UT History

[05_never_again]

Tennessee is not Army. We're not Minnesota. We're not even Nebraska, which made the very bad decision of moving out of its base, trying to fit into a new place that didn't fit well at all.

Why precisely is Minnesota not good anymore? At the time of their last national championship, 1960, they were a Big Ten and national power on par with other Big Ten schools like Ohio St and Michigan. They were a founding member of the Big Ten, have been playing football a long time (longer than Tennessee and Ohio St), and have won national titles in 4 different decades. In the late 60s, if you asked people to compile a list of the top 10 college football programs of all time, there's a good chance Minnesota would have ended up somewhere on the list or just missed out on it.

Today, Minnesota is dead program, and I say dead because at some point in their past they looked at the landscape and decided that they couldn't be great anymore, so they stopped trying. They reset their expectations. I don't think they are OK with being terrible today, but they clearly aren't necessarily trying to be competitive in the Big Ten or even in their division every year. They want to make bowls and not be embarrassingly bad. People see the Power T and think "Oh yeah, Tennessee, they are a big football school. Not good at the moment, but football is a big deal there." Nobody looks at Minnesota's logo and says "Oh yeah, Minnesota, big football school." But they would have in the 1960s.

I'm no expert on the history of Minnesota football but from looking at their annual records it looks like they had their "give up" moment perhaps in the early 80s. They won a title in 1960 and were Big Ten co-champs in 1967, so I'm assuming for a period of several years after that, at a minimum, the titles were fresh enough in their memory and they had expectations/aspirations of getting there again. But they weren't very good in the 70s, and then in the 80s they got really bad. I'm sure if you told a Minnesota fan in 1967 that they wouldn't be champs or co-champs of the Big Ten again for at least 51 years, they would have laughed at you.

I don't think that demographic changes alone caused their demise, because those same demographic changes have impacted Ohio St and Michigan, yet they are still national powers or at least highly relevant programs.

I guess my question is what exactly is the tipping point at which a school will reset their expectations and put any notions of being a power again to an end? I'm not saying that is happening or is going to happen to Tennessee or Nebraska, but it has happened at least one comparable school (Minnesota). Perhaps there are others. I don't count places like the service academies or the Ivy League schools in that category; totally different institutions from a place like Tennessee.

 

[pismonque]

Why precisely is Minnesota not good anymore? At the time of their last national championship, 1960, they were a Big Ten and national power on par with other Big Ten schools like Ohio St and Michigan. They were a founding member of the Big Ten, have been playing football a long time (longer than Tennessee and Ohio St), and have won national titles in 4 different decades. In the late 60s, if you asked people to compile a list of the top 10 college football programs of all time, there's a good chance Minnesota would have ended up somewhere on the list or just missed out on it.

Today, Minnesota is dead program, and I say dead because at some point in their past they looked at the landscape and decided that they couldn't be great anymore, so they stopped trying. They reset their expectations. I don't think they are OK with being terrible today, but they clearly aren't necessarily trying to be competitive in the Big Ten or even in their division every year. They want to make bowls and not be embarrassingly bad. People see the Power T and think "Oh yeah, Tennessee, they are a big football school. Not good at the moment, but football is a big deal there." Nobody looks at Minnesota's logo and says "Oh yeah, Minnesota, big football school." But they would have in the 1960s.

I'm no expert on the history of Minnesota football but from looking at their annual records it looks like they had their "give up" moment perhaps in the early 80s. They won a title in 1960 and were Big Ten co-champs in 1967, so I'm assuming for a period of several years after that, at a minimum, the titles were fresh enough in their memory and they had expectations/aspirations of getting there again. But they weren't very good in the 70s, and then in the 80s they got really bad. I'm sure if you told a Minnesota fan in 1967 that they wouldn't be champs or co-champs of the Big Ten again for at least 51 years, they would have laughed at you.

I don't think that demographic changes alone caused their demise, because those same demographic changes have impacted Ohio St and Michigan, yet they are still national powers or at least highly relevant programs.

I guess my question is what exactly is the tipping point at which a school will reset their expectations and put any notions of being a power again to an end? I'm not saying that is happening or is going to happen to Tennessee or Nebraska, but it has happened at least one comparable school (Minnesota). Perhaps there are others. I don't count places like the service academies or the Ivy League schools in that category; totally different institutions from a place like Tennessee.

It actually would be really interesting to see a bit of a deeper dive into what happened at Minnesota. Having a few down years is one thing but they seem to have undergone a more fundamental shift in identity. Seems like that would involve external forces and not just a run of bad luck that took permanent hold.

 

[05_never_again]

It actually would be really interesting to see a bit of a deeper dive into what happened at Minnesota. Having a few down years is one thing but they seem to have undergone a more fundamental shift in identity. Seems like that would involve external forces and not just a run of bad luck that took permanent hold.

Absolutely. Something happened to them, either internal or external, in the 70s and 80s. They were competitive and a relative equal to the other Big Ten powers until the 1960s. Perhaps the demographic changes impacted them more severely? They are more isolated from population centers than Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, etc. are, but I doubt that explains the whole thing.

It would also be really interesting to see if there are any other schools that this has happened to - meaning they were a power decades ago, faded, and we can pretty much conclude at this point they aren't coming back. You'd have to limit it to schools who are still P5 or big name programs today; schools like Army/Navy or Ivy League schools who were good in the 1920s but not today aren't really a relevant comparison.

 

[pismonque]

Absolutely. Something happened to them, either internal or external, in the 70s and 80s. They were competitive and a relative equal to the other Big Ten powers until the 1960s. Perhaps the demographic changes impacted them more severely? They are more isolated from population centers than Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, etc. are, but I doubt that explains the whole thing.

It would also be really interesting to see if there are any other schools that this has happened to - meaning they were a power decades ago, faded, and we can pretty much conclude at this point they aren't coming back. You'd have to limit it to schools who are still P5 or big name programs today; schools like Army/Navy or Ivy League schools who were good in the 1920s but not today aren't really a relevant comparison.

Yeah, and to be clear, by external I meant external to the football program, not to the school. It seems like something other than just football would have to be in play. But you're right, it also could include fully external forces like demographics or talent base issues or whatever. Interesting.

 

[a vol n tears]

Why precisely is Minnesota not good anymore? At the time of their last national championship, 1960, they were a Big Ten and national power on par with other Big Ten schools like Ohio St and Michigan. They were a founding member of the Big Ten, have been playing football a long time (longer than Tennessee and Ohio St), and have won national titles in 4 different decades. In the late 60s, if you asked people to compile a list of the top 10 college football programs of all time, there's a good chance Minnesota would have ended up somewhere on the list or just missed out on it.

Today, Minnesota is dead program, and I say dead because at some point in their past they looked at the landscape and decided that they couldn't be great anymore, so they stopped trying. They reset their expectations. I don't think they are OK with being terrible today, but they clearly aren't necessarily trying to be competitive in the Big Ten or even in their division every year. They want to make bowls and not be embarrassingly bad. People see the Power T and think "Oh yeah, Tennessee, they are a big football school. Not good at the moment, but football is a big deal there." Nobody looks at Minnesota's logo and says "Oh yeah, Minnesota, big football school." But they would have in the 1960s.

I'm no expert on the history of Minnesota football but from looking at their annual records it looks like they had their "give up" moment perhaps in the early 80s. They won a title in 1960 and were Big Ten co-champs in 1967, so I'm assuming for a period of several years after that, at a minimum, the titles were fresh enough in their memory and they had expectations/aspirations of getting there again. But they weren't very good in the 70s, and then in the 80s they got really bad. I'm sure if you told a Minnesota fan in 1967 that they wouldn't be champs or co-champs of the Big Ten again for at least 51 years, they would have laughed at you.

I don't think that demographic changes alone caused their demise, because those same demographic changes have impacted Ohio St and Michigan, yet they are still national powers or at least highly relevant programs.

I guess my question is what exactly is the tipping point at which a school will reset their expectations and put any notions of being a power again to an end? I'm not saying that is happening or is going to happen to Tennessee or Nebraska, but it has happened at least one comparable school (Minnesota). Perhaps there are others. I don't count places like the service academies or the Ivy League schools in that category; totally different institutions from a place like Tennessee.

Why precisely is Minnesota not good anymore? At the time of their last national championship, 1960, they were a Big Ten and national power on par with other Big Ten schools like Ohio St and Michigan. They were a founding member of the Big Ten, have been playing football a long time (longer than Tennessee and Ohio St), and have won national titles in 4 different decades. In the late 60s, if you asked people to compile a list of the top 10 college football programs of all time, there's a good chance Minnesota would have ended up somewhere on the list or just missed out on it.

Today, Minnesota is dead program, and I say dead because at some point in their past they looked at the landscape and decided that they couldn't be great anymore, so they stopped trying. They reset their expectations. I don't think they are OK with being terrible today, but they clearly aren't necessarily trying to be competitive in the Big Ten or even in their division every year. They want to make bowls and not be embarrassingly bad. People see the Power T and think "Oh yeah, Tennessee, they are a big football school. Not good at the moment, but football is a big deal there." Nobody looks at Minnesota's logo and says "Oh yeah, Minnesota, big football school." But they would have in the 1960s.

I'm no expert on the history of Minnesota football but from looking at their annual records it looks like they had their "give up" moment perhaps in the early 80s. They won a title in 1960 and were Big Ten co-champs in 1967, so I'm assuming for a period of several years after that, at a minimum, the titles were fresh enough in their memory and they had expectations/aspirations of getting there again. But they weren't very good in the 70s, and then in the 80s they got really bad. I'm sure if you told a Minnesota fan in 1967 that they wouldn't be champs or co-champs of the Big Ten again for at least 51 years, they would have laughed at you.

I don't think that demographic changes alone caused their demise, because those same demographic changes have impacted Ohio St and Michigan, yet they are still national powers or at least highly relevant programs.

I guess my question is what exactly is the tipping point at which a school will reset their expectations and put any notions of being a power again to an end? I'm not saying that is happening or is going to happen to Tennessee or Nebraska, but it has happened at least one comparable school (Minnesota). Perhaps there are others. I don't count places like the service academies or the Ivy League schools in that category; totally different institutions from a place like Tennessee.

Thank you. You did a much better job saying what I originally intended in my op. No school based on their past history is guaranteed to return. Minn just happened to be a great example. Miami, Fl, FSU, Neb, Texas, etc have no guarantee that they will be what they once were. I’m not a negative fan. I want a win every game.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Why precisely is Minnesota not good anymore? At the time of their last national championship, 1960, they were a Big Ten and national power on par with other Big Ten schools like Ohio St and Michigan. They were a founding member of the Big Ten, have been playing football a long time (longer than Tennessee and Ohio St), and have won national titles in 4 different decades. In the late 60s, if you asked people to compile a list of the top 10 college football programs of all time, there's a good chance Minnesota would have ended up somewhere on the list or just missed out on it.

Today, Minnesota is dead program, and I say dead because at some point in their past they looked at the landscape and decided that they couldn't be great anymore, so they stopped trying. They reset their expectations. I don't think they are OK with being terrible today, but they clearly aren't necessarily trying to be competitive in the Big Ten or even in their division every year. They want to make bowls and not be embarrassingly bad. People see the Power T and think "Oh yeah, Tennessee, they are a big football school. Not good at the moment, but football is a big deal there." Nobody looks at Minnesota's logo and says "Oh yeah, Minnesota, big football school." But they would have in the 1960s.

I'm no expert on the history of Minnesota football but from looking at their annual records it looks like they had their "give up" moment perhaps in the early 80s. They won a title in 1960 and were Big Ten co-champs in 1967, so I'm assuming for a period of several years after that, at a minimum, the titles were fresh enough in their memory and they had expectations/aspirations of getting there again. But they weren't very good in the 70s, and then in the 80s they got really bad. I'm sure if you told a Minnesota fan in 1967 that they wouldn't be champs or co-champs of the Big Ten again for at least 51 years, they would have laughed at you.

I don't think that demographic changes alone caused their demise, because those same demographic changes have impacted Ohio St and Michigan, yet they are still national powers or at least highly relevant programs.

I guess my question is what exactly is the tipping point at which a school will reset their expectations and put any notions of being a power again to an end? I'm not saying that is happening or is going to happen to Tennessee or Nebraska, but it has happened at least one comparable school (Minnesota). Perhaps there are others. I don't count places like the service academies or the Ivy League schools in that category; totally different institutions from a place like Tennessee.

That's a really great question. I don't know the answer. I'm not sure that anyone does.

Maybe among the Minnesota fan base, there's an answer.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Thank you. You did a much better job saying what I originally intended in my op. No school based on their past history is guaranteed to return. Minn just happened to be a great example. Miami, Fl, FSU, Neb, Texas, etc have no guarantee that they will be what they once were. I’m not a negative fan. I want a win every game.

The fact that it is so very rare must reassure you a bit.

Among all the Power 5 programs in the 130 year history of this sport, only one went from national contender to dustbin of history, and is no longer clawing their way back? Just one?

That tells us it is very rare. Hell, even Notre Dame seems to be making a bit of a comeback, and I'd put them at greater risk of program atrophy than us, Nebraska, or Texas, because of the way their fan base and recruiting in-roads have diminished with the decline of religion in big parts of America.

So yeah, I wouldn't point at Minnesota, and say "Ah-hah! There go we, in another 40 years!"

 

[Orange12]

Interesting to hear people talk about Bill Battle in Dooley terms.

He won 31 games in a 3 year period, had a much higher win % than Johnny and was 8-4 in year 4 (couldn't have all still been Doug's players). He was 6-5 his last season and Johnny was 6-5-1 in year 6. Not saying we should have kept him, just not sure he was the disaster we make him out to be

Battle's downfall was he was a bammer and he could not beat Auburn or Alabama. The most successful coaches we have had since Dickey have all had TN ties but I hope Pruitt can break that jinx. Go Vols

 

[snappervol]

I don't see that! A couple of year's ago, I look at every top 10 list that is possible in college football.
We were top 10,in: players drafted in NFL, all time winning %. Game attendance, bowl game appearances, bowl wins, and stadium experience
No we have never had a Heisman trophy winner and we have not won the SEC since 1998 but there are other programs who would kill to have what we have accomplished overall
So NO, I don't believe that we are less than an excellent program
Yes, we have slipped but I think we will do like Majors did when he returned and we will get better each year until in a few years, we will be excellent
Look at the program when Majors returned and look at it a few seasons later when they upset Miami in Sugar Bowl or when they beat Bo in Auburn. Didn't happen over night but did happen by making baby steps[/QUOTE

We beat Bo in Knoxville, and later that same season (Jan. 1), we destroyed the U in NOLA. This is a process, and is going to take some time. I for one am encouraged by who is in charge , and the vision being set forth, the culture being cultivated, just pleased with the overall leadership at this point (less than a year into this!).

 

[99gator]

I think the problem is we are in a more sophisticated era of fan. I know, funny right.

8-4 is normal and a respectable record. The problem is that most people also know that 8-4 probably also means that you didn’t win any of the games you circle on the schedule and your wins are made up of the out of conference cupcakes and bottom feeders of the league

But, back in the day (80’s or whenever) 7-4 was thought to be pretty good. Not great, but not bad. Most people today consider 8-4 to be a failure

 

[marvin616]

That's a really great question. I don't know the answer. I'm not sure that anyone does.

Maybe among the Minnesota fan base, there's an answer.

That is a good question.

What year did the Vikings start playing in the NFL?

Could fan interest and support have shifted from college to pro ball?

I know the Vikings had some good teams in the 70s and having a good pro team can take some of the sting out of seeing the college team slipping.

Edit: Just looked it up. Gophers last NC 1960. Vikings first season 1961. Coincidence? Maybe but it's a theory.

 

[VolFreakJosh]

Except now, Tennessee isn’t a attractive job anymore to proven HCs.

As much as I hate to admit it, we’re mostly used to get raises from their current jobs.

Too much damage has already been done by the Haslams and their puppets.

No wonder Pruitt is in a tough spot.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Thinking about the Minnesota question a little bit more, here's one thought.

Imagine all the Minnesota fans throughout the world. There are probably millions of them. But the only ones who could possibly remember a Minnesota national championship season are folks in their 60s and older. Realistically, 65 and above (that would be an 8-year-old kid's memory, in a guy now 65 years old, for Minnesota's final national title in 1960).

US Census Bureau estimates just about 15% of the US population is age 65 and older. Let's assume the Minnesotans are somewhere around average in that regard.

That means 85% of Minnesota's fan base have no memory of those heady years on top.

Perhaps that's a big part of why they no longer have urgent demand to return. Because they mostly don't remember ever being there.

...

Vols fans, on the other hand, only have to be in their mid-20s to remember our last national title. That means well over half (about 65%) of the Vols fan base are old enough to remember the 1998 season.

...

So that begs the question. Are all those Power 5 programs who have won a NC, but not in the last 58 or more years, are they resigned to second-tier status as well? Is the "Minnesota syndrome" common to all teams whose fan bases largely can't remember their last time on top of the pile?

Interestingly, no. It doesn't seem that way.

Looking only at Power 5 programs (not bothering with Yale or Army)...

Just under half of all Power 5 teams have won a national title at some point in their history. 30 out of the 65.

Ten of those, including Minnesota, haven't won it all since 1960 or before:

• 1960 -- Minnesota, Mississippi
• 1959 -- Syracuse
• 1958 -- Iowa
• 1954 -- UCLA
• 1953 -- Maryland
• 1939 -- Texas A&M
• 1938 -- TCU
• 1927 -- Illinois
• 1926 -- Stanford

It sure seems to me that there are some programs among those ten who still consider themselves among the elite of college football. Teams like A&M and Stanford.

So maybe it is possible to lose your drive for the top, the Minnesota disease, but then regain it decades later with new success.

Heck, I don't know. I just know we are nowhere near suffering Minnesota's fate.

Go Vols!

 

[a vol n tears]

"Food for talk" is being added to the list.

I know the common quote is "food for thought" but I wanted return comments, not just thoughts.

 

[a vol n tears]

double post

 

[a vol n tears]

I think the problem is we are in a more sophisticated era of fan. I know, funny right.

8-4 is normal and a respectable record. The problem is that most people also know that 8-4 probably also means that you didn’t win any of the games you circle on the schedule and your wins are made up of the outof conference cupcakes and bottom feeders of the league

But, back in the day (80’s or whenever) 7-4 was thought to be pretty good. Not great, but not bad. Most people today consider 8-4 to be a failure

I agree with your comments and thus why I pointed out that fans claim TENN as a Nat'l School with a most recent 60 year history with a winning % around 65%. College football changed soo much in the 1980s and 1990s and even more after the turn of the century. Money everywhere and more schools trying to be competitive. SEC exploding, better athletes, more athletes, amount of practice time and facilities. TV and media focuses on who can make the playoffs and who can actually win. Conference championships mean less (see Ala last year) and all attention is on playoffs. Fan start to feel their team is a "failure" with the 2nd loss. Back in the 60s - 80s fewer bowl games so finishing with 7 or 8 wins and getting a bowl invite made fans think their team was relevant. TENN won a NC with a 9 - 2 record. My original thinking was maybe TENN is not that far from winning as much as normal, it just doesn't mean as much now.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Many fans on here talk about getting back to playing TENN football again. I understand there are all ages of fans on here,so I decided to look up the winning % of each decade from the 60s - 2009.
Decade of the 60s = 63%. Decade of the 70s = 61%. 80s = 65%. 90s = 83%. 2000s = 67%
I didn’t go back farther because football has changed so much. I know UT won a NC in 51, but Minnesota won 4 NCs earlier in the century and other schools won that haven’t been relevant since.
I hope the Vols win every game but based on every decade but the 90s they haven’t been relevant. I’m sure we all want the 90s winning again but is there a possibility that instead of the 90 s being a normal, could they actually be an outleyer and Tenn is not a powerhouse school but just a Minn of present times. I know I’m gonna get roasted for this but it’s just food for talk.

Compare those numbers to other programs and get back to us

 

[HuntlandVolinColo]

98 is a long time ago for your last national championship...unless you ask Georgia or Yale.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

98 is a long time ago for your last national championship...unless you ask Georgia or Yale.

Or Michigan ('97), or Nebraska ('97), or Washington ('91), or Colorado ('90), or Georgia Tech ('90), or Notre Dame ('88), or Penn State ('86), or BYU ('84), or Pitt ('76), or Arkansas ('64), or Minnesota ('60), or Ole Miss ('60), or Syracuse ('59), or Iowa ('58), or UCLA ('54), or Maryland ('53), or A&M ('39), or TCU ('38), or....well, you get the picture.

There are 30-odd Power 5 programs that have won at least one national title. All but a dozen of them have gone longer than the Vols since they last stood atop the pile.

 

[marvin616]

JP is going into the archives tonight.

Nice research.

 

[vol2002]

You should expect 90s success or actually even greater. Simply because UT has it all to be a top 10 program every year. Besides mangament and coaches. Hopefully that’s fixed now.

I used to believe this but it’s just not true. We are probably the 7th best SEC program behind Bama, UGA, LSU, Florida, TAMU, and Auburn. They have everything we have plus better instate talent. USCe is close to us.

Then out of conference Ohio State, Texas, FSU and USC have everything we have and more in terms of instate talent.

Michigan, Notre Dame and Clemson are at worst the same as us in terms of having everything we have but lacking instate talent.

So, it’s not clear at all to me that we are a top 10 team that is being held down by our administration.

I think we are a very good program that can compete for championships, but we need some breaks to do so.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

Many fans on here talk about getting back to playing TENN football again. I understand there are all ages of fans on here,so I decided to look up the winning % of each decade from the 60s - 2009.
Decade of the 60s = 63%. Decade of the 70s = 61%. 80s = 65%. 90s = 83%. 2000s = 67%
I didn’t go back farther because football has changed so much. I know UT won a NC in 51, but Minnesota won 4 NCs earlier in the century and other schools won that haven’t been relevant since.
I hope the Vols win every game but based on every decade but the 90s they haven’t been relevant. I’m sure we all want the 90s winning again but is there a possibility that instead of the 90 s being a normal, could they actually be an outleyer and Tenn is not a powerhouse school but just a Minn of present times. I know I’m gonna get roasted for this but it’s just food for talk.

UT is one of 15 teams to win 800 games or more all time at the start of this season. They came in at 13th and did it in 2 fewer seasons total than anyone else on the list.

May not be a truly elite but this program is still far from irrelevant in the overall history of the game.

Michigan has the highest all time winning percentage at .729 so those winning percentages you posted aren't that far off from one of the elites.

A majority of programs will need several more decades of futility from the Vols to keep from looking up at them.

I'm about as negative about our current situation as anyone but all programs go through ebbs and flows.

 

[vol2002]

I will state my view a different way. There are only about 20 programs in college football that can recruit at the level necessary to win a national title. Tennessee is in that number but in my view is towards the bottom of that list.

 

[LWSVOL]

Many fans on here talk about getting back to playing TENN football again. I understand there are all ages of fans on here,so I decided to look up the winning % of each decade from the 60s - 2009.
Decade of the 60s = 63%. Decade of the 70s = 61%. 80s = 65%. 90s = 83%. 2000s = 67%
I didn’t go back farther because football has changed so much. I know UT won a NC in 51, but Minnesota won 4 NCs earlier in the century and other schools won that haven’t been relevant since.
I hope the Vols win every game but based on every decade but the 90s they haven’t been relevant. I’m sure we all want the 90s winning again but is there a possibility that instead of the 90 s being a normal, could they actually be an outleyer and Tenn is not a powerhouse school but just a Minn of present times. I know I’m gonna get roasted for this but it’s just food for talk.

the 90s is the outlier. I've followed program since the 60s and studied it a long time.. 90s not the norm.. Might return one day but will be after my life is over

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Either 1960 or 1970 could be used as a threshold for a before/after comparison involving Minnesota’s football fortunes. If you look at Minnesota’s winning percentage from its inception through 1960, they come in 12th overall, just behind Tennessee, Alabama and USC, and just ahead of, yes, Ohio State (I-A Winning Percentage 1869-1960). From 1960-present, Minnesota is 77th in winning percentage (I-A Winning Percentage 1960-2017). From 1970-present, their winning percentage falls even farther, coming in at 87th (I-A Winning Percentage 1970-2017).

If you look at Tennessee, on the other hand, the Big Orange still ranks 11th overall (I-A Winning Percentage 1869-2017), notwithstanding the past decade. From 1926, the year that Neyland assumed the reins of Tennessee's program, until 2001, Fulmer's last great team, Tennessee led the nation in winning percentage (I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2001). Over the course of that 75-year period, only eight teams won at least 70% of their games and Tennessee's .73305 percentage paced the pack. What does that ultimately signify? Winning 70% of your games over a sustained period of time is a difficult achievement, one that will put you squarely in the ranks of the traditional powers.

Vanderbilt, on the other hand, provides an interesting counterpoint in the opposite direction. From the inception of their program until 1926, when Neyland came to Tennessee, Vandy ranked 9th overall (I-A Winning Percentage 1869-1926). From 1926-present, the Commode Flushers rank 101st ( I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2017). The end of McGugin's tenure at VU and Tennessee and Alabama's ascension as Southern powers sent Vanderbilt's program into a death spiral.