Started By
Message
re: Tennessee is 44-44 since Phillip Fulmer stepped down in 2008
Posted on 8/22/16 at 4:56 pm to Huddie Leadbetter
Posted on 8/22/16 at 4:56 pm to Huddie Leadbetter
quote:
This top 10 history
Historically, we are a top 10 team. Not judging by Huddie's arbitrary 1970 marker that he loves to bring up. But you cannot argue that we are not top 10 all time.
1
Posted on 8/22/16 at 4:56 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
Your point is already established by the title of the thread, but thank you. You've only posted that same thing about 59 times now. [/quote]
Thank yew. Thank yew. Thank yew vury much.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 4:58 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
Historically, we are a top 10 team.
As noted above: UT is not top 10 in the last 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years.
France was a world power back in, well, I'm not sure, but it's history.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 4:59 pm to Huddie Leadbetter
quote:
As noted above: UT is not top 10 in the last 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years.
Historically we are a top 10 team, that is not debatable.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:02 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
Historically we are a top 10 team, that is not debatable.
If UT isn't top 10 in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20, 30, 40,or 50 years, then when were all these victories that put you into the top 10? I didn't go past 50 years, but I have already said that UT was good in the 1940s and 50s.
edit: Another question. How old are you? There is a point here.
This post was edited on 8/22/16 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:02 pm to Huddie Leadbetter
They are throughout our whole history, and compared to the whole history of other teams.
This post was edited on 8/22/16 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:03 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:CFB warehouse, which is the best ranking system out there IMHO, has yall exactly at 10(has a system that uses wins, bowls, championships. So I would say it is pretty freaking debatable
Historically we are a top 10 team, that is not debatable.
LINK
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:05 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
They are throughout our whole history, and compared to the whole history of other teams.
Your "whole history" indicates that UT hasn't been a relevant program, consistently, since all white teams of the 40s and 50s.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:08 pm to lsupride87
quote:
CFB warehouse, which is the best ranking system out there IMHO, has yall exactly at 10
I like CFBDW and visit it almost daily, but I mean they have tech at 16 and I'm pretty sure there are 15 other programs that are better than tech historically.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:10 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:Tech at 16 seems about right. They have a very rich history, and actually have a national championship in the 90s...
but I mean they have tech at 16 and I'm pretty sure there are 15 other programs that are better than tech historically.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 5:12 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Tech at 16 seems about right. They have a very rich history, and actually have a national championship in the 90s...
tech has a few titles in the 40s, the split title from 90, and a famous coach.
I realize I wasn't even close to being born during their heyday, and I mean those wins still count the same as wins today, but I just don't really buy it. They have minnesota 1 notch below at 17. AGain...I realize that waaaay back when those teams WERE legitimate national powers. But I just don't see how we can't come up with 16 better football teams since the 1800s than georgia tech.
Let's also keep in mind that CFBW just makes up an arbitrary point system like any other ranking system does. They even assign a "schedule points" category which doesn't seem very sceintific.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 7:35 pm to lsufball19
quote:
maybe I'm misremembering, but for some reason i feel like a team like Wyoming at least spoke with Fulmer and he basically said he was done with coaching
Believe it....Fulmer wanted to coach again but only at a Power 5 school that had a chance of winning championships. Zero....none....nada of those type schools came calling.
I was a Fulmer fan for years....but it was time for him to go. The cluster of hires after with Kiffin and Dooley was the problem.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 7:47 pm to gladchiefisgone
The problem with Tennessee is the same as with Nebraska and Notre Dame. They sit in "dead zones" for recruiting.
In the past kids would travel far to the powerhouse programs because that's were the action was. That's where you got to be on TV. That's where you went to bowl games, etc. It's not like that anymore.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 7:52 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
tech has a few titles in the 40s, the split title from 90, and a famous coach.
I realize I wasn't even close to being born during their heyday, and I mean those wins still count the same as wins today, but I just don't really buy it. They have minnesota 1 notch below at 17. AGain...I realize that waaaay back when those teams WERE legitimate national powers. But I just don't see how we can't come up with 16 better football teams since the 1800s than georgia tech.
Let's also keep in mind that CFBW just makes up an arbitrary point system like any other ranking system does. They even assign a "schedule points" category which doesn't seem very sceintific.
They've won more titles and major bowls than UGA and won both more recently as well.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 8:10 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
in "dead zones" for recruiting.
I don't agree with this. If you draw a 3-4 hour circle around Knoxville we intersect some of the most talented areas in the country. Recruiting hasn't been our problem lately.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 8:14 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
Tennessee is 44-44 since Phillip Fulmer stepped down in 2008 by KCM0Tiger
Starting with the 2009 season, Bama is 86-10.. from the start of the 2008 season.. Bama is 98-12.
@ Tennessee. 
Posted on 8/22/16 at 8:19 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I wonder when Vandy fans stopped considering their program elite. That's a good question.
I also wonder when Minnesota fans stopped considering their team a powerhouse elite program. They were even better than Vandy. They had something like 5 NCS in 8 years in the late 1930s/ early 1940s.
Oh and here's an even better one. When did Harvard and Princeton stop considering themselves elite? Princeton claims 27 national titles. Alabama only claims 18 or 19 national titles.
I also wonder when Minnesota fans stopped considering their team a powerhouse elite program. They were even better than Vandy. They had something like 5 NCS in 8 years in the late 1930s/ early 1940s.
Oh and here's an even better one. When did Harvard and Princeton stop considering themselves elite? Princeton claims 27 national titles. Alabama only claims 18 or 19 national titles.
This post was edited on 8/22/16 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 8/22/16 at 8:23 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Starting with the 2009 season, Bama is 86-10.. from the start of the 2008 season.. Bama is 98-12
Where all the SEC teams rank nationally in the Saint Nick Saban era.
1 Alabama 0.84746 100 18 0 118
2 Boise State 0.84034 100 19 0 119
3 Ohio State 0.82243 88 19 0 107
4 Oregon 0.81667 98 22 0 120
5 Oklahoma 0.77500 93 27 0 120
6 Texas Christian 0.76724 89 27 0 116
7 Louisiana State 0.76271 90 28 0 118
8 Florida State 0.73684 84 30 0 114
9 Michigan State 0.72500 87 33 0 120
10 Clemson 0.71901 87 34 0 121
11 Wisconsin 0.71667 86 34 0 120
12 Georgia 0.71429 85 34 0 119
13 Southern Cal 0.71186 84 34 0 118
14 Oklahoma State 0.70940 83 34 0 117
15 Stanford 0.70339 83 35 0 118
16t Brigham Young 0.70085 82 35 0 117
16t Cincinnati 0.70085 82 35 0 117
18 Florida 0.69492 82 36 0 118
19 Utah 0.68696 79 36 0 115
20 Missouri 0.68067 81 38 0 119
21 Virginia Tech 0.67769 82 39 0 121
22 Houston 0.66102 78 40 0 118
23 Penn State 0.66087 76 39 0 115
24 Northern Illinois 0.65574 80 42 0 122
25 Texas 0.65517 76 40 0 116
26 Navy 0.64957 76 41 0 117
27 Nebraska 0.64706 77 42 0 119
28 West Virginia 0.63793 74 42 0 116
29 Auburn 0.63248 74 43 0 117
30t South Carolina 0.62069 72 44 0 116
30t Iowa 0.62069 72 44 0 116
32 Notre Dame 0.61739 71 44 0 115
33 Louisville 0.60526 69 45 0 114
34 Texas Tech 0.60000 69 46 0 115
35 Baylor 0.59649 68 46 0 114
36 Texas A&M 0.59483 69 47 0 116
37 Central Florida 0.58974 69 48 0 117
38 Kansas State 0.58772 67 47 0 114
39 Mississippi State 0.58261 67 48 0 115
40 East Carolina 0.58120 68 49 0 117
41 Toledo 0.58036 65 47 0 112
42 Georgia Tech 0.57983 69 50 0 119
43 Northwestern 0.57895 66 48 0 114
44 Ohio 0.57759 67 49 0 116
45 Air Force 0.57265 67 50 0 117
46 Michigan 0.57018 65 49 0 114
47 Rutgers 0.56897 66 50 0 116
48 Arizona State 0.56522 65 50 0 115
49t Nevada-Reno 0.56410 66 51 0 117
49t Tulsa 0.56410 66 51 0 117
51t Arkansas 0.56140 64 50 0 114
51t Miami-Florida 0.56140 64 50 0 114
53t Arizona 0.56034 65 51 0 116
53t Pittsburgh 0.56034 65 51 0 116
55 Arkansas State 0.55752 63 50 0 113
56 Marshall 0.55652 64 51 0 115
57 Fresno State 0.55556 65 52 0 117
58t UCLA 0.54701 64 53 0 117
58t Bowling Green 0.54701 64 53 0 117
60 Louisiana Tech 0.53982 61 52 0 113
61 San Diego State 0.53913 62 53 0 115
62 Mississippi 0.53509 61 53 0 114
63 Central Michigan 0.52586 61 55 0 116
64 Louisiana-Lafayette 0.51786 58 54 0 112
65 Tennessee 0.51754 59 55 0 114
66 Temple 0.51351 57 54 0 111
67 Ball State 0.51327 58 55 0 113
68 North Carolina 0.51000 51 49 0 100
69 Middle Tennessee State 0.50893 57 55 0 112
70 North Carolina State 0.50877 58 56 0 114
71 Oregon State 0.50442 57 56 0 113
72 Boston College 0.50000 58 58 0 116
73 Utah State 0.48696 56 59 0 115
74 South Florida 0.48673 55 58 0 113
75 Troy 0.48649 54 57 0 111
76 Connecticut 0.47788 54 59 0 113
77t Western Michigan 0.47321 53 59 0 112
77t Western Kentucky 0.47321 53 59 0 112
79t California 0.46903 53 60 0 113
79t Rice 0.46903 53 60 0 113
81t Washington 0.46552 54 62 0 116
81t Southern Miss 0.46552 54 62 0 116
83 UTSA 0.45833 22 26 0 48
84 Hawaii 0.44444 52 65 0 117
85 Duke 0.43363 49 64 0 113
86 Illinois 0.42857 48 64 0 112
87t Colorado State 0.42478 48 65 0 113
87t Maryland 0.42478 48 65 0 113
89 Minnesota 0.42105 48 66 0 114
90t Vanderbilt 0.41964 47 65 0 112
90t Kentucky
This post was edited on 8/22/16 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 8/22/16 at 10:02 pm to Huddie Leadbetter
quote:
1 Alabama 0.84746 100 18 0 118
7 Louisiana State 0.76271 90 28 0 118
12 Georgia 0.71429 85 34 0 119
18 Florida 0.69492 82 36 0 118
20 Missouri 0.68067 81 38 0 119
29 Auburn 0.63248 74 43 0 117
30t South Carolina 0.62069 72 44 0 116
36 Texas A&M 0.59483 69 47 0 116
39 Mississippi State 0.58261 67 48 0 115
51t Arkansas 0.56140 64 50 0 114
62 Mississippi 0.53509 61 53 0 114
65 Tennessee 0.51754 59 55 0 114
90t Vanderbilt 0.41964 47 65 0 112
90t Kentucky 0.41964 47 65 0 112
Wow Tennessee is behind everyone in the SEC except for Vanderbilt and Kentucky?
Posted on 8/22/16 at 10:27 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
The problem with Tennessee is the same as with Nebraska and Notre Dame. They sit in "dead zones" for recruiting.
In the past kids would travel far to the powerhouse programs because that's were the action was. That's where you got to be on TV. That's where you went to bowl games, etc. It's not like that anymore.
This is how I know you're clueless and out of touch
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News