Tennessee top 10 program of all time

[PlanetVolunteer]

LOL Oh man, you should post more. This is very entertaining, you're completely wrong, but the rapidity of how Vols fans have flushed the incompetence and failure over a long period of time I find hilarious. But yeah, lets blame it all on Kiffin.

You just don't understand what I am trying to say. We weren't horrible until AFTER Kiffin. All I'm saying is that the dark ages of Vol football have not been for 15 years. It has been 10 or 12 at most. I argue that we were not yet hopeless with Kiffin and we weren't the butt of every college football joke until Doofus and Botch.

 

[Boca Vol]

This has been the longest drought of woefulness and mediocrity compared to any other tradition rich blue blood team who has gone thru a rough stretch. None of them have stayed down for as long and been as bad as we have for nearly 15 years now. Bama and Texas and USC were not down as long as we have been. I compare our struggles to Nebraska and LSU in the 90’s they were just awful. And yea they haven’t won’t a national title since 1980 but Georgia has been a model of consistency for the last 25 years nearly only one losing season since 1996. I think this decade is going to be much better though for us.

I thought Nebraska won 3 NC's in the 90's.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

One season didn't get Fulmer fired, sorry.

There were ONLY two losing seasons. So it had to be either one, or both of those two.

 

[Boca Vol]

The Dark Ages date to 2008. Fulmer's last year. That was the start of it.

Die-hard Fulmer defenders will claim it didn't start until after he left, but he has to own up to contributing to its beginning.

Meanwhile, die-hard Fulmer haters will try to stretch it back to '05 or even '01. Heck, I saw one guy a couple of years ago saying things went off the rails in '99, months after the national title. That's all hogwash too, of course.

No, it began in '08. The 5-7 season that got Phillip fired. It has, so far, lasted 12 years, give or take.

Really hoping we can look back at the 6-game winning streak in '19 as the beginning of the end of it.

As for whether our stretch has been worse than any other blue blood's, maybe so. Nebraska fans might argue with us. Maybe a couple of others. We've certainly had at least our share of misery.

Bright times ahead.

Go Vols!


EDIT: researched a bit to answer that question for you. And found out, no--our Dark Ages aren't the worst any blue blood has ever suffered.

So to set up a yardstick for comparison: we went 75-75, exactly .500, between '08 and '19. That's the measure of our pain. That's how we'll know if others had it as bad.

First, I checked Michigan. And yep, they had a significant dark period, too. 11 seasons, from '57 to '67 inclusive, where the Wolverines went 50-49-4 under two coaches, a fellow named Bennie Oosterbaan (2 seasons) and another guy named Bump Elliott for most of the time. I think Bump only stayed on as long as he did because in his 6th year, he led a 9-1 campaign capped by a Rose Bowl victory. Other than that one season, he was entirely mediocre in his results. Anyway, their .505 mark over 11 years is a very close match to our .500 over 12. Call it even.

But here's the kicker: Nebraska. Big time pain. They went 21 years, from '41 to '61, with only three winning seasons. And two of those were mediocre 5-4-1 and 6-5 outings. Their mark over those two decades, as they shuffled through coach after coach after coach, was a truly miserable 72-125-4. A .368 rating.

I could keep researching other blue bloods, but that Nebraska find was enough to convince me: we maybe have the most RECENT dark ages, but we definitely have not had the worst.

Bad enough for us, of course. Let's end them, now, fingers crossed.

Go Vols!

I would back it up to '05-'07. '05 was a train wreck when UT was picked #3 in the pre-season. '06 was going pretty good (even with a loss to UF) then Ainge got hurt and UT lost to Ark & LSU. '07, UT was hammered by Cal, UF and a very mediocre Bama team. '08 was the whipped cream on the sundae and UT has been stuck ever since.

Going back over 50 years to compare struggles with other programs doesn't make it any better, IMO. Agree, let's end it now.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

There were ONLY two losing seasons. So it had to be either one, or both of those two.

Here's what I think it really was. And warning: it goes much further back than either of those two seasons.

A lot of Vols fans really loved Johnny Majors. I mean, fanatical kind of devotion. Johnny Came Marching Home and all, from Pitt where he won a national title to his Vols, the place where he almost won the Heisman Trophy. Came home to us. We adored him.

Some too much. When, after 15 seasons yo-yo'ing from good year to mediocre year to conference title to mediocre year to good year, etc., a lot of fans were ready to try something new. Not the majority, maybe, a LOT were faithful to Johnny. But enough that you heard grumbling.

And then Johnny had heart trouble. Bad enough to keep him off the field and in a hospital bed for much of a season. And his offensive coordinator, Phillip Fulmer, stepped up and gave the program the kind of excitement and winning that the grumbling folks were begging for.

Well, long story short, enough of the leadership at Tennessee agreed with enough of the boosters and fans, that Phillip was in and Johnny was out. 1992.

That right there, that was enough to make the die-hard Johnny supporters burn with a slow, rumbling kind of anger. Didn't help that some said Phillip was actively undercutting Johnny to take the job. These dedicated Majors supporters had it in for Phillip Fulmer from that day on.

It's hard to talk ugly about a guy who is winning, and winning big. Especially when it culminates in a 13-0 season and the first national championship for the program in three decades. But the embers of resentment weren't doused, they just smouldered on, waiting for the day.

So when Phillip got complacent (and he did), and when he lost the offensive coordinator who was a big part of his successful coaching staff, you started to see glints of flame among the old ashes. And when we had our first losing season of Fulmer's tenure, in '05, the Fulmer haters leapt into action. It didn't matter that we had two significantly good years in '06 and '07, as long as they didn't lead to championships, it would not be enough to stop the haters. They just kept digging, complaining and moaning and belittling, every opportunity, keeping discord in the fan base and among the boosters.

And so the second losing season of Fulmer's tenure was his last.

Hoptown was right. Fulmer didn't get fired because of just one bad season. It was a lot deeper than that. Hoptown should know. He's one of those haters, as he has admitted many times on these boards.

My opinion? We should not have fired Phillip in '08. I mean, you just don't toss aside a man who can win 75% of the games, year in and year out, who has proven ability to win conference and national titles. Instead, we should have--then in '08, or even in '05, because the complacency was already evident--should have given him a one-year sabbatical. Put Chief in charge for a season and let Phillip spend a year thinking about his future and the future of the program. I'm pretty sure he would've come back hungrier than ever, and the complacency would have been gone.

But the fire of dislike in some quarters was perhaps too strong for that.

That's how I think it really played out.

 

[ftsandersvol]

It used to be us and Michigan vying for #1. I don't have to tell anyone on this site the past decade has been hard on us.

 

[volsack]

Why do people say we've been down for 15 years?

I think the real down years started in 2010 when we got Dooley.

Fulmer had two bad year's in 05 and 08.

06 and 07 we're both good. Kiffins team was good. Took Bammer to the wire. Shoulda won.

We were still fine then, it's when Kiffin rode off into the darkness that put us in the Dark Ages. Or when we decided to hire Derek Dooley.

It's really only been the last decade that has been so poor.

It's not that different from Bammers bad decade and Nebraska has almost been worse since our respective hay days and they aren't showing any signs of life.

People say that because it's true. Tennessee hasn't won the East or the SEC in 20 years. That's a generation of mediocrity

 

[VFL-82-JP]

People say that because it's true. Tennessee hasn't won the East or the SEC in 20 years. That's a generation of mediocrity

We won the East in 2007. Big difference between 12 years and 20. The mediocrity started in 2008.

We had some very good years between '01 and '07. Won the East three times. Seasons with records like 11-2 ... 10-3 (twice) ... 10-4 ... seasons we would beg for at any point between '08 and today.

That's why '08-'19 (and hopefully no more) are the Dark Ages.

 

[volsack]

We won the East in 2007. Big difference between 13 years and 20.

Dark ages for us started in 2008. We had some very good years between 2001 and 2007.

That's not true at all. We lost to LSU in 2007 look it up

 

[volsack]

You're right, we lost to LSU in the title game

 

[volsack]

That's not true at all. We lost to LSU in 2007 look it up

Sorry I was mistaken, I was thinking SEC titles

 

[Tnphil]

That's not true at all. We lost to LSU in 2007 look it up

We won the East....Lost in the SECCG to LSU.......again.

 

[bamawriter]

It used to be us and Michigan vying for #1.

When was this?

 

[Boca Vol]

We won the East in 2007. Big difference between 12 years and 20. The mediocrity started in 2008.

We had some very good years between '01 and '07. Won the East three times. Seasons with records like 11-2 ... 10-3 (twice) ... 10-4 ... seasons we would beg for at any point between '08 and today.

That's why '08-'19 (and hopefully no more) are the Dark Ages.

UT won the East in '07 but UT wasn't that good in '07 and it's been proven many times that the SEC E has been represented by less than stellar teams. See: Mizzou in '13. & '14, UF in '15 & '16.

With that said, they probably should've beaten LSU that day in ATL.

 

[ShreveportVol]

You just don't understand what I am trying to say. We weren't horrible until AFTER Kiffin. All I'm saying is that the dark ages of Vol football have not been for 15 years. It has been 10 or 12 at most. I argue that we were not yet hopeless with Kiffin and we weren't the butt of every college football joke until Doofus and Botch.

I agree, and that was the exact point that I picked out for when we went off the rails. Moving on from Phil, we were still a desirable job that brought a hotshot candidate. But going from Kiffin to having Dooley be our 3rd coach in 3 years was the official demotion. I was too young to know details about the program for the Dooley hire. Can anyone fill me in? Who did we strike out on first, and did it truly seem like he was the best we could get?

 

[08Vol]

Florida is one of the more successful programs since 1964 (Spurrier's arrival on campus) and especially since 1990, however they rank 20th. Maybe a bit surprising to some, but it just shows how absolutely dreadful they were as a program before the 1960's. They might have been the worst team in the SEC up to that point.

Well see a crazy thing started happening to college football in the 60s, schools finally let black athletes play. Funny how schools in states with large African American populations started to get better when they had a much larger talent pool to pull from.

 

[08Vol]

I agree, and that was the exact point that I picked out for when we went off the rails. Moving on from Phil, we were still a desirable job that brought a hotshot candidate. But going from Kiffin to having Dooley be our 3rd coach in 3 years was the official demotion. I was too young to know details about the program for the Dooley hire. Can anyone fill me in? Who did we strike out on first, and did it truly seem like he was the best we could get?

Kiffin’s antics had the NCAA breathing down our neck and there was talk of sanctions. UT’s main goal in hiring a coach was to get someone that would run a 100% clean program when it came to NCAA violations. Dooley was that guy.

 

[ftsandersvol]

When was this?

I will have to pull the data if I can still find it. I just remember a similar article from years ago talking about how Tennessee and Michigan were the top two winningest football programs of all time with very little separation between the two.

 

[OffTackleVol]

Here's what I think it really was. And warning: it goes much further back than either of those two seasons.

A lot of Vols fans really loved Johnny Majors. I mean, fanatical kind of devotion. Johnny Came Marching Home and all, from Pitt where he won a national title to his Vols, the place where he almost won the Heisman Trophy. Came home to us. We adored him.

Some too much. When, after 15 seasons yo-yo'ing from good year to mediocre year to conference title to mediocre year to good year, etc., a lot of fans were ready to try something new. Not the majority, maybe, a LOT were faithful to Johnny. But enough that you heard grumbling.

And then Johnny had heart trouble. Bad enough to keep him off the field and in a hospital bed for much of a season. And his offensive coordinator, Phillip Fulmer, stepped up and gave the program the kind of excitement and winning that the grumbling folks were begging for.

Well, long story short, enough of the leadership at Tennessee agreed with enough of the boosters and fans, that Phillip was in and Johnny was out. 1992.

That right there, that was enough to make the die-hard Johnny supporters burn with a slow, rumbling kind of anger. Didn't help that some said Phillip was actively undercutting Johnny to take the job. These dedicated Majors supporters had it in for Phillip Fulmer from that day on.

It's hard to talk ugly about a guy who is winning, and winning big. Especially when it culminates in a 13-0 season and the first national championship for the program in three decades. But the embers of resentment weren't doused, they just smouldered on, waiting for the day.

So when Phillip got complacent (and he did), and when he lost the offensive coordinator who was a big part of his successful coaching staff, you started to see glints of flame among the old ashes. And when we had our first losing season of Fulmer's tenure, in '05, the Fulmer haters leapt into action. It didn't matter that we had two significantly good years in '06 and '07, as long as they didn't lead to championships, it would not be enough to stop the haters. They just kept digging, complaining and moaning and belittling, every opportunity, keeping discord in the fan base and among the boosters.

And so the second losing season of Fulmer's tenure was his last.

Hoptown was right. Fulmer didn't get fired because of just one bad season. It was a lot deeper than that. Hoptown should know. He's one of those haters, as he has admitted many times on these boards.

My opinion? We should not have fired Phillip in '08. I mean, you just don't toss aside a man who can win 75% of the games, year in and year out, who has proven ability to win conference and national titles. Instead, we should have--then in '08, or even in '05, because the complacency was already evident--should have given him a one-year sabbatical. Put Chief in charge for a season and let Phillip spend a year thinking about his future and the future of the program. I'm pretty sure he would've come back hungrier than ever, and the complacency would have been gone.

But the fire of dislike in some quarters was perhaps too strong for that.

That's how I think it really played out.

I think you pretty much nailed it. I'd add that hiring the OC in '08 to put in a new system was a big contributor as well. We should have kept the Tennessee Offensive System and hired someone to tweak it. Sometimes a new play caller is all you need. Changes up the tendencies.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

Not that it matters much but pre 1970 some of these teams schedule were not what you would say P5 power type teams. Penn State (independent) played a light schedule and focused on a few marquee games. Notre Dame always plays the military schools and figures 5 sure wins a year. Clemson got a lot of their wins when ACC was a terrible FB conference. Miami and FSU came in and dominated for a decade or more until the others finally caught up with them. ACC has been mostly 4th or 5th of P5 until recently. Now Clemson is just about above all teams in that conference by a good measure
Virgina Tech was in Southern Conference and Independent , then joined a weak ACC in 1977.
I guess Michigan Ohio State & USC will get no W's in 2020.

So I see nothing much has changed

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

I agree, and that was the exact point that I picked out for when we went off the rails. Moving on from Phil, we were still a desirable job that brought a hotshot candidate. But going from Kiffin to having Dooley be our 3rd coach in 3 years was the official demotion. I was too young to know details about the program for the Dooley hire. Can anyone fill me in? Who did we strike out on first, and did it truly seem like he was the best we could get?

I believe we turned down the likes of Mike Leach, Gary Patterson and Brian Kelly to hire Lane Kiffin....

I think Cutcliffe was the main one we passed or either he passed on us, for Dooley....

 

[SpookyAction]

Imagine how much higher we'd be if had just been 'pretty decent' over the last 15-20 years.

You should even limit to the last 10 years.

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

The Dark Ages date to 2008. Fulmer's last year. That was the start of it.

Die-hard Fulmer defenders will claim it didn't start until after he left, but he has to own up to contributing to its beginning.

Meanwhile, die-hard Fulmer haters will try to stretch it back to '05 or even '01. Heck, I saw one guy a couple of years ago saying things went off the rails in '99, months after the national title. That's all hogwash too, of course.

No, it began in '08. The 5-7 season that got Phillip fired. It has, so far, lasted 12 years, give or take.

Really hoping we can look back at the 6-game winning streak in '19 as the beginning of the end of it.

As for whether our stretch has been worse than any other blue blood's, maybe so. Nebraska fans might argue with us. Maybe a couple of others. We've certainly had at least our share of misery.

Bright times ahead.

Go Vols!


EDIT: researched a bit to answer that question for you. And found out, no--our Dark Ages aren't the worst any blue blood has ever suffered.

So to set up a yardstick for comparison: we went 75-75, exactly .500, between '08 and '19. That's the measure of our pain. That's how we'll know if others had it as bad.

First, I checked Michigan. And yep, they had a significant dark period, too. 11 seasons, from '57 to '67 inclusive, where the Wolverines went 50-49-4 under two coaches, a fellow named Bennie Oosterbaan (2 seasons) and another guy named Bump Elliott for most of the time. I think Bump only stayed on as long as he did because in his 6th year, he led a 9-1 campaign capped by a Rose Bowl victory. Other than that one season, he was entirely mediocre in his results. Anyway, their .505 mark over 11 years is a very close match to our .500 over 12. Call it even.

But here's the kicker: Nebraska. Big time pain. They went 21 years, from '41 to '61, with only three winning seasons. And two of those were mediocre 5-4-1 and 6-5 outings. Their mark over those two decades, as they shuffled through coach after coach after coach, was a truly miserable 72-125-4. A .368 rating.

I could keep researching other blue bloods, but that Nebraska find was enough to convince me: we maybe have the most RECENT dark ages, but we definitely have not had the worst.

Bad enough for us, of course. Let's end them, now, fingers crossed.

Go Vols!

Great post, thanks for the research!

 

[VFFL@THE BEACH]

Here's what I think it really was. And warning: it goes much further back than either of those two seasons.

A lot of Vols fans really loved Johnny Majors. I mean, fanatical kind of devotion. Johnny Came Marching Home and all, from Pitt where he won a national title to his Vols, the place where he almost won the Heisman Trophy. Came home to us. We adored him.

Some too much. When, after 15 seasons yo-yo'ing from good year to mediocre year to conference title to mediocre year to good year, etc., a lot of fans were ready to try something new. Not the majority, maybe, a LOT were faithful to Johnny. But enough that you heard grumbling.

And then Johnny had heart trouble. Bad enough to keep him off the field and in a hospital bed for much of a season. And his offensive coordinator, Phillip Fulmer, stepped up and gave the program the kind of excitement and winning that the grumbling folks were begging for.

Well, long story short, enough of the leadership at Tennessee agreed with enough of the boosters and fans, that Phillip was in and Johnny was out. 1992.

That right there, that was enough to make the die-hard Johnny supporters burn with a slow, rumbling kind of anger. Didn't help that some said Phillip was actively undercutting Johnny to take the job. These dedicated Majors supporters had it in for Phillip Fulmer from that day on.

It's hard to talk ugly about a guy who is winning, and winning big. Especially when it culminates in a 13-0 season and the first national championship for the program in three decades. But the embers of resentment weren't doused, they just smouldered on, waiting for the day.

So when Phillip got complacent (and he did), and when he lost the offensive coordinator who was a big part of his successful coaching staff, you started to see glints of flame among the old ashes. And when we had our first losing season of Fulmer's tenure, in '05, the Fulmer haters leapt into action. It didn't matter that we had two significantly good years in '06 and '07, as long as they didn't lead to championships, it would not be enough to stop the haters. They just kept digging, complaining and moaning and belittling, every opportunity, keeping discord in the fan base and among the boosters.

And so the second losing season of Fulmer's tenure was his last.

Hoptown was right. Fulmer didn't get fired because of just one bad season. It was a lot deeper than that. Hoptown should know. He's one of those haters, as he has admitted many times on these boards.

My opinion? We should not have fired Phillip in '08. I mean, you just don't toss aside a man who can win 75% of the games, year in and year out, who has proven ability to win conference and national titles. Instead, we should have--then in '08, or even in '05, because the complacency was already evident--should have given him a one-year sabbatical. Put Chief in charge for a season and let Phillip spend a year thinking about his future and the future of the program. I'm pretty sure he would've come back hungrier than ever, and the complacency would have been gone.

But the fire of dislike in some quarters was perhaps too strong for that.

That's how I think it really played out.

I agree with a lot of what you said here. Fans and boosters definitely lost a little perspective on success. If I remember correctly, Fulmer was in the SEC Championship game the year before he was fired. Fulmer definitely lost some of his fight, team discipline and he got complacent. The last O.C. hire was his nail in the coffin, if I remember correctly the guys name was Clawson.

During the transition from Majors to Fulmer there was lots of bad blood. No volnation around back then but lots of fans super upset at Fulmer. Which is really sad because both guys are Tennessee guys and no reason to eat our own. I like Pruitt and all but he is a bammer, we will see if he returns to his roots. I understand that it is probably unrealistic to expect a head coach from Tennessee but growing up with Majors and Fulmer, I have been spoiled.

Tennessee boosters poured lots of money into facilities and assistant coaches, Fulmer was one of the first coaches to fight for high salaries for assistants. I think this added to boosters concern about the direction of the program.

Problem is this, when has head coach ever left on good terms.. not many times in the last 30 years. Paterno, Rich-Rod, Brady Hoke, Mcelwain, Meyer haha, Tresssel, Cooper, Hayes, the list goes on and on.

About the best situation I have ever see was at VT. I don't like VT but Frank Beamer and them seem to be on good terms.

 

[05_never_again]

My opinion? We should not have fired Phillip in '08. I mean, you just don't toss aside a man who can win 75% of the games, year in and year out, who has proven ability to win conference and national titles. Instead, we should have--then in '08, or even in '05, because the complacency was already evident--should have given him a one-year sabbatical. Put Chief in charge for a season and let Phillip spend a year thinking about his future and the future of the program. I'm pretty sure he would've come back hungrier than ever, and the complacency would have been gone.

But the fire of dislike in some quarters was perhaps too strong for that.

That's how I think it really played out.

IMO, Fulmer was not fired just because of 2005 and/or 2008, and he wasn't fired simply because 2005 and 2008 were losing seasons. He was fired primarily because there was a perception (that I think was correct) that Richt and Urban, our two big division rivals, had absolutely blown his doors off. Not just on the field but on the recruiting trail. The choice of Kiffin to replace Fulmer said a lot - Hamilton wanted a younger, more brash/energetic, and more dynamic coach. I don't think a one year sabbatical would bring Fulmer back with the mindset/makeup to out-compete Richt, Urban, and Saban.

IMO, Tennessee's last truly "great" season was 2001 and that season is a line of demarcation between two distinct parts of Fulmer's career as head coach. From 2002-08, Tennessee went 8-13 (.381) against Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. In 2002, 2005, and 2008, we lost to each of them, and there was only one year (2004) where we defeated all of them. In 4 of those 7 seasons, we went 1-2 or worse against our rivals. Some of the losses to Florida in particular were totally non-competitive. I think Fulmer still might have been fired after the 2008 season even if he had a winning record. The "good seasons," particularly ones where we defeated our rivals, were becoming fewer and farther between.

We'd take 8-13 against those schools today, but remember in the 2000s we still thought of ourselves as a top dog in the conference.