Record vs. Top 25

[blacklistedbully]

Counts for what? In the end, how meaningful is any stat that is based on bad info? Fool's Gold.

 

[Shamoan]

We were 10 point favorites over Kentucky and Florida

 

[patdog]

It's still not a particularly impressive win, no matter what you call it.

 

[WutheringDawg]

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college...-mississippi-state.cfm/date/9-29-18/time/1800


Not that I really care about the argument either way,but you seem to be making stuff up my dude.

 

[00Dawg]

October 11, 2014: #11 Mississippi State 38, #22 Auburn 23

That's not what it was.
That's not what the record books will show.
That's not how anyone will remember it except for self-flagellating curmudgeons and sports media in need of ratings and clicks.

 

[Seinfeld]

If you want to say that 7-1 with Mullen is the most likely scenario, that’s fine, but it’s ridiculous to say that it’s worst case scenario for a guy that has a career SEC winning % of 44% along with an abysmal Top 25 track record.

I’ll let the rest of the board argue about the Top 25 semantics, but the reality is that we’ve played 5 teams that were either ranked at the time or are now ranked, and there is simply no way that Mullen’s worst possible case would be winning 4 of those 5 matchups

 

[Shamoan]

i am man enough to concede it wasnt double digits, but we were over touchdown favorites in two of our losses. my point still remains that he is losing games we were favorites in. so now what?

 

[West Tn Dawg]

Your victory over them could be a reason they fell down the rankings.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! except it's never "could be" it's 100% why they drop. I have never seen a team lose and move up in the rankings.

 

[blacklistedbully]

It was fun at the time, but if you are seriously trying to argue that AU was really the 2nd best in the country, aTm the 6th & LSU the 8th, when all three finished the year 8-5, then you are purposefully delusional.

Those teams each lost 5 games...not just the one they lost to us. You bringing up that win that year is proof, "rankings at the time" are not better than final rankings Those teams weren't ranked so low (AU) or not at all, "because they got beat by us". They were ranked that way because they each lost 4 more times beyond the one they lost to us.

In the end, AU was the only team we beat that was ranked in the final poll. We wound up being 1-3 vs teams ranked in the final poll. While it's fine to feel great about that around the time it happened, to insist on calling those, "great wins over highly-ranked teams" after reality set in is absurd.

 

[blacklistedbully]

I think you're missing the better point. In 2014 then #2 AU didn't drop to #22 in the final poll because they lost to us. Then # 6 aTm and #8 LSU didn't drop all the way out of the polls because they lost to us.

They dropped that much because all 3 of them lost an additional 4 more games to other teams. What more proof do you need that those teams were clearly not close to worthy of their rankings at the time we played them?

This idea that we shouldn't discount the ranking of a team, "at the time we played them" to what they were in the final poll should only logically be applied if they don't lose again after we play them. And if that happened, then their final ranking would have remained high enough for us to brag about, and we could have claimed their rankings may have not dropped but for the loss to us.

Otherwise, it's BS.