|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Just for the coots that think they will do better in the ACC
Aug 17, 2016, 10:56 PM
|
|
What is even worse, is when you use the filter to go by decade. Starting in 1900 going to 1909, then 1910 to 1919, etc... only TWO decades have the coots have an above .500 record against ACC schools, and each time that was only by two games. I did not count 2010 to 2016 because I went by decades and they are still going to lose at least 4 more times against us. Since the decade is far from finished, I cannot count this decade as a win for them either since they are getting beat by the likes of The Citadel these days.
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/s/south_carolina/vs_conf_opponents.php?confid=11&restrictions=none
Looking at you '09 (edited just for you! I did the work for you.)
Coots against the ACC by decade:
1900-1909
4-11-1
1910-1919
6-19-2
1920-1929
16-18-2
1930-1939
29-53 (OUCH)
1940-1949
12-20
1950-1959
26-29
1960-1969
28-29
1970-1979
33-31
1980-1989
28-26
1990-1999
8-14
2000-2009
7-8
2010-2015
7-3 (However, they still have 4 games against us this decade, so that is 4 more losses right there)
Message was edited by: LKN Tiger®
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4960
Joined: 11/3/06
|
Re: Just for the coots that think they will do better in the ACC
Aug 17, 2016, 11:09 PM
|
|
I'm going to print this out and post it somewhere random at work. TU for you, sir!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Just for the coots that think they will do better in the ACC
Aug 17, 2016, 11:21 PM
|
|
We are 7-2 this century against your brethren.
Seems like we would do ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Maybe you do not understand how measurement works
Aug 17, 2016, 11:26 PM
|
|
However, I do and am here for you to explain. What you are doing right now is called sampling bias.
The facts are what they are, and they are stated in my original post. I am sorry that they do not conform to your delusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Maybe you do not understand how measurement works
Aug 18, 2016, 8:46 AM
|
|
I applaud you for not giving into logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
ROFL...oh the hypocrisy and the irony !!!!
Aug 18, 2016, 9:31 AM
|
|
Bless your deluded ignorant little heart !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
By the way Nostradumba$$....
Aug 18, 2016, 9:45 AM
|
|
$CU is 13 - 11 against the ACC so far this Century.
It'll be 13 - 12 come November.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Which logic is that
Aug 18, 2016, 9:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: Maybe you do not understand how measurement works ] |
|
My logic says that I broke it down in 11 decades, and in only 2 of those decades were you over .500, and most of those years you were WAAAAY under .500. The two years you were above it, you were .515 and .518 (barely above .500).
My logic, and bare with me here because this is some high-level sh!t: Since we know that the most accurate prediction of future behavior is past behavior, and since scjr has an overall below .500 record, and since 82% of the decades since 1900 are below .500 (including the previous two) we can logically conclude that the future of scjr football will yield the same results against a conference that you claim superiority over.
Now, you can argue with that all you want, but you will just make yourself look stupid in doing so.
Also, just for giggles, you were 1-3 against ACC teams from 1890-1899, so I could make the numbers look even worse. You started out below .500, and have never looked back. Congrats!
Message was edited by: LKN Tiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Which logic is that
Aug 18, 2016, 10:18 AM
|
|
The ACC was established in 1953 so we couldn't have lost to an ACC team in a lot of those decades.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4363
Joined: 10/22/14
|
Class of 09
Aug 18, 2016, 10:27 AM
|
|
Maybe you can explain something to me. Not a jab mind you, but a serious question. While we all know the SEC E has been relately weak for the last decade, it's usually fairly solid. SC obviously plays that portion, and like us, it's not their fault if the division has its share of potatoes. But other than having to play us every year, what decent Out of Conference games to they schedule? UNC. ehh. I'm talking like FSU, U of Texas, even GT, Louisville, etc. A game that there is actually a chance of losing? We have scheduled Auburn, UGA, and Ol Miss (who backed out) Not a jab, as I actually wish we would schedule a some different schools beside SEC, Like Pac, Big, etc, but other than us, it seems yall never play a legit top 10-15 school out of conference which raises your profile a lot when you win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Class of 09
Aug 18, 2016, 10:40 AM
|
|
Your comment just speaks to the disparity of the conferences.
Our normal in conference games are considering big games.
Your normal in conference games are considered blah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
What a complete load.....
Aug 18, 2016, 10:55 AM
|
|
Tennessee, Florida, Vandy, Kentucky and Missouri are nothing to write home about and UGa hasn't been all that good of late either.
It's not like you're playing LSU or Alabama on an annual basis.
The rest of the SEC has been mediocre at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28286]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14044
Joined: 6/27/14
|
there is only bama in the sec
Aug 18, 2016, 11:01 AM
[ in reply to Re: Class of 09 ] |
|
the rest of the conference is acc lite or at best the big east. clemson would lay waste to every one of those ###### teams in the sec. so would fsu. and louisville, notre dame, carolina, and miami would win the east all day everyday. your league sucks and no one buys the narrative any longer. its not 2008 chief - move along
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [21]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 47
Joined: 6/12/16
|
Your act is a joke.
Aug 18, 2016, 11:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: Class of 09 ] |
|
Not even a slow guy like would actually believe the nonsense you type. Do you get your rocks off posting idiotic things then getting blasted, or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Not only can you not math, you can not read either
Aug 18, 2016, 4:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: Which logic is that ] |
|
I specifically said ACC teams for that reason. However, you can get cute with semantics all you want, but it does not change how bad you suck.
So, teams that are currently in the ACC, you see what your record against those teams are.
You are proving how idiotic you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2786
Joined: 9/11/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
You are asking him to take his shoes off to calculate
Aug 17, 2016, 11:33 PM
|
|
numbers that big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2786
Joined: 9/11/02
|
Bless his heart.
Aug 17, 2016, 11:36 PM
|
|
He tried, but words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Actually we are able to show you where your math is wrong
Aug 18, 2016, 9:22 AM
|
|
You see, according to you, the coots are 7-2 in this century. Is that what you said? When did this century begin? Year 2000 maybe? And this year is what...2016 I believe?
Now here's where your math breaks down, I know USuCk has played Clemson every year during this century, so taking out every other game the coots have played against ACC teams, you've still played more than 9 games against the ACC during this century. At this point there are two options, admit you were wrong and you're an idiot, or continue to argue that you've only played 9 games during this century. Either way provides the same result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
He is wrong the entire thread, but
Aug 18, 2016, 9:32 AM
|
|
this is one of those times where you shake your head and say, "You can't argue with stupid" and carry on about your day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: He is wrong the entire thread, but
Aug 18, 2016, 10:14 AM
|
|
The hypocrisy is strong in this one lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28286]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14044
Joined: 6/27/14
|
you know, you're seriously dumb as fuq
Aug 18, 2016, 10:26 AM
|
|
its ok to support your team and ######## with a rival. the problem is thinking you're kate beckinsale when you're goddam rosie o'donnell. makes zero ###### sense. you cocklovers brought this on yourself - for years - pretending you're something you're not. i cannot decide if its psychosis, drugs, incest, lack of education, lack of money, etc. there is not another fanbase in the nation that truly believes in this fairytale and unicorn ########. its unreal. its like talking to someone with a mental illness. and the funny thing about this delusion is the circle jerk agreement in the fanbase. fuktards
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [21]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 47
Joined: 6/12/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27180]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16026
Joined: 10/13/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Cool, so you admit you're an idiot, we're finally getting
Aug 18, 2016, 10:19 AM
|
|
somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3530
Joined: 5/7/03
|
Re: This decade, yes. This century, definitely not.
Aug 18, 2016, 9:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: This decade, yes. This century, definitely not. ] |
|
So 09 you do not count the Clemson game or are you merely looking selectively? Please explain your 7-2 record. If you bothered to play FSU, Ga. Tech, Louisville, (even Duke), and a few more ACC than the two North Carolina foes scheduled you just might realize playing the ACC is quite different from say 1970 when you dropped out over academic standards, but what does that matter to an SEC school?
No matter how you attempt to view the record your gamecocks are on the losing end unless perhaps you disqualify Clemson somehow.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: This decade, yes. This century, definitely not.
Aug 18, 2016, 10:58 AM
|
|
The USC-Clemson results skew the data. The same way UGA-GT skews the data when comparing UGA's record against the ACC.
Any good researcher knows you have to control for outliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28286]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14044
Joined: 6/27/14
|
you guys would possibly be competitive with wake
Aug 18, 2016, 11:09 AM
|
|
but their d would knock the pi$$ out of you. if usuck scheduled bc, you might generate 150 yds of offense - might
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
So basically you're controlling outliers by throwing out
Aug 18, 2016, 12:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: This decade, yes. This century, definitely not. ] |
|
the results of one of the top 2 teams in the conference? You do know by playing an ACC schedule you'd still play us every year right? Had you played our schedule last year, do you think you would've been better than 3-9?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
Even if we both played in the ACC, we'd be the outlier due
Aug 18, 2016, 12:11 PM
|
|
to our better record...Hell, FSU, GT, and Louisville would probably be outliers too...due to DATA SKEWING
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
If they played our schedule last year the coots would've
Aug 18, 2016, 12:31 PM
|
|
thrown out App St. because it's not fair to count teams better than they are.
Louisville definitely gets tossed out since they beat two of the teams that beat USuCk last year in UK and TAMU. Basically the data would only allow counting one ACC opponent, BC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: So basically you're controlling outliers by throwing out
Aug 18, 2016, 1:30 PM
[ in reply to So basically you're controlling outliers by throwing out ] |
|
I think a reasonable person should know we would struggle with Clemson and FSU but would do well against the others.
We were awful last year so I have no idea if we would have been better than 3-9. But it's hard to disagree we would win more often if we were in the ACC. How much more is up for debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
No you wouldn't...
Aug 18, 2016, 1:41 PM
|
|
You would still be underdogs to teams like Miami, Louisville, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, Pitt, NC State and probably Boston College.
The ONLY teams in the league that would be likely wins for you would be Wake, Syracuse, and Virginia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
So you would do well against Louisville?
Aug 18, 2016, 2:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: So basically you're controlling outliers by throwing out ] |
|
The team that beat UK and TAMU? Remind me, how did USuCk do against UK and TAMU?
You think you would've done well against Notre Dame last year?
After losing to the Citadel, do you really think you would do well against GT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: So you would do well against Louisville?
Aug 18, 2016, 2:45 PM
|
|
Sorry I forgot college football started last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
Most of the coots I know think it started 8 years ago***
Aug 18, 2016, 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: No, no hell you would not
Aug 18, 2016, 5:12 PM
|
|
Where did you post this data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: No, no hell you would not
Aug 18, 2016, 11:17 PM
|
|
You said the others lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [21]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 47
Joined: 6/12/16
|
LKN, he knows he's wrong and/or retarded with basically
Aug 18, 2016, 11:28 PM
[ in reply to No, no hell you would not ] |
|
every post he makes, but like a petulant child it makes him feel good to get in these nonsensical and losing arguments. Guy is a strange bird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6391
Joined: 11/17/03
|
Hey 09' whats your record this decade against SoCon teams?
Aug 17, 2016, 11:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: Just for the coots that think they will do better in the ACC ] |
|
How many has El Cid won over you guys in a row now? 2 by my count, or is it 3?
And haven't you guys split the last two football contests against Navy? Didnt you guys barely escape Navy a few years ago? Was a 24-21 game if recall correctly. That option is a bear, eh?
Just imagine what your record would be if you played Paul Johnsons Yellow Jackets on the regular
Sounds like the resume of a powerhouse football program! Do you agree?
Message was edited by: gville76®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
Slurrier had to ride Lattimore 41 times to beat Navy by a FG***
Aug 18, 2016, 12:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9113
Joined: 1/15/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28286]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14044
Joined: 6/27/14
|
scheduling carolina
Aug 18, 2016, 12:57 PM
|
|
first game of yr and their implosion was the only reason the scoreboard was like it was. 9 out of 10 times the heels wipe the floor with them
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21509
Joined: 10/27/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [238]
TigerPulse: 40%
Posts: 704
Joined: 9/7/14
|
That's apples to oranges. Strength of conferences fluctuate
Aug 18, 2016, 10:45 AM
|
|
For example, the SEC is definitely weaker now than it was in the mid-2000s. The ACC strength now is different than it was in previous decades. Their argument is that they would do well in the CURRENT ACC, and has nothing to do with the ACC from 40-50 years ago.
I'm not agreeing with them at all (I think anyone who goes 3-9 can't really say they would do well in any power 5 conference), but bringing up their stats against the ACC from 50-100 years ago doesn't have anything to do with the debate at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7718]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7444
Joined: 1/10/16
|
Re: That's apples to oranges. Strength of conferences fluctuate
Aug 18, 2016, 11:04 AM
|
|
You are a Chicken fan and are fooling no one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [238]
TigerPulse: 40%
Posts: 704
Joined: 9/7/14
|
And you are a moron and are fooling no one.***
Aug 18, 2016, 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7718]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7444
Joined: 1/10/16
|
Re: And you are a moron and are fooling no one.***
Aug 18, 2016, 1:40 PM
|
|
Poor poor little dirt ######. Thought you were being so creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5112
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Re: That's apples to oranges. Strength of conferences fluctuate
Aug 18, 2016, 5:01 PM
[ in reply to That's apples to oranges. Strength of conferences fluctuate ] |
|
I get that, honestly I do, but that does not explain away that the last two decades have included losing records as well.
There is nothing that objectively makes me believe that they would be successful in the ACC. They would not get past the top of the ACC. Duke is a better program than they are right now, if we are talking about right now.
They ranked below every single ACC team in preseason polls. Errrr, soooo......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [238]
TigerPulse: 40%
Posts: 704
Joined: 9/7/14
|
Please read the post next time. Where did I say it
Aug 18, 2016, 5:35 PM
|
|
explained anything about the last two decades.
Nowhere did I say whether or not they would be successful against the ACC.
Separately to your last point, preseason polls are yet another worthless argument about whether they would do well against the ACC. How about 3-9? How about losing to Citadel? Why are people here trying to use preseason polls and ACC records from over 100 years ago to try prove a very simple point- South Carolina does not have a good team right now and would probably not do well in the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
WHO GIVES A BOOM
Aug 19, 2016, 7:51 AM
|
|
The only people who talk ifs, coulda, woulda, shouldas are the people who LOSE.
Take the win, smile and walk away. Let losers talk loser speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
