Total AP poll appearances in the 90's thru the present...

#26
#26
Winning % trend line from 1960 until 2007

Assumptions - wins vs. total games, we beat Wisc.
 

Attachments

  • volswin%since1960.xls
    17.5 KB · Views: 34
#27
#27
When in this decade have we been ranked #2?

Was it the first week of the season-which-shall-not-be-named? Was it 2001?
 
#29
#29
Sudden Impact said:
Go to the Dickey era and Battle's first 4 years was not that bad....with Dickey's recruits....We played no football for about 7 years the first of the Major's Era..

85 put us back on the map. resurfaced in 88 90. that I think is what most are talking about....
Click to expand...

1985 was huge for the Vols program! Sugar Bowl win over Miami is one of my favorites of all time.

My guess is that when people talk about playing "Tennessee Football" they are referring to the level of inspiration with which the teams of the late 80's played and not the final rankings. For example, in that Sugar Bowl game, we beat a much more talented team primarily with determination. The Vols 'willed' their way to victory.

Also, I think a lot of Vols fan use "Tennessee Football" to refer to expectations of Neyland-like results.

In all fairness, although we lost to LSU in the SEC CG, our team did play inspired "Tennessee football." It was the polar opposite of what happened against UF and Bammer. It's the kind of inspiration when coupled with the talent we now have that wins championships. Therein lies the hope!
 
#31
#31
BloodOrange said:
When in this decade have we been ranked #2?

Was it the first week of the season-which-shall-not-be-named? Was it 2001?
Click to expand...

2001. Last week of the season before the SEC CG we were #2.

In 2002 we started the season #5

In the season that shalt not be named... we started #3.
 
#36
#36
NCGatorBait said:
Then by your criteria UT has 0 out of the last 3.:question:
Click to expand...
NO, NO, NO. UTMBA has different criteria than winning for the UT staff. It's about how we approach the game, whether we get penalties, if we got close to winning a big game. By those standards, we have had 3 very solid seasons. For those schools with expectations of winning, maybe not, but for UT, it has been just fine.
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
NO, NO, NO. UTMBA has different criteria than winning for the UT staff. It's about how we approach the game, whether we get penalties, if we got close to winning a big game. By those standards, we have had 3 very solid seasons. For those schools with expectations of winning, maybe not, but for UT, it has been just fine.
Click to expand...

Love your sarcasm bro :thumbsup:
 
#39
#39
Have you contacted Mike Hamilton with this info? I bet he's offering a bounty for obscure stats that help prop up Fulmer's mythical success over the past 9 years.
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
Winning % trend line from 1960 until 2007

Assumptions - wins vs. total games, we beat Wisc.
Click to expand...


interesting stats -- thanks.

i can see that if someone began vol worship in 1990 it would be easy to think that we had always been at the top or close to it.
 
#41
#41
tm3 said:
interesting stats -- thanks.

i can see that if someone began vol worship in 1990 it would be easy to think that we had always been at the top or close to it.
Click to expand...

True. A lot of negavols didn't know the Vols that worked like heck and played inspired football to beat more talented teams in building UT's reputation for excellence that led to the CPF years. In some ways, younger Vol fans are a lot like UF fans only the younger Gators fans are even more spoiled--and they lack any basis in reality as UF had no history of winning prior to the 1990's.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
The drop from an average of 8th to 12th is clear evidence that the program is going down the tubes and is the very embodiment of mediocrity (until we make it further down the tube that is).
Click to expand...
Obviously all the teams are "going down the tubes" too if average ranking is any indication.

In the 1990's the No. 1 team avg was 3.5.... whereas in the 2000's its 7.99.

Also, in the 90's, you had to get to the #7 team before the average got to double digits. However, in the 2000's your in double digits by the #3 team.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
In the old days, this team would be 8-3 (11 game schedule - probably one of the scrub OC teams off the schedule and with no SECCG.) We would be SEC Champs along with LSU and Georgia or maybe just LSU (I don't remember how they determined the winner then).

We'd be bowl bound most likley to non-New Years bowl.

Yep - there were plenty of those years.
Click to expand...

3 teams with 6-2 records... would have been listed as co-champions prior to 1992.
 
#44
#44
allvol said:
Obviously all the teams are "going down the tubes" too if average ranking is any indication.

In the 1990's the No. 1 team avg was 3.5.... whereas in the 2000's its 7.99.

Also, in the 90's, you had to get to the #7 team before the average got to double digits. However, in the 2000's your in double digits by the #3 team.
Click to expand...
conferene realignments and parity across the board.

that and we still have a couple of years left in this decade before we're comparing apples to apples.
 
#46
#46
Polls are nice, but a better indication of success would be looking at where the Vols finished overall in the conference, ie if the standings were pre-1992:

1992 4th
1993 3rd
1994 3rd
1995 2nd
1996 2nd
1997 1st
1998 1st
1999 3rd
2000 3rd
2001 1st
2002 3rd
2003 3rd
2004 2nd
2005 7th
2006 5th
2007 1st
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top