Are there really 51 Power 5 coaches better than Butch?

#476
#476
99gator said:
In short.....point taken.

It just makes me shake my head that some people point to the Alabama game as if that's the problem.

It isn't.

Not to mention, and this goes for everybody, to get where you want to be you're going to have to beat Bama.

In Florida'a case, we're going to have to beat FSU and Bama back to back..:: and we asked for that
Click to expand...

Herein lies a problem: I don't think anyone (or at least very few) are saying that playing Alabama is THE problem. Most logical fans understand that UT should beat Vandy and USCe. We all understand that. You especially need to take advantage when you beat UF and UGA in the same year.

That said, it is still a disadvantage. It also still matters even if UF and UGA lose 1 game against the west. In the last 10 years, we know we will lose one game in the west- it's not uncertain. That means we HAVE to beat the other west team to stay even. It's statistics and probabilities, and it's a competitive disadvantage.
 
#477
#477
jakez4ut said:
Agreed. I like having the game because I grew up on it, and honestly I'd hate to not play it.

But times change. There was a time people couldn't live without ou/neb or tx/aTm..,,

Now they do.

Just don't tell me we have to change the schedule because "it's not fair".

BS.
Click to expand...

Back in the mid-90's Fulmer got the SEC to move the UT/ UGA game to later in the season. Prior to that UT played UGA then UF from 92-95.
 
#481
#481
KBVol said:
Context dude....context.

When Herman, who was one of the hottest coaches in the country the last couple seasons, said that, was it in response to being asked about not winning his division in his 4th season when he was the overwhelming favorite....and insisting that winning the division was never discussed and a goal? Similarly, did he make those comments after failing to land 3-4 of his top highly rated recruiting targets in the state? And how many other goofy, nonsensical things has Herman said in years past? Does he have a reputation for saying dumb stuff like Jones?
Click to expand...

well....he does / did kiss his players....if that aint odd, goofy, etc.....I don't know what is.
 
#482
#482
VolGee4 said:
Herein lies a problem: I don't think anyone (or at least very few) are saying that playing Alabama is THE problem. Most logical fans understand that UT should beat Vandy and USCe. We all understand that. You especially need to take advantage when you beat UF and UGA in the same year.

That said, it is still a disadvantage. It also still matters even if UF and UGA lose 1 game against the west. In the last 10 years, we know we will lose one game in the west- it's not uncertain. That means we HAVE to beat the other west team to stay even. It's statistics and probabilities, and it's a competitive disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Well, like i said earlier, teams in he SEC West are at a disadvantage when you break it down that way.

Kentucky, Missouri, and Vandy are as good as bye weeks historically. We get those teams every year. They don't.
 
#483
#483
99gator said:
Well, like i said earlier, teams in he SEC West are at a disadvantage when you break it down that way.

Kentucky, Missouri, and Vandy are as good as bye weeks historically. We get those teams every year. They don't.
Click to expand...

But UT isn't competing against the West for the division. Everyone in the West plays the same West teams. I get it. We need to win more. Still doesn't change that it's a competitive disadvantage for us winning the East.

Ole Miss's permanent East team is Vandy. They have an advantage over others, however, Ole Miss hasn't been nearly as dominant.
 
#484
#484
VolGee4 said:
But UT isn't competing against the West for the division. Everyone in the West plays the same West teams. I get it. We need to win more. Still doesn't change that it's a competitive disadvantage for us winning the East.

Ole Miss's permanent East team is Vandy. They have an advantage over others, however, Ole Miss hasn't been nearly as dominant.
Click to expand...

And Kentucky and MSU get each other. Hasn't helped them in either division.
 
#488
#488
jakez4ut said:
And Kentucky and MSU get each other. Hasn't helped them in either division.
Click to expand...

You have to make that comparison with like teams, as in teams that are the same in talent, with no variables. It's all based on probabilities. Our probability to win the East is lower because Alabama is on the schedule, especially when neither UF nor UGA play them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#489
#489
VolGee4 said:
You have to make that comparison with like teams, as in teams that are the same in talent, with no variables. It's all based on probabilities. Our probability to win the East is lower because Alabama is on the schedule, especially when neither UF nor UGA play them.
Click to expand...

What about like in 2010 when Auburn won the SEC and beat Bama? Did Georgia have it worse?

Or 2011, when lsu beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?

Or 2012, when A&M beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?

Or 2015, when Ole Miss beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?
 
#490
#490
VolGee4 said:
You have to make that comparison with like teams, as in teams that are the same in talent, with no variables. It's all based on probabilities. Our probability to win the East is lower because Alabama is on the schedule, especially when neither UF nor UGA play them.
Click to expand...

yet UGA and FL still lose to at least one of their west opponents pretty much every year, save 1. 2014 GA beat both West opponents, and still didn't win the division.

and that's the only time i think in the last 4-5 years any of the three have beaten BOTH West opponents.

conversely, only 1 time over that same span of time, has either GA or FL lost BOTH west games.

whereas, we've lost them all.

so...1 season where 1 of us beats both West teams, and that team doesn't win the East. Only 1 time over the same span where FL or ga loses both west games.

and we're on the outside looking in, losing all of our west games.

and it's because we have Bama on the schedule?????:blink:
 
#491
#491
99gator said:
What about like in 2010 when Auburn won the SEC and beat Bama? Did Georgia have it worse?

Or 2011, when lsu beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?

Or 2012, when A&M beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?

Or 2015, when Ole Miss beat Bama? Did Florida have it worse?
Click to expand...

From year to year, an unbalanced schedule is exactly that...unbalanced. But if you look at it over a period of time, trends matter.

Since 2007 (year Saban was hired), Alabama is 119-19 (86%), Auburn is 82-48 (63%), and LSU is 98-32 (75%). Therefore, having Alabama on the schedule every year creates a disadvantage.

What is even more interesting (but not shocking) about those numbers is that UGA should be the beneficiary by having Auburn every year. Yet, since 2007, Florida has won the East twice as many times with 4. UGA has 2, Mizzou has 2, USC has 1, and UT has 1. By the way, if Mizzou had played Bama for their West team in both years and lost, they would not have gone to the SECCG.

As I previously said, UT absolutely has had chances regardless of the Alabama game. You have to beat Vandy and USCe when you beat UF and UGA. But no matter what I believe about it, the fact is that it has been a competitive disadvantage to play Alabama every single year.
 
#492
#492
jakez4ut said:
yet UGA and FL still lose to at least one of their west opponents pretty much every year, save 1. 2014 GA beat both West opponents, and still didn't win the division.

and that's the only time i think in the last 4-5 years any of the three have beaten BOTH West opponents.

conversely, only 1 time over that same span of time, has either GA or FL lost BOTH west games.

whereas, we've lost them all.

so...1 season where 1 of us beats both West teams, and that team doesn't win the East. Only 1 time over the same span where FL or ga loses both west games.

and we're on the outside looking in, losing all of our west games.

and it's because we have Bama on the schedule?????:blink:
Click to expand...

I can't help you not getting it. UF and UGA have two shots at a split of the west teams. Based on probability, UT does not have the same odds. UT HAS to beat the second west opponent for a split because the overwhelming odds say that UT will not beat Alabama. So, UT's chances ride on one game, as the odds are better that UF or UGA could beat LSU or Auburn. Again, I am not a math guy, but it's based on probability.

I understand your point that we could always lose to Alabama every single year and still win the East as long as we sweep our division. That point is not lost on me. However, that is not logical. We will not go 7-1 every year just like UF and UGA won't either.

Whether you are emotionally attached to this argument or not, the fact is that since 2007, UT has been at a competitive disadvantage by playing Alabama every year.
 
#493
#493
VolGee4 said:
From year to year, an unbalanced schedule is exactly that...unbalanced. But if you look at it over a period of time, trends matter.

Since 2007 (year Saban was hired), Alabama is 119-19 (86%), Auburn is 82-48 (63%), and LSU is 98-32 (75%). Therefore, having Alabama on the schedule every year creates a disadvantage.

What is even more interesting (but not shocking) about those numbers is that UGA should be the beneficiary by having Auburn every year. Yet, since 2007, Florida has won the East twice as many times with 4. UGA has 2, Mizzou has 2, USC has 1, and UT has 1. By the way, if Mizzou had played Bama for their West team in both years and lost, they would not have gone to the SECCG.

As I previously said, UT absolutely has had chances regardless of the Alabama game. You have to beat Vandy and USCe when you beat UF and UGA. But no matter what I believe about it, the fact is that it has been a competitive disadvantage to play Alabama every single year.
Click to expand...
at what point do we actually consider the possibility that the lion's share of the issue lie with how good/bad TN has been,, vs blaming it on the schedule?

by your logic, MO should win the East every year, cause they don't play LSU, Auburn or Bama every year.

if playing bama is so detrimental to our aspirations, why did we go on win out after losing to Bama in 15? by all accounts we should have been too battered and bruised to do so.
 
#494
#494
I think the way you square the circle of this debate is this way:

THEORETICALLY, it is a disadvantage to be the team who have to play the conference's most dominant program every year (vice others who only have to play them once every six years). That's a mathematical fact.

IN PRACTICE, it has not made a single discernable difference over the past ten years, whether you were that team or not. The decision has not rested on the Vols-Tide game (vice the UF-LSU or UGa-Auburn games) in any of those years.

You're both right, in your own ways, you're just coming at it from different angles.


p.s. And remember, this is only even a theoretical-vs-empirical argument if Bama is the dominant team. They're often not...folks less than 15 years old won't remember that, but they're often not.

Go Vols!
 
#495
#495
jakez4ut said:
at what point do we actually consider the possibility that the lion's share of the issue lie with how good/bad TN has been,, vs blaming it on the schedule?

by your logic, MO should win the East every year, cause they don't play LSU, Auburn or Bama every year.

if playing bama is so detrimental to our aspirations, why did we go on win out after losing to Bama in 15? by all accounts we should have been too battered and bruised to do so.
Click to expand...

As to paragraph 1, I don't really disagree. UT had its worse 5 year stretch in school history when Butch was hired.

Paragraph 2- that's a stretch because Missouri doesn't have the best talent (i.e. comparable talent) in its division.

Paragraph 3- I never made that argument. That was someone else.
 
Last edited:
#496
#496
VFL-82-JP said:
I think the way you square the circle of this debate is this way:

THEORETICALLY, it is a disadvantage to be the team who have to play the conference's most dominant program every year (vice others who only have to play them once every six years). That's a mathematical fact.

IN PRACTICE, it has not made a single discernable difference over the past ten years, whether you were that team or not. The decision has not rested on the Vols-Tide game (vice the UF-LSU or UGa-Auburn games) in any of those years.

You're both right, in your own ways, you're just coming at it from different angles.


p.s. And remember, this is only even a theoretical-vs-empirical argument if Bama is the dominant team. They're often not...folks less than 15 years old won't remember that, but they're often not.

Go Vols!
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty close. The only issue is that Missouri most likely would not have made the SECCG in 2 straight years if they had played Alabama those years. Both second place teams in the East (USC and UGA) were one game back and had beaten Missouri in those respective years. So, while it hasn't exactly effected UT much, it has effected the overall standings.

I think this past year could have been interesting if we had beaten Bama because then you head to USCe with just one loss. Even if you lose there, you can still win the East at Vandy. A little different psyche, but that's just conjecture.
 
#497
#497
VolGee4 said:
Yes, pretty close. The only issue is that Missouri most likely would not have made the SECCG in 2 straight years if they had played Alabama those years. Both second place teams in the East (USC and UGA) were one game back and had beaten Missouri in those respective years. So, while it hasn't exactly effected UT much, it has effected the overall standings.

I think this past year could have been interesting if we had beaten Bama because then you head to USCe with just one loss. Even if you lose there, you can still win the East at Vandy. A little different psyche, but that's just conjecture.
Click to expand...

you think we win the East the last two years if we don't play Alabama?
 
#500
#500
jakez4ut said:
just a question. no funny business. but you did bring the "if" in play with the MO schedule comparison......
Click to expand...

I think I have answered it. But looking at history, a win against Alabama the last two years by itself wouldn't have won the East. Now, would our team's psyche have changed last year going into a bye week after beating Alabama? I don't know.

But it's really not the point. The point is that playing Alabama every year is a competitive disadvantage. I brought Missouri in play because if they had Alabama as a permanent west team, it would have clearly changed the winner of the East. Therefore, there is evidence that it can influence standings.

Have I ever said that playing Alabama every year is the sole reason for not winning the East? Nope. But it goes into the pot as a factor. It's simply a hurdle that other teams don't have to jump right now.

Since Butch has been here (4 seasons), we have played two of the top 4 teams in the West every single year...and two of the top 3 in three of the years. In that same time, UF and UGA combined have done it twice (both UF). The one constant- Alabama.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top