disparity in schedule and performance metrics.