At least we're not as bad as.....

#2
#2
Other side of the coin . . . it’s not a certainty that we’re better than any of those teams. In fact, 4-5 out of 6 of those teams would be favored against Tennessee on a neutral field. Unbalanced schedules . . . I’m happy we benefited from it this year. Other years it will screw us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chambers1517, rickyyrs and Rocky Top T
#3
#3
cbrown said:
Other side of the coin . . . it’s not a certainty that we’re better than any of those teams. In fact, 4-5 out of 6 of those teams would be favored against Tennessee on a neutral field. Unbalanced schedules . . . I’m happy we benefited from it this year. Other years it will screw us.
Click to expand...
It's about time unbalanced schedules benefited Tennessee. Playing Alabama, Florida and Georgia every year since 1992 (including this year) has been anything but a cakewalk for us. Auburn is the only other team in the SEC that has been hampered by unbalanced schedules like Tennessee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan, fefe and posivol
#4
#4
esarmstrong said:
It's about time unbalanced schedules benefited Tennessee. Playing Alabama, Florida and Georgia every year since 1992 (including this year) has been anything but a cakewalk for us. Auburn is the only other team in the SEC that has been hampered by unbalanced schedules like Tennessee.
Click to expand...
Yep. Up until we were finally able to beat Bama, we were essentially guaranteed two losses with them and Georgia. Add in Florida who we couldn’t beat even though we had the better teams at least a few times in that 15-year run of misery. I agree we were due.
 
#6
#6
cbrown said:
Other side of the coin . . . it’s not a certainty that we’re better than any of those teams. In fact, 4-5 out of 6 of those teams would be favored against Tennessee on a neutral field. Unbalanced schedules . . . I’m happy we benefited from it this year. Other years it will screw us.
Click to expand...
Logic is flawed since we beat 2 of them. Don’t care who is favored it’s who wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: temptn, deatojl, Volwonder1 and 1 other person
#9
#9
If they were actually interested in having a competitive and exciting tournament. IMO, of the teams with legitimate arguments for inclusion, only the "hottest" teams at selction time should be added.

Unfortunately UT would've been on the outside looking in, but it would be a much better tournament. As much as it pains me to say this (and it's excruciating), South Carolina would've given OSU a game and possibly beat them they way that QB of theirs has been playing..

Wouldn't that have been some sheeyut....
 
#10
#10
We wouldn’t have beaten any of those teams at their place. At a neutral site, we might win a couple. In Neyland, we obviously edged out Bama and Florida, and we could beat any of the others in a one game vacuum at Neyland, but if we played all 6 of those teams over the course of the season, we would have gone 4-4 at best in the SEC, more likely 3-5.

We were fortunate with the schedule this year.
 
#12
#12
m1al said:
If they were actually interested in having a competitive and exciting tournament. IMO, of the teams with legitimate arguments for inclusion, only the "hottest" teams at selction time should be added.

Unfortunately UT would've been on the outside looking in, but it would be a much better tournament. As much as it pains me to say this (and it's excruciating), South Carolina would've given OSU a game and possibly beat them they way that QB of theirs has been playing..

Wouldn't that have been some sheeyut....
Click to expand...

Horse hockey. There is no way USC least was gonna take down that Ohio State team Saturday night. Few teams in CFB history would have beat the Buckeyes at home that night when they were absolutely 'on"

The problem with jumping on the bandwagon with a "hot" team is that life has a way of balancing things out. A team can just as quickly go "cold". We got whipped. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Lamecocks if they came out and played like they did early in the year?
 
  • Like
Reactions: feathersax and Volwonder1
#13
#13
cbrown said:
Other side of the coin . . . it’s not a certainty that we’re better than any of those teams. In fact, 4-5 out of 6 of those teams would be favored against Tennessee on a neutral field. Unbalanced schedules . . . I’m happy we benefited from it this year. Other years it will screw us.
Click to expand...
Alabama and ole miss would be the only teams favored imo.
 
#14
#14
stolitonic said:
Horse hockey. There is no way USC least was gonna take down that Ohio State team Saturday night. Few teams in CFB history would have beat the Buckeyes at home that night when they were absolutely 'on"

The problem with jumping on the bandwagon with a "hot" team is that life has a way of balancing things out. A team can just as quickly go "cold". We got whipped. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Lamecocks if they came out and played like they did early in the year?
Click to expand...
The way the cocks were playing at end of season, I'd bet money that they would've given OSU a better game than whatever you call what we showed up with. I'm glad we didn't play them late this year. We wouldn't be talking about our terrible playoff game because it wouldn't have happened.

Believe me, I take ZERO joy in saying this.
 
#15
#15
esarmstrong said:
It's about time unbalanced schedules benefited Tennessee. Playing Alabama, Florida and Georgia every year since 1992 (including this year) has been anything but a cakewalk for us. Auburn is the only other team in the SEC that has been hampered by unbalanced schedules like Tennessee.
Click to expand...
Post 2011 UF should not be considered an elite opponent. They've won about 60% of their games and they have made a lot of stupid decisions in their program (Will Muschamp anyone).

They've had 4 coaches in 11 years. The fact they we typically pee our pants the majority of the time we face them doesn't make them a tough opponent.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
OrangeVolMan said:
Logic is flawed since we beat 2 of them. Don’t care who is favored it’s who wins.
Click to expand...
.
"Logic is lost on" means that someone is unable to understand or follow a rational line of reasoning, implying they are not thinking clearly or are being swayed by emotions rather than facts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top