Where The Vols Rank All Time In The SEC

[tvolsfan]

my mistake then


I may be wrong, but I'm only counting 7 AP/BCS/coaches poll. Are you including that one year where the UPI awarded them but none of the other major polls did?

UPI was the coaches poll, wasn't it?

 

[utvolpj]

Would have been more impressive if we didn't lose to USC in the bowl game that year. 1939 I think.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Why? We lost a meaningless game (and that's what bowl games were then) where we had to take a train cross-country into their backyard and didn't bring a whole squad?

 

[tvolsfan]

Why? We lost a meaningless game (and that's what bowl games were then) where we had to take a train cross-country into their backyard and didn't bring a whole squad?

Still don't see how UT didn't get a national title that season. I feel like the AP poll was biased then.

 

[bamawriter]

Still don't see how UT didn't get a national title that season. I feel like the AP poll was biased then.

Many polls and systems were extremely biased against Southern teams. Look up the Dickinson System.

 

[tvolsfan]

Many polls and systems were extremely biased against Southern teams. Look up the Dickinson System.

Didn't the AP basically just vote Minnesota national champion every year at the start? Or something like that. Either way, I have no problem with Tennessee claiming national championships for 1938, 1940, and 1950. I wouldn't have a problem with 1939 either if some bigger poll/ranking system awarded it to them. I'm actually surprised no no one did.

 

[WiseOlVol]

Because we're honest with ourselves.

==========================

Even those who give UT 6 NCs don't count 1939.

The Vols didn't give up a single point in the 1939 regular season (before NC voting).

No way Tennessee can't count 1939 as a NC.

Note that UT didn't give up a point in its last 4 regular season games of 1938 or its first 3 games of 1940.

That's 17 regular season games in a row unbeaten, untied and unscored upon. This record will never be broken,

From 1937-1941, the Vols won 33 regular season games in a row, including 3 consecutive 10-0 regular seasons in 38, 39 and 40.

 

[WiseOlVol]

Why? We lost a meaningless game (and that's what bowl games were then) where we had to take a train cross-country into their backyard and didn't bring a whole squad?

====================

And George Cafego was injured.

 

[WiseOlVol]

the gators being bad traditionally has become the stuff of legend. the gators were not a power and the gators did not win a championship, but the gators were not bad post WWII.

pre WWII, the gators were awful.

over the last 55 years, florida is the second winningest program in the SEC. i don't know if 55 years qualifies as being enough tradition, but it's not a small time period either.

=======================

55 years? Let's see, that's 1956 right?

From 1926 to August 2010, Tennessee was tied with Oklahoma as the winningest program IN ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Now UT us 2nd. That's 85 years and 100+ more teams trailing than Florida has behind it in the SEC.

 

[WiseOlVol]

If we're just going by AP/Coaches titles, we have 2.

I think LSU only has 3, by the way. At least they just claim 3.

I'm not really sure how to count UT's titles. I can't imagine many people remember if we were considered champions in 38, 40, or 50. Anyone who remembers 67 want to comment on that? I can't imagine many considered UT national champs after a 9-2 season where we were only ranked number 1 by Litkenhous.

==================

LSU won the 2008 NC with 2 losses.

 

[99gator]

=======================

55 years? Let's see, that's 1956 right?

From 1926 to August 2010, Tennessee was tied with Oklahoma as the winningest program IN ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Now UT us 2nd. That's 85 years and 100+ more teams trailing than Florida has behind it in the SEC.

i wasn't arguing that florida's history is better. my only argument is that it isn't quite as horrible as people make it out to be.

having no official championships until 1991 is certainly ugly.

but, most people act like florida never won a football game before steve spurrier.

 

[tvolsfan]

==================

LSU won the 2008 NC with 2 losses.

They were recognized as champs by all the major polls. UT was only recognized by Litkenhous. I wasn't around then, but I'm under the impression that no one paid attention to Litkenhous at the time. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

[Gatorules]

=======================

55 years? Let's see, that's 1956 right?

From 1926 to August 2010, Tennessee was tied with Oklahoma as the winningest program IN ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Now UT us 2nd. That's 85 years and 100+ more teams trailing than Florida has behind it in the SEC.

There is not a doubt that UT has a overall much better tradition and history. I became a UF fan in 1962 and I can honestly say that I never really cared about our record before 1962. I probably would have if they had won some championships. While UF's recent success (champioships) are great, those first 30 years took a toll on me.

 

[WiseOlVol]

9-2 in 1967 I saw the first game played against UCLA in the Coleseum against ultimate Heisman winner Gary Beban in what turned out to be a very close game..but we lost. Then I saw every other game that year including the Orange Bowl on Jan. 1 when we lost in the last second on a missed but very makable field goal to Oklahoma. We were ranked number two going into that game and came out of it being ranked number two. I find it interesting that that is one of the years we claim a national championship. It was a good year, but it was not a national championship year. And I did travel to every game in 1967 including L.A, Birmingham, Memphis (for Ole Miss).

======================

The Vols are right to claim the '67 NC -- here's why:

1. First, throw out the Orange Bowl loss to Oklahoma. Bowls didn't count in NC balloting, which was taken in early December.

2. When the NC votes were cast, the Vols were 9-1, having won 9 in a row after narrowly losing the opener to (then) #8 UCLA-Heisman/Beban in LA. The Vols 9-game streak was the longest in the country at the end of the regular season.

3. UT's last loss was in September, USC lost to Oregon State the week before the UCLA game.

4. The Vols were 6-0 in the SEC, including beating (pre-season) #2 Alabama 24-13, who hadn't lost a game since September 1965. [Alabama tied FSU in the opener and was #6 for the UT game, finishing 7th]. Alabama had won the NC in 61, 64 and 65, and was 11-0 in 66.

5. UCLA finished 8-1-1 losing to USC 21-20, and had a SOS of 11/118. UT's SOS was 14th and USC's was 18th.

6. When UCLA played USC, UCLA was ranked #1, having tied Oregon State in early November.

Bottom line, UT had a (slightly) harder schedule than USC, narrowly lost to UCLA on the road (USC narrowly beat them at home), hadn't lost in 3 months and easily took down Alabama on the road.

All things considered, it's a toss up at best. If one poll says UT is NC, USC fans can't argue.

 

[bamawriter]

======================


All things considered, it's a toss up at best. If one poll says UT is NC, USC fans can't argue.

Litkenhous was not a poll, it was a mathematical system. Litkenhous' formula spit out Tennessee at the end of the year. Notre Dame and Oklahoma were also selected by mathematical selectors in 1967, but they don't claim a national championship like Tennessee does. All the human beings who actually watched the games picked USC.

 

[tvolsfan]

======================

The Vols are right to claim the '67 NC -- here's why:

1. First, throw out the Orange Bowl loss to Oklahoma. Bowls didn't count in NC balloting, which was taken in early December.

2. When the NC votes were cast, the Vols were 9-1, having won 9 in a row after narrowly losing the opener to (then) #8 UCLA-Heisman/Beban in LA. The Vols 9-game streak was the longest in the country at the end of the regular season.

3. UT's last loss was in September, USC lost to Oregon State the week before the UCLA game.

4. The Vols were 6-0 in the SEC, including beating (pre-season) #2 Alabama 24-13, who hadn't lost a game since September 1965. [Alabama tied FSU in the opener and was #6 for the UT game, finishing 7th]. Alabama had won the NC in 61, 64 and 65, and was 11-0 in 66.

5. UCLA finished 8-1-1 losing to USC 21-20, and had a SOS of 11/118. UT's SOS was 14th and USC's was 18th.

6. When UCLA played USC, UCLA was ranked #1, having tied Oregon State in early November.

Bottom line, UT had a (slightly) harder schedule than USC, narrowly lost to UCLA on the road (USC narrowly beat them at home), hadn't lost in 3 months and easily took down Alabama on the road.

All things considered, it's a toss up at best. If one poll says UT is NC, USC fans can't argue.

I'm not arguing if Tennessee was deserving or not. Tennessee probably deserved some recognition in 1939, but it doesn't mean they can claim a national title for it. What I'm wondering was did people actually consider the Vols national champs in 1967? If people considered Tennessee and USC co-champs, then great. If the Vols just claimed a title because we felt the need to keep up with Bama, that's just weak, IMO. I could be completely off on this. Anyone who remembers please enlighten me.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like only Tennessee and Bama have titles like that. OSU claims 61 and 70. People say stuff about how the FWAA and NFF national titles are consensus titles, but I'm not sure people cared about those polls then, no one pays attention to them now, and I don't think people would pay attention if the FWAA just voted TCU number 1. I understand it wasn't always this way, but at some point, it just became a situation where the only two polls that mattered were the AP and Coaches Poll.

 

[n_huffhines]

==================

LSU won the 2008 NC with 2 losses.

In LSU's defense both losses were in OT. Putting that in historical context OT has been around for less than 2 decades. 12-0-2 (if they had gone down as ties) is a great record compared to a lot of champions over the history of CFB. Also LSU won the SEC and kicked the crap out of the ACC and Big 11 champs.

 

[WiseOlVol]

Litkenhous was not a poll, it was a mathematical system. Litkenhous' formula spit out Tennessee at the end of the year. Notre Dame and Oklahoma were also selected by mathematical selectors in 1967, but they don't claim a national championship like Tennessee does. All the human beings who actually watched the games picked USC.

============================

If you're an Alabama fan, you of all people should question the polls as representative of (i) the true analysis of the voters, and (ii) the correct choice.

In 1966, 2-time defending NC Alabama went 11-0 and finished behind 9-0-1 Notre Dame and Michigan State.

ALABAMA WAS PRE-SEASON #1 AND WON EVERY GAME!

In 1967, USC lost to Oregon State in mid-November and dropped to 4th behind #2 Tenneessee. Unlike Tennessee, USC didn't go undefeated in their conference.

Had the UT-Alabama game been the last of the year and the USC-UCLA game in October, would the Vols have been #1? Without a doubt.

As I said, a tossup at best. Vols can claim the NC.

 

[zjcvols]

In my opinion, I consider us having five titles and if someone had given us a #1 in 1939, I'd go with six. But I'm good with five: 1938, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1998.

 

[zjcvols]

Also, we might have two or three more titles if WWII had not happened, but that's a different conversation.

 

[Orngeblood]

Bama has 596 wins since the formation of the SEC compared to Tennessee's 598. However, the on-field results are 625 to 596. And I'm betting that the official results are back in Bama's favor after next year.

Bama also has more bowl appearances and wins since the formation of the SEC. Plus more wins over bowl teams and BCS programs.

But aside from, well, just about every category, you're right: Tennessee is 2nd to none.

Dont forget probations. Smu is ahead of you with the whole death penalty thing, but i have confidence your working hard to catch up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

============================

If you're an Alabama fan, you of all people should question the polls as representative of (i) the true analysis of the voters, and (ii) the correct choice.

In 1966, 2-time defending NC Alabama went 11-0 and finished behind 9-0-1 Notre Dame and Michigan State.

ALABAMA WAS PRE-SEASON #1 AND WON EVERY GAME!

And yet we don't claim 1966, because that was in the era of the wire service polls, and no wire service poll picked us.

1967 is only slightly better than our 1941 claim. But that's like saying that you barely out ran the fat kid in elementary school.

 

[WiseOlVol]

And yet we don't claim 1966, because that was in the era of the wire service polls, and no wire service poll picked us.

1967 is only slightly better than our 1941 claim. But that's like saying that you barely out ran the fat kid in elementary school.

======================

So you're saying the polls were right in 1966?

Of course they weren't.

What's worse, after pollsters had favored both ND and MS over Alabama, placing the Tide 3rd, they gave the NC to ND when ND, with a tie score in the 4th, twice (!) sat on the ball rather than attempt to move it for a FG.

The NCAA Football Guide in 1966 stated that because there was no playoff, "unofficial national champions" were determined in the "wire service" (AP and UPI) polls.

By (NCAA) law, ND and USC were unofficial national champions. Alabama has its argument in 66 and UT in 67.

 

[volz4life]

#2 wow I like....

 

[bamawriter]

======================

So you're saying the polls were right in 1966?

Of course they weren't.

What's worse, after pollsters had favored both ND and MS over Alabama, placing the Tide 3rd, they gave the NC to ND when ND, with a tie score in the 4th, twice (!) sat on the ball rather than attempt to move it for a FG.

The NCAA Football Guide in 1966 stated that because there was no playoff, "unofficial national champions" were determined in the "wire service" (AP and UPI) polls.

By (NCAA) law, ND and USC were unofficial national champions. Alabama has its argument in 66 and UT in 67.

The system was flawed, no doubt. It still is. But that doesn't change the facts. Instead of claiming 1966, Bama fans use it as an "us against the world" rallying point. Given that no one of consequence selected us, no one would take it seriously if we claimed it. Just like no one who isn't a Tennessee fan thinks the Vols won '67. You can claim it, but it is a lousy claim.

 

[volz4life]

Bama suckssssss