Comments on: SEC Domination of the Big 10 has begun http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/ Losers With Socks: SEC Speed Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:14:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: VolMan http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-51550 VolMan Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:46:10 +0000 http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-51550 Joe Fox? Hello? Are you Still Around? Did ANYTHING you predicted in December come true? Tennessee v. Wisconsin? Nope. You Lose Again. Joe Fox? Hello? Are you Still Around? Did ANYTHING you predicted in December come true? Tennessee v. Wisconsin? Nope. You Lose Again.

]]> By: Spartanalumna http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-51093 Spartanalumna Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:44 +0000 http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-51093 gatorhippy, It is not often that you will find be defending a UM alum but I really have to jump to his defense here. He clearly stated: "1. The Big Ten has won a majority of games against the SEC in the past five years." To which you responded: "1. Is with out a doubt and indisputedly incorrect…SEC vs. B-10 from 2001-2006: 12-11 (.522)…You’re wrong… Let's do the math here. 2006 =1 2005 =2 2004 =3 2003 =4 2002 =5 Inherently flawed college rankings aside, if an SEC grad can't even do simple math... :) To say that the Big Ten is the weaker conference because one specific school has had recent difficulties winning a bowl game on the road is makes one appear ignorant. Both conferences have very strong teams that could win against (or lost to) any other team in div. I football on any given day. gatorhippy,

It is not often that you will find be defending a UM alum but I really have to jump to his defense here.

He clearly stated: “1. The Big Ten has won a majority of games against the SEC in the past five years.”
To which you responded: “1. Is with out a doubt and indisputedly incorrect…SEC vs. B-10 from 2001-2006: 12-11 (.522)…You’re wrong…

Let’s do the math here.
2006 =1
2005 =2
2004 =3
2003 =4
2002 =5

Inherently flawed college rankings aside, if an SEC grad can’t even do simple math… :)

To say that the Big Ten is the weaker conference because one specific school has had recent difficulties winning a bowl game on the road is makes one appear ignorant. Both conferences have very strong teams that could win against (or lost to) any other team in div. I football on any given day.

]]> By: gatorhippy http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48877 gatorhippy Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:20:33 +0000 http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48877 Well, UMAlumni, I'll take that challenge... 1. Is with out a doubt and indisputedly incorrect... SEC vs. B-10 from 2001-2006: 12-11 (.522)... While not domination, it is a winning record against the B-10 which is in direct conflict with you're claim... In other words... You're wrong... So that baby has been put to bed... For the rest of you fellas & gals reading this post, unless you would like an mildly in depth refutation on UM's logic on ranking universities and colleges I suggest you stop reading here... However, UM, I suggest you continue as you'll see why you are wrong and perhaps learn something in the process... 2. I love this argument overall not just from a SEC vs. B-10 standpoint as we are discussing overall academia... Which if you even had a slight inkling of post secondary education past your drunken stumble through UM you wouldn't have started blathering about the US News report... It's pretty common knowledge throughout institutions of higher learning the fallacies, biases, and ever changing requirements and figures that are used in compiling those bogus ratings... Even college ratings such as Baron's or Princeton Review are viewed as unreliable when delving into the actual superiority of one institution over another... Ratings pubs such as these base their reports on money, name, and skewed exclusiveness for the bulk of their rating material... For example... I'll use an extremely high rated school in comparison to the ideally top academic SEC school in Vandy... Stanford's SAT ratings are skewed due to the pool they have chosen to pull entrants from... Their habit along with other "top-rated" u's is to cull from higher income families again skewing their numbers in standardized testing and awarding academic scholarships to these same people in order to continue their level in ratings pubs... Schools will pull professors with big name research followings, but severely lack in the actual skill of teaching, again to maintain their level... Schools higher presidents based on fundraising capabilities rather than ability to lead the University, again to maintain level... For a better understanding of why these ratings are nearly worthless and for a better system of rating post secondary education, I suggest you take a look at an education report that I read back in September of last year... College Rankings Reformed by Kevin Carey... I have a copy of it right here on my desk, but you should be able to find it on-line for free... Long story short, UMAlumni... US News rankings and others such as those that are quoted by anybody in an academic comparison debate lose credibility immediately and have zero basis to back their argument... Or perhaps in more simple terms... Using that as a basis is like bringing a knife to a gun fight in higher education debate... You'll get blown away before you reach the line every time... BTW - if you consider "brethren" to be a "big word" I would have to question the quality of a Michigan education... Well, UMAlumni, I’ll take that challenge…

1. Is with out a doubt and indisputedly incorrect…

SEC vs. B-10 from 2001-2006: 12-11 (.522)…

While not domination, it is a winning record against the B-10 which is in direct conflict with you’re claim…

In other words…

You’re wrong…

So that baby has been put to bed…

For the rest of you fellas & gals reading this post, unless you would like an mildly in depth refutation on UM’s logic on ranking universities and colleges I suggest you stop reading here…

However, UM, I suggest you continue as you’ll see why you are wrong and perhaps learn something in the process…

2. I love this argument overall not just from a SEC vs. B-10 standpoint as we are discussing overall academia…

Which if you even had a slight inkling of post secondary education past your drunken stumble through UM you wouldn’t have started blathering about the US News report…

It’s pretty common knowledge throughout institutions of higher learning the fallacies, biases, and ever changing requirements and figures that are used in compiling those bogus ratings…

Even college ratings such as Baron’s or Princeton Review are viewed as unreliable when delving into the actual superiority of one institution over another…

Ratings pubs such as these base their reports on money, name, and skewed exclusiveness for the bulk of their rating material…

For example…

I’ll use an extremely high rated school in comparison to the ideally top academic SEC school in Vandy…

Stanford’s SAT ratings are skewed due to the pool they have chosen to pull entrants from…

Their habit along with other “top-rated” u’s is to cull from higher income families again skewing their numbers in standardized testing and awarding academic scholarships to these same people in order to continue their level in ratings pubs…

Schools will pull professors with big name research followings, but severely lack in the actual skill of teaching, again to maintain their level…

Schools higher presidents based on fundraising capabilities rather than ability to lead the University, again to maintain level…

For a better understanding of why these ratings are nearly worthless and for a better system of rating post secondary education, I suggest you take a look at an education report that I read back in September of last year…

College Rankings Reformed by Kevin Carey…

I have a copy of it right here on my desk, but you should be able to find it on-line for free…

Long story short, UMAlumni…

US News rankings and others such as those that are quoted by anybody in an academic comparison debate lose credibility immediately and have zero basis to back their argument…

Or perhaps in more simple terms…

Using that as a basis is like bringing a knife to a gun fight in higher education debate…

You’ll get blown away before you reach the line every time…

BTW – if you consider “brethren” to be a “big word” I would have to question the quality of a Michigan education…

]]> By: artiger http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48870 artiger Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:52:11 +0000 http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48870 Facts, smacts...You couldn't even get one of your "native sons" to leave the SEC to "come home". How many other people turned you down? You had to settle for a Big LEast wannabe to be your next head coach. Maybe he can help you beat the 1-AA schools in the future, unless you've wisely decided to not schedule them anymore. Facts, smacts…You couldn’t even get one of your “native sons” to leave the SEC to “come home”. How many other people turned you down?

You had to settle for a Big LEast wannabe to be your next head coach. Maybe he can help you beat the 1-AA schools in the future, unless you’ve wisely decided to not schedule them anymore.

]]> By: UMAlumni http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48768 UMAlumni Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:27:28 +0000 http://loserswithsocks.com/2007/12/05/sec-domination-of-the-big-10-has-begun/#comment-48768 Wow, I like the use of some large words to impress 'your brethren' - I wasn't making presumptions - What I stated were FACTS (If you have some information to refute my points I would like to see it.) Of course you have have nothing, again: 1. The Big Ten has won a majority of games against the SEC in the past five years. 2. The SEC has the worst schools of any major conference in the country. I am still waiting for a post to refute these basic facts. Wow, I like the use of some large words to impress ‘your brethren’ – I wasn’t making presumptions – What I stated were FACTS (If you have some information to refute my points I would like to see it.)

Of course you have have nothing, again:

1. The Big Ten has won a majority of games against the SEC in the past five years.

2. The SEC has the worst schools of any major conference in the country.

I am still waiting for a post to refute these basic facts.

]]>