- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
99 wins in the 2000's
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:29 am
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:29 am
It was on the scoreboard, but is now gone. So just a positive reminder that if we win our Bowl game, we'll have won 100 games this decade (2000-2009).
The only team in the SEC that can do better is UF. After our respective wins yesterday, both teams are at 99 wins for the decade. Pretty impressive company.
SEC wins this decade:
LSU - 99
UF - 99
UGA - 97
Auburn - 87
Tennessee - 83
Alabama - 77
South Carolina - 68
Ole Miss - 62
Kentucky - 50
MSU - 42
Vandy - 34
That means we would have average 10 wins a year for an entire decade! Not bad, and a great decade to be a tiger. Compare it to the 90's when from 1990 to 1999, we had 54 wins!
1990's = 54 wins
2000's - 99 (possibly 100 wins)
The only team in the SEC that can do better is UF. After our respective wins yesterday, both teams are at 99 wins for the decade. Pretty impressive company.
SEC wins this decade:
LSU - 99
UF - 99
UGA - 97
Auburn - 87
Tennessee - 83
Alabama - 77
South Carolina - 68
Ole Miss - 62
Kentucky - 50
MSU - 42
Vandy - 34
That means we would have average 10 wins a year for an entire decade! Not bad, and a great decade to be a tiger. Compare it to the 90's when from 1990 to 1999, we had 54 wins!
1990's = 54 wins
2000's - 99 (possibly 100 wins)
This post was edited on 11/30/09 at 12:36 am
4
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:35 am to LSUMafia
this decade includes 2001-2010..... but great stat
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:42 am to LSUMafia
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:46 am to LSUMafia
Yeah.... 48 came under NTP and 51 under Les Miles. We still have a game left to play so Les' totals could run up to 52. 100 wins in a decade is a nice accomplishment!
Posted on 11/30/09 at 12:55 am to LSUMafia
quote:
It was on the scoreboard, but is now gone. So just a positive reminder that if we win our Bowl game, we'll have won 100 games this decade (2000-2009).
While I agree with the later poster about the decade (beginning with the "1" year and ending with the "0" year) distinction, many people conceptualize ten year periods as the "50s", "60s", etc., and the "oughts", as the years 2000 through 2009 are referenced -
For perspective (which is often lacking on the Rant) beginning with the 50s -
1950 through 1959 - 55-43-8 (nearly 1 tie per year), 52% winning record
60s - 76-26-5, 71% winning record (G-d Bless Cholly Mac)
70s - 76-38-3 (LSU played exactly one more game per year than the 60s), 65% winning record
80s - 70-41-5 (LSU played one less game total than the 70s), 60% winning record
90s - 54-58-1 (and the last tie LSU will likely ever have), 48% winning record (Dinardo almost kept us above .500)
2000s - either 100-30 and a 77% winning record, or 99-31 a 76% winning record. (LSU played in 17 more games in the "oughts" than in the 90s.)
Yes football is more than "just" wins and losses, but it's mainly about wins and losses.
This post was edited on 11/30/09 at 12:59 am
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:00 am to Ace Midnight
While I agree that how a decade is defined is up for debate, when you talk about the 90's you generally don't count 2000 in that.
Anyhow, it is interesting to note that we've had unprecedented success this past 10 years. One thing to note is that we get a game or 2 more these days, but the closes decade at 76 wins is pretty darn impressive.
Gotta hand it to Saban and Miles.
Anyhow, it is interesting to note that we've had unprecedented success this past 10 years. One thing to note is that we get a game or 2 more these days, but the closes decade at 76 wins is pretty darn impressive.
Gotta hand it to Saban and Miles.
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:16 am to RBWilliams8
quote:
this decade includes 2001-2010
No, no it doesn't. Go look it up.
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:20 am to RBWilliams8
Why is it that when this topic is brought up, the only thing people have to add to the topic is semantics over when the decade started?
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:22 am to BayouBengals03
Gotta give it to UGA 
3rd to only the 2 schools who have 2 NC's and the dawgs are 12 ahead of everyone else
3rd to only the 2 schools who have 2 NC's and the dawgs are 12 ahead of everyone else
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:23 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
No, no it doesn't. Go look it up.
No, technically he's correct - there was no year "0". What the medieval calendar makers thought was the year of Christ's birth was placed at year 1 AD, with the previous year being labeled as 1 BC (now CE and BCE, respectively, out of deference to our atheistic and pagan/heathen neighbors). Therefore, the "first" decade of the AD (or CE, if you prefer) ran from the first day of "Year 1", through the last day of "Year 10", otherwise the first decade is only 9 years.
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:30 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
No, technically he's correct - there was no year "0". What the medieval calendar makers thought was the year of Christ's birth was placed at year 1 AD, with the previous year being labeled as 1 BC (now CE and BCE, respectively, out of deference to our atheistic and pagan/heathen neighbors). Therefore, the "first" decade of the AD (or CE, if you prefer) ran from the first day of "Year 1", through the last day of "Year 10", otherwise the first decade is only 9 years.
No, he is wrong. That doesn't mean anything. In today's society, a decade is understood to start at the year starting with a "0". How people started counting years way back then is irrelevent. Right now, the year 2000 is 100% recognized as the first year of the 2000's decade.
However, 2000 is not the first year of the century. Even though this seems like a contradiction, it doesn't matter. Because this is how society views it today.
ETA: I will never admit that I am wrong about this subject, so there is no use trying to convince me otherwise.
This post was edited on 11/30/09 at 1:32 am
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:35 am to BayouBengals03
Wouldn't the easy way to settle this would be to google the list of decades?
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:36 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
In today's society, a decade is understood to start at the year starting with a "0". How people started counting years way back then is irrelevent. Right now, the year 2000 is 100% recognized as the first year of the 2000's decade.
If Texas was generally "understood" to be located east of Louisiana, that wouldn't make it so.
Oh, and your contradiction made my head hurt - you can have uniformly 100 year centuries, no exceptions, but a "9 year" decade at the beginning does nothing to offend your sense of mathematics or symmetry?
This post was edited on 11/30/09 at 1:38 am
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:36 am to BayouBengals03
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:38 am to Ace Midnight
List of decades
If you click on the 0s decade it says it is a 9 year period preceeded by the year 1 BC. And it also says the 0s BC is a 9 year period.
Click on 2000s. It says the decade will end December 31, 2009.
If you click on the 0s decade it says it is a 9 year period preceeded by the year 1 BC. And it also says the 0s BC is a 9 year period.
Click on 2000s. It says the decade will end December 31, 2009.
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:41 am to wish i was tebow
quote:
the year 2000 is 100% recognized as the first year of the 2000's decade.
I don't recognize the year 2000 as the first year of this decade, so how can it be 100% recognized as such?
back to the original point, that is a great stat
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:43 am to MrJeauxns
by society as a whole
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:44 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
If you click on the 0s decade it says it is a 9 year period preceeded by the year 1 BC. And it also says the 0s BC is a 9 year period.
Some sort of strange, inaccurate use of the word "decade", I suppose. I guess that's how language goes, "good" becomes "hot" or "phat" or "bad", "money" becomes "chedda", or "scrilla", and "decade" becomes a 9 year period, under very limited circumstances.
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:47 am to Ace Midnight
It might be stupid, but that's how it is.
I was reading somewhere else that since there was no year 0, a new century does not start until the year ending with "01". However a decade is not like this.
I was reading somewhere else that since there was no year 0, a new century does not start until the year ending with "01". However a decade is not like this.
quote:
Because there was no "year zero" on the Gregorian calendar, each new millennium of 1000 years includes the final 1000th year (1000, 2000, etc.). However, a decade is not restricted by this convention.
This post was edited on 11/30/09 at 1:48 am
Posted on 11/30/09 at 1:48 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
ETA: I will never admit that I am wrong about this subject, so there is no use trying to convince me otherwise.
no need to convince because you are.
We can universally view decades as the 80's , 90's etc, but that does not change the fact that a decade goes from 1-10, not 0-9. No one counts 0-9
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News