Five Freshman All-Americans in 2025

[LittleVol]

That doesn’t mean they will all translate into All-Americans but that’s very impressive.
And Tennessee has the SEC Freshman of the Year in Braylon Staley.

Perry, Sanders, Spillman, Redmond, and Staley.

Can you imagine going into a Blue Chippers house and flexing that you had 5 Freshmen All- Americans? Huge recruiting pitch especially if you’re a PrepStar at a different position than whatever those Freshman All Americans plays, and you play position of need.

I hope we give Heupel the time he needs. He’s starting to figure things out.

This was year 5 and by now our coaches are usually fired. But Heupel has it feeling like he’s just getting started.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

What service did we have 5 with? 247 gave us 2 (Sanders and Redmond) and On3 gave us 0.

 

[utvolpj]

What service did we have 5 with? 247 gave us 2 (Sanders and Redmond) and On3 gave us 0.

Sanders was one with On3 as well

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Sanders was one with On3 as well

That's 4 and 2 are second team. Are we combining the services and second and first teams to get 5? Has anybody done that for every program and compared? This may seem like splitting hairs but it's exactly the kind of stat that gets turned against a coach in 2 years but was misleading to begin with. If we are going to count mail-in votes and hanging chads for us you have to do it for everybody.

 

[utvolpj]

That's 4 and 2 are second team. Are we combining the services and second and first teams to get 5? Has anybody done that for every program and compared? This may seem like splitting hairs but it's exactly the kind of stat that gets turned against a coach in 2 years but was misleading to begin with. If we are going to count mail-in votes and hanging chads for us you have to do it for everybody.

It's 5 since Sanders is listed with On3. This isn't new and happens with all AA lists as there are quite a few. It's why the term consensus is used for some

These are done by the school. If you're using a 2nd team AA selection against a coach then you're an idiot

 

[Carp]

That's 4 and 2 are second team. Are we combining the services and second and first teams to get 5? Has anybody done that for every program and compared? This may seem like splitting hairs but it's exactly the kind of stat that gets turned against a coach in 2 years but was misleading to begin with. If we are going to count mail-in votes and hanging chads for us you have to do it for everybody.

So you questioned the original claim in your first post in the thread and then you want to argue semantics?

Classic.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It's 5 since Sanders is listed with On3. This isn't new and happens with all AA lists as there are quite a few. It's why the term consensus is used for some

These are done by the school. If you're using a 2nd team AA selection against a coach then you're an idiot

Okay, so we're combining services and counting 2nd team, counting hanging chads and mail-in ballots. All I needed to know. When some idiot says we should fahr Heupel in 2 years because we went 10-3 for "POoR DEvELoPMEnT" in not turning "5 freshman all-american" and the "most in CFB" into 5 All-Americans and 15-0, I will remember how this number was arrived at.

 

[utvolpj]

Okay, so we're combining services and counting 2nd team, counting hanging chads and mail-in ballots. All I needed to know. When some idiot says we should fahr Heupel in 2 years because we went 10-3 for "POoR DEvELoPMEnT" in not turning "5 freshman all-american" and the "most in CFB" into 5 All-Americans and 15-0, I will remember how this number was arrived at.

Yeah, we're doing it the same way they have for decades. Thanks for catching up

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

So you questioned the original claim in your first post in the thread and then you want to argue semantics?

Classic.

Semantics my ass, that's not 5, it's 4 and it counts 1st and 2nd teamers.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Yeah, we're doing it the same way they have for decades. Thanks for catching up

Lying to ourselves is definitely the Vol fandom way.

 

[Carp]

Semantics my ass, that's not 5, it's 4 and it counts 1st and 2nd teamers.

It's been shown that you are wrong and instead of owning up, you want to act like a child.

It's ENTIRELY semantics. We have 5 players who have been awarded with Freshman AA honors from national services. There is no deception to the statement because it is objectively true. At no point did the original post imply that we had 5 first team AP AAs.

Take the L and move on.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It's been shown that you are wrong and instead of owning up, you want to act like a child.

It's ENTIRELY semantics. We have 5 players who have been awarded with Freshman AA honors from national services. There is no deception to the statement because it is objectively true. At no point did the original post imply that we had 5 first team AP AAs.

Take the L and move on.

It's not been shown that I was wrong. I literally asked:



And the answer is "no service" (at least none who have been cited). We are combining services to get that total.

 

[Carp]

It's not been shown that I was wrong. I literally asked:

View attachment 798688

And the answer is "no service" (at least none who have been cited). We are combining services to get that total.

Conveniently you left out part of your post. Here let me help you with that:

What service did we have 5 with? 247 gave us 2 (Sanders and Redmond) and On3 gave us 0.

That is an objectively wrong statement in multiple ways, but especially in relation to the original post in this thread.

So you asked a fair question then followed that up with an incorrect statement. And then you proceeded to be snarky and argue with people about semantics when they answered your question in a way you didn't like.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Conveniently you left out part of your post. Here let me help you with that:




That is an objectively wrong statement in multiple ways, but especially in relation to the original post in this thread.

So you asked a fair question then followed that up with an incorrect statement. And then you proceeded to argue with people about semantics when they answered your question in a way you didn't like.

Both of my statements are correct, 247 did give us 2 and On3 did give us 0. I was asking what service listed us as 5. I then listed the 2 I had seen. I was asking though. If you can name a service that has 5 freshman all-americans for us, please do so. I will acknowledge that. I wasn't even saying one didn't exist. I just wanted to know which one it was. At this point, the answer seems to be NO SERVICE LISTED US AS 5 because no one has cited one. We are combining services.

 

[Carp]

That's 4 and 2 are second team. Are we combining the services and second and first teams to get 5? Has anybody done that for every program and compared? This may seem like splitting hairs but it's exactly the kind of stat that gets turned against a coach in 2 years but was misleading to begin with. If we are going to count mail-in votes and hanging chads for us you have to do it for everybody.

Totally not arguing semantics even though I just admitted it was splitting hairs......

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Totally not arguing semantics even though I just admitted it was splitting hairs......

F-ing hilarious that you call facts "semantics". You are wrong. No part of my statement was wrong, deal with it.

 

[Carp]

Both of my statements are correct. I was asking what service listed us as 5. I then listed the 2 I had seen. I was asking though. We are combining services. If you can name a service that has 5 freshman all-americans for us, please do so. I will acknowledge that. I wasn't even saying one didn't exist. I just wanted to know which one it was. At this point, the answer seems to be NO SERVICE LISTED US AS 5 because no one has cited one.

Sanders was indeed a freshman AA on ON3, so no, that statement was not true, even remotely. You were also quite unaware of the Athletic AA list, which makes that statement wrong by omission.

And if all you were doing was asking what service listed 5, there would have been no need for statements like "Okay, so we're combining services and counting 2nd team, counting hanging chads and mail-in ballots. All I needed to know."

A snarky comment designed entirely to argue semantics, rather than simply admit you were wrong or that you didn't know\ about the other lists.

Quite clearly you were not ok with the answers that were given. You were still wrong. It's ok admit it. Take the L and move on.

 

[utvolpj]

Both of my statements are correct, 247 did give us 2 and On3 did give us 0. I was asking what service listed us as 5. I then listed the 2 I had seen. I was asking though. If you can name a service that has 5 freshman all-americans for us, please do so. I will acknowledge that. I wasn't even saying one didn't exist. I just wanted to know which one it was. At this point, the answer seems to be NO SERVICE LISTED US AS 5 because no one has cited one. We are combining services.

Again, you were not correct

2025 On3 True Freshman All-American Team

On3 presents its 2025 True Freshman All-American Team, highlighting the top first-year players in college football.

www.on3.com

OL David Sanders Jr., Tennessee

There has never been a just a single AA service in our lifetime. Not sure why you're so hung up on something that you've never experienced

 

[Carp]

F-ing hilarious that you call facts "semantics". You are wrong. No part of my statement was wrong, deal with it.

So the term "splitting hairs" that you used to describe your own argument does not equate to semantics..... Got it.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Again, you were not correct

2025 On3 True Freshman All-American Team

On3 presents its 2025 True Freshman All-American Team, highlighting the top first-year players in college football.

www.on3.com

There has never been a just a single AA service in our lifetime. Not sure why you're so hung up on something that you've never experienced

Let's review:

I asked: What service did we have 5 with? This was simply a question, but the answer apparently is that there was not a service that listed us with 5.
I said "247 gave us 2 (Sanders and Redmond)". This was CORRECT.
I said "On3 gave us 0". This was NOT correct. I overlooked Sanders, so it would have been correct to say "On3 gave us 1".

1 does NOT equal 5.
2 does NOT equal 5.
You said: "

There has never been a just a single AA service in our lifetime.

I never said there was a single service, I asked "what service" which using plain, ordinary English language meaning acknowledges that there was more than 1 service. I really just wanted to know what service had listed us as having 5, and the answer it would seem, is none though since you guys are going the strawman argument route instead of just linking the list with 5.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

So the term "splitting hairs" that you used to describe your own argument does not equate to semantics..... Got it.

Factual details are not semantics, lol.

 

[utvolpj]

Let's review:

I asked: What service did we have 5 with? This was simply a question, but the answer apparently is that there was not a service that listed us with 5.
I said "247 gave us 2 (Sanders and Redmond)". This was CORRECT.
I said "On3 gave us 0". This was NOT correct. I overlooked Sanders, so it would have been correct to say "On3 gave us 1".

1 does NOT equal 5.
2 does NOT equal 5.
You said: "

I never said there was a single service, I asked "what service" which using plain, ordinary English language meaning acknowledges that there was more than 1 service. I really just wanted to know what service had listed us as having 5, and the answer is none it would seem as you guys are going the strawman argument route instead of just linking the list with 5.

Your question was irrelevant given how AA awards are done. There's no reason to ask or answer it unless you're completely unfamiliar with how it works.

No service awarded all 5. Why does that matter at all to the statement made?

 

[Carp]

Factual details are not semantics, lol.

But you were indeed wrong (you finally admitted it in the previous post, so congrats on progress).

And again, you admitted in your own post that you were splitting hairs, which is literally a synonym for semantics.

 

[Carp]

Some might say it's splitting hairs, but I think arguing over semantics can be defined as arguing over subtle differences between words or statements.

But anyways I am not going to sit here and argue the semantics on the word semantics, because that's just splitting hairs.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Your question was irrelevant given how AA awards are done. There's no reason to ask or answer it unless you're completely unfamiliar with how it works.

No service awarded all 5. Why does that matter at all to the statement made?

I wanted to see what list had 5. As you or someone else noted, people often compare the various lists and identify "consensus" all-americans (i.e. people earning all-american standing on a majority of lists). It would be nice to be able to say "5 all-americans, 4 consensus" if that was the fact, how else would someone know that without acquiring the various lists. I wanted to see what list OP was talking about. Sue me. It doesn't exist apparently though.