Started By
Message
re: Why is Tennessee so important to the SEC?
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:17 am to Mister Tee
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:17 am to Mister Tee
This is the same shite we all heard about Bama for a 15 year stretch. You were probably one of em. Tennessee was never gonna stay down forever. The program and fans have a certain expectation and they will never rest until it's met. Even if Butch Jones fails the program is set up to win big with top 10 talent and the job will be very enticing to a coach that can get it done.
1
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:35 am to sunseeker
quote:
This is the same shite we all heard about Bama for a 15 year stretch. You were probably one of em. Tennessee was never gonna stay down forever. The program and fans have a certain expectation and they will never rest until it's met
15 years? What 15 years is that? I know that Alabama was down a good bit from 1997-2007, and thanks in large part to Phil Fulmer ("secret witness") and Roy Kramer (Tennessee native and fan) conspiring to bring down Alabama, which is a heck of a coincidence since we're talking about Tennessee. And during that 10 year span, even after all the crippling ncaa sanctions (which UT didn't have to deal with from 1932-1960,or in the 90s), Alabama still, during that 10 years, won the SEC in 1999, and would have won the West division in Franchione's last year had UA not been on that probation.
So we're talking about a 10 year period when Alabama won the SEC and won enough games to have won the West except for probation, as opposed to 55 years (1960-2015) with no such probation and associated sanctions to have to deal with, for UT.
I'm not sure why some of you keep wanting to spin the issue. Tennessee was a consistent SEC contender from 1932-1960, and have not been in the 55 years since then, except for the late 90s, when their bitter rival, Alabama, was on (very convenient for UT) ncaa probation.
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 9:38 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:38 am to John Milner
Segregation 
You've probably made 20+ of the same comments in this thread nobody gives a frick grandpa
You've probably made 20+ of the same comments in this thread nobody gives a frick grandpa
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:45 am to Piscinin
quote:
Why is Tennessee so important to the SEC?
Segregation
You've probably made 20+ of the same comments in this thread nobody gives a frick grandpa
That's a secondary point. I said earlier that it wasn't the only factor, and probably isn't the primary factor, but that it was...A...factor and that is due to the fact that the state of Tennessee hasn't produced as many elite athletes. It isn't a matter of segregation anymore, anyway, as just a matter of numbers.
The primary point, and which is valid in this thread, is that from 1932-1960 UT was a consistent SEC title contender, but from 1960-2015 has not been,and in fact is 6th in the conference in winning pct. Those are verifiable mathematical and statistical facts.
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 9:51 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:48 am to John Milner
quote:
John Milner
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:52 am to TheDarrell McSteal
You can't debate the empirical facts, so instead you post a gif. Huge fail.
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 9:53 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 9:56 am to John Milner
Good lord, read a book.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:00 am to John Milner
No one gives a frick about debating with you or reading your long winded opinions. You have 46 posts and nearly all of them are ITT lmao
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 10:02 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:01 am to TheDarrell McSteal
quote:
ves a frick about debating with you or reading your long winded opinions.
uhh, you just did read it, and nobody is debating the facts because how the hell can you debate math.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:04 am to John Milner
24 of your 47 posts are ITT
VOLS have rolled this geriatric frick into oblivion
VOLS have rolled this geriatric frick into oblivion
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:05 am to John Milner
quote:You make some interesting points in your threads, but I'm just not sure that integration played much of a role.
That's a secondary point. I said earlier that it wasn't the only factor, and probably isn't the primary factor, but that it was...A...factor and that is due to the fact that the state of Tennessee hasn't produced as many elite athletes. It isn't a matter of segregation anymore, anyway, as just a matter of numbers.
The primary point, and which is valid in this thread, is that from 1932-1960 UT was a consistent SEC title contender, but from 1960-2015 has not been,and in fact is 6th in the conference in winning pct. Those are verifiable mathematical and statistical facts.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:08 am to coachcrisp
quote:
You make some interesting points in your threads, but I'm just not sure that integration played much of a role
Integration of the SEC is a clear demarcating point. Before that, many of the best players couldn't play for SEC teams. It was all white boys. That's all.
To be clear, and anybody can review my posts, but I never said that UT was somehow more segregated, supported segregation, or any other such a thing. In fact, it's commendable for UT, imo, that they were among the first SEC teams to provide for black players the opportunity for leadership roles on the team. That's important. More important, I might suggest, than winning football games, in spite of the fact that it's a pretty good bet that those coaches wanted to win games more than to be commended on some random message board 46 years later.
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 10:20 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:22 am to John Milner
quote:
Tennessee was a consistent SEC contender from 1932-1960, and have not been in the 55 years since then, except for the late 90s, when their bitter rival, Alabama, was on (very convenient for UT) ncaa probation.
Well...except for the SEC championships UT won in '67, '69, '85, 89 and 90). So add, late 60s, mid to late 80s and early 90's. UT was pretty average to poor most of the time in the mid 70's to early 80's (they did have top 10 finishes from 70-73).
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:24 am to John Milner
quote:
Huge fail.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:32 am to madmaxvol
He's trying to be hip to the lingo of the youngsters in the interwebs
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:32 am to John Milner
quote:
I'm not sure why some of you keep wanting to spin the issue. Tennessee was a consistent SEC contender from 1932-1960, and have not been in the 55 years since then, except for the late 90s, when their bitter rival, Alabama, was on (very convenient for UT) ncaa probation.
Thats a bit of an exaggeration. We had some good teams in the mid to late 60s to the mid 70s the we sucked until the mid 80s where we got good again and that rolled into the 90s. The most recent stretch has definitely been by far the worst in our program's history.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:34 am to madmaxvol
quote:
Well...except for the SEC championships UT won in '67, '69, '85, 89 and 90). So add, late 60s, mid to late 80s and early 90's. UT was pretty average to poor most of the time in the mid 70's to early 80's (they did have top 10 finishes from 70-73)
A 3 year span in the late 60s and a 5 year span in the late 80s (at least one of those was a shared title with Alabama) is not, imo, being a "consistent" contender. I never said UT didn't win some titles during that time. I said that their winning pct since 1960 was 6th best behind Alabama, UGA, Florida, LSU, and Auburn. That's verifiable from many sources.
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:35 am to Mister Tee
I don't get Auburn's jealousy of UT, but carry on.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:35 am to John Milner
quote:
is not, imo, being
No one GAF about your opinion
Posted on 7/25/16 at 10:38 am to VFL1800FPD
quote:
No one GAF about your opinion
And yet, so many of you keep responding, trying to spin the point. Do I need to remind you of what is the point? It has to do with winning football games then and now.
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News