UT History

[UTK]

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.

The reality is even if we’re the 7th 6th 5th ect best program conference, it’s all subjective. By stats alone, we’re the 2nd best. That’s the facts.

More facts are, while TN isn’t the best state talent wise, it’s a million times better than what it used to be. Also Knox is in an amazing location. Close to Georgia, the Carolinas, some parts of Bama, Virginia, ect. Plus we have appeal to be able to land recruits form Florida, Cali, Ohio ect ect

So even if we are the 7th best program in the SEC, the funny part is that could easily still be a 10 program nationally.

 

[TNfan#2]

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.

You also have a number of teams, primarily Group of 5 level schools, that are at least somewhat of a factor now that in some cases simply didn't exist 20 or 30 years ago, or if they had football, it was D2 or NAIA and really didn't matter.

Louisville, as an example, big school, ACC team. Back in the 90s they where way down in Conference USA. Or Utah, a member of the Pac 12. The same Utah that was once a Mountain West team and before that a WAC team of all things. Or even now Boise State. Back in the 80s and 70s they where an irrevelant Division 1-AA team, and before that a D2 team. Now, while they've only moved up to Group of 5 status, they're one of very few Group of 5 programs that can and do manage to compete with Power 5 schools on a consistent basis. And due to their success, they probably have a degree of impact on recruiting within territory that would normally be seen as Pac 12 or Big 12 territory.

Look at the SEC itself. A decade or so ago, who could have imagined the SEC, or at least the SEC Western Division, being impacted by Texas A&M of all teams. Likewise, a decade or more ago, who would have thought that the SEC East would be represented twice in a row by Missouri of all teams.

 

[vol2002]

The reality is even if we’re the 7th 6th 5th ect best program conference, it’s all subjective. By stats alone, we’re the 2nd best. That’s the facts.

More facts is, while TN isn’t the best talent state wise, it’s a million times better than what it used to be. Also Knox is in an amazing location. Close to Georgia, the Carolinas, some parts of Bama, Virginia, ect. Plus we have appeal to be able to land recruits form Florida, Cali, Ohio ect ect

So even if we are the 7th best program in the SEC, the funny part is that could easily still be a 10 program nationally.

I’m not certain we are the second best by stats. We have a head to head losing record to a number of SEC teams, including Bama, Auburn, Florida and Mizzou. Georgia is about to eclipse us in SEC championships unless something turns quick, and they will probably pass us in head to head wins (series even right now).

The other thing is none of those top 6 teams has had a stretch quite like we what we’ve gone through dating to 2008 (at least since around 1950, if you go back and look at their histories). They’ve each had ugly years and stretches but nothing like the bundle of consecutive losing seasons and complete national irrelevance we’ve had. Even Bama during the time of the Mikes didn’t have this many losing seasons - they always popped out a 10 win season every two or three years. We haven’t had one in 11 seasons and counting.

As fans we just have to accept the program we have and pull for the best. I think this notion we “deserve better” because we are a “top 10 program” fuels the constant turmoil and pressure on campus and it honestly holds us back from at least being respectable.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

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

70 and 71 he won with Dickey's players. Beginning in 72 his record began getting progressively worse each year. He still won some games, although one could make a legitimate argument that Condredge covered up his deficiencies as a coach the same way Dobbs covered up Butch's. In his final 2 seasons, he had home losses to Duke and North Texas State.

 

[MurphyVol]

70 and 71 he won with Dickey's players. Beginning in 72 his record began getting progressively worse each year. He still won some games, although one could make a legitimate argument that Condredge covered up his deficiencies as a coach the same way Dobbs covered up Butch's. In his final 2 seasons, he had home losses to Duke and North Texas State.

He actually won 10 games in 72. Not saying he was great be he could obviously coach. Maybe he just couldn't recruit. 50-22-2 was nothing to be ashamed of

 

[rocytop2624]

OK, I see I’ve ruffled a few feathers just as I thought. I think TENN will return to winning, but I have thought that for the past 10 years. In the SEC it gets tougher to rebuild all the time. This is the mega of college football. A poster above mentioned all time wins, championships, NFL players in TNs history. If you played in the 1800s and early 1900s you can expect big numbers. Based on the past 68 years, the VOLS have had 1 decade with a winning percentage above 65%. Let that soak in........Having a big budget, great facilities, best fans, and great stadium does not change the facts of the past many years. I myself was surprised by this. Maybe as fans we should be happy with big wins, upsets, and enjoy the games instead of worrying about championships. Mississippi seems to enjoy it.

Why don't you count 2000 to 2010 decade ? You are adding 8 years and about combining 2 decades.

 

[VolArmy74]

OP seems to be under some strange understanding that tons of programs win 90 percent of their games each decade. Reality is that the top winning percentage programs in CFB history have winning percentages in the mid 70s at best. Upper 60s make you a top 12 team ever.

Tennessee, ignoring the entire Neyland Era, ranked in the top 25 in winning percentage 1953-1960, 1961-1970, 1981-1990, 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 with a peak of 4th in 1991-2000. Tennessee is 12th in the nation from 1953-2010 in winning percentage and 15th in the nation 1953-2017. That's ignoring the most successful era of the program and including two of the worst eras, still 15th nationally since it ended. So Tennessee is in the top 10 percent of all colleges at winning football games since Neyland took over the program and still around the top 10 percent in the post Neyland era.

Here's another fact for you. Since Neyland every coach who coached here for 3 or more seasons, besides Derek Dooley, had Tennessee ranked in the top 10 at some point during their tenure. All but Dooley and Jones finished in the top 5 in the nation at least once as Tennessee head coach. So outside of Neyland, the greatest coach in program history, 8 coaches coached here 3 or more years and 6 of the 8 finished in the top 5.

Winning here is not uncommon, and shouldn't be counted as an exception. Literally prior to Dooley, every coach who coached here long enough to have a full slate of their own players did it at a very high level.

 

[MSCE09]

I don't expect the 90's winning, but do expect a respectful coached team that occasionally wins or competes for an SEC championship. If you do that, you will be in the conversation for the College Football Playoffs.

So basically Fulmer 2000-2008

 

[a vol n tears]

OP seems to be under some strange understanding that tons of programs win 90 percent of their games each decade. Reality is that the top winning percentage programs in CFB history have winning percentages in the mid 70s at best. Upper 60s make you a top 12 team ever.

Tennessee, ignoring the entire Neyland Era, ranked in the top 25 in winning percentage 1953-1960, 1961-1970, 1981-1990, 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 with a peak of 4th in 1991-2000. Tennessee is 12th in the nation from 1953-2010 in winning percentage and 15th in the nation 1953-2017. That's ignoring the most successful era of the program and including two of the worst eras, still 15th nationally since it ended. So Tennessee is in the top 10 percent of all colleges at winning football games since Neyland took over the program and still around the top 10 percent in the post Neyland era.

Here's another fact for you. Since Neyland every coach who coached here for 3 or more seasons, besides Derek Dooley, had Tennessee ranked in the top 10 at some point during their tenure. All but Dooley and Jones finished in the top 5 in the nation at least once as Tennessee head coach. So outside of Neyland, the greatest coach in program history, 8 coaches coached here 3 or more years and 6 of the 8 finished in the top 5.

Winning here is not uncommon, and shouldn't be counted as an exception. Literally prior to Dooley, every coach who coached here long enough to have a full slate of their own players did it at a very high level.

Apparently many on here think I have some motive or am making a statement trying to sway fans. It's an off week and I thought looking at semi modern winning %s might be interesting to compare to what we have / expect today. Actually got me to think success doesn't have to be conference champ or NCs. If you play 8- 4 long enough you'll eventually have some conference championships and some 5 - 7 seasons. I only started in the 60s because the game has changed so much. After reading many replies this was actually thought provoking for me.

 

[Woodlawn VOL]

Apparently many on here think I have some motive or am making a statement trying to sway fans. It's an off week and I thought looking at semi modern winning %s might be interesting to compare to what we have / expect today. Actually got me to think success doesn't have to be conference champ or NCs. If you play 8- 4 long enough you'll eventually have some conference championships and some 5 - 7 seasons. I only started in the 60s because the game has changed so much. After reading many replies this was actually thought provoking for me.

VolArmy74 just laid out facts for you, nothing about motives them were facts. GBO!!!!!

 

[VolArmy74]

Apparently many on here think I have some motive or am making a statement trying to sway fans. It's an off week and I thought looking at semi modern winning %s might be interesting to compare to what we have / expect today. Actually got me to think success doesn't have to be conference champ or NCs. If you play 8- 4 long enough you'll eventually have some conference championships and some 5 - 7 seasons. I only started in the 60s because the game has changed so much. After reading many replies this was actually thought provoking for me.

I'm not concerned with your motives, but what you imply is way out of context. When the greatest top 5 programs of all time have a winning percentage around 73-74 percent, being at about 69 percent puts it into context. You're acting like every program wins at 80 and 90 percent decade after decade. No program does that, they all fail at times. Our history from Neyland til now is that of a top 5 program when it comes to winning football games. Only Ohio State, Alabama and Oklahoma have won more football games than Tennessee over the last 90 years. Oklahoma won 73 percent of it's games during that span. Alabama 72. Tennessee is at 70 percent. You say things like "Tennessee only won 63 percent of their games this decade, and only 68 percent this decade". The context is that Miami is the 15th winningest football program of all time and they have won 63 percent of their games. Once you start factoring in long spans, Tennessee has won and won at a higher level than 90 percent of programs in college football. That's pretty elite.

 

[Chartervol]

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.

Relevant to what?

 

[05_never_again]

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.

I thought about this some more and I think another team you can put in the "Minnesota syndrome" category is Pittsburgh.

Pitt has 717 all-time wins, good enough for top 20 all-time. They've won titles in 4 different decades, the most recent in 1976. Perhaps most impressive is this, per Wikipedia: "Its teams have featured many coaches and players notable throughout the history of college football, including, among all schools, the fifth most College Football Hall of Fame inductees, the twelfth most consensus All-Americans, and the third most Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees." There is actually lot of tradition at Pitt, and still being top 20 in all-time wins is actually really impressive considering they've had double digit wins once since 1981, with several 3 or even 2 win seasons mixed in.

Johnny Majors left after their title in 1976, but the departure of their great coach didn't cause the program's decline; they finished in the top 10 in 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 and were ranked #1 in the country at one point during the 1981 and 1982 seasons. They start to slip in the mid 80s, and then once they entered the Big East the wheels came off. It seems easy and obvious to point to their entry into the Big East for causing their decline, but it isn't like the Big East was a conference they were incapable of competing in. Hell, the bigger name schools in that conference, including Pitt, eventually left it because it wasn't a great conference.

I'm too young to remember, but it seems like Pitt still probably had high expectations as a program throughout the 1980s and probably into the early 90s. However, those expectations eventually changed and Pitt pretty clearly today isn't even seeking to be nationally relevant. They want to be decent and make bowl games, which they've actually done consistently for the past several years.

 

[Backwards K]

I-A Winning Percentage 1869-2017

Vols have the 11th best winning pct in the history of College Football, NCAA Div 1 (10th in total Victories)

I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2017

Vols have 7th best winning pct since General Neyland came to Knoxville (1926) and 4th most wins since that time.

All of this info from the end of the 2017 season.

 

[a vol n tears]

I thought about this some more and I think another team you can put in the "Minnesota syndrome" category is Pittsburgh.

Pitt has 717 all-time wins, good enough for top 20 all-time. They've won titles in 4 different decades, the most recent in 1976. Perhaps most impressive is this, per Wikipedia: "Its teams have featured many coaches and players notable throughout the history of college football, including, among all schools, the fifth most College Football Hall of Fame inductees, the twelfth most consensus All-Americans, and the third most Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees." There is actually lot of tradition at Pitt, and still being top 20 in all-time wins is actually really impressive considering they've had double digit wins once since 1981, with several 3 or even 2 win seasons mixed in.

Johnny Majors left after their title in 1976, but the departure of their great coach didn't cause the program's decline; they finished in the top 10 in 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 and were ranked #1 in the country at one point during the 1981 and 1982 seasons. They start to slip in the mid 80s, and then once they entered the Big East the wheels came off. It seems easy and obvious to point to their entry into the Big East for causing their decline, but it isn't like the Big East was a conference they were incapable of competing in. Hell, the bigger name schools in that conference, including Pitt, eventually left it because it wasn't a great conference.

I'm too young to remember, but it seems like Pitt still probably had high expectations as a program throughout the 1980s and probably into the early 90s. However, those expectations eventually changed and Pitt pretty clearly today isn't even seeking to be nationally relevant. They want to be decent and make bowl games, which they've actually done consistently for the past several years.

Great info on this topic. Maybe a few too many similarities for comfort. I think TENN makes a comeback but college football is changing fast and for some reason, winning coaches are not looking to move here.

 

[VolArmy74]

Minnesota and Pittsburgh aren't the most popular teams in their state/geographic region, they are both second fiddle to other college team or NFL teams or both. Their recruiting landscape is terrible. They lack facilities. They lack budget. They are not a good comparison to Tennessee in most any respect regarding football.

 

[jakez4ut]

Minnesota and Pittsburgh aren't the most popular teams in their state/geographic region, they are both second fiddle to other college team or NFL teams or both. Their recruiting landscape is terrible. They lack facilities. They lack budget. They are not a good comparison to Tennessee in most any respect regarding football.

agreed. i don't have a frame of reference on Minn, but my sister in law went to Pitt, and i've been up there many times.

great school. they do have a very good football tradition and that city is a football city.

but they care A LOT more about the Steelers and Pens than they ever will about Pitt. and while i'm sure playing at Heinz Field sounds cool.......it's really not. students don't go to the games, always empty seats.

it's just not a student/fan friendly deal, and they've not been good in so long, no one cares enough to really do anything about it.

Pitt is more of a basketball school now, but that took a big hit when they let Jamie DIxon get out of town, and the Big East went away.

 

[05_never_again]

Great info on this topic. Maybe a few too many similarities for comfort. I think TENN makes a comeback but college football is changing fast and for some reason, winning coaches are not looking to move here.

I hear you. This is a great topic of conversation and I have to say the more I do research and think about it the similarities make me uneasy. I think the phrase "that can't/won't happen here" is a dangerous one, because it has happened other places and there isn't anything about Tennessee that would seemingly inoculate it from a similar fate. That isn't to say that there's nothing special about Tennessee, because there is, but there isn't anything about our program that renders it immune from slowly fading away. Over time, the sport changes. Some programs that were great during previous eras get left behind and are "replaced." Look at a program like Florida St - they have only been a consistent national power since the late 1980s. Florida wasn't one until the early 90s. It seems like those schools have been good at football for forever, right? But they haven't. There is a big tendency for people to assume that what is occurring now or in the recent past to persist indefinitely, and it doesn't work like that. And that goes the other way too...you see fans of other schools and some of our own fans saying things like it is time for us to re-calibrate our expectations and be OK with 8-4 being the ceiling of the program. Fans of other schools told Alabama fans to just accept that they were never going to return to anything resembling Bear Bryant glory days, that was long ago in the past, the landscape is different now, etc., then they hired Saban.

It's easy for people in their 20s or 30s (like myself) to not have perspective on things like that. For my entire life, Florida and Florida St have been good, so it seems like they have been good forever and that will persist indefinitely just because. Tennessee has been a power for a longer period of time, but the 90s were the greatest or second greatest era in the history of the program. That's when I grew up and all I ever knew for a period of time, so it is easy to just assume Tennessee will be good and take it for granted like the sun coming up in the morning. Pitt fans or Minnesota fans I'm sure thought those things about their programs at one time, but it eventually got to a point where the program got so far removed from the glory days that their fanbase, the majority of whom has no personal memories/experience of the glory days, slowly stops demanding it. Every so often you need to have a run of good years to keep new generations of fans interested and give them a taste of winning. It is getting too close to the point where it is so far removed from a run of good play that it starts to effect the willingness of younger generations to become fans.

That isn't to say that the emergence of new programs causes existing powers to fail, but it does seem to show that there are changing of the guards that happen for a variety of reasons; demographics, the prioritization of football at some schools relative to others, fan interest ebbing and flowing, etc. The difference between Pitt/Minnesota and Tennessee could be that Tennessee is in a region of the country that worships college football, so even after many years of struggle fans, boosters, admin etc. keep trying. The Steelers have always been a bigger deal in Pittsburgh than the Pitt Panthers, and Minnesota isn't exactly a college football hotbed, so once their teams faded away perhaps the fans weren't as broken up over it as Tennessee fans get.

 

[jbr82]

Way before my time but if Dickey would have stayed coach TN probably would have had a good run maybe through the 80s

 

[05_never_again]

Minnesota and Pittsburgh aren't the most popular teams in their state/geographic region, they are both second fiddle to other college team or NFL teams or both. Their recruiting landscape is terrible. They lack facilities. They lack budget. They are not a good comparison to Tennessee in most any respect regarding football.

Minnesota's recruiting landscape is currently terrible, but Pitt's is not. There is a lot of talent in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Minnesota's struggles can be explained by lack of nearby talent (although a neighboring school, Wisconsin, overcomes this obstacle very well) but Pitt's cannot.

The other reasons you point out might be reversing cause and effect. I don't know for sure, but I bet Pitt didn't lack facilities and budget relative to their peers in the 1970s. I bet Minnesota didn't in the 1960s. It seems totally possible that they lack facilities and budget currently because they fell off a long time ago, couldn't regain prominence, so slowly over time they stop trying. Pitt has always been second fiddle to the Steelers, but that didn't stop them from being good in the 1970s right along with the Steelers. Steel Curtain/Terry Bradshaw glory years with the Steelers happened right along with Tony Dorsett's Heisman and national title. Pitt actually has a lot of football tradition, way more than you would think, but they have been a completely irrelevant program for close to 40 years.

I can see a demographic argument explaining Pitt and Minnesota's struggles (they are in the Rust Belt, population boom/migration to the South, etc.) but those negative demographic trends didn't seem to hurt other schools in the area like Michigan, Ohio St, Notre Dame, and Penn St.

 

[dougvolfan]

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.

Decade of 2008-2017. 62-63 worst decade pct wise. Starting first full decade 1896. I got this from stassen.com

 

[dougvolfan]

Statistics. 100% of the people who drink water at some point in their life eventually die.

Its that darn fluoride. Gets you every time

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I thought about this some more and I think another team you can put in the "Minnesota syndrome" category is Pittsburgh.

I think so, too. And Georgia Tech probably fits the Minnesota Syndrome, as well.

There might even be a few others out there.

 

[05_never_again]

I’m not certain we are the second best by stats.

I agree with your post that we are probably the 6th or 7th best SEC program by how well "equipped" we are at the moment (current state of our "brand," ability to recruit, etc.) but it is really difficult to argue that we are any worse than 2nd best all-time by stats. It's pretty objective. The only SEC school that clearly has had more all-time success than Tennessee is Alabama.

Tennessee has the second-most all-time wins, the second-best winning percentage, is tied for 2nd in total conference titles with Georgia (we were alone in 2nd until last year), and has the second most national titles (by a wide margin over the third place teams). Mind you, we still hold this standing in the conference after having been essentially MIA for a decade and not fielding a team that finished in the top 10 since 2001. Georgia, LSU, Auburn, and Florida have had time to make up ground but are still behind in the key all-time measures.

If Georgia gets another conference title before we do, they can lay a stronger claim to 2nd best; however, they'd still trail in all-time wins, winning %, and national titles. IMO, Georgia is the only other school that can make a claim to second-best other than Tennessee, but when you trail in all the other stats and the all-time series is tied, it is hard to argue that all-time they are better than Tennessee. If their run continues for a few years and they end up closing the gap in all-time wins/win %, having more conference titles, and taking the lead in the all-time series, then you can say they'd surpassed Tennessee.

 

[05_never_again]

I think so, too. And Georgia Tech probably fits the Minnesota Syndrome, as well.

There might even be a few others out there.

Georgia Tech is an interesting one. I'm not sure they were ever as dominant as Minnesota and Pitt were at one point. Tech's success seems more fleeting and inconsistent than theirs did...they had a good run from 1951-56 highlighted by a title in 1952 and another title that came out of absolutely nowhere in 1990. Other than that, they have had long, long periods of anonymity. Tech didn't do much of anything from the late 50s until 1990, and they haven't done much since 1990. They also have a very strong academic reputation to uphold and an in-state rival that is larger, more resource-rich, and has just been around a lot longer.

Also, and this is purely anecdotal, but when I think of Georgia Tech I think of nerdy engineering kids who don't give a s*** about football. I just don't think it is important to their fans, admin, and boosters to be great at football, so they don't really demand it.

They certainly are in a part of the country though that if they ever were to undertake a big, institutional commitment to become great at football, they might be able to pull it off over a number of years. The Atlanta metro area is probably the single best metro area to recruit college football talent in the country.

One of my favorite stats is that Georgia Tech has a more recent national title than Georgia though.

On the flipside of this, there are some other schools that actually lack a longer-term track record of success but currently have very high expectations, like Texas A&M. If you knew nothing about CFB history and looked at A&M's stadium, fans, overall culture of the school, etc., you'd think they were one of the most successful CFB programs of all time, but they are not. Their expectations are a combination of living in a part of the country that worships football and having money coming out of their ears, not because they are trying to return to some level of national prominence they had 25 or 30 years ago.

That's why this stuff is so interesting...there isn't a single factor or simple answer for any of it.