re: Is Tennessee football still a blue blood?

quote:

---

The only team that even remotely has an argument for being a "new addition" is the University of Miami, but it is a pretty weak argument

---

None of the programs down here were worth a shite until the 80s though.

quote:

---

Is Tennessee football still a blue blood?

---

Yes, right alongside Georgia Tech who also won a championship in the 1990's.

quote:

---

So I ask, can a team lose elite status after a loooooong period of suckage? And only having moderate success before that point anyways can’t help. Asking for my uncle.

---

This is discussed at least once every 3 months.

You don't become elite overnight (i.e. Oregon, Boise State, or even Clemson) and likewise you don't lose it overnight. And by "overnight" I mean even over relatively short time periods in the life of a CFB program like 10-15 years.

In my opinion, there are 16 elite programs. You can subdivide them into 3 groupings as well:

TIER 1 ELITE: Alabama, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Ohio State

TIER 2 ELITE: USC, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Tennessee

TIER 3 ELITE: LSU, Florida State, Auburn, Georgia, Miami, Florida

The next closest to joining the club are probably Clemson and Michigan State.... Texas A&M and Arkansas are probably just behind those two.

In order to answer the question about Tennessee, you first have to answer the question about the team just outside the "Elite" threshold and consider why they are not quite elite: Clemson

With 2 poll era National Titles, Clemson is fine in that category. That's the same number as Michigan, Penn State, Tennessee, and Auburn.... and one more than Georgia.

Clemson's issue is they are near or at the bottom of the list in most all other categories.

WINS

Each of the aforementioned elite teams above have far many more all-time wins compared to Clemson with the exception of the three Florida schools.... but UF, FSU, and Miami started playing football much later than Clemson so there is a legit reason for that. UF and FSU all have at least 3 National Titles (1 more than Clemson) and Miami has 5 National Titles.

So outside of the Florida schools, the next closest to Clemson is Auburn. Auburn has 30 more all-time wins than Clemson. That may not sound like much, but Clemson would have to average 2 more wins per season compared to Auburn for the next 15 years just to catch up.... so its fairly significant.

WINNING PERCENTAGE

The Top 16 Power Programs in all-time winning percentage are the 16 Elites listed above.... #16 of that group is Florida who has a winning percentage of 62.8%.

Where does Clemson rank? #18 with a percentage of 60.9%. They are behind the elites and also behind Washington. If Clemson goes 10-3 for the next three seasons, they can potentially pass Florida and therefore enter the discussion of being elite in this category.

ALL-TIME AP STANDING

Clemson really ranks low here.... just #20 all-time. Behind all 16 of the elites along with UCLA, Florida, Michigan State, and Arkansas. They have 400 all-time points. The worst of the 16 elites is also Florida in this category.... but they have 499 points. That's nearly 20% more, which is a gigantic number.

Clemson would have to average a #10 finish for over six years just to catch Florida... and that would assume Florida secured zero additional points during that time.

CLEMSON CONCLUSION:

Clemson trails the 16 elites in Winning percentage and AP Poll points. They only lead the three Florida schools in wins because those Florida schools started playing football much later. So when you really look at it, they are dead last in pretty much every category, and several teams such as UCLA, Washington, Michigan State, etc. lead them in some of these categories. For that reason, they've come a long way in the last 5 years but they still have a bit more catching up to do in order to join the group.

SO WHAT ABOUT TENNESSEE?

So if Clemson is the next closest, how does that compare to Tennessee.

Wins:
Tennessee- 833
Clemson- 729

Clemson would have to average 4 more wins per season compared to the Vols for over a quarter of a century just to catch up.... that's significant.

Tennessee ranks 10th in all-time wins... ahead of LSU, Georgia, Auburn, and all three Florida schools.

Winning%
Tennessee- 67.7%
Clemson- 60.9%

Again, this is significant. It would take 25 years or more for Clemson to catch them.

AP Poll Points
#9 Tennessee- 686
#20 Clemson- 400

To put this gap into perspective, Clemson could win 11 consecutive AP National Titles and they'd still trail Tennessee in the all-time AP Points standings.

At the pace the two programs have performed during the last decade (CLemson has been very strong and Tennessee very bad), it would still take 26 seasons more of that pace for Clemson to catch up.

National Titles:
Tennessee- 2
Clemson- 2

The same.

All this just goes to show how far out front Tennessee is compared to a program like Clemson.... who many would argue is elite today. So if Clemson is elite, how is Tennessee not? They lead in every single category and it would take a quarter of a century for Clemson to even think about catching up.

Tennessee is for sure elite. Its not even debatable.

quote:

---

SEC? Yes.
Nationally? No. Were they ever a true blue blood nationally?

---

Is this a joke? If they are still a blue blood program now (which they are) after how miserable the past 15 years have been for them, then of course they used to be.

Here are some of their accomplishments over the years:

1938-1940: Three consecutive Top 4 finishes (#2 in 1938 and 1939... #4 in 1940).

1950-1951: Two more consecutive Top 4 finishes (#4 in 1950) and the SEC's very first Major Poll National Championshp in 1951 when they finished #1 in the AP.

Tennessee had another #2 finish in 1956.... then another in 1967. They finished #4 in 1970 and #4 again in 1985. They finished #5 in 1989..... and all this was before Fulmer's run in the 1990s in which they were a national powerhouse: finishing #3 in 1995; #1 National Champs in 1998; and #4 again in 2001.

These are just their Top 5 finishes.

From 1936-1960... the first quarter century of the Polling Era... Tennessee was without a doubt the premiere SEC program but also a Top 5 National program as well. Here were the AP Poll Standings for those first 25 seasons of the polling era (1936-1960):

1. Notre Dame- 390
2. Oklahoma- 308
3. Michigan- 293
4. Tennessee- 262
5. Ohio State- 258

Other former/current SEC:
8. Alabama- 196
9. Georgia Tech- 192
14. Ole Miss- 170
18. LSU- 136
23. Auburn- 110
24. Texas A&M- 109
25. Georgia- 106

They were a Top 5 National program for a quarter century... then proceeded to be nationally relavent at times during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.... and before a very dominant run in the 1990s.

quote:

---

What is all this UT is clearly still 2nd all time in the SEC bullshite?

UGA just tied UT for 2nd all time in SEC Championships.

---

While I'd love to claim #2 status, its not that simple.

1. They have one more Major Poll National Title than us (2 to our 1)
2. They have a better all-time Winning Percentage than us (67.7% to our 65.1%)
3. They have 17 more all-time wins than us (833 to 816)
4. They have a better standing in all-time AP Points (#9 with 686 to us being #12 with 572).

Merely equaling them in SEC Titles does not compensate for them leading us in most relevant statistics.

If Tennessee continues to flounder, they'll be passed by the rest of the major SEC programs.

LSU is probably only 5-8 years away from catching Tennessee.
Georgia is only 7-10 years away
Auburn is only 7-10 years away
Florida is only 10-15 years away

And that's without a major run. If any of these teams were to win another national title, it would cut down on that time significantly.

Move Notre Dame down, and USCw up......

quote:

---

Move Notre Dame down, and USCw up......

---

Why?

1. Notre Dame has 8 National Titles to USC's 7.
2. Notre Dame has 906 all-time wins to USC's 834.
3. Notre Dame's all-time Win% is 72.9% to USC's 70.1%
4. Notre Dame is #5 in All-Time AP Points with 973 to USC being #6 with 832.

Oh and they just so happen to have met on the field on 89 occasions... with Notre Dame leading the series 47-37-5.

On what basis could anyone rationally put USC ahead of Notre Dame on an all-time list? Do folks just spew drivel without even bothering to check facts?

quote:

---

Michigan has 1 NC in 70 years and 2 conference titles in the last 20. Not the most impressive resume going by recent history

---

They have 2 AP NCs total, same as TN. They also have 2 more conference titles in the last 20 years than Tennessee


Michigan may not have been good the past 20 years, but they cemented their blue blood status well before that. Same as Nebraska


It is like how Indiana is a "Blue Blood" in basketball despite being an afterthought since the 90s

quote:

---

Blue bloods are

Bama
Michigan
Ohio State
Texas
Notre Dame
USC
Nebraska
Oklahoma

---

This is a good list.

Yes, a team can lose blue blood status.

No, UT is not one.

A bit dated, but a good list IMO is here: CFB blue bloods

Criteria:
-70 percent or better win %
- multiple national titles
- sustained success over time (not mentioned but 800+ wins seems to be a trend with the bluebloods listed, which seems a good mark for this category to establish history of success)
-iconic coaches
-longstanding tradition and rabid fan bases

Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Nebraska*
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU

*article is two years old, so obviously some data has changed. For instance, I'd bet Nebraska had fallen below the 70% win mark as they were at .699 2 yrs ago, which, like UTenn, would move them out of blue blood status

On the cusp (no order, but UT seems the closest to meeting the criteria):
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami