Shaun King.

[The Dude]

2) At no point have I suggested that Tennessee's 98 defense wasn't talented or didn't have NFL players....Not all of those players were mature contributors and the point was Tulane played a couple of good defenses, not Wofford.

When you claim our defense wasn't as good as a CUSA or Mountain West team, that's saying they were not good.

3) Just checked, and Tulane 98 was the 15th highest scoring D-1A team of all time.
Finding the End Zone Compilation Let's acknowledge that this was no fluke or product of a schedule.

It was a product of your easy schedule. Or are you actually saying you would have had the same production in the SEC, lol.

 

[CMonster]

Anything can happen in football, but Shaun King is kidding himself. They would have been 4 TD underdogs.

Can't find the link, but as I recall I believe oddsmakers said that Tulane would have been a 7 point underdog on a neutral field, which was the same point spread as Boise St/Oklahoma

 

[CMonster]

When you claim our defense wasn't as good as a CUSA or Mountain West team, that's saying they were not good.



It was a product of your easy schedule.

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that BYU (which finished #5 nationally in defense in 98) and Southern Miss had good defenses, which in no way means that Tennessee had a bad defense. It was good, but I think that Southern Miss 98 was as good or better, and on second thought believe that Tennessee was better than BYU but not by that much.

As for the record being a product of the schedule, that's just silly. You have one of the top offensive coaches in NCAA (RR) and a QB who played and started in the NFL. I think every team that has scored 500+ points has finished top 5 except for Tulane 98, and if you look closely at the box scores, you would see that Tulane took their foot off the gas in a good number of games.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that BYU (which finished #5 nationally in defense in 98) and Southern Miss had good defenses, which in no way means that Tennessee had a bad defense. It was good, but I think that Southern Miss 98 was as good or better, and on second thought believe that Tennessee was better than BYU but not by that much.

Here's the difference between the MWC and the SEC:

TCU was #1 in yards surrendered last year, and #2 in points surrendered. TCU gave up 35 to OU. Florida gave up 14.

So yeah, Southern Miss had great defensive stats in the C-USA, and BYU had great defensive stats in the MWC...but they aren't the SEC, they don't have the athletes for a defensive ranking like that to stand up.

 

[The Dude]

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that BYU (which finished #5 nationally in defense in 98) and Southern Miss had good defenses, which in no way means that Tennessee had a bad defense. It was good, but I think that Southern Miss 98 was as good or better, and on second thought believe that Tennessee was better than BYU but not by that much.

Minus 2nd thoughts, that's exactly what you said.

Tennesees 98 defense was not as good as Southern Miss defense in 98 or Brigham Youngs 98 defense and Tulane scored plenty on them.

As for the record being a product of the schedule, that's just silly. You have one of the top offensive coaches in NCAA (RR) and a QB who played and started in the NFL. I think every team that has scored 500+ points has finished top 5 except for Tulane 98, and if you look closely at the box scores, you would see that Tulane took their foot off the gas in a good number of games.

It doesn't matter if Bill Walsh was your coach, all this has nothing to do with CUSA being an weaker conference. Tulane would have been a 6-5 team in the SEC.

 

[NashVol11]

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that BYU (which finished #5 nationally in defense in 98) and Southern Miss had good defenses, which in no way means that Tennessee had a bad defense. It was good, but I think that Southern Miss 98 was as good or better, and on second thought believe that Tennessee was better than BYU but not by that much.

As for the record being a product of the schedule, that's just silly. You have one of the top offensive coaches in NCAA (RR) and a QB who played and started in the NFL. I think every team that has scored 500+ points has finished top 5 except for Tulane 98, and if you look closely at the box scores, you would see that Tulane took their foot off the gas in a good number of games.

There is so much wrong with this post, and the entire argument in general, that I honestly don't even know where to start.

 

[CMonster]

Here's the difference between the MWC and the SEC:

TCU was #1 in yards surrendered last year, and #2 in points surrendered. TCU gave up 35 to OU. Florida gave up 14.

So yeah, Southern Miss had great defensive stats in the C-USA, and BYU had great defensive stats in the MWC...but they aren't the SEC, they don't have the athletes for a defensive ranking like that to stand up.

That's great, and I agree completely. The SEC is, without a doubt, the best conference in the country and the rosters have, top to bottom, more talent.

That doesn't mean that other teams can't be good or can't beat teams in any game. You can't have a very good conversation about college football if you pick an SEC team over a non-SEC team without discussion.

If the more talented team won every time there would be little point in playing football games. I.E, Boise State.

Again, Tulane was not nearly as talented as Tennessee, but it would have been a good football game as Tulane would have put 30-40 points on the board.

 

[CMonster]

There is so much wrong with this post, and the entire argument in general, that I honestly don't even know where to start.

Well please try, otherwise posting seems like a waste of time.

 

[The Dude]

When you bring a team from a 4th rate conference as a comparison, you're wasting your time. No CUSA team has ever been remotely the best team in the modern era.

 

[utvolpj]

Again, Tulane was not nearly as talented as Tennessee, but it would have been a good football game as Tulane would have put 30-40 points on the board.

1 team put up over 25pts on UT that year (only 3 broke 20). Tulane would not have been #2

 

[n_huffhines]

That's great, and I agree completely. The SEC is, without a doubt, the best conference in the country and the rosters have, top to bottom, more talent.

That doesn't mean that other teams can't be good or can't beat teams in any game. You can't have a very good conversation about college football if you pick an SEC team over a non-SEC team without discussion.

If the more talented team won every time there would be little point in playing football games. I.E, Boise State.

Again, Tulane was not nearly as talented as Tennessee, but it would have been a good football game as Tulane would have put 30-40 points on the board.

But that's not even a response to what I was talking about. I'm saying that statistically So Miss might be the best defense, but they aren't the best defense.

I didn't say small schools can't compete on the same field, I am just saying their stats won't hold up.

Saying Tulane would have scored 30-40 is just hilarious. They could have, but they failed to score 30 twice, and 40 thrice. Tennessee would have been the best D they saw, also Tennessee had a clock-controlling offense.

Only one team scored 30 on Tennessee all year. It was their first game against McNabb led Syracuse. The defense got better as the year went on and only 2 other teams even scored 20.

 

[NashVol11]

1. Southern Miss was not only a statistically worse defense, they did it against a weaker schedule. Saying that a team that gave up 42 points to Idaho had a better defense than Tennessee, just because Adalius Thomas was one good NFL player, is ludicrous.

Statistically, they are worse. As far as the competition they faced, they are worse. You brought up NFL players, and they are worse. But Southern Miss was "better" because they apparently pass your eyeball test (as a Tulane fan). Hmm.

2. Records are a product of schedule. If Tennessee played cupcake teams every week, they would have finished last season much better than 5-7. I sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that Tulane would have gone unbeaten in the 1998 SEC.

 

[CMonster]

When you bring a team from a 4th rate conference as a comparison, you're wasting your time. No CUSA team has ever been remotely the best team in the modern era.

Again, Tulane ended the year #7 AP, and Utah, TCU and Boise State have all proven that good teams can come from weaker conferences.

That no one believes the #7 team in the country had a chance to win a bowl game shows that I am not the one being unrealistic.

 

[CMonster]

1 team put up over 25pts on UT that year (only 3 broke 20). Tulane would not have been #2

And herein lies the problem.

Again, Tulane had a historically good offense and its not realistic to be 100% sure that Tenn would have been able to shut it down.

Again, the point is that the BCS robbed everyone of what would have been a great matchup.

 

[BJHSVol]

And herein lies the problem.

Again, Tulane had a historically good offense and its not realistic to be 100% sure that Tenn would have been able to shut it down.

Again, the point is that the BCS robbed everyone of what would have been a great matchup.

Again, your point is wrong, it would not have been a great matchup.

Again, Tulane's offense is a byproduct of the weak competition you faced throughout the season.

Again, Tulane's offense would have been shut down by Tennessee's defense.

 

[CMonster]

But that's not even a response to what I was talking about. I'm saying that statistically So Miss might be the best defense, but they aren't the best defense.

I didn't say small schools can't compete on the same field, I am just saying their stats won't hold up.

Saying Tulane would have scored 30-40 is just hilarious. They could have, but they failed to score 30 twice, and 40 thrice. Tennessee would have been the best D they saw, also Tennessee had a clock-controlling offense.

Only one team scored 30 on Tennessee all year. It was their first game against McNabb led Syracuse. The defense got better as the year went on and only 2 other teams even scored 20.

The 2 games where Tulane scored less than 30 were versus SOurthern Miss and Louisville and Tulane could not call running plays in those games because King had his left hand in a cast.

He actually came out on any running plays that required a handoff.

They still scored points against good defenses even when the defense knew before each play whether it was run or pass.

 

[CMonster]

Again, your point is wrong, it would not have been a great matchup.

Again, Tulane's offense is a byproduct of the weak competition you faced throughout the season.

Again, Tulane's offense would have been shut down by Tennessee's defense.

You cannot take opinions and assert them as fact.

Maybe you are right, but maybe you are wrong and I am quite certain that the Oklahoma fans were saying the same thing about Boise State.

Teams don't score 538 points because of a schedule. You have to be pretty good.

 

[NashVol11]

You cannot take opinions and assert them as fact.

But Southern Miss had a better defense than Tennessee...because you said so.

Perfect irony.

 

[utvolpj]

But Southern Miss had a better defense than Tennessee...because you said so.

Perfect irony.

many teams that go 7-5 have a better D than the 13-0 national champs. That is not an opinion but a proven fact

 

[CMonster]

But Southern Miss had a better defense than Tennessee...because you said so.

Perfect irony.

At no point did I express that as anything other than my opinion.

 

[vol4eva]

That's great, and I agree completely. The SEC is, without a doubt, the best conference in the country and the rosters have, top to bottom, more talent.

That doesn't mean that other teams can't be good or can't beat teams in any game. You can't have a very good conversation about college football if you pick an SEC team over a non-SEC team without discussion.

If the more talented team won every time there would be little point in playing football games. I.E, Boise State.

Again, Tulane was not nearly as talented as Tennessee, but it would have been a good football game as Tulane would have put 30-40 points on the board.

30-40 points on that defense? That's laughable, 98 Tenn would have clownstomped Tulane, I have no doubt about that at all.

 

[oUTKickedCoverage]

You cannot take opinions and assert them as fact.

Teams don't score 538 points because of a schedule. You have to be pretty good.

So, you don't think the quality of defense you play has any bearing on the number of points you score?

The fact is, the best team on your schedule still went 7-5.

And quit bringing up Boise State... Christ, why don't I reference 1995 Nebraska as a team that "takes care of business" and use them in my arguments? We can all argue by proxy.

 

[CMonster]

Unfortunately, this isn't going anywhere.

I would have liked to have a good chat about the topic but there's too much blind-homerism here to make this worthwhile.

No one is suggesting that Tennessee didn't have a good team in 1998 but lets be real. Tulane 98 was a top 10 team with a prolific offense.

As I have said since the beginning of this topic, despite being an underdog, it would have been a good matchup and I would have given Tulane a good chance to win thanks to their high-powered offense. CUSA has had Matt Forte, Deangelo Williams, Mewelde Moore, Chris Johnson, Byron Leftwich, Ahmad Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Patrick Ramsey, Roddy White and plenty of dangerous NFL players and none of their teams came close to 500+ yards of offense per game.

Suggesting that Tennessee would have "clownstomped" Tulane is blind-homerism. Maybe they would have, but first you need to be able to acknowledge that it was possible that Tulane would have won and most here seem unwilling to do that.

Regardless, good luck with Lane Kiffin and the upcoming season.

 

[oUTKickedCoverage]

Unfortunately, this isn't going anywhere.

I would have liked to have a good chat about the topic but there's too much blind-homerism here to make this worthwhile.

No one is suggesting that Tennessee didn't have a good team in 1998 but lets be real. Tulane 98 was a top 10 team with a prolific offense.

As I have said since the beginning of this topic, despite being an underdog, it would have been a good matchup and I would have given Tulane a good chance to win thanks to their high-powered offense. CUSA has had Matt Forte, Deangelo Williams, Mewelde Moore, Chris Johnson, Byron Leftwich, Ahmad Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Patrick Ramsey, Roddy White and plenty of dangerous NFL players and none of their teams came close to 500+ yards of offense per game.

Suggesting that Tennessee would have "clownstomped" Tulane is blind-homerism. Maybe they would have, but first you need to be able to acknowledge that it was possible that Tulane would have won and most here seem unwilling to do that.

Regardless, good luck with Lane Kiffin and the upcoming season.

Dude, you are being a blind homer too, in that you refuse to acknowledge it when people do post facts.

We had 13 players off that defense end up in the NFL... and had a statistically better defense than Southern Miss against a much harder schedule. In the only points of direct comparison(Alabama/Houston), we outperformed Southern Miss. But you refuse to give up the ghost on our defense vs. Southern Mississippi's.

You hoped to come over here and have us acknowledge that Tulane was worthy of a shot in 1998 over teams that played more difficult schedules? Seriously, how many teams would have gone undefeated playing your schedule?

2-9 at Cincinnati
5-7 at SMU
3-8 Navy
7-5 Southern Miss
7-5 Louisville
5-6 at Rutgers
2-9 Southwestern Louisiana
2-9 at Memphis
3-8 at Army
3-8 Houston
6-6 Louisiana Tech
9-5 BYU

Good lord man, your opponents averaged 7 losses... and not one of them played in anything above Conference USA.

Compare to

8-4 at Syracuse
10-2 Florida
3-8 Houston
3-8 at Auburn
9-3 at Georgia
7-5 Alabama
1-10 at South Carolina
4-7 UAB
9-3 Arkansas
7-5 Kentucky
2-9 at Vanderbilt
8-5 Mississippi State
11-2 Florida State

 

[utvolpj]

Unfortunately, this isn't going anywhere.

I would have liked to have a good chat about the topic but there's too much blind-homerism here to make this worthwhile.

No one is suggesting that Tennessee didn't have a good team in 1998 but lets be real. Tulane 98 was a top 10 team with a prolific offense.

As I have said since the beginning of this topic, despite being an underdog, it would have been a good matchup and I would have given Tulane a good chance to win thanks to their high-powered offense. CUSA has had Matt Forte, Deangelo Williams, Mewelde Moore, Chris Johnson, Byron Leftwich, Ahmad Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Patrick Ramsey, Roddy White and plenty of dangerous NFL players and none of their teams came close to 500+ yards of offense per game.

Suggesting that Tennessee would have "clownstomped" Tulane is blind-homerism. Maybe they would have, but first you need to be able to acknowledge that it was possible that Tulane would have won and most here seem unwilling to do that.

Regardless, good luck with Lane Kiffin and the upcoming season.

in one game only? Tulane might have as good a shot as any mid-major vs a major conf team. Who thought App St would beat Michigan? But knowing the players on that 98 team there is very little chance of them letting that happen

But to say Tulane was a team on par with UT in 98 is ignorant. Give them UT's 98 schedule and tell me they finish undefeated and in the NC game. Tell me they score that many points in a season vs real competition. They may have been a decent football team but there is no way they could go up against the big boys for 9-10 weeks and come out unscathed.