UT History

[VFL-82-JP]

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.

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.

Amen.

I share that view of Ga Tech, pocket protectors and all. Funny thing, one of our Pop Warner teams when I was a kid was the Yellow Jackets, and my uncle coached that team [I was on a different team, the Falcons]. They were the 2nd best team in our little league, all three years I played there, so I've always thought of Yellow Jackets as excellent football players. Heh.

I was flabbergasted when I dug into the history books a few days ago and found that A&M hasn't had a national title since like 1939 or so. I remember them being one of the key upper-echelon teams in our 1998 season--didn't they knock off Kansas State in the B12 title game, right after someone else knocked out UCLA, leaving the Vols as the only undefeated team in the country, and opening the door for FSU to take a crack at us? But yeah, hugely surprised at how long they've been without a title.

Thanks for talking through this stuff with me. Really enjoy these kinds of conversations.

 

[a vol n tears]

In my op I deliberately only went back to the 60s. I was not interested in all time stats as much of that relates to how long and how many games you have played. I originally wanted winning %s for semi recent history and see if the Vols were in danger of falling from the pertinent teams in college. After I looked at the stats and read many of the posts it actually gave me lots of other interesting facts I had not thought of and actually that is why I read this forum. I had no hidden agenda. Once again, I was not interested in all time wins or winning percentage. As mentioned previously, both Minn and Pitt were near the top at one time, just before they started the descent into mediocrity. Don’t think it can’t happen to any school. Attendance dropping will be one of the first signs. That is why the 9 - 4 seasons are needed every few years to excite the fan base into showing up. They need the expectation next season will be 10 - 3 or better.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I 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.

Actually, that depends on how long the prism is through which you view the concept of "always." I guarantee you that before Chuck Noll became head coach of the Steelers, they were positively abysmal. He reeled off four Super Bowl championships in six years. An instant dynasty was born and an intensely fervent fanbase was ignited.

 

[B-17 Pilot]

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.

I like this post! You are right saying football changes through the decades. I have been a diehard Vol fan since I was 15 in 1965! During my College years of 1968-1972, Tennessee was indeed relevant! They won 8-10 games every year and always was right up there in SEC standings. The key here is that nowadays there are so many more barometers that people use to verify and substantiate their team! Back in 1972, there was no Rivals to guage your recruiting, no Conference Championship game to strive for and certainly no play-off system to truly assess how your team did. Back in my day, if you won 9 games you WERE RELEVANT! Times indeed are different now!

 

[beneVOLence]

So basically Fulmer 2000-2008

Unless we can get Saban to come here, that's all anyone should expect. I would take the Fulmer years back in a second.

 

[OnlyGodForgives]

We only had one national championship in the 90's. You're just leaving out the the 5 others we have. Tennessee is a top 15 program all time.

No coach on the planet could sell any of those championships to potential new recruits, least of all the five that occurred when humans were still competing with dinosaurs for scarce resources. I guess it's up to the individual whether they bolster bragging rights, which is a stupid concept anyway, unless the individual expressing them actually played on the teams in question.

 

[RockyTop140]

No coach on the planet could sell any of those championships to potential new recruits, least of all the five that occurred when humans were still competing with dinosaurs for scarce resources. I guess it's up to the individual whether they bolster bragging rights, which is a stupid concept anyway, unless the individual expressing them actually played on the teams in question.

I agree. But that's not what the discussion is about.

 

[05_never_again]

Actually, that depends on how long the prism is through which you view the concept of "always." I guarantee you that before Chuck Noll became head coach of the Steelers, they were positively abysmal. He reeled off four Super Bowl championships in six years. An instant dynasty was born and an intensely fervent fanbase was ignited.

I guess my point is that Pitt and the Steelers were great at the same time during the 1970s, and I'm assuming the Steelers were probably a bigger deal. They won 4 Super Bowls in a 6 year stretch, and Pitt won their title in 1976. The Steelers being good didn't seem to prevent Pitt from being good. Then, in the 80s, neither team was very good.

 

[jakez4ut]

I guess my point is that Pitt and the Steelers were great at the same time during the 1970s, and I'm assuming the Steelers were probably a bigger deal. They won 4 Super Bowls in a 6 year stretch, and Pitt won their title in 1976. The Steelers being good didn't seem to prevent Pitt from being good. Then, in the 80s, neither team was very good.

don't forget about the pirates...they won a world series in there too.

pittsburgh is a pro sports town. it was back then, it is today.

the thing that endeared those Pitt teams to the city of pittsburgh is that so many of the kids on those teams were from W. PA and local kids.

and W. PA still produces a lot of good talent. they just go to PSU and OSU now. pitt just doesn't register for many of those kids anymore. Pitt has a fan base locally. but there's a lot more PSU fans and WVU fans regionally, than there are Pitt fans.

 

[05_never_again]

I was flabbergasted when I dug into the history books a few days ago and found that A&M hasn't had a national title since like 1939 or so. I remember them being one of the key upper-echelon teams in our 1998 season--didn't they knock off Kansas State in the B12 title game, right after someone else knocked out UCLA, leaving the Vols as the only undefeated team in the country, and opening the door for FSU to take a crack at us? But yeah, hugely surprised at how long they've been without a title.

Not only have they not won a title since the start of WWII, but they haven't even been really all that...good. I don't know any other way to say it. There are very long periods of time in their history where they finished unranked and/or had absolutely abysmal records.

Their best, most consistent run of play in the modern era looks to be from 1985 - 1999. They won 7 conference titles (Southwest Conference though, not Big 12) and finished in the top 25 in 13 of those seasons, but never a national title. They never even "almost" won a title. Their years in the Big 12 were entirely unremarkable - one conference title and finished ranked in the top 25 just 4 times.

I've seen A&M begrudged on VN and other places for having high expectations because of their history, but don't understand why. As a fan of a team with high expectations that also hasn't met them, I won't begrudge any fanbase that demands a lot of their team, provided that it is at least somewhat within reason. A Wyoming fan saying they want their team to consistently be the next UCF is one thing, but a fan of a team with a 105k seat stadium, a crazed fanbase, and more money than anyone else in CFB wanting to compete for a conference/national title despite having not won one in nearly 80 years is another.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If there is a team going into "Minnesota Syndrome" right now, it's not Tennessee, Texas, or even Nebraska. I'd put my money on Notre Dame.

Consider:

• 11 national championships
• most recent in 1988
• atrophying fan base, as Catholicism (and religion in general) decline in big parts of the US

The second bullet, while 10 years older than the Vols' last title, isn't the key bit. The key is that we can point at a clear demographic shift that has major impact on the program.

When I was a kid (a Catholic kid), Notre Dame was everyone in church's second-favorite team. There was your family's team (Vols), then Our Lady. For some Catholics, Notre Dame was the only team. We had priests who beseeched God's blessing on the coming week's game. It was as much a thing as bleeding orange, and it was taking place in every town in America with a Catholic church.

That leads to a LOT of young men who play football, play it very well, and want to go to South Bend for college.

That's gone.

So yeah, if there's a new Minnesota Syndrome in the making, it's those Leprechaun lovers in the Mid-west.

 

[jakez4ut]

If there is a team going into "Minnesota Syndrome" right now, it's not Tennessee, Texas, or even Nebraska. I'd put my money on Notre Dame.

Consider:

• 11 national championships
• most recent in 1988
• atrophying fan base, as Catholicism (and religion in general) decline in big parts of the US

The second bullet, while 10 years older than the Vols' last title, isn't the key bit. The key is that we can point at a clear demographic shift that has major impact on the program.

When I was a kid (a Catholic kid), Notre Dame was everyone in church's second-favorite team. There was your family's team (Vols), then Our Lady. For some Catholics, Notre Dame was the only team. We had priests who beseeched God's blessing on the coming week's game. It was as much a thing as bleeding orange, and it was taking place in every town in America with a Catholic church.

That leads to a LOT of young men who play football, play it very well, and want to go to South Bend for college.

That's gone.

So yeah, if there's a new Minnesota Syndrome in the making, it's those Leprechaun lovers in the Mid-west.

i'll add here that a lot of the conference realignments, the disbanding of the old bowl system etc...have also left ND out on an island by themselves. regionally, like you said, people have their team, and it's just been an easy transition to put ND in that polarizing franchise category. you either like them or hate them. and it's easy to hate them. many view ND as some elitist organization that no longer deserves a seat at the table.

the last time they were invited, they got sent to the kiddie table pretty quick....

the only thing that's preventing ND from being BYU is that they are ND. that's it. and that only goes so far.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

[A&M's] best, most consistent run of play in the modern era looks to be from 1985 - 1999. They won 7 conference titles (Southwest Conference though, not Big 12) and finished in the top 25 in 13 of those seasons, but never a national title.

Huh.

They weren't in the Big 12 when they knocked off Kansas State in 1998? My memory is going bad. Comes with age, heh.

 

[05_never_again]

Huh.

They weren't in the Big 12 when they knocked off Kansas State in 1998? My memory is going bad. Comes with age, heh.

They were, my fault. They won the Big 12 once, in 1998. They also played for it the year before but got destroyed by Nebraska. Those were there only appearances.

As a Big 12 school, they only went 113-86 (68-61).

 

[05_never_again]

i'll add here that a lot of the conference realignments, the disbanding of the old bowl system etc...have also left ND out on an island by themselves. regionally, like you said, people have their team, and it's just been an easy transition to put ND in that polarizing franchise category. you either like them or hate them. and it's easy to hate them. many view ND as some elitist organization that no longer deserves a seat at the table.

the last time they were invited, they got sent to the kiddie table pretty quick....

the only thing that's preventing ND from being BYU is that they are ND. that's it. and that only goes so far.

To their credit (don't want to give them too much credit though), I think they are realizing that they are increasingly on an island by themselves. They are a member of the ACC in basketball and a quasi-member of the ACC in football. The ACC deal they worked out really does give off an elitist vibe. They want to play ACC schools and reap the benefits associated with that, but they aren't officially a member of the conference. It seems to make the most sense logistically and culturally for them to eventually enter the Big Ten, but it doesn't look like that'll ever happen.

As long as NBC keeps paying them money for that exclusive TV deal, they'll remain independent. However, if the fanbase keeps atrophying though, that won't last forever. They seem to be a much polarizing team than they used to be. You have ND fans, and then everyone else dislikes them.

The BYU comparison is pretty apt. Notre Dame is a bigger name than BYU I think primarily because of two things, neither of which have to do with the actual relative success of their programs: 1) location (BYU is kind of out there by itself) and 2) the religion they are affiliated with. There are just simply a lot more Catholics than Mormons, and it is more mainstream.

 

[jakez4ut]

To their credit (don't want to give them too much credit though), I think they are realizing that they are increasingly on an island by themselves. They are a member of the ACC in basketball and a quasi-member of the ACC in football. The ACC deal they worked out really does give off an elitist vibe. They want to play ACC schools and reap the benefits associated with that, but they aren't officially a member of the conference. It seems to make the most sense logistically and culturally for them to eventually enter the Big Ten, but it doesn't look like that'll ever happen.

As long as NBC keeps paying them money for that exclusive TV deal, they'll remain independent. However, if the fanbase keeps atrophying though, that won't last forever. They seem to be a much polarizing team than they used to be. You have ND fans, and then everyone else dislikes them.

The BYU comparison is pretty apt. Notre Dame is a bigger name than BYU I think primarily because of two things, neither of which have to do with the actual relative success of their programs: 1) location (BYU is kind of out there by itself) and 2) the religion they are affiliated with. There are just simply a lot more Catholics than Mormons, and it is more mainstream.

that ACC deal in football is such a sham. and i think the ACC office is a bunch of wussies for agreeing to it.

you're a conference with Miami, Virginia tech, Florida State, Clemson, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse...and you "need" ND so much you're willing to let them partake in your bowl bid structure (at the expense of a full time, participating member in some cases) and not have to share a dime of your own TV revenue, or bowl revenue?

i've never understood what benefit the ACC got. i don't know that there's any "prestige" anymore in playing ND, and having htem as a full time memember in basketball shouldn't mean a hill of beans when you're the ACC............

yeah, definitely another reason to hate.

 

[05_never_again]

that ACC deal in football is such a sham. and i think the ACC office is a bunch of wussies for agreeing to it.

you're a conference with Miami, Virginia tech, Florida State, Clemson, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse...and you "need" ND so much you're willing to let them partake in your bowl bid structure (at the expense of a full time, participating member in some cases) and not have to share a dime of your own TV revenue, or bowl revenue?

i've never understood what benefit the ACC got. i don't know that there's any "prestige" anymore in playing ND, and having htem as a full time memember in basketball shouldn't mean a hill of beans when you're the ACC............

yeah, definitely another reason to hate.

I think the calculation was that it added prestige for football. I do know that Georgia fans were over the moon to go up there and beat them last year, so I still think there is a certain amount of prestige in beating them when they are good, especially in South Bend. If an ACC team on the rise did the same thing, I'm sure they would feel the same way. One of the most famous regular season victories for Tennessee was the Miracle at South Bend. Of course, that was during Notre Dame's glory period too. I agree that it adds nothing for basketball; the ACC is already the premier basketball conference.

If I were another ACC school though, I don't think I'd like the arrangement. ND gets to have their cake and eat it too. They get to partake and get the benefits without any of the costs.

 

[photovol]

Now 6-6 seems like a dream, it's that bad

 

[jakez4ut]

I think the calculation was that it added prestige for football. I do know that Georgia fans were over the moon to go up there and beat them last year, so I still think there is a certain amount of prestige in beating them when they are good, especially in South Bend. If an ACC team on the rise did the same thing, I'm sure they would feel the same way. One of the most famous regular season victories for Tennessee was the Miracle at South Bend. Of course, that was during Notre Dame's glory period too. I agree that it adds nothing for basketball; the ACC is already the premier basketball conference.

If I were another ACC school though, I don't think I'd like the arrangement. ND gets to have their cake and eat it too. They get to partake and get the benefits without any of the costs.

ok, so it's a museum. and it's cool to go to places like ND stadium much like it is cool to go to Wrigley or Fenway or...pick a "cathedral" of sporting venues....

i look at playing ND like i do when the steelers or panthers play the cowboys. i love beating them, because i can't stand them.

if others think it's 'prestigous' to go play in south bend, indiana, that's fine.

i'm not one of them.

and i'm completely dumbfounded that the presidents at the ACC agreed to the deal they did just to have the honor of being allowed to play ND every other few years.

panzies.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

To their credit (don't want to give them too much credit though), I think they are realizing that they are increasingly on an island by themselves. They are a member of the ACC in basketball and a quasi-member of the ACC in football. The ACC deal they worked out really does give off an elitist vibe. They want to play ACC schools and reap the benefits associated with that, but they aren't officially a member of the conference. It seems to make the most sense logistically and culturally for them to eventually enter the Big Ten, but it doesn't look like that'll ever happen.

As long as NBC keeps paying them money for that exclusive TV deal, they'll remain independent. However, if the fanbase keeps atrophying though, that won't last forever. They seem to be a much polarizing team than they used to be. You have ND fans, and then everyone else dislikes them.

The BYU comparison is pretty apt. Notre Dame is a bigger name than BYU I think primarily because of two things, neither of which have to do with the actual relative success of their programs: 1) location (BYU is kind of out there by itself) and 2) the religion they are affiliated with. There are just simply a lot more Catholics than Mormons, and it is more mainstream.

Yep.

One-third of all Christians in the US are Catholic. Only about 2% of them are Mormon.

If you live east of the Mississippi, or really outside of about 10 states along the Rocky Mountain range, you probably didn't even have a Mormon church in your home town.

Meanwhile, the entire country outside of the South (and Utah) is significantly Catholic. There are Catholic communities literally everywhere else. And pockets of Catholics even in the South (I grew up in one of those pockets):

[heh, no idea why those maps are different sizes, I pulled them from the same place, where they were same-sized *shrug(]

So yeah, national fan base--and, more important, national recruiting base--absolutely was a huge advantage for Notre Dame, one BYU never had. Growing less significant every year, though.

A curious thing is that religion is "dying" most quickly in most of the places where Catholicism is strongest: the atheism-as-a-religion Northeast, Mid-west, Florida, and West Coast / Northwest:

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Sorry, geeked out on demographics there for a minute. Heh.

Suffice it to say, Notre Dame is losing its national brand, and it's only going to get worse for them in coming years & decades.

 

[VolFan..But]

We only had one national championship in the 90's. You're just leaving out the the 5 others we have. Tennessee is a top 15 program all time.

TENNESSEE DOES NOT HAVE 6 NATIONAL TITLES. YOU SOUND LIKE SOME ALABAMA FANS. THE CONSENSUS THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY REAL FOOTBALL PEOPLE IS AP, UPI, USA TODAY, BCS, COACHES POLL AND NOW CFP. TENNESSEE HAS 2. AND THE 1951 IS REALLY A JOKE AS THEY PLAYED ONE SCHOOL (KENTUCKY #17) THAT FINISHED IN THE POST SEASON TOP 20 AND LOST THE BOWL GAME TO MARYLAND. IF NOTRE DAME COUNTED THE WAY TENNESSEE DID THEY WOULD HAVE ABOUT 30+. STOP WITH THE NONSENSE.

 

[peaygolf]

Sorry, geeked out on demographics there for a minute. Heh.

Suffice it to say, Notre Dame is losing its national brand, and it's only going to get worse for them in coming years & decades.

Numbers don't lie though.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

TENNESSEE DOES NOT HAVE 6 NATIONAL TITLES. YOU SOUND LIKE SOME ALABAMA FANS. THE CONSENSUS THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY REAL FOOTBALL PEOPLE IS AP, UPI, USA TODAY, BCS, COACHES POLL AND NOW CFP. TENNESSEE HAS 2. AND THE 1951 IS REALLY A JOKE AS THEY PLAYED ONE SCHOOL (KENTUCKY #17) THAT FINISHED IN THE POST SEASON TOP 20 AND LOST THE BOWL GAME TO MARYLAND. IF NOTRE DAME COUNTED THE WAY TENNESSEE DID THEY WOULD HAVE ABOUT 30+. STOP WITH THE NONSENSE.

Six (or seven) are nonsense, agreed. But the case for 4 is more solid than 2.

Here's an old post I made somewhere on these boards explaining that perspective:

FOUR LEGITIMATE TENNESSEE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS:

1938 - The 11-0 Vols were named #1 by nine of the 14 existing polls and scoring systems of the era. Did not include the AP, but that poll was still pretty new (in its third year) and not yet the dominant voice it would later become in selecting national champions.

1950 - Oklahoma (10-1) was named #1 by both the AP and the UPI. But 11-1 Tennessee was picked by the College Football Researchers Association, the National Championship Foundation, and other polls and systems. All totaled, six nationally recognized polls/systems picked Oklahoma, and six selected Tennessee. I count this one, split titles being a normal thing back in those days.

1951 - Both AP and UPI named 10-1 Tennessee the national champions (though worth noting that 8 other systems/polls named either 10-0 Maryland or 9-0 Michigan State)

1998 - In the first year of the BCS era, 13-0 Volunteers were crowned the (almost completely undisputed) national champs (Sagarin went with 11-1 Ohio State).

If you buy the ESPN angle that only AP / BCS / CFP results count, you won't accept the '38 or '50 championships. But looking at those seasons in the perspective of the day, they clearly were legit. In fact, the '38 championship was on sounder footing, at the time, than the '51 championship. But because we had AP on our side in '51, that's one of the two ESPN recognizes. ESPN doesn't know everything.

 

[jakez4ut]

TENNESSEE DOES NOT HAVE 6 NATIONAL TITLES. YOU SOUND LIKE SOME ALABAMA FANS. THE CONSENSUS THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY REAL FOOTBALL PEOPLE IS AP, UPI, USA TODAY, BCS, COACHES POLL AND NOW CFP. TENNESSEE HAS 2. AND THE 1951 IS REALLY A JOKE AS THEY PLAYED ONE SCHOOL (KENTUCKY #17) THAT FINISHED IN THE POST SEASON TOP 20 AND LOST THE BOWL GAME TO MARYLAND. IF NOTRE DAME COUNTED THE WAY TENNESSEE DID THEY WOULD HAVE ABOUT 30+. STOP WITH THE NONSENSE.

holy cap lock bat man.

and if Bama can claim the notery society of mobile national championship in 19 whatever, we can claim 6. in fact, i think you can buy a banner for your sports room at home that says as much...

chill. out.