VTTW Board Index

http://www.rockytopinsider.com/2016/10/04/tennessee-west-best/

That adds up to a 122-24 cumulative total record for Tennessee’s Western opponents since 2011. But perhaps crazier is their record coming into the game against UT. Outside of an Arkansas team that stumbled out of the gates in 2015, but still found a way to beat the Vols, Tennessee has played the hottest teams. Those teams have come into the game against UT with a combined record of 63-6, with three of those six losses coming from Arkansas last year.

And while the Vols were noticeably more competitive in 2015, the West still holds a 371-144 total scoring edge against UT since 2011.

As I say below, we have not beaten a West opponent since Dooley beat a 4-8 Ole Miss team in 2010.   It's time!   :powert:

Since the fall they have been steeping closer to competing. Aamof you can't say they didn't compete last year.

I made a post a couple of weeks back that it seems we play the West teams when they are up and not down...Auburn....Miss State...A&M...Ole Miss and Ark was better last year than this year. Of course the team we play every year, Bama hasn't been down in a good while.

Hard to imagine Bama beats that group every year. It wasn't that long ago that the East winner won the conference every year and the West was weak. It needs to get back that way.

Yep. And it can start this weekend.  :powert:

Back then Bama wandered in the wilderness for a decade with Dubose, Price and Shula. LSU did the same for several years with Hallman, Archer, Dinardo until Saban and Miles came along. At the same time UT was in good shape under Fulmer and Florida had Spurrier. The past several years it's flopped.

Yes.  I was thinking of this in a slightly different way earlier today.  Fulmer is often derided for growing complacent.  No doubt he did.  But what is often not given enough credit is that the rest of the league stepped up their game.  We beat bammer, Florida and uga in 2004, which is the last time that heppened.  But we lost twice to Auburn, which had just made a revival under Tuberville.  We beat Baby Bowden, and dominated the early part of Tuberville's career, but they caught up.  Then as you point out, Florida and bammer hired Meyer and Satan (and LSU had hired satan first).  Those are literally two of the best coaches in the country.  No.  They are THE TWO best (much as a it gags me to say that).

I think Fulmer did not so much grow complacent as the rest of the league passed him up and he couldn't keep up.  He did try to respond..he hired a spread OC (but that was the wrong response  :frown:)

And speaking of keeping up, there has been some very interesting discussion surrounding the Miles firing.  First of all, as pointed out above, he had the 7th best win percentage over the last 10 years, and I believe the 4th or 5th best set of recruiting classes.  So you can argue he didn't live up to his talent, but it was very close, and face it, he has to face saban every year.

Having said that, the one word being repeated is stubborn.  Recall back in 2011 LSU beat bammer 9-6 in the regular season and then got blown out in the MNC.  (I still say bammer didn't deserve a rematch, but...water under the bridge  :pin:).

What I recall is that his starting QB was godawful in the championship game and Miles would not sit him.  I thought at the time that it was stupid not to adjust the gameplan.  Well, it was much worse than I thought. Monday Finebaum pointed out (which I never noticed back in 2011) that LSU had installed an option prior to the regular season game that caught bammer off guard.  Thus they won in Tuscaloser 9-6.  Well, the failure to adjust was far worse than I thought.  LSU trotted out the EXACT SAME GAMEPLAN in the championship game.  Apparently Miles thought, "hey, it worked once, it will always work."  And as I point out, even I noticed he failed to adjust during the game.

How fizzleing STUPID is that?  Going up against saban the second time in a season, you don't change your gameplan?  

Also, it has been pointed out that apparently Miles had been ordered to open up the offense by the AD, and he basically blew them off, or just went through the motions.  McIlroy on the SECN was pointing out that it looked like the LSU QBs, many of whom came in highly touted and were very talented, just looked like they were not getting the reps in practice.  Which, thinking about how LSU has played over the years, makes sense.  The QBs often looked rushed and unprepared IMO.

McIlroy also said that if you stress the run game, it takes up a lot of practice time and doesn't leave time for QBs to get reps.  That was a very interesting point, because I have seen footage of a Muschamp practice and he spent like 95% of his time working on the D.

This could explain why places like LSU and UF/USC jr that have coaches who want a power run game and good D can't develop QBs even if they recruit and hire good offensive coaches.  If they can't PRACTICE, they won't DEVELOP, and the HC sets practice priorities.  Mystery solved.    :naughty:

Fulmer hiring Clawsen wasn't a bad move given more time....He's done a pretty darn good job as a HC since he left UT and Wake Forest is having a good year. The problem was he didn't have the players to run his system. Much like when Michigan hired Rich Rod and him using Pro I players trying to run his spread....He was there 3 years and was starting to get his type players in there and he was fired and Brady Hoke was hired and tried to run a Pro-Set with Rich Rods spread players.....Talking about a cluster.

If Fulmer had stayed and left Clawsen alone I think he would have been successful here.

Historically the Vols are an 8-4 team. I grew up during the Battle and Majors years.  We are what we are.

Until Fulmer let things slide we had the highest winning percentage of all Division 1-A teams going back to 1925.  Yet our administration was convinced we weren't a big time program. 

For someone who works so hard to convince everyone he isn't a troll, you sure make some dumb statements.

Yep

I'll grant you that maybe switching to the spread was not a terrible idea, but yes, it was the wrong time.  We had the wrong athletes and we really needed someone to develop Crompton as a passer, not someone who would try and run the option with him.  Plus, there was so much pressure on Fulmer already.   With the exception of Cut, who he inherited, Fulmer was pretty bad at hiring assistants.  Chavis developed into a great DC, but only after 2-3 years of growing pains.  I'd say 1998 was when he "got it", and in no small part that's a big reason we won it all that year.

Johnny was known for always hiring a good staff (though from what I hear he would runt about half of em off by being a horses's arse and always pointing fingers at them).

Butch so far has shown a willingness to make major staff changes, and so far I am pretty happy with Debord and very happy with Shoop.   These days a HC doesn't need to do much coaching actually, just make sure the recruits come in and get developed and set the overall philosophy.  Let the staff coach on game day....

What part of what I said was not true? I grew up in the Dickey, Battle and Majors era. We've won one title in my lifetime. I was born in 1960. I don't care much what we won from 1925 -1960. We are not a consistent national title contender in my lifetime. A lot of other schools have won multiple titles in my lifetime. We have a lot of states surrounding us that are way better recruiting hotbeds and those schools in those states reap the benefits accordingly. We are at a big disadvantage in that sense. It is harder for us to compete. We do real well if you take that into account.

So which is it? Tennessee is historically an 8-4 team, or you "don't care much" about history? Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What part of it was not true? Pretty much the entire statement. Tennessee is college football's 8th winningest program, behind Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama, in that order.

In Fulmer's 16 years, Tennessee failed to win more than 8 games just 5 times, and won 10+ games 9 times. Fulmer was not an 8-4 coach. Once Majors got the program retooled to his liking, Tennessee failed to win more than 8 games just 2 times in 8 years. In the 6 seasons he was at Tennessee, Dickey lost more than 3 games just once -- his first season. And he lost more than 2 games just twice. Since 1925, Tennessee has had 13 football coaches. If you remove the struggles created by a pair of terrible Hamilton hires, we're down to 10 coaches in 83 years. Of those, 3 — count 'em, THREE — were "8-4" or worse coaches. And even Battle won 10+ games in 3 out of the 7 seasons he was here. Aside from Battle, Bowden Wyatt and Harvey Robinson, Tennessee has traditionally been a contender on the national level. Neyland's record speaks for itself, and John Barnhill never lost more than 2 games when he was here. Go back to the start of the AP poll in 1936, and Tennessee has been ranked in the Top 10 at some point 43 times in 80 years...and ranked in the Top 25 at some point 60 times in 80 years. If you chop off the last 8 years, we were ranked in the Top 10 at some point 42 times in 72 years...which means more often than not, we were in the national title hunt. If you want to use your lame argument that history didn't begin until 1960, Tennessee has been ranked in the Top 10 at some point 31 times in 56 years, or 30 times in 48 years prior to 2008. So your dog still doesn't hunt.

Popping off a moronic statement about how Tennessee is traditionally a mediocre program and then responding that the formative years of the program don't matter when you're called on it is the stuff of trolls and I feel like I should go shower for even giving you the time of day by responding to such a nonsensical claim. Sometimes, though, ignorance is too much for anyone to ignore.

Wrong again vol, anti-vol. Not much research required. Now have we been overshadowed by bama? Certainly. Florida in modern times? Certainly Nobody else. Not too shabby an historical record. Check it out.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Battle was an historically bad, nearly catastrophic hire. No question. Majors was erratic in the rebuild but got it done. The 70s were not a lot unlike this recent decade past. The 60s the Vols were very, very good! But ol bama was better. Oh well. Things can change quickly. What if the Vols were to rip off a couple more natties? Certainly doable.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I would not call the Vols a consistent national title contender in my lifetime. I don't see where you think that they are? That's all I am implying. During my lifetime, there have been a lot of schools nationally that have won multiple titles.

I really do wonder wtf Bob Woodruff was thinking when here hired Battle. He had never been a head coach. If anything UT has had inept administration. I'll give you that.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You are correct. I remember the Battle years mostly. I had a few decent teams, but no great ones.

"Alot"??? A half dozen perhaps, and generally they come in spurts. Perspective. Spurrier only won one. Same for Bowden. What Saban and Meyer have done have smashed all prior coaches other than the bear. Imo. A little perspective you champion caliber human! ;)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Nobody was beating bama back then. Not a lot unlike now, but I certainly remember 20-25 years of relative mediocrity post Bryant for bama & I know you do too :)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I guess you forgot about Nebraska, Oklahoma, S. Cal, Miami, etc. There are a lot of schools that are more consistently in the national title discussion than the Vols, in my lifetime, not just the last 20 years. But it doesn't matter. let's see what this season brings us. When Eason fumbled in the end zone  I thought about the Stoerner fumble in 1998. Maybe karma is coming back around to the good side.

I said a half dozen. Throw in flarda & bama. Who else? Miami & USC are unique situations & their record reflects wild swings in success, or lack of. Kinda like Auburn. The Vols would have played for the nattie in 2001. We all know that unfortunate outcome. Oh well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2015&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct


We are 10th in all time winning percentage in the NCAA standings.  8-4 is really not that bad actually. By which I mean our overall win percentage is 0.680.  If you apply that to a regular season of 12 games, then it does imply an 8-4 season.

However, only 6 teams are better historically than 8-4, and their average is 9-3.  Those teams are Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and bammer, and Texas.  

In the next group of 8-4 teams are, in order:
 
   Southern Cal   
   Nebraska   
   Penn State   
   Tennessee   
   Florida State   
   Louisiana State   
   Georgia   
   Florida   
   Miami-Florida   
   Auburn

So there are only 16 teams that are 8-4 or better historically, and we are one of them.

If you count from when Neyland showed up, in 1926, we are 7th in win percentage and do average 9-3 for a 12 game season.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1926&end=2015&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct



And volsboy, in your lifetime there are only a relative handful of programs that have won multiple titles.  Notre Dame, USC sr, bammer, OU, Nebraska, Texas, Miami, FSU, LSU, florida, and Ohio State.  And only a couple dozen have won a championship at all. (and LSU's second one should have an asterisk, because they backed into it with 2 losses).

Bottom line.  We are an elite program, though not quite top five, but good enough to be in the top 10.

LSU has eroded gradually post Saban. Texas has multiple? Notre Dame's getting a bit dusty, not sure Nebraska, or OU will ever get back to Switzer/what's his name status.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Nice post Bandit. Any knucklehead has access to the info. I still lean to volsboy being a bamer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Some younger Fans forget there was a time when we played only 10 games.....8-2 back then was as good as 10-2 today a lot of years.

Doesn't volsboy claim to be a native of the tri-state area(ky-tn-va)? He could well be ky. Nobody loves to needle & nitpic UT like a uk loser.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Tennessee High I think

Bristol Tennessee High School for your info. But it seems these schools are in the national title conversation more consistently than UT. A lot of them have played for a bunch of title games that they didn't win as well. Not a big deal. Don't get your Jimmies rustled.

Good post. But a lot of these programs have been consistently in the title hunt year after year. The Vols have been in it, what 3-4 times total. Of course the Vols are one of the all-time winningest programs. But for the most part it goes in cycles. You just can't have 10-12 game losing streaks to two teams on your schedule every year and expect to contend for titles. It is time for the Vols to start some winning streaks against UF and Bama.  :nod:

Apparently the issue is you don't understand what "being in the title hunt" really means.

Three or four times for Tennessee? Really?

How many times in the '90s was Tennessee not in the title hunt?

Yes there are better programs than UT. K? You got winner written ALL OVER YOU BOY. You wreak of elite level! In all phases!!! :biggrin: :dance:

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

We likely play for it all in 96 without the loss to Memphis.  In 95, only Florida stood between us.

In 1997, we had a shot at the title actually.  Had we beaten Nebraska and Michigan lost to Washington State, we likely split it with Washington State.  Neither happened though.

In 1990, one less tie or avoid the stupid loss to bammer, and we likely win it all.  In 2001, a close loss to LSU in the SECCG kept us out.

From 1990 to 2001, a span of 12 years, we were very much "in the hunt" at least 5 times (you could make a case for 93 also I think) and won it once.  It's hard to do better than that, although both FSU and Nebraska did in that same span, and arguably Florida.  But we were up there with them.

It depends.  Nebraska was in it constantly in the 80s (but always got blown out in bowls) and 90s (recruited more speed), but where are they today?  Miami was a powerhouse in the late 80s/early 90s but after winning another one in 2001, have been down quite a while.  Michigan won one in the 90s, but have paralleled us recently (almost eerie how the fortunes of our two teams are similar).  Texas did great mid-00s, but look at them now.  USC sr was the dominant team of the early 2000s, now they are shizzle.  And so forth.

Every team goes in cycles.  Even bammer pre-saban sucked.

And I have said it before, and will say it again, without their "unexplainable" recruiting success, they would not be all that, with or without saban.

But speaking of cycles, let's hope this is the early phase of a major "up" cycle for the Vols.  :dude:

Oh, I think UT was in the hunt more than 5 times in that span. In 1990, we tied No. Colorado (which ultimately won the national championship) and tied No. 3 Auburn, and rolled No. 9 Florida 45-3. We headed into the 3rd Saturday of October with a 4-0-2 record and ranked No. 3 in the country. We were clearly in the national championship hunt as the second half of the season began. That 9-6 loss to an unranked Bama team still ranks right up there as one of the most gut-wrenching Tennessee loses ever. We might've still worked our way back into the hunt if we find a way to pull off the game against Notre Dame.

In 1991 we beat three ranked teams in a row (No. 21 UCLA, No. 23 Mississippi State and No. 13 Auburn) and rolled into the Florida game as the No. 4 team in the nation at 4-0. We lost that one, then somehow lost that game to Alabama, which knocked us out of the hunt but we were a legitimate national title contender that season as well.

I don't know how much we really deserved to say we were "in the hunt" in 1992, but when you destroy a Top 5 team the way we destroyed Florida in the downpour at Neyland Stadium, you're going to get some national championship talk. I don't think that was a great Tennessee team, but we were still ranked No. 4 heading into the Arkansas game.

In 1993, we were a preseason Top 10 team and if not for letting Alabama somehow weasel back and tie the game, who knows where we're at at the end of the season? We were No. 6 going into the Citrus Bowl debacle against Penn State. We might've well been 3rd or 4th (going into the bowl game) despite the loss to UF. And No. 1 lost on New Year's Day, btw.

In 1995, we were obviously very much in the title hunt before losing to Florida and climbed back into the race even after that. If Florida had lost the SECCG to Arkansas or even lost the Florida State game, we would've gotten to face Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl for the national championship. As it was, we were No. 3 and relegated to the Citrus Bowl vs. tOSU.

In 1996, as you mention, we had managed to climb very much back into the hunt until that Memphis debacle. As it turned out, we wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to play for the MNC, but that's hindsight...nobody knew that on Nov. 9 before we laid an egg at Memphis.

In 1997, as you say, we're very much in the hunt. We're No. 3, facing No. 2 Nebraska, and No. 1 Michigan has No. 8 Washington State in the Rose Bowl. If we beat Nebraska and WashSt beats the Wolverines, we're the national champs. And WashSt almost pulled off its end of the bargain. Unfortunately we didn't even come close. That game still angers me, remembering the camera shots of our guys on the sideline horse playing while we were getting boat raced in the second half. To me, that was the game that signified that Fulmer's teams had discipline issues, and they almost always did after that.

In 1999, if we don't lose to Arkansas, we're right on the cusp of returning to the BCSNCG. As it turned out, we wouldn't have gotten in, because Florida State and Virginia Tech remained undefeated and claimed those top two spots. Our loss to UF would've cost us and we'd have been 3rd. But, again, that's hindsight. VaTech played a ranked Boston College team in the final game of the regular season and could've easily lost. Florida almost knocked off Florida State. (And while that might have put the Gators ahead of us in the BCS standings at that point, remember that they lost the SECCG to Alabama that year.)

So I'm not sure where in the world volsboy comes up with the notion that Tennessee has only been in the national title hunt 3-4 times in his lifetime. We were in the national title hunt at least 7 out of 10 years in the '90s alone, and you could make a strong argument that we were in the hunt 8 out of 10 times. And then add '01 to that mix as well.

Well, I don't count 91 because we lost to both bammer and florida that year.  I only count years where we were 'in the hunt" relatively late in the year.  But agree with most other points.

1999 may count, but I tend to discount years we ended up with 3 losses.  It's true we were in until late in the year, but ultimately I think it's my disappointment with the loss to Florida that year.  If I ever were to blame a loss on coaching, that would be it.  Four times Alex Brown (I think?) sacked Tee Martin.  I was in graduate school at Purdue at the time, and in spite of it being a top 5 matchup I had to listen to it on the radio.  I will never forget Tim Priest saying after the third sack "you might think the coaches would put in an extra TE or fullback to stop Alex Brown". 

Yeah, you might think!  But RS was already in over his head.  Then he calls a stupid TOSS SWEEP on 4th and game.  After the game he states "I may not know much about football, but I know you don't throw over the middle late in the game".

Um...hello Einstein!  Its not "late in the game", it IS the fizzleing game!  Who cares if Tee Martin throws a pick on 4th and 3?   A stop is as good as an int!

 :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I still get fired up thinking about that one.  Shoulda woulda coulda put two in a row on the gaytors.   

Being in the hunt is subjective phraseology. What I remember is the same vehicle that pushed Heisman talk pushed Championship press. The narrative of Sec dominance is a fairly recent phenomena. Any lack of consideration of UT as contender was lost in a northern press bias. I remember we as fans had to remind everyone to take a look at our resume since they continued to fail to do it themselves. The year we played colorado to a tie was a prime example.

I remember in 89 we unexpectedly opened with 5-6 wins then played bammer. I believe we were no. 7 at the time and they were 1 or 2.  But we got no respect. No one expected us to win, and we didn't, and we dropped down to 13 or 14 afterwards.   We did get respect in 90, we were no. 3 when we lost to bammer.  :banghead:.  But 1991 was the same ole, same ole. We only had one loss against bammer going in to that game, but no one gave us a chance and we dropped out of the top 10 again.   We were rated highly in 92 then lost to a winless Arkansas in a game that really ended Johnny Majors career at UT.  1993, still not much respect.

Honestly, I think it was the combo of Peyton being our QB and the 41-14 ass whipping of bammer in 1995 that finally got us the respect in the rankings.  After that, we were typically highly ranked, maybe even more than we deserved, until well into the next decade.

Still no one took us seriously as an NC contender...until 1998.   :biggrin: