Tennessee #11 on Coaches Poll Greatest Programs of All Time

[Behr]

Do y'all think GT should be top 25??? And do you think this is just based on stats or does history go into this? When I say history I mean coaches, awards named after coaches etc?

Dude. You started a thread asking why we think you suck.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I went through and looked at the top 16 teams compared to GT. For the most part GT beat those schools in the on field stats, winning %, bowl games, national championships etc. we did lose in the stats, like most NFL draft picks, Heisman winners (which the trophy is from a nex GT coach) ect. I'd take the on field stats over the other stuff any day of the week though. We also are very rich in history. If I'm not mistaken we were the first team in the south to win a national championship, the heisman trophy is named after John heisman (a coach from GT) Bobby Dodd was our coach and has an award for coach of the year. Frank Broyles is the assistant coach of the year award and he played and coached at GT. we have the oldest staium in college football. There's more of course but you get the point. I don't think we are a top team but we should be top 15 imo. UT should be better than some teams ahead of them as well.

You make a good case.

But it's a "what have you done for me lately" world.

Already mentioned I think Yale shoulda gotten at least a "Top 25 Emeritus" mention. Princeton, too. But everything they did, they did before WW II. So, forgotten today.

Could make a strong case for my alma mater, West Point. And if we were living in the 1940s or 1950s, you'd probably buy it. But today? No chance. Might as well be plugging a Top 25 spot for Sewanee.

So sure, Ga Tech can make a solid case. But how much of the case dates back to before the current ESPN beat writers were teenagers? Because all of that is mostly invisible to them. And they're the ones writing the storylines and casting the votes in lists like these.

And that's why Tennessee is down at #11 rather than at about #8 where we probably more correctly fit. *shrug* just the way of the world.

 

[Techfan1]

You make a good case.

But it's a "what have you done for me lately" world.

Already mentioned I think Yale shoulda gotten at least a "Top 25 Emeritus" mention. Princeton, too. But everything they did, they did before WW II. So, forgotten today.

Could make a strong case for my alma mater, West Point. And if we were living in the 1940s or 1950s, you'd probably buy it. But today? No chance. Might as well be plugging a Top 25 spot for Sewanee.

So sure, Ga Tech can make a solid case. But how much of the case dates back to before the current ESPN beat writers were teenagers? Because all of that is mostly invisible to them. And they're the ones writing the storylines and casting the votes in lists like these.

And that's why Tennessee is down at #11 rather than at about #8 where we probably more correctly fit. *shrug* just the way of the world.

That's definitely a good way to look at it. It's crazy how people won't do the research to see "all time" instead of looking at it from just memory.

 

[Boca Vol]

Flip us with Florida State imo. They didn't even start playing football until 1947 and weren't a remotely relevant program until the 1980s

I like me some KB, but does it really matter if you have to go back to the leather helmet days to break a tie-breaker?

At the end of the day, only the last 30 or so years matters.

 

[Techfan1]

I like me some KB, but does it really matter if you have to go back to the leather helmet days to break a tie-breaker?

At the end of the day, only the last 30 or so years matters.

J/w why do you pick 30 years? Why not 40 or 50? Or even 10 or 20 for more recent success?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

J/w why do you pick 30 years? Why not 40 or 50? Or even 10 or 20 for more recent success?

I'm not Boca, but already answered this one.

Ivan Maisel is in his mid-50s. Chris Low too, I think. Rece Davis is a bit younger, maybe mid-late 40s?

When did they all become teenagers and start intelligently following football, building up their memory for it? About 30-40 years ago.

That's the event horizon for what ESPN feeds us on their "All Time" stories and lists. Probably the same for SI, 247, others as well, but I follow ESPN most closely and know their habits.

 

[Techfan1]

I'm not Boca, but already answered this one.

Ivan Maisel is in his mid-50s. Chris Low too, I think. Rece Davis is a bit younger, maybe mid-late 40s?

When did they all become teenagers and start intelligently following football, building up their memory for it? About 30-40 years ago.

That's the event horizon for what ESPN feeds us on their "All Time" stories and lists.

I see! Thanks!

 

[Boca Vol]

J/w why do you pick 30 years? Why not 40 or 50? Or even 10 or 20 for more recent success?

Sure...go ahead and pick whatever you like. But FSU has only been relevant in the last 40 years or so. To dismiss them because they weren't relevant from 1900-1960 is a bit short-sided.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Sure...go ahead and pick whatever you like. But FSU has only been relevant in the last 40 years or so. To dismiss them because they weren't relevant from 1900-1960 is a bit short-sided.

The opposite, actually. To dismiss a team that has only been relevant for 30-odd years out of the 150-year history of the sport is LONG-sighted (as in, 'you can see a long way into the past').

The short-sighted folks are the ones including them.

 

[Boca Vol]

The opposite, actually. To dismiss a team that has only been relevant for 30-odd years out of the 150-year history of the sport is a LONG-sighted.

The short-sighted folks are the ones including them.

Maybe...but which are more relevant to today?

1. Princeton, Army, Minnesota

2. UF, Miami, FSU

I'm guessing #2.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Maybe...but which are more relevant to today?

1. Princeton, Army, Minnesota

2. UF, Miami, FSU

I'm guessing #2.

Sure, absolutely, today. But by saying that, you've pulled short-sightedness to a new level.

Which is more relevant today, Louisville or Nebraska?

Louisville, of course.

You think Louisville should be higher than Nebraska on a list of All-Time Greatest Programs?

Some very short-sighted people would certainly say so.

 

[Weezer]

I like me some KB, but does it really matter if you have to go back to the leather helmet days to break a tie-breaker?

At the end of the day, only the last 30 or so years matters.

Then the list shouldn't be "of all time". All time implies every era being looked at equally. If you go by the last 30-40 years, then you dismiss a lot of great football, like the entirety of General Neyland's time at UT.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Then the list shouldn't be "of all time". All time implies every era being looked at equally. If you go by the last 30-40 years, then you dismiss a lot of great football, like the entirety of General Neyland's time at UT.

Agree completely. They should define their terms.

If "of all time" means "of the last 50 years," they should name it "of the last 50 years." If they say "of all time," they should mean from the year the sport was first played inter-collegiality (1869, btw, just four years after the Civil War ended) to today.

I'm totally with you, man.

 

[Boca Vol]

Sure, absolutely, today. But by saying that, you've pulled short-sightedness to a new level.

Which is more relevant today, Louisville or Nebraska?

Louisville, of course.

You think Louisville should be higher than Nebraska on a list of All-Time Greatest Programs?

Some very short-sighted people would certainly say so.

Then the list shouldn't be "of all time". All time implies every era being looked at equally. If you go by the last 30-40 years, then you dismiss a lot of great football, like the entirety of General Neyland's time at UT.

Is going back to pre-integration a level playing field?

Since integration and a more uniformed game like we see today, isn't that the best measure? If you're coming down to "who did what in the 1920's-30's" how is that relevant to today?

 

[10ECStud]

It's just too bad we took a giant dump for the past 11 years otherwise we would be just outside the Top 5.

Considering the usual Big Ten bias and the fact that they have 2-3 legit teams each season it certainly helps those schools rack up those wins and boost win percentages.

Here's my opinion on who is looking up and who is heading down:

1 Oklahoma - It will take a long time for them to drop out of the Top 5 but with Stoops out, Meyer in Columbus and Saban in Alabama, their status at No. 1 is in serious danger

2 Ohio State - In a conference with very few contenders each year and Meyer at the helm, these guys will at worst remain solid in the top 2-3 schools overall

3 Alabama - Assuming Saban stays around for 5 years or so and continues doing what he does, they should establish themselves as the solid No. 1 school for a while

4 Michigan - I have a hard time agreeing with this ranking. Yes, a lot of wins in their history but realistically they have been 2nd or worse in their own conference for a long time now. I see them as a solid Top 10 school but would probably have them around 7th or 8th until they find themselves in a few more meaningful postseason games

5 Nebraska - I don't have a problem with them rounding out the Top 5, however, these guys will start to drop significantly over the next 5-10 years without a major resurgence (which I do not see)

6 USC - Hmm? Okay, I guess but this seems a bit too soon to me. Feels a bit like recent history to me and even given that they disappointed more than anything else. These guys will slide but probably stay in the Top 10 for a while

7 Texas - A Top 10 school maybe but with A&M now in the SEC and taking much of their talent away, they could see a big drop over the coming years. After all, it's been a while since they were even the best team in their state

8 Penn State - &$#! Their wins for the decades during the child rape should be forfeited and this school should not be mentioned in this poll

9 Notre Dame - They should start a bit higher IMO, around 4 or 5. That being said, the lack of commitment to athletics (particularly football) at this school will contribute to all those memorable years being lost in time

10 Florida State - These guys should be a Top 15 school but I could name 4 or more schools more deserving of a Top 10 ranking, namely Tennessee and LSU. They have shown a lot of consistency though in the past 30 years so there's no reason why they shouldn't rise in the coming years, especially if they can come through with a few more appearances in the Championship Game

Respectfully submitted,

A Nobody

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Is going back to pre-integration a level playing field?

Since integration and a more uniformed game like we see today, isn't that the best measure? If you're coming down to "who did what in the 1920's-30's" how is that relevant to today?

There are so many ways to divide up the history of the game of football, there's no right answer.

Start counting it as "real" when stoppage between plays was first introduced? (that's when the game started looking a bit more like modern football and less like rugby)

Or maybe the forward pass?"

Not until integration?

You can divide this baby up a thousand ways.

But inter-collegiate football started in 1869. So if you say, "Of All Time," you ought to be counting from there. Otherwise, you should say what you really mean.

 

[bamawriter]

Then the list shouldn't be "of all time". All time implies every era being looked at equally. If you go by the last 30-40 years, then you dismiss a lot of great football, like the entirety of General Neyland's time at UT.

It's "all time" based on the coaches poll, which started in the early 50s. The measuring stick sort of defines the timeframe in this instance.

 

[Nationdom]

Yankees dont count in my book

I put my nap sack on my back, my rifle on my shoulder.

 

[Weezer]

Is going back to pre-integration a level playing field?

Since integration and a more uniformed game like we see today, isn't that the best measure? If you're coming down to "who did what in the 1920's-30's" how is that relevant to today?

So in your mind, sports didn't exist until after racial integration? Is that in every sport? All of a sudden, past greats like Babe Ruth or Ted Williams in baseball, or, as I mentioned, the General in college football, their feats are dismissed because they happened in a time when segregation was ongoing? I don't buy that. But even so, if that's your measuring stick, proclaim it. Name your poll the greatest college football teams of all time post integration. If you dismiss all the years college football was played before that, then it's not of all time.

 

[Nationdom]

We should be ahead of Penn state and Florida st

 

[99gator]

I always have a hard time with this because era and schedule matter.

For instance, is Nebraska's football history based on playing in the Big 8 and having a 1 game schedule of Oklahoma every year? How do we know?

What we do know is that the prospect of them ever recapturing their former glory is extremely remote?

Is it a coincidence that Notre Dame football has become ordinary ever since their monopoly of television and media ended? How do we know?

 

[Weezer]

It's "all time" based on the coaches poll, which started in the early 50s. The measuring stick sort of defines the timeframe in this instance.

Did they specify it was based on the coaches poll? I didn't see it. If you just go by the poll era, the AP started in like '36. But either way, going by the poll era or any one individual poll, it's not of all time, is it?

 

[bamawriter]

Did they specify it was based on the coaches poll? I didn't see it. If you just go by the poll era, the AP started in like '36. But either way, going by the poll era or any one individual poll, it's not of all time, is it?

It's in the headline of the linked article and the title of the thread in which you are posting.

 

[TheColdVolTruth]

This isn't a subjective look back on the collective history of each team.

From the article:

"Like we did with the AP rankings, CFN devised a scoring system giving every UPI/USA Today national champion 25 points, the No. 2 team 24, No. 3 23, and so on down to the bottom of the top 20 in most years, top 25 after USA Today took over."

This is an aggregate ranking based solely on the rankings in the respective polls for each season since the inception of said polls.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

It's "all time" based on the coaches poll, which started in the early 50s. The measuring stick sort of defines the timeframe in this instance.

You're right, it's a Coaches Poll centric article and list. Their scoring system is purely based on final post-season UPI/Coaches poll results over the nearly 70 years that poll has existed.

So they should've named it "Greatest of the Coaches Poll Era" or "Greatest of the Past Seventy Years."

Words matter. They called their results the wrong thing. *shrug* no big deal, they can call it whatever they want. Doesn't make them right.