CBS poll top 130 is Tenn to low

[VolFreakJosh]

I don’t think we’ll win easily, but people just look at last years score and think that was a beat down. It was a team that quit after their QB threw back to back pick 6’s. UK is built for games like that when they can just bleed the clock, especially when a defense lays down bc they have zero confidence that the offense will play complimentary football.

JG shouldn’t have seen the field again after the first pick six.

 

[BruisedOrange]

In practical terms what is the difference between being ranked 30 and being ranked 68.

IMO if you aren't top 10 you shouldn't even think about rankings. You wouldn't be going to any kind of meaningful bowl game, so just focus all your energy on how to get your team in the top 10.

If there is a practical side, it might be in recruiting.

Handing out the factoid that we started the season #68 but ended the season #30 would establish Heupel's Vols as a rising program. In that context, a player committing his 4 or 5 stars to Tennessee would cease to be "open to question" in the sports or social media worlds.

 

[87&91ALUM]

I gave up on sports journalism after Leonard’s Losers and John Ward left the stage. I’m good with us rated really low pre-season. Put a chip on the team’s shoulder. Give them something to prove. Also serves to tap on the breaks for the overly excited fans with unrealistic objectives. I am all Vol, love this team, and will be cheering them on all season no matter what. GBO! VFL!

 

[sjt18]

I don't think they are great on either side of the LOS and at LB.

All of the starters and more on D have played well at times. It has to be pulled together. Young players like Young and Baron have to step forward and make an impact. This isn't unique. This is pretty much every year for every team not named Clemson, tOSU, or Bama.

The Mitchell transfer helps at LB a ton but they're thin on proven players after that.

Again, outside a very few programs every team in CFB deals with a position where they don't return starters and are dependent on young players. You and I have seen times when UT was completely dependent on underclassmen at LB and other position groups. UT returned pretty much nothing at WR the last time UT won the East and was ineffective in the run game. The LB's were Mayo, Karl, and Wilson backed up by inexperienced underclassmen. The DL had talented starters including Dan Williams and Ayers but not a ton of quality depth.

I understand the kneejerk response to the idea that UT has talent because of the last several years.... but UT does have enough talent to win 8 or 9 games this year. I'm not predicting that result but do expect 6 to 8 wins if Heupel has any chance at being a decent coach. After all these years and changes, I no longer believe that it takes "a year or more" for a coach to "install their system"... and FAR less the idea that a coach that can't get production in their first year when there's no baggage with players and all of them want to believe... will wake up in year 2, 3, or 4 and suddenly be a great coach.

If a coach is a good much less great coach then they will get performance equivalent to or greater than the sum of their talent. Think back to Kiffin and the staff he brought with him to UT. They squeezed every bit of good out of that roster that was in it. They entered the season with a basket case QB... and no one behind him. WR's were mediocre. OL was patchwork... at best. Only one true DT on the roster. They would play LB's significant minutes who would never contribute again in their careers. That's the level of coaching I want to see. It is the level needed to lift UT out of the ditch we've been in.

I don't like Kiffin in a lot of ways. I am not sure he could have sustained what he did without Monte. But that's what I'm looking for in a HC. A guy who takes a DL like this one and finds ways to use them effectively and field a competitive team.

I don't know about you, but I've never been wowed by Cade Mays (at Tennessee, anyway), Carvin, Solomon, Matthew Butler, etc, and those guys are some of our best players at those positions.

Mays and Solomon not so much. I think Butler and Carvin can play.

Remember when everybody thought the ruling on whether or not Solomon could play immediately was going to determine whether or not we were good that year? Has he shown to be anywhere remotely near that big of an impact player?

If he were like Dan Williams and UT had no DT's behind him then yeah... that would be a huge worry. He isn't. There are a bunch of guys with physical talent playing on the interior for UT.

It comes down to coaching and I like CRG a lot... and his chances of getting the most out of this DL.

I think they'll be pretty good in the secondary (I don't think there is elite talent there, but a lot of experience), at RB, and at WR. However QB is a gigantic question mark, there are reasons for concern on both sides of the LOS, and I really think they struggle at LB. I think in order to get to 6 wins Heupel needs to hit a home run with whoever the QB ends up being.

If we were super deep across the LOS but had question marks at the skill positions, I'd be way more optimistic than I am.

UT is very deep across the LOS. They aren't experienced but there is a lot of depth of talent.

Frankly I'm not very worried about the QB position. I think UT has 3 guys who can win 8 games. I don't think that will be the reason UT doesn't have a good season unless the WR's play very poorly.

 

[Volfan2012]

College Football Rankings 2021 - CBS Sports Ranking

Bowling Green 128 out of 130. Tennessee 68th I do believe. Is Tenn to low in this poll.

Wasn't we up there at least one season with Pruitt meaning ranked higher than this in a poll. It is where you finish not where some poll says you start.

 

[05_never_again]

All of the starters and more on D have played well at times. It has to be pulled together. Young players like Young and Baron have to step forward and make an impact. This isn't unique. This is pretty much every year for every team not named Clemson, tOSU, or Bama.

Again, outside a very few programs every team in CFB deals with a position where they don't return starters and are dependent on young players. You and I have seen times when UT was completely dependent on underclassmen at LB and other position groups. UT returned pretty much nothing at WR the last time UT won the East and was ineffective in the run game. The LB's were Mayo, Karl, and Wilson backed up by inexperienced underclassmen. The DL had talented starters including Dan Williams and Ayers but not a ton of quality depth.

I understand the kneejerk response to the idea that UT has talent because of the last several years.... but UT does have enough talent to win 8 or 9 games this year. I'm not predicting that result but do expect 6 to 8 wins if Heupel has any chance at being a decent coach. After all these years and changes, I no longer believe that it takes "a year or more" for a coach to "install their system"... and FAR less the idea that a coach that can't get production in their first year when there's no baggage with players and all of them want to believe... will wake up in year 2, 3, or 4 and suddenly be a great coach.

If a coach is a good much less great coach then they will get performance equivalent to or greater than the sum of their talent. Think back to Kiffin and the staff he brought with him to UT. They squeezed every bit of good out of that roster that was in it. They entered the season with a basket case QB... and no one behind him. WR's were mediocre. OL was patchwork... at best. Only one true DT on the roster. They would play LB's significant minutes who would never contribute again in their careers. That's the level of coaching I want to see. It is the level needed to lift UT out of the ditch we've been in.

I don't like Kiffin in a lot of ways. I am not sure he could have sustained what he did without Monte. But that's what I'm looking for in a HC. A guy who takes a DL like this one and finds ways to use them effectively and field a competitive team.

Mays and Solomon not so much. I think Butler and Carvin can play.

If he were like Dan Williams and UT had no DT's behind him then yeah... that would be a huge worry. He isn't. There are a bunch of guys with physical talent playing on the interior for UT.

It comes down to coaching and I like CRG a lot... and his chances of getting the most out of this DL.


UT is very deep across the LOS. They aren't experienced but there is a lot of depth of talent.

Frankly I'm not very worried about the QB position. I think UT has 3 guys who can win 8 games. I don't think that will be the reason UT doesn't have a good season unless the WR's play very poorly.

You're just way more optimistic than I am. Hopefully you are more right about the team than I am.

 

[DERELICK_MY_VOLS]

Piss on these rankings. We still out class every team on our schedule besides Florida, Georgia, and Bama in athletic talent. Even with these transfers in and out. Everyone on here acts like we have a roster like Vandy’s and a staff with no track record of blowing up scoreboards. I just don’t get it.

 

[Behr]

In practical terms what is the difference between being ranked 30 and being ranked 68.

IMO if you aren't top 10 you shouldn't even think about rankings. You wouldn't be going to any kind of meaningful bowl game, so just focus all your energy on how to get your team in the top 10.

In practical terms I can't do anything to help them on the field to give them a better ranking. Also, as a fan and being practical, if we're not in the top 4 or competing for the SECCG, why even watch a game?

#becauseitswhatfansdo

 

[Behr]

I'm just happy we're not 69 or 70. Can you imagine???

 

[sjt18]

You're just way more optimistic than I am. Hopefully you are more right about the team than I am.

My short answer is simply this- If this roster is well coached (which I admit we do not know yet) then the Vols win between 6 and 8 games this year with a 9th game a slight possibility if UF struggles coming off Bama.

I'm not optimistic. I'm not pessimistic. I'm hopeful and trying hard to be realistic. I just see some really good looking "bodies" in that depth chart. Better than many rosters over the last 20 years that had decent seasons.

Inexperience can bite you. That would be more of a concern to me if UT didn't open with the three teams on this schedule. If you replaced Pitt with OU or another top 3rd opponent then I think a loss reshapes the season. You spend time rebuilding confidence rather than teaching football. Pitt has a "good" experienced QB and some experience in other positions. They're not an extremely talented team... and they do have to replace key performers on both sides of the ball. They replace 2 or 3 OL's on an OL that wasn't very good... and they're not stable at this point. They replace their best two DL's.

I think UT could lose to Pitt... but shouldn't. Watching their D play last year... we will know if UT is credible on O after this game or not. If yes then this will be a pretty impressive win for the Vols. But if the O sputters or cannot get continuity then it will be close.

Either way, UT enters conference play against UF who will be coming off Bama. Mizzou could be a trap following UF. I think USCe is in worse shape than UT and did a worse job answering their issues.... they hired a guy with no HC experience. He hasn't even been a coordinator.

I could go through the whole list but I've tried NOT to look at UT in a vacuum but rather in the context of the schedule they play. I think UK will see a drop off. They lost too much talent from a team that was still middling. If you lose 10 NFL caliber guys plus others from a team that finished 5-6... what's left?

 

[DERELICK_MY_VOLS]

I'm just happy we're not 69 or 70. Can you imagine???

YO CBS

 

[Air_Force_Vol27]

Who cares what you're ranked in preseason. It's all about how you finish.

 

[volbound1700]

Athlon Rankings:

College Football Top 130 Team Rankings for 2021
College football's 2021 season is slated to start in late August, but it's never too early to project where all 130 teams will finish at the end of the year.

athlonsports.com


56. Tennessee

PFF Rankings:

College Football: PFF ELO rankings for all 130 FBS teams heading into the 2021 season | College Football | PFF
The Alabama Crimson Tide rank No. 1 in PFF's ELO rankings despite losing Mac Jones, DeVonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle, among others, to the 2021 NFL Draft.

www.pff.com

45. Tennessee


ESPN:

The 10 tiers of college football in 2021: Favorites, disappointments and potential surprise teams

www.espn.com

Kind of hard to grasp their rankings but they have Tennessee in a mid-tier ranking.

CFN:

College Football Rankings: CFN Preseason Ranking Of All 130 Teams
The College Football News Preview 2021 preseason college football rankings with top players, games, and predicted finishes for all 130 teams. The CFN preseason rankings are about how good the teams…

collegefootballnews.com

37. Tennessee

 

[volbound1700]

CFN is the most Generous with Tennessee at # 37. That is too high IMO.

I feel like higher 40s/low 50s is about right.

 

[clint8879]

College Football Rankings 2021 - CBS Sports Ranking

Bowling Green 128 out of 130. Tennessee 68th I do believe. Is Tenn to low in this poll.

On a side note.... Vanderbilt is 105 and South Carolina is 93! hahaha

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

CFN is the most Generous with Tennessee at # 37. That is too high IMO.

I feel like higher 40s/low 50s is about right.

I think you have to pay for it on ESPN+ but that guy, Bill Connolly, has us about 41..... or did. I think that's reasonable.

 

[OffTackleVol]

JG shouldn’t have seen the field again after the first pick six.

Hell, shouldn't have seen the field again after the fumble at the Gump House the previous season.

 

[05_never_again]

My short answer is simply this- If this roster is well coached (which I admit we do not know yet) then the Vols win between 6 and 8 games this year with a 9th game a slight possibility if UF struggles coming off Bama.

I'm not optimistic. I'm not pessimistic. I'm hopeful and trying hard to be realistic. I just see some really good looking "bodies" in that depth chart. Better than many rosters over the last 20 years that had decent seasons.

Inexperience can bite you. That would be more of a concern to me if UT didn't open with the three teams on this schedule. If you replaced Pitt with OU or another top 3rd opponent then I think a loss reshapes the season. You spend time rebuilding confidence rather than teaching football. Pitt has a "good" experienced QB and some experience in other positions. They're not an extremely talented team... and they do have to replace key performers on both sides of the ball. They replace 2 or 3 OL's on an OL that wasn't very good... and they're not stable at this point. They replace their best two DL's.

I think UT could lose to Pitt... but shouldn't. Watching their D play last year... we will know if UT is credible on O after this game or not. If yes then this will be a pretty impressive win for the Vols. But if the O sputters or cannot get continuity then it will be close.

Either way, UT enters conference play against UF who will be coming off Bama. Mizzou could be a trap following UF. I think USCe is in worse shape than UT and did a worse job answering their issues.... they hired a guy with no HC experience. He hasn't even been a coordinator.

I could go through the whole list but I've tried NOT to look at UT in a vacuum but rather in the context of the schedule they play. I think UK will see a drop off. They lost too much talent from a team that was still middling. If you lose 10 NFL caliber guys plus others from a team that finished 5-6... what's left?

I think if the team is well-coached, they will win 6 games (BG, Pitt, Tennessee Tech, South Carolina, South Alabama, Vandy). They are clearly more talented than those teams and should beat them. If they are very well-coached the Mizzou, Ole Miss, and Kentucky games are in play but don't turn into "should win" games. They are actually more talented than all of those schools too, but not by as wide of a margin and none of those schools have first-year head coaches (at the school) bringing in new systems. If they are poorly coached, don't adjust to the system well, etc., there's a possibility they win 3 games. I don't think that will happen personally, but I think that is a possibility.

I know this is a brand new staff that you have to give every benefit of the doubt to, but you have to forgive Vol fans for being entirely in a "I'll believe it when I see it mode." It has been so long, at least since 2009, that this team received good coaching overall.

 

[UTP69]

Perhaps those predicting an easy win with Pitt and KY should note they are ranked 41 and 35, respectively.

Neither will be easy wins.

Aight!

 

[sjt18]

I think if the team is well-coached, they will win 6 games (BG, Pitt, Tennessee Tech, South Carolina, South Alabama, Vandy). They are clearly more talented than those teams and should beat them. If they are very well-coached the Mizzou, Ole Miss, and Kentucky games are in play but don't turn into "should win" games. They are actually more talented than all of those schools too, but not by as wide of a margin and none of those schools have first-year head coaches (at the school) bringing in new systems. If they are poorly coached, don't adjust to the system well, etc., there's a possibility they win 3 games. I don't think that will happen personally, but I think that is a possibility.

I know this is a brand new staff that you have to give every benefit of the doubt to, but you have to forgive Vol fans for being entirely in a "I'll believe it when I see it mode." It has been so long, at least since 2009, that this team received good coaching overall.

Are you really thinking UK through though? They just went 5-6... and lost their 10 best players plus their only experienced QB. I could be wrong but I just don't see where they replace those guys.

I actually think Drink is a good coach at Mizzou.... but Odom left a pretty big hole in the roster. If UT is "thin", Mizzou is a wafer. They are what you get when your program is completely dependent on finding "diamonds in the rough". They sign them, spend 3 years developing them,... and are still at the mercy of whether the kids actually had talent or not. Case in point, their 2 deep is littered with transfers. One of their projected WR starters is a transfer from Angelo State. Another is a 5'8" transfer from tOSU. This one kind of depends on who you think was left closer to competitive from a roster perspective. I don't think Odom left a good roster or that Drink is closer now than where Heupel started.

 

[05_never_again]

Are you really thinking UK through though? They just went 5-6... and lost their 10 best players plus their only experienced QB. I could be wrong but I just don't see where they replace those guys.

I actually think Drink is a good coach at Mizzou.... but Odom left a pretty big hole in the roster. If UT is "thin", Mizzou is a wafer. They are what you get when your program is completely dependent on finding "diamonds in the rough". They sign them, spend 3 years developing them,... and are still at the mercy of whether the kids actually had talent or not. Case in point, their 2 deep is littered with transfers. One of their projected WR starters is a transfer from Angelo State. Another is a 5'8" transfer from tOSU. This one kind of depends on who you think was left closer to competitive from a roster perspective. I don't think Odom left a good roster or that Drink is closer now than where Heupel started.

They went 5-6...we went 3-7. We lost a ton of guys too, Stoops is a good coach with a team that is light on experience but have been in that program for a while, they beat us by 4 TDs in Neyland last year, and it is in Lexington. I don't put it in the "should win" category.

 

[GroverCleveland]

We'll know soon enough.

 

[MWAVolfan]

Are you really thinking UK through though? They just went 5-6... and lost their 10 best players plus their only experienced QB. I could be wrong but I just don't see where they replace those guys.

I actually think Drink is a good coach at Mizzou.... but Odom left a pretty big hole in the roster. If UT is "thin", Mizzou is a wafer. They are what you get when your program is completely dependent on finding "diamonds in the rough". They sign them, spend 3 years developing them,... and are still at the mercy of whether the kids actually had talent or not. Case in point, their 2 deep is littered with transfers. One of their projected WR starters is a transfer from Angelo State. Another is a 5'8" transfer from tOSU. This one kind of depends on who you think was left closer to competitive from a roster perspective. I don't think Odom left a good roster or that Drink is closer now than where Heupel started.

Kentucky 2021 doesn't have to be a better team than Kentucky 2020.

Kentucky 2021 has to be better than UT 2021.

I'd say they have a good chance to do so. I've seen these "new coach new system" installations and no thanks, always a disaster at first when players have to learn a whole new system without an established leader like an upper classmen proven QB. The game is on the road and Stoops is an established and pretty decent SEC head coach. He will have his guys ready to play. We dont know that about Huepel yet and so if there's doubt the tie goes to the guy with the experience always until Huepel proves otherwise.

 

[sjt18]

Perhaps those predicting an easy win with Pitt and KY should note they are ranked 41 and 35, respectively.

Neither will be easy wins.

I don't make a lot of predictions because they burn you about as often as not... but I believe UK is badly overrated. They have been no better than middling the past couple of years from the perspective of the whole SEC... and then just lost 10+ of their best players. They could be "awesome"... but they face a "rebuild" bigger than UT's.

Pitt won't finish there. Their schedule other than a very weak OOC schedule is improved. Likely losses without respect to UT- UNC, Miami, Clemson, Va Tech, and Virginia. Ga Tech could be a trap. They're probably going to be a 5 or 6 loss team again. In spite of the weakness of the ACC and their typical OOC schedule, they haven't lost less than 5 games since changing conferences.

 

[sjt18]

Kentucky 2021 doesn't have to be a better team than Kentucky 2020.

Want to explain that? UT had no business losing to them last year much less by the margin. And we aren't even talking anything like being "better". When you have a mediocre team then lose the amount and caliber of talent they lost... it is hardly an automatic that you don't drop off significantly

Kentucky 2021 has to be better than UT 2021.

And that's what we're talking about. UT should be better. UK IMO will be worse simply because they lost too much talent they cannot replace.

I almost always qualify my opinions with "if well coached". If the "hype" coming out of different sources is legit then he represents a pretty big improvement over the last two guys.... but both of them were hyped too.

I'd say they have a good chance to do so. I've seen these "new coach new system" installations and no thanks, always a disaster at first when players have to learn a whole new system without an established leader like an upper classmen proven QB. The game is on the road and Stoops is an established and pretty decent SEC head coach. He will have his guys ready to play. We dont know that about Huepel yet and so if there's doubt the tie goes to the guy with the experience always until Huepel proves otherwise.

UK will be installing what amounts to a new offense. Wilson is gone. His replacement appears to be a back up from Penn St. He is mobile but not a run threat they've had at QB for the last 3 plus seasons. He's a pass first QB... and they don't have a ton of talent at WR.

I think Stoops has done an amazing job at UK and should have leveraged it for a better gig. They're still limited.