As we always say - statistics can be swayed to fit any argument but...

[dawgstudent]

The overall series is now 61-43-6 with Ole Miss having a winning % of 55.45%

Since 1991(year games went back on campus), State leads 13-10 with a winning % of 56.52%

So for all the noise that Ole Miss fans act like they dominated the series - we are "dominating" at a better clip over the last 23 games than they claim overall.

 

[57stratdawg]

Is winning 4 out of 5 good?

"What does new high score mean? Is that good?" - Grandma Boys

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

Actually, the on-field record is 59-45-6. Since 1987, we've led the series 14-13. The majority of the Mississippi population only know a Mississippi State who's been dominant over the past quarter century or so.

 

[messageboardsuperhero]

Bump just because I want to keep these numbers up at the top.

Any UM fan who feels some mysterious sense of entitlement or superiority over us should look at this and humble themselves.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

Not only that, but you take away the Vaught Aberration, MSU leads the all-time series 44-41-2.

 

[was21]

Over the last 33 years, State leads 17-16. Correct me.

 

[Resolved]

Not only that, but you take away the Vaught Aberration, MSU leads the all-time series 44-41-2.

Yeah, but Mutt they HAD Vaught, so please stop using that argument. What if we took out the Sherrill years? Or better yet, let's take out all those years that we lost.

I prefer to just tell them that over the last thirty years, we're ahead. Before that, who gives a ****.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

Why are you so defensive of Vaught? For some reason, he fell in love with Ole Miss (he could've gone anywhere in the country to coach) and was paid $10000/yr to be HC (even back then, that was cheap). Also, he recruited hard-nosed rawboned country boys who were tougher than nails....in other words, Mississippi State Men.

 

[Resolved]

I am not defending the old fart (is he dead yet? If so, RIP). He was a great coach and he changed their football history. But that's what it is...history. Like, 40 years ago history. Not many people, or recruits, give a **** about that time. But you can't just erase it from the record books. It happened.

 

[mstateglfr]

Actually, the on-field record is 59-45-6. Since 1987, we've led the series 14-13. The majority of the Mississippi population only know a Mississippi State who's been dominant over the past quarter century or so.

A 14-13 record /= Dominant.

I am happy as hell we won this year and have won 4 of the last 5. but to call that record dominant over the last quarter century or so is way off base.

 

[mstateglfr]

Not only that, but you take away the Vaught Aberration, MSU leads the all-time series 44-41-2.

Lets take away all the years where we just plain lost.
Then our record will look incredible. Undefeated perhaps!

My idea is as good a point as yours.

 

[BiscuitEater]

5 out of the last 5 ...

A 14-13 record /= Dominant.

I am happy as hell we won this year and have won 4 of the last 5. but to call that record dominant over the last quarter century or so is way off base.

= definition of "Dominant;" 4 out of the last 5 = near 'Dominence' over the average present day college 5 year career.

To me ... it is way, way better to have won 4 of last 5 than to have had won a bunch of games 55 years ago.

 

[Dawgology]

Actually, it s a little closer than the stats show

The overall series is now 61-43-6 with Ole Miss having a winning % of 55.45%

Since 1991(year games went back on campus), State leads 13-10 with a winning % of 56.52%

So for all the noise that Ole Miss fans act like they dominated the series - we are "dominating" at a better clip over the last 23 games than they claim overall.

I thought when a team forfeits a game that the other team doesn't get a retroactive win? I've noticed that UM counts our two forfeits in 76, 77 (?) as a win on their side. In actuality the on field results are 59 - 45 all time. Without those forfeits being counted as wins (which I don't think they are supposed to be) 59-43.

Small difference but still a matter of principle.