A thread of hope...

#1

VFL-82-JP

Bleedin' Orange...
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
19,628
Likes
51,932
#1
...because the Lord knows we could use one.

This bowl season has gotten me thinking about a trend that has been developing in division 1 college football, and what it might mean for the Vols' future.

Bear in mind, this is a hypothesis in development. Even I'm not convinced this is right, and it's my idea. Feel free to help me explore the strengths and weaknesses of the thought. But if you're just going to trash the Vols, get the hell out; you add nothing of value. Need people who will approach this with some introspection.

Okay, start with the trend. Offense is running away from defense in the college game today. Which leads to greater point spreads by game end. Evidence: the average (_average_) score differential in a semi-final game the past six years is 21 points. Think about that. The average. Among the four best teams at the pinnacle of the sport. I think we'd all agree, there's not a lot of separation between #1 and #4 each year. All very good teams, or at least three of the four. And often enough, a #3 seed beats a #2 or a #4 beats a #1. So really close to each other. And yet 21 points apart by the end of each game. That's striking.

Now the observation that triggered my hypothesis: Florida, a team that took the #1 team in the land to the wire in Atlanta, losing by just six points ("a close game" by any measure) to Bama...this Florida team goes to the Cotton Bowl short a handful of players (granted, they were mostly receivers) and gets TROUNCED by Oklahoma, a team we'd probably all agree is not as good as Bama or Clemson, probably about the same as Ohio State or Notre Dame. Florida gets WHUPPED. Thirty-five points. Huge, gaping wound. Over the loss of six players.

And Florida can't present the excuse that their players didn't want to be there, weren't motivated. They were fired up. We saw the pre-game interviews, the warm-ups, and the first few drives of the game. Florida's players were lit up, as were their coaches. They WANTED it. At least, until Trask threw three interceptions in a row, all in the first quarter, and let them down 17-0. After that, agreed, those gator players wanted to be nowhere near the Cotton Bowl. After that.

So here's the hypothesis. The Vols may not be as far from a return to competitiveness as we all think. Here, I'll talk you through that:

Our lads lost seven times this season. All by a margin of something between 11 and 31 points. On average, we lost those games by 19.7 points.

See what I see? We were closer to winning every one of our games than Florida was to beating Oklahoma. The same Florida who took Bama to 0:00 on the clock down less than a score. A Florida who was, as far as the world can tell, six players away from beating that Oklahoma team that trounced them.

Another way of looking at it: the Vols were, objectively and mathematically, closer to winning those seven games we lost, all seven of them, than the #4 team in the country normally (on average) is to beating #1 each year, or #3 beating #2.

So maybe we're not all that far away. Makes you think, huh?

We remember the days when close games were decided by just a few poiints. A single score. That is no longer the norm. Not among the best teams, and not among lesser teams. The advantages given to the offense over the past decade or two have resulted in games having wider victory margins. Consequently, teams can be closer in capability and still not be as close in score as they used to be.

...

Okay, that's it. I know, I know, if wishes were horses, and there's no such thing as a moral victory, and WE LOST THOSE GAMES DAMMIT! I get it. We have to win. There is no substitute.

But maybe we're not quite as many light years away from winning as we thought.

What do you think?


p.s. If all you're going to say is, "we'll never win with Jeremy Pruitt as coach," why don't you just go back to one of those 10,000 threads? This one isn't about Pruitt. It's about the program.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
It wasn’t the same Florida team that played OU in the cotton bowl. They were without the best TE in America and a second team all American WR. Not to mention the other wide receivers who weren’t playing. Secondly, bowl games aren’t an accurate gauge of how good a team is. Motivation is probably the biggest factor in determining the outcome of a bowl game. That’s not to excuse their awful performance or to say they would have beaten OU if they played at full strength, but I don’t think that single game tells us anything about how close Tennessee is to competing for titles.
 
#4
#4
It wasn’t the same Florida team that played OU in the cotton bowl. They were without the best TE in America and a second team all American WR. Not to mention the other wide receivers who weren’t playing. Secondly, bowl games aren’t an accurate gauge of how good a team is. Motivation is probably the biggest factor in determining the outcome of a bowl game. That’s not to excuse their awful performance or to say they would have beaten OU if they played at full strength, but I don’t think that single game tells us anything about how close Tennessee is to competing for titles.
I think you completely missed the point (and the majority of the evidence). But thanks for your input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volpreacher
#5
#5
I thought Clemson looked pathetic except for QB and RB. So I'll keep hope that if you can regress that quickly then there is hope in how quickly you can ascend. Pure fantasy I know.
That's just the question, though, isn't it? Is it fantasy? Or is this the new landscape of college football, since rule changes enacted to protect players gave offenses a huge advantage over defenses?

And if this is the new landscape, maybe we've been off in gauging how far we are from competitiveness.
 
#6
#6
That's just the question, though, isn't it? Is it fantasy? Or is this the new landscape of college football, since rule changes enacted to protect players gave offenses a huge advantage over defenses?

And if this is the new landscape, maybe we've been off in gauging how far we are from competitiveness.

I think quick ascension is fantasy without elite coaching. I think regression can happen much quicker and can deceptively sneak into any program.
 
#7
#7
I think you completely missed the point (and the majority of the evidence). But thanks for your input.
Tell me what your point was then? Our average loss this season wasn’t as bad as the OU-UF margin. And because games aren’t as close as they used to be because of the style of offense that is played, we really aren’t that far from being competitive. That wasn’t your point? Then what was?
 
#8
#8
I understand your point.

I think it's ridiculous though to even remotely compare the point differential between the #4 and #1 teams in america versus a team with 7 losses.

You're right on one point. Losing by a large point differential doesn't mean you are just awful compared to the team that beat you.

That's especially true when you only have one loss on the year.

Comparing that team to a team with 7 blowout losses is a different story.

Tennessee is just like any other team. If we could get 2-3 elite recruiting classes, good coaching, and a good culture then we will be back.

Losing 7 times by an average of 19.1 points doesn't make me believe we may be closer than we think to being back.
 
#9
#9
Tell me what your point was then? Our average loss this season wasn’t as bad as the OU-UF margin. So we really aren’t that far from being competitive. That wasn’t your point? Then what was?
Umm, I just spent about 720 words telling you the point. If you were only able to absorb about 150 of them, how does me repeating the other 570 help you out?
 
#10
#10
I think quick ascension is fantasy without elite coaching. I think regression can happen much quicker and can deceptively sneak into any program.
Do you really think Clemson regressed, though? Maybe they just had a bad night. For whatever reason, and in whatever way.

And these days, a bad night = losing by double digits and looking to be a much worse team. When really, they're still very good and, on an _average_ night, just as good as Ohio State.

And we're all just fooled by the big point differentials that haven't been there for most of the history of the sport.
 
#11
#11
I understand your point.

I think it's ridiculous though to even remotely compare the point differential between the #4 and #1 teams in america versus a team with 7 losses.

You're right on one point. Losing by a large point differential doesn't mean you are just awful compared to the team that beat you.

That's especially true when you only have one loss on the year.

Comparing that team to a team with 7 blowout losses is a different story.

Tennessee is just like any other team. If we could get 2-3 elite recruiting classes, good coaching, and a good culture then we will be back.

Losing 7 times by an average of 19.1 points doesn't make me believe we may be closer than we think to being back.
Yeah, fair point.

Okay, so it's not the size of the loss in any particular game that has you down. It's the size of the loss on a repetitive basis.

That makes sense. Need to think that through a bit.

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesthesame
#12
#12
So you only want people who agree with this absurd pile of nonsense to comment? Tough titty. Tennessee will never have anything more than average success until they bring in an intelligent football coach who can manage and motivate his players.
But what do you really think about the idea? Be honest, don't worry about hurting my feelings. Heh.

As for your main point, just get the hell out and go back to any of the many fire Jeremy threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cormock Mac
#13
#13
Do you really think Clemson regressed, though? Maybe they just had a bad night. For whatever reason, and in whatever way.

And these days, a bad night = losing by double digits and looking to be a much worse team. When really, they're still very good and, on an _average_ night, just as good as Ohio State.

And we're all just fooled by the big point differentials that haven't been there for most of the history of the sport.

They looked pathetic. OL, secondary, LB. I assume they are stocked with top 5 recruiting classes. I didnt see many players that looked the part
 
  • Like
Reactions: feathersax
#14
#14
They looked pathetic. OL, secondary, LB. I assume they are stocked with top 5 recruiting classes. I didnt see many players that looked the part
Ahh. Okay. I watched Bama-ND, but not Clemson-OSU.

I did, however, watch some of Clemson-ND a week or two prior. And that version of Clemson looked really solid in all aspects of the game. As good as Bama did versus the same team just a couple of weeks later.

So in two weeks or so, you think Clemson regressed from near-Bama level to pathetically outmatched? Real regression? Rather than just a bad night of poor execution?
 
#15
#15
Do you really think Clemson regressed, though? Maybe they just had a bad night. For whatever reason, and in whatever way.

And these days, a bad night = losing by double digits and looking to be a much worse team. When really, they're still very good and, on an _average_ night, just as good as Ohio State.

And we're all just fooled by the big point differentials that haven't been there for most of the history of the sport.
Or maybe they just weren’t as good as advertised. Maybe their regular season stats get inflated due to them playing in such a weak conference. In their last three playoff games they’re giving up an average of 38 points and 594 yards. So it looks like they’ve been having some “bad nights” the past couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#16
#16
Or maybe they just weren’t as good as advertised. Maybe their regular season stats get inflated due to them playing in such a weak conference. In their last three playoff games they’re giving up an average of 38 points and 594 yards. So it looks like they’ve been having some “bad nights” the past couple of years.
That's entirely possible. On the other hand, they gave it to Notre Dame on the 19th just as well as Bama gave it to ND yesterday. The transitive property does not work well in football, I know, but that Clemson team at the ACC championship match looked just as good as anyone in the country. And beat the Irish by an even wider margin than Bama.

p.s. And to circle back to the hypothesis: all these games we're discussing, they were all decided by a wide margin. Like 17 to 28 points wide. These are the best handful of teams in the country, taking turns beating each other (ND beats Clemson, Clemson beat ND, Bama beats ND, OSU beats Clemson), and all the margins are by three or more scores. That's telling.
 
#18
#18
Ahh. Okay. I watched Bama-ND, but not Clemson-OSU.

I did, however, watch some of Clemson-ND a week or two prior. And that version of Clemson looked really solid in all aspects of the game. As good as Bama did versus the same team just a couple of weeks later.

So in two weeks or so, you think Clemson regressed from near-Bama level to pathetically outmatched? Real regression? Rather than just a bad night of poor execution?

No I think Clemson regressed from last year to this. Talent level looks much decreased. I dont think ND or any of the ACC is good, so it wasnt easy to notice Clemson's drop off until last night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mercuryvol
#19
#19
A glass half full approach.

The schedule next year is light. You rarely see a schedule where a 3 win team has a legitimate shot to win 9 games. If the team goes 9-3, takes advantage of an in-state recruiting haul, and finds a QB.....
Agreed. We have an advantage in the 2021 schedule. We're Harrison Baily-catching-fire away from getting double digit wins (including bowl game) next season.
 
#20
#20
...because the Lord knows we could use one.

This bowl season has gotten me thinking about a trend that has been developing in division 1 college football, and what it might mean for the Vols' future.

Bear in mind, this is a hypothesis in development. Even I'm not convinced this is right, and it's my idea. Feel free to help me explore the strengths and weaknesses of the thought. But if you're just going to trash the Vols, get the hell out; you add nothing of value. Need people who will approach this with some introspection.

Okay, start with the trend. Offense is running away from defense in the college game today. Which leads to greater point spreads by game end. Evidence: the average (_average_) score differential in a semi-final game the past six years is 21 points. Think about that. The average. Among the four best teams at the pinnacle of the sport. I think we'd all agree, there's not a lot of separation between #1 and #4 each year. All very good teams, or at least three of the four. And often enough, a #3 seed beats a #2 or a #4 beats a #1. So really close to each other. And yet 21 points apart by the end of each game. That's striking.

Now the observation that triggered my hypothesis: Florida, a team that took the #1 team in the land to the wire in Atlanta, losing by just six points ("a close game" by any measure) to Bama...this Florida team goes to the Cotton Bowl short a handful of players (granted, they were mostly receivers) and gets TROUNCED by Oklahoma, a team we'd probably all agree is not as good as Bama or Clemson, probably about the same as Ohio State or Notre Dame. Florida gets WHUPPED. Thirty-five points. Huge, gaping wound. Over the loss of six players.

And Florida can't present the excuse that their players didn't want to be there, weren't motivated. They were fired up. We saw the pre-game interviews, the warm-ups, and the first few drives of the game. Florida's players were lit up, as were their coaches. They WANTED it. At least, until Trask threw three interceptions in a row, all in the first quarter, and let them down 17-0. After that, agreed, those gator players wanted to be nowhere near the Cotton Bowl. After that.

So here's the hypothesis. The Vols may not be as far from a return to competitiveness as we all think. Here, I'll talk you through that:

Our lads lost seven times this season. All by a margin of something between 11 and 31 points. On average, we lost those games by 19.7 points.

See what I see? We were closer to winning every one of our games than Florida was to beating Oklahoma. The same Florida who took Bama to 0:00 on the clock down less than a score. A Florida who was, as far as the world can tell, six players away from beating that Oklahoma team that trounced them.

Another way of looking at it: the Vols were, objectively and mathematically, closer to winning those seven games we lost, all seven of them, than the #4 team in the country normally (on average) is to beating #1 each year, or #3 beating #2.

So maybe we're not all that far away. Makes you think, huh?

We remember the days when close games were decided by just a few poiints. A single score. That is no longer the norm. Not among the best teams, and not among lesser teams. The advantages given to the offense over the past decade or two have resulted in games having wider victory margins. Consequently, teams can be closer in capability and still not be as close in score as they used to be.

...

Okay, that's it. I know, I know, if wishes were horses, and there's no such thing as a moral victory, and WE LOST THOSE GAMES DAMMIT! I get it. We have to win. There is no substitute.

But maybe we're not quite as many light years away from winning as we thought.

What do you think?


p.s. If all you're going to say is, "we'll never win with Jeremy Pruitt as coach," why don't you just go back to one of those 10,000 threads? This one isn't about Pruitt. It's about the program.
What 4 beat a 1 ?
 
#21
#21
Ahh. Okay. I watched Bama-ND, but not Clemson-OSU.

I did, however, watch some of Clemson-ND a week or two prior. And that version of Clemson looked really solid in all aspects of the game. As good as Bama did versus the same team just a couple of weeks later.

So in two weeks or so, you think Clemson regressed from near-Bama level to pathetically outmatched? Real regression? Rather than just a bad night of poor execution?

Clemson's defense hasnt had the super high end elite talent (especially on the DL) the past couple of years. They can get away with that in the ACC but going against the OSUs and LSUs of the world, they get exposed a bit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mercuryvol
#22
#22
Umm, I just spent about 720 words telling you the point. If you were only able to absorb about 150 of them, how does me repeating the other 570 help you out?
Maybe your points are that not obvious or vague. A lot of style points without substance.
 
#23
#23
No I think Clemson regressed from last year to this. Talent level looks much decreased. I dont think ND or any of the ACC is good, so it wasnt easy to notice Clemson's drop off until last night.
Hmm. Interesting angle.

And entirely possible. We all just assumed Clemson is near the top again this year. You could be right, they and ND both could be a step down from Bama (and OSU?).

But...against that, there is the fact that Clemson beat Notre Dame more handily than Bama did. Not that transitive property proves anything, but still. An indicator maybe Clemson hasn't fallen that far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raebo
#25
#25
...because the Lord knows we could use one.

This bowl season has gotten me thinking about a trend that has been developing in division 1 college football, and what it might mean for the Vols' future.

Bear in mind, this is a hypothesis in development. Even I'm not convinced this is right, and it's my idea. Feel free to help me explore the strengths and weaknesses of the thought. But if you're just going to trash the Vols, get the hell out; you add nothing of value. Need people who will approach this with some introspection.

Okay, start with the trend. Offense is running away from defense in the college game today. Which leads to greater point spreads by game end. Evidence: the average (_average_) score differential in a semi-final game the past six years is 21 points. Think about that. The average. Among the four best teams at the pinnacle of the sport. I think we'd all agree, there's not a lot of separation between #1 and #4 each year. All very good teams, or at least three of the four. And often enough, a #3 seed beats a #2 or a #4 beats a #1. So really close to each other. And yet 21 points apart by the end of each game. That's striking.

Now the observation that triggered my hypothesis: Florida, a team that took the #1 team in the land to the wire in Atlanta, losing by just six points ("a close game" by any measure) to Bama...this Florida team goes to the Cotton Bowl short a handful of players (granted, they were mostly receivers) and gets TROUNCED by Oklahoma, a team we'd probably all agree is not as good as Bama or Clemson, probably about the same as Ohio State or Notre Dame. Florida gets WHUPPED. Thirty-five points. Huge, gaping wound. Over the loss of six players.

And Florida can't present the excuse that their players didn't want to be there, weren't motivated. They were fired up. We saw the pre-game interviews, the warm-ups, and the first few drives of the game. Florida's players were lit up, as were their coaches. They WANTED it. At least, until Trask threw three interceptions in a row, all in the first quarter, and let them down 17-0. After that, agreed, those gator players wanted to be nowhere near the Cotton Bowl. After that.

So here's the hypothesis. The Vols may not be as far from a return to competitiveness as we all think. Here, I'll talk you through that:

Our lads lost seven times this season. All by a margin of something between 11 and 31 points. On average, we lost those games by 19.7 points.

See what I see? We were closer to winning every one of our games than Florida was to beating Oklahoma. The same Florida who took Bama to 0:00 on the clock down less than a score. A Florida who was, as far as the world can tell, six players away from beating that Oklahoma team that trounced them.

Another way of looking at it: the Vols were, objectively and mathematically, closer to winning those seven games we lost, all seven of them, than the #4 team in the country normally (on average) is to beating #1 each year, or #3 beating #2.

So maybe we're not all that far away. Makes you think, huh?

We remember the days when close games were decided by just a few poiints. A single score. That is no longer the norm. Not among the best teams, and not among lesser teams. The advantages given to the offense over the past decade or two have resulted in games having wider victory margins. Consequently, teams can be closer in capability and still not be as close in score as they used to be.

...

Okay, that's it. I know, I know, if wishes were horses, and there's no such thing as a moral victory, and WE LOST THOSE GAMES DAMMIT! I get it. We have to win. There is no substitute.

But maybe we're not quite as many light years away from winning as we thought.

What do you think?


p.s. If all you're going to say is, "we'll never win with Jeremy Pruitt as coach," why don't you just go back to one of those 10,000 threads? This one isn't about Pruitt. It's about the program.

If you dont work for one of the political parties, yiu are missing a hell of an opportunity. Your calling is definitely in the spin room.
 

VN Store



Back
Top