ESPN Rates College Bluebloods

[VFL-82-JP]

We have great traditional and a top 10-12 program all time. But as another poster said, recent history matters, it's outta sight, outta mind for most. Guarantee you, we go on a anything similar to run we did back in the 90s, and we're right back in there. Hell, let us play in a couple SECCGs and make a couple final 4s in the next 4 or 5 years and we're right back in the conversation and on the lists IMO.

Yep, exactly.

The average sports writer has a memory that would embarrass a freaking squirrel. Ancient history for them tends to be that article they wrote 'way back when...the season started.

If we're going where we think we're going over the next few years, let's check in again in 2020. We'll be "firmly seated among the blue bloods" once again, in the minds of the ADD media.

Go Vols!

 

[esarmstrong]

While it's an impressive stat, since it's a negative accomplishment it simply doesn't tell you much. It doesn't prove that UT was good (which they mostly were), it simply proves that UT never hit a specific level of suckage.

Positive accomplishments are way more telling that negative ones. I could say "Alabama is the only team in the SEC that has never gone more than 10 years without winning a conference title." That's an interesting stat, but what does it tell you? Bama has 25 SEC titles, but that stat could be equally true if Bama only had 8.

It's only a "negative stat" if you choose to view it as such. The stat speaks to a program's consistency even in its lean times. It certainly is an impressive statistic when you consider that only two schools in all of college football can claim it.

 

[bamawriter]

It's only a "negative stat" if you choose to view it as such. The stat speaks to a program's consistency even in its lean times. It certainly is an impressive statistic when you consider that only two schools in all of college football can claim it.

Again, it's not that it's not impressive. That only two teams can say it is really amazing given that college football is like 150 years old. But it would be hypothetically possible for one of those teams to average 10 wins a year all-time while the other average 6. "Consistency" is only meaningful if you know what was accomplished, rather than what was avoided.

 

[esarmstrong]

Again, it's not that it's not impressive. That only two teams can say it is really amazing given that college football is like 150 years old. But it would be hypothetically possible for one of those teams to average 10 wins a year all-time while the other average 6. "Consistency" is only meaningful if you know what was accomplished, rather than what was avoided.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. It should be rather obvious what Tennessee and Ohio State have "accomplished" through history. Degree is the only thing we are quibbling about. The fact you describe it as a stat that is negative is you subjectively choosing to see the " glass half empty".

 

[bamawriter]

I feel like I'm repeating myself. It should be rather obvious what Tennessee and Ohio State have "accomplished" through history. Degree is the only thing we are quibbling about. The fact you describe it as a stat that is negative is you subjectively choosing to see the " glass half empty".

A negative accomplishment is "I never (insert whatever situation was avoided)". I'm not saying that the accomplishment is a bad thing.

 

[Boca Vol]

And yet, the fact remains that Tennessee and Ohio State are top ten programs all-time in wins and are the only programs in all of college football with no more than 7 losses in a season. This would suggest 7 loss seasons is a meaningful statistic, especially now with programs playing between 12 and 15 games a season and 11 games since 1970.

It is a near statistical impossibility for a school to have 20 straight 7 loss seasons as you describe. The fact that it has never happened before is proof enough of that fact. Teams don't just stay mediocre in dynamic systems like college football. They either improve, like good programs do, or they get worse. No one just stays the same always.

That's irrelevant. The fact remains if UT & OSU had 20 straight 7 loss season that fact would still hold true.

The added 12th game is a cupcake game (UTC, TN Tech, WCU, etc.). If you lose 7 games you're not playing 13, 14, or 15 games...you're going 5-7!

It's only a "negative stat" if you choose to view it as such. The stat speaks to a program's consistency even in its lean times. It certainly is an impressive statistic when you consider that only two schools in all of college football can claim it.

It is an accomplishment that focusses on a negative (losses). When you're at a party with fans of other programs do you puff your chest out and boast that UT has never lost 8 games in a season?

And who cares? If you lose 7 games, you suck. If you lose 8 games, you suck.

Would you rather have UT's, Bama's, or UF's results in this century?

I feel like I'm repeating myself. It should be rather obvious what Tennessee and Ohio State have "accomplished" through history. Degree is the only thing we are quibbling about. The fact you describe it as a stat that is negative is you subjectively choosing to see the " glass half empty".

How do you make this a positive. After a 5-7 season do you pop the champagne corks?

 

[NYCVol]

Taking all factors into account, I'd probably agree.

I think the issue is that many of Tennessee's best runs came during eras that most current fans didn't witness. If you're under the age of 70, you don't remember UT's second-most recent national title. It's hard to find a lot of video from Tennessee's golden era under Neyland.

UT is 2nd all-time in terms of SEC championships, but in the last 60 years they are behind Bama and UGA and tied with LSU, Florida, and Auburn.

Of course the overall picture is what matters when arguing this kind of thing. But I think it's understandable that recency bias will come in to play if people simply don't remember a lot of the big moments.

You're right about the 'what have you done for me lately?' bias. No argument here, and I can even see why Tennessee is so low on the list as a result. But being uninformed doesn't make the author of the list right.

Also, regarding the other programs catching up, another way to look at it is LSU/UF/AU/UGA needed Sixty. Damn. Years. to catch up to the Vols...

EDIT: And I'm not even that excited about be second, it's just annoying to see some millennial numbskull clickbaiter pass himself off as an authority without being within hailing distance of the truth.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

To hell with this and any other lists that ignore wins, all time. We are ninth all time, just ahead of USC and just behind Penn State among bowl subdivision schools. Any other lists are "clickbait".

ESPN can take their list and shove it where the sun doesn't shine

Here's my proof:

The Top 10 Winningest College Football Teams and Coaches of All-Time

Don't forget that the people who put these lists together are in the 25-50 age group. Many have no idea of the teams which Neyland fielded when he coached at Tennessee. There most most recent knowledge includes the decade when Tennessee's football fortunes were at one of its lowest levels. The same level of lack of knowledge exits in other articles which names the best players of all time, best teams of all time,etc. Some of this may be a result of a less than stellar Publicity Office at Tennessee or just the mind set of todays reporters.