Shaun King.

[CMonster]

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

I'm being a homer? All I have suggested is that Tulane would have had a chance to win a game on a neutral field and its a shame that they weren't given that shot. Thanks anyway.

 

[CMonster]

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.

Please go back and re-read my posts. I have said, quite clearly, that Tennessee was bigger, stronger, more athletic and deeper.

But that Tulane offense was pretty unstoppable, despite the weak schedule. It would have put points on the board vs Tennessee and would have had a chance to beat Tennessee in one game on a neutral field.

Just like Boise State or Utah. Would Utah have gone undefeated last season if they played in the SEC? Of course not, but it doesn't take away from their accomplishments.

Winning 21 out of 22 isn't a product of scheduling. And as a side note, I do believe that Tulane 98 would have scored 500+ points on SEC defenses. 10 years later, defenses still cannot stop a Rich Rodriguez offense when it has the right QB.

 

[utvolpj]

Please go back and re-read my posts. I have said, quite clearly, that Tennessee was bigger, stronger, more athletic and deeper.

But that Tulane offense was pretty unstoppable, despite the weak schedule. It would have put points on the board vs Tennessee and would have had a chance to beat Tennessee in one game on a neutral field.

Just like Boise State or Utah. Would Utah have gone undefeated last season if they played in the SEC? Of course not, but it doesn't take away from their accomplishments.

Winning 21 out of 22 isn't a product of scheduling.

you really can't get it through your head that a weaker schedule=more wins? Seriously?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Please go back and re-read my posts. I have said, quite clearly, that Tennessee was bigger, stronger, more athletic and deeper.

But that Tulane offense was pretty unstoppable, despite the weak schedule. It would have put points on the board vs Tennessee and would have had a chance to beat Tennessee in one game on a neutral field.

Just like Boise State or Utah. Would Utah have gone undefeated last season if they played in the SEC? Of course not, but it doesn't take away from their accomplishments.

Winning 21 out of 22 isn't a product of scheduling. And as a side note, I do believe that Tulane 98 would have scored 500+ points on SEC defenses. 10 years later, defenses still cannot stop a Rich Rodriguez offense when it has the right QB.

:banghead2:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

you really can't get it through your head that a weaker schedule=more wins? Seriously?

East Tupelo Community College had a serious D in 98!

:banghead2:

 

[BuckeyeVols]

I guess fans can always find reasons to say their teams "deserved" a NC shot. Teams like Tulane would not win over 6 games pr year on average if they had to play a SEC schedule. One bowl game, at the end of the year, when its their biggest game in school history.....while the SEC team is DISAPPOINTED to even be there (Bama vs. Utah last year), yes they may be able to compete on that stage. And to assert that Tulane back then could have scored 40 points on a top-shelf SEC D is pretty off the mark, IMO. Look at Texas Tech, versus a middle of the pack SEC D in their bowl game.....Ole Miss kept them in check the ENTIRE game until it was decided. Before the Tulanes, Utah's and Boise State's of the world get my respect.....they need to play more than one tough game per year.....and the only way they are gonna do that is switch to a big boy conference.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I guess fans can always find reasons to say their teams "deserved" a NC shot. Teams like Tulane would not win over 6 games pr year on average if they had to play a SEC schedule. One bowl game, at the end of the year, when its their biggest game in school history.....while the SEC team is DISAPPOINTED to even be there (Bama vs. Utah last year), yes they may be able to compete on that stage. And to assert that Tulane back then could have scored 40 points on a top-shelf SEC D is pretty off the mark, IMO. Look at Texas Tech, versus a middle of the pack SEC D in their bowl game.....Ole Miss kept them in check the ENTIRE game until it was decided. Before the Tulanes, Utah's and Boise State's of the world get my respect.....they need to play more than one tough game per year.....and the only way they are gonna do that is switch to a big boy conference.

k:

They don't do that playing in the Patriot League....I mean Conference USA.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm being a homer? All I have suggested is that Tulane would have had a chance to win a game on a neutral field and its a shame that they weren't given that shot. Thanks anyway.

That's not true. You said Tulane "would have put up 30-40 on Tennessee." That's an extremely bold thing to say, and you stated it is if it were fact. Don't back off now and act like you are the voice of reason.

 

[yont sum iss?]

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.

No one is arguing this, but to say that Tulane could have beaten Tennessee in '98 because Boise State beat OU in '06(or whatever year it was) is probably the worst attempt at logic that I have ever seen. Also, there is a big difference between the three schools you mentioned and Tulane. Utah, TCU, and Boise St. have all done something that Tulane hasn't and never will. They've maintained. Those schools now recruit against BCS schools on a regular basis. Remember too that the modern-day WAC and Mountain West are far supperior to the C-USA that Tulane played in in '98 or now for that matter. Also, don't give us that BS about how Southern Miss had as good a D as UT. That just proves your ignorance. Shaun King talks a big game now, but 11 years ago, I promise you he wouldn't have wanted to step on the field against that UT squad that held FSU to only 16 points. Not to mention that FSU went wire to wire #1 the following year with essentially the same team. But I guess Tulane would have beat them too and they had a better offense based solely on the fact that they scored a lot and had a lot of yards. UT, Florida, Arkansas, and Miss St would have all ran the table playing the same schedule that Tulane played that year. Hell, UT and UF may not have even had to play their first teams all year. I understand that you have pride in your team, but be real. You're basically saying that if Team A beats 10 college teams, but Team B beats 10 high school teams, then Team B would beat Team A. And no, I'm not calling the teams Tulane beat high school teams, but that is what your logic comes down to. Talk about Rich Rodriguez all you want, but he couldn't have gained one yard or made one tackle in that game. It would have been a bunch of donkeys trying to run with thoroughbreds and you know it. Look at my Avatar. See that dude? His name's Deon Grant and he would have picked your boy King three times if they had played. Congratulations though, you've turned me against an entire fan base because I have to imagine that there are others out there like you. And I know that you probably don't care but I don't care that you don't care. So take that.

 

[oUTKickedCoverage]

Circa 1998, most Tennessee fans... heck most fans of the top teams in the country... Tennessee, Florida State, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. had a lot of respect for what Tulane accomplished. But that schedule was a serious sticking point, in combination with some close games against said schedule.

Your assertion that the Southern Miss defense was better than Tennessee's defense is backed up by weak evidence at best, yet you continue to ignore anything to the contrary. It's called "blind" homerism for a reason.

I can confidently say that I would favor every team down to about #18 Virginia or #15 Texas to go undefeated against a schedule in which their most difficult game was against a team that unranked and 3rd in the SEC West Alabama beat easily, or alternately Louisville who 4th place in the SEC East Kentucky beat by 30+ points.