re: Why is Tennessee so important to the SEC?

Sorry you are a fan of a washed up has been.

Or buttchug juice you disgusting sodomite.

Can't wait for that gender confused coach and your offseason championship program to shite and fall face first in it... again.

And South Carolina is taking that from them too. Haha

quote:

---

Any loser can follow bama and feel better, it takes brass balls to follow Tennessee!

---

Or a lot of moonshine! LOL

My friend who is a big vol fan posted this on Facebook Wednesday.

"There are only about 100 University of Tennessee football seasons tickets left and these will be sold by the end of the week. The VOLS are back, let's ride bitches!"

VOls are getting set up for a let down imo.

quote:

---

cajunbama

---

Get a life and stop riding these nuts, cuckboy

I have respect for the vols perseverance.

They're not. Delete them. Auburnia delenda est. Tennessee delenda est.

quote:

---

Yes. UT, Vandy, and Kentucky (the Upper South schools) were the first to integrate. We had the first black QB, the first black All-American, and the first black team captain. It's what makes the integration comments hilarious

---

What is hilarious about it? The only point about integration is that it's a good line of demarcation of eras. The pre integration era UT was traditionally the 2nd best SEC team behind Alabama. Post integration, UT is 5th best behind Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, and tied with UGA in titles, but trails UGA in winning pct. Nobody ever claimed or even insinuated that UT was more reluctant than other SEC teams to integrate. It's great for you guys that UT had the first black QB, AA, and team captain. That UT is 5th best in the SEC since 1970 has no bearing whatsoever on that.

Suuuure. That's exactly why you said:

quote:

---

Tennessee was the great white hope back in the early to mid 1900s.

---

When in fact UT represented the opposite of that and was the first team to have black starters. Alabama, OTOH, was in fact considered the great white hope and its all-white Bryant led teams were a source of 'white pride' during the Civil Rights Era.

You picked a very selective time frame to suit your argument and then for good measure tied it to integration in an attempt impugn the integrity and moral character of an institution as racist and dominate only in an all white era. Those claims are patently false. As Mircea Eliade would chastise students and fellow academics, "the scale makes the phenomenon," and the scale you've constructed is fundamentally flawed.

quote:

---

When in fact UT represented the opposite of that and was the first team to have black starters. Alabama, OTOH, was in fact considered the great white hope and its all-white Bryant led teams were a source of 'white pride' during the Civil Rights Era.

You picked a very selective time frame to suit your argument and then for good measure tied it to integration in an attempt impugn the integrity and moral character of an institution as racist and dominate only in an all white era. Those claims are patently false. As Mircea Eliade would chastise students and fellow academics, "the scale makes the phenomenon," and the scale you've constructed is fundamentally flawed.

---

Actually, I started to edit out the "great white hope" comment because whites ruled pretty much all of the nation, including college sports, at least up until the 60s, and for all practical purposes, much later than that. I obviously did not edit it out, but a more valid observation would be that Tennessee was the 2nd best team in the SEC when whites ruled the college game, and especially the southern college game.

It is, though, a valid point that UGA and UF are more likely than UT to be consistent title contenders because their high schools produce more blue chip players. Meditate on that if you want to.

Still, the fact remains that since integration, UT is 5th best in the SEC, and that is my major point in this thread about why is Tennessee important to the SEC.