8 of the last 10 SEC East champs have gone 7-1 or better in the SEC

#26
#26
I'd say part of the reason most of these last 10 years are 1-loss teams is because Tennessee has been so bad that it's been an extra victory for all the competitors
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
I believe UT can win the East at 6-2. I don't think UT can win the East if one of those losses is UF.

Looking at the schedules, I do not think UT or UF will lose more than two so it could come down to the tie breaker.
 
#28
#28
SaintLouisVol said:
Ancient history? Twenty years is hardly ancient history in this context. The game has only existed since '92. How is the complete sample size not valid? What has changed that would force you to throw out the older data?
Click to expand...
You really don't get it?

He's the expert so he gets to select data that supports his position and ignore things that destroy his position.

:whistling:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
Good point about the teams that were better than 6-2 but didn't need to be. However, how many teams finished 6-2 or better, and did NOT go to the sec championship game?
 
#30
#30
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Blew up how?

What I said is true. Someone brought up ancient history. In the last 10 years only 2 teams have won the East with 2 or more losses. 20%.

If we want to guarantee a spot at the SEC championship game we need to go 7-1 with that 1 loss coming to either A&M or Alabama.

Anything less and we dont control our own destiny.
Click to expand...

dude..60% of the last 10 years the sec east was winnable w 2 losses. Period
 
#31
#31
if Tennessee wins ALL their games, i would say the odds are in their favor that they will make it to Atlanta and the SECG. I'd bet money on it. *sarcasm*
 
#32
#32
I think you can go 6-2 in 2016 and win the division this year. However, as someone else said, I would guess you are looking at a tie at the top which means you better hold the tiebreaker.

Personally, I don't anticipate Florida, Tennessee or Georgia losing to Missouri, South Carolina, Vandy or Kentucky.

So, the margin of error is probably slim
 
#33
#33
sjt18 said:
I believe UT can win the East at 6-2. I don't think UT can win the East if one of those losses is UF.

Looking at the schedules, I do not think UT or UF will lose more than two so it could come down to the tie breaker.
Click to expand...

We won't win if we lose to Georgia either.
 
#36
#36
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
...Someone brought up ancient history....
Click to expand...

So what happened 10 years ago, you consider pertinent. But what happened 11 years ago, you consider ancient. 12 years ago, ancient. 13 years ago, ancient. 15 or 18 years ago, ancient.

D4H, you have selected an entirely random number (10) as your horizon. Without a single argument for any significance to this number in this conversation. No, "but the SEC changed in structure 10 years ago"...or "the game of football was revolutionized 10 years ago"...or ___(fill in the blank with any argument at all for the significance of a 10-year cutoff of data)___.

Fact is, the entire (and relatively brief) 24-year history of the two-division SEC is pertinent to the question of how a team can get to Atlanta today.

And it remains a fiction to say we can only get there with zero or one loss.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
sjt18 said:
You really don't get it?

He's the expert so he gets to select data that supports his position and ignore things that destroy his position.

:whistling:
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you are correct.

If 24 years ago is ancient history, then I guess I must be prehistoric. Does my degree still count?
 
#39
#39
VFL-82-JP said:
Hmm...

'92 Florida (6-2)
'95 Arkansas (6-2)
'96 Alabama (6-2)
'97 Auburn (6-2)
'98 Mississippi State (6-2)
'00 Auburn (6-2)
'01 LSU (5-3) (won the SEC CG)
'02 Arkansas (5-3)
'03 Georgia (6-2)
'05 Georgia (6-2) (won the SEC CG)
'07 Tennessee (6-2)
'07 LSU (6-2) (won the SEC CG)
'10 South Carolina (5-3)

Getting to Atlanta with 2 or more losses ain't exactly rare. Half of the 24 SEC CGs since divisions were created had one or both of the teams with 2 or 3 conference losses. A few of them went on to win the championship.

It is fiction to say that you have to have 0 or 1 loss to get to Atlanta.
Click to expand...
But that's why he stopped at 2006.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#40
#40
sjt18 said:
Maybe. But I expect them to lose at least two and probably 3 SEC games.
Click to expand...

LOL. Why?

Florida lost only 1 last year.

Odds are someone is gonna go 7-1 in the East.

It better be us.

I dont know why y'all just can't accept that.
 
#43
#43
VFL-82-JP said:
So what happened 10 years ago, you consider pertinent. But what happened 11 years ago, you consider ancient. 12 years ago, ancient. 13 years ago, ancient. 15 or 18 years ago, ancient.

D4H, you have selected an entirely random number (10) as your horizon. Without a single argument for any significance to this number in this conversation. No, "but the SEC changed in structure 10 years ago"...or "the game of football was revolutionized 10 years ago"...or ___(fill in the blank with any argument at all for the significance of a 10-year cutoff of data)___.

Fact is, the entire (and relatively brief) 24-year history of the two-division SEC is pertinent to the question of how a team can get to Atlanta today.

And it remains a fiction to say we can only get there with zero or one loss.
Click to expand...

Well done JP, as usual. I also find it interesting that while the question being debated is "how many losses can we have and still get to Atlanta", D4H has moved the goal posts to "teams who HAVE WON THE SEC TITLE", thereby shrinking the number in his favor. As I think you and others have pointed out, many more teams have gotten to the SEC title game with 2 or more losses than D4H is trying to portray....it's actually a pretty common occurrence.

Also, it's pretty transparent why D4H arbitrarily chose 10 years as his cutoff....it's the same reason why he chose SEC teams who won the title over SEC teams who actually got to the title game....he thought it helped his case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbs 4 Heisman View Post
No. I stopped cause 10 is a nice round number.

bamawriter said:
And 6 is a nice accurate number, as opposed to the 2 that you argued.
Click to expand...

And as Dobbs is a true numbers guy, I think he'd agree with the later.

Edit: Just as I think Dobbs would not agree with anyone, on his behalf, throwing everyone else under the bus, including (very recently) throwing under the bus the UT fans in attendance of the '015 FL game (especially when that person throwing them under it was not there and also is proud to say he had no interest in UT football during the recent down years / pre 2014). Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
If we want to guarantee a spot at the SEC championship game we need to go 7-1 with that 1 loss coming to either A&M or Alabama.

Anything less and we dont control our own destiny.
Click to expand...

Also not true, D4H.

It is quite possible for us to go 7-1 with a loss to Georgia, say, or 6-2 with losses to Georgia and A&M or Bama, and still control our own destiny throughout the season. This is true because UGa has two other SEC games prior to the one with us: Mizzou and Ole Miss; and every other SEC-East team has at least one conference game before that weekend.

So we could come into our game the evening of October 1st at 1-0 in conference...Florida at 1-1...Georgia at 0-2...and every other team in the East holding at least one conference loss.

That puts us in the cat bird seat from the moment we beat Florida, and still in the dominating position even after a loss to Georgia.

That's not how I want the season to play out, of course.

Just showing that you have yet again missed a scenario that proves your perspective invalid.

After seeing the error in your original post within this thread, you dropped back to what you thought was the defensible position of "controlling destiny." But you've swung and missed here, too, brother.

Just give it up. There are plenty of ways to get to Atlanta. It doesn't just have to play out one way.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
Since we are playing silly math games, you also have to consider that a single loss to an undefeated SEC East team would not get us a trip.

It's really just a "win all you can" and wait and see approach.
 
#48
#48
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
LOL. Why?

Florida lost only 1 last year.

Odds are someone is gonna go 7-1 in the East.

It better be us.

I dont know why y'all just can't accept that.
Click to expand...

You don't understand that I was talking about UGA.... I hope.

UGA and UF have question marks on O. So the winner is likely to be the team with the best D. That's UF.

IMO, UGA is almost certain to lose to Ole Miss this year. It is a road game following a road game early in the season for a new coach with a new system and several new guys in key positions. Then.... I don't think they'll do better than a split at home between UT and Auburn.

That's three losses.



I don't know why you can't "accept" arguing consistently or learning to express yourself clearly.

To pretty much everyone here, you've been arguing that a team had to go 7-1 to win the SEC. You seem to suggest the same is necessary to win the East.

Those are simply false arguments. Now, you claim the "odds are" someone goes 7-1 to win the East.... which is not much more "true" but at least it isn't as definitive as your other arguments.

Here is a "likely" scenario for UT to win the East: beat UF at home then lose to UGA away before defeating TAM on the road and losing to Bama at home (I'd actually reverse those). Either way, that get UT to 6-2.

Then all the Vols need is for UF to lose to LSU which seems likely and for UGA to lose to Aub, Ole Miss, and UF which also seems likely.

OR you could end up with a 3 way tie with UT winning by being the highest ranked based on a 5 game win streak.

There are A LOT of ways this can work out for a 6-2 team to win the Ease AND be good enough to then win the SEC.

That hasn't been true in a few years.... but it is true this year.
 
#49
#49
VFL-82-JP said:
Hmm...

'92 Florida (6-2)
'95 Arkansas (6-2)
'96 Alabama (6-2)
'97 Auburn (6-2)
'98 Mississippi State (6-2)
'00 Auburn (6-2)
'01 LSU (5-3) (won the SEC CG)
'02 Arkansas (5-3)
'03 Georgia (6-2)
'05 Georgia (6-2) (won the SEC CG)
'07 Tennessee (6-2)
'07 LSU (6-2) (won the SEC CG)
'10 South Carolina (5-3)

Getting to Atlanta with 2 or more losses ain't exactly rare. Half of the 24 SEC CGs since divisions were created had one or both of the teams with 2 or 3 conference losses. A few of them went on to win the championship.

It is fiction to say that you have to have 0 or 1 loss to get to Atlanta.
Click to expand...
Good point; He must be a FOX News journalist.
 
#50
#50
sjt18 said:
You don't understand that I was talking about UGA.... I hope.

UGA and UF have question marks on O. So the winner is likely to be the team with the best D. That's UF.

IMO, UGA is almost certain to lose to Ole Miss this year. It is a road game following a road game early in the season for a new coach with a new system and several new guys in key positions. Then.... I don't think they'll do better than a split at home between UT and Auburn.

That's three losses.



I don't know why you can't "accept" arguing consistently or learning to express yourself clearly.

To pretty much everyone here, you've been arguing that a team had to go 7-1 to win the SEC. You seem to suggest the same is necessary to win the East.

Those are simply false arguments. Now, you claim the "odds are" someone goes 7-1 to win the East.... which is not much more "true" but at least it isn't as definitive as your other arguments.

Here is a "likely" scenario for UT to win the East: beat UF at home then lose to UGA away before defeating TAM on the road and losing to Bama at home (I'd actually reverse those). Either way, that get UT to 6-2.

Then all the Vols need is for UF to lose to LSU which seems likely and for UGA to lose to Aub, Ole Miss, and UF which also seems likely.

OR you could end up with a 3 way tie with UT winning by being the highest ranked based on a 5 game win streak.

There are A LOT of ways this can work out for a 6-2 team to win the Ease AND be good enough to then win the SEC.

That hasn't been true in a few years.... but it is true this year.
Click to expand...

Agree on everything but the bold part. The "highest ranking" SEC tiebreaker for divisions was gotten rid of after the BCS's last year.


If a three way tie runs that deep into the divisional tiebreaker - past those like head to head records versus the tied teams, divisional record, competition level within the division (the more confusing one), overall record against opposite division teams - the tiebreaker now is the combined SEC records of the two opposite division (West) teams each team played.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top