Auburn did it, why not Tennessee?

[NashVOL93]

AU has spent more and stretched the rules more than us. How Can anyone seriously question that they're not more committed to winning. I'm not saying we don't want to win. Everyone wants to win. Putting you money where your mouth is and you butt on the line is a different matter. We're not committed enough to be an SEC contender.

How can Auburn have spent more than themselves? I don't understand what you're saying. Ya'll won the SEC last year.

 

[1972 Grad]

Sorry...read it, and missed it:loco:

No problem. I give Auburn a lot of credit last year. They pulled some impressive wins out of their........ well, hat. They got on a roll, and started believing in themselves. Hopefully, we can do really well this year , but the meat grinder schedule makes it tough to get momentum, unless you are really talented.

 

[omghulkhands]

Good question and caused me to count. I was incorrect in my numbers. 8 of the sophomores were signed by Dooley his last year. so 50 of the players are Jones signees meaning 62% are Jones players. My bad.


2 seniors (Quinn and Jones)
4 Juniors (Weatherd, Blair, Pearson and Williams)
12 sophomores
32 freshman

Jones has had 4 of his first class leave..

So roughly 2/3 of the players Jones has recruited in his tenure that are currently at UT (well, will be here in the fall) will be FR?

We know most of the returning players aren't very good, otherwise we would have been good sometime in the last 4 years.

So what you are trying to tell me is that based on these figures we are a solid 8 win team this year and if not then fahr Butch, right?

 

[LWSVOL]

So roughly 2/3 of the players Jones has recruited in his tenure that are currently at UT (well, will be here in the fall) will be FR?

We know most of the returning players aren't very good, otherwise we would have been good sometime in the last 4 years.

So what you are trying to tell me is that based on these figures we are a solid 8 win team this year and if not then fahr Butch, right?

only if you want to keep this run of 5 win seasons going.

 

[Boca Vol]

I would not agree that Auburn has an easier schedule, except for 2 games. I will get to those later.

Their out of conference schedule was Wash St, Ark St, Fl Atl, and W. Carolina. Ark St is equivalent to our game against So. Ala. Those 2 played to a one point game. Fl Atlantic is roughly equivalent to our game against W. Ky. Look up Fl Atl schedule.

W. Carolina is equivalent to our game against Austin Peay. The only tougher game out of conference was we played Oregon, and they played Wash St.

In conference, they had to play Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Alabama, Ark, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Tenn. Then they played Missouri in the champ game. As usual the last few years, the West beat the East because it is the stronger division.

We played Ky, Vandy, S.Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Florida, Alabama, and Auburn. So we both played Ala, Georgia, Missouri.

That leaves our remaining in conference games as Ky, Vandy, Fla, S.Car, and Auburn. Their remaining games were Ole Miss, Miss St, Ark, A&M, LSU, and Tenn.

I think that Ole Miss and Miss St were equal to Vandy. I think that Ark would probably beat Ky. I know that LSU and A&M were more than a match for Fl and S. Carolina.

I believe that their conf schedule was tougher than ours, except for one game. They got to play Tenn, and Tenn had to play Auburn. Throw out the head to head, and the schedules were equal.

:good!::clapping::huggy:

This was well written.

To all posters that complain about UT's schedule, imagine if UT played in the SEC West! Auburn had to play aTm, Bama, LSU, Miss. St., Ole Miss, and Ark (who sucked).

Yes, UT had Oregon but that was off-set by the SEC East.

 

[vol-un-tear]

Auburn is not a joke bro. They are Jekyll and Hyde but over tge past 35 years have had some incredible highs. They were screwed out of a national title in 2004.:hi:

They are trying to claim titles they didn't earn
They should have played SC in 04 but they didn't. It just makes them look silly. No doubt they play good football.

 

[champyvol]

Here's something to think about and express your views on. Auburn went from a 3-9 record in 2012 to a 12-2 record and a runner-up finish to the national champions last year. Now I am in no way suggesting that will happen for us, nowhere close. However, we saw how good the offense was in the spring. We really don't know how good the defense will be until the 16 new defensive players are added to the mix but I think we can assume they will be much better also. Now you see all the predictions where the Vols will only win 5 or 6 games. Why is it a stretch to believe that if Butch gets all the pieces in place we could surprise a lot of people and win 7 or 8 games? :crossfingers:

because we are not the barn.

 

[GreveHaller]

They should have played SC in 04 but they didn't..

No, they should not have. Period. They were the weaker of the three.

 

[vol-un-tear]

No, they should not have. Period. They were the weaker of the three.

8-0 record in the SEC usually seals the deal. Auburn was better than Oklahoma IMHO.

 

[GreveHaller]

8-0 record in the SEC usually seals the deal. Auburn was better than Oklahoma IMHO.

So that's all you have? 8-0 in the SEC "seals the deal". What's right below fail because that's your argument.

USC and Okl started the year #1 & #2 and stayed there the entire year winning every game while Auburn started at #17 and had to not only win but had to have others above them lose to even get to #3. And somehow you believe that Auburn should have magically jumped over either USC or Okl? There's your first fail.

Then there's the schedule. USC and Okl both went undefeated while playing a full Div 1 schedule of games. Auburn cant say that. They played The Citidel-a Div 1aa team. A weaker schedule.

Go do more research. Find strength of schedule or even record or opponents. Look at the number of ranked opponents all three played. You'll see the best two teams played. Above all, USC and Okl started at the top and never lost. No way in hell Auburn jumps them just because "going 8-0 in the SEC". Three teams went undefeated so someone had to be left out and the weaker one did - Auburn.

 

[vol-un-tear]

So that's all you have? 8-0 in the SEC "seals the deal". What's right below fail because that's your argument.

USC and Okl started the year #1 & #2 and stayed there the entire year winning every game while Auburn started at #17 and had to not only win but had to have others above them lose to even get to #3. And somehow you believe that Auburn should have magically jumped over either USC or Okl? There's your first fail.

Then there's the schedule. USC and Okl both went undefeated while playing a full Div 1 schedule of games. Auburn cant say that. They played The Citidel-a Div 1aa team. A weaker schedule.

Go do more research. Find strength of schedule or even record or opponents. Look at the number of ranked opponents all three played. You'll see the best two teams played. Above all, USC and Okl started at the top and never lost. No way in hell Auburn jumps them just because "going 8-0 in the SEC". Three teams went undefeated so someone had to be left out and the weaker one did - Auburn.

Not here to argue. You picked the wrong guy.
My opinion...
Playoffs will fix this.

 

[GreveHaller]

Not here to argue. You picked the wrong guy.
My opinion...
Playoffs will fix this.

ok. We know #1, #2 , #3.

Who's your #4?

Because if "playoffs will fix this" then you still haven't done enough research. While we were merely debating on whether Auburn should or should not have been in, you open up this notion that more teams will solve it. No, more teams mean even more teams get left out which clouds the picture even worse than one team getting left out.

#4 California (9-1)

#5 Utah (11-0)

#6 Texas (10-1)

#7 Louisville (9-1)

Which one makes it is and which ones dont? and still #11 Boise St (11-0) isn't in the mix.

The more teams you add, the worse the picture gets. And nothing is solved. Instead of Auburn crying "we got screwed" you have 8-9 teams saying "we got screwed". That's not fixing anything.

Not arguing either. Educating.

 

[vols-1]

So that's all you have? 8-0 in the SEC "seals the deal". What's right below fail because that's your argument.

USC and Okl started the year #1 & #2 and stayed there the entire year winning every game while Auburn started at #17 and had to not only win but had to have others above them lose to even get to #3. And somehow you believe that Auburn should have magically jumped over either USC or Okl? There's your first fail.

Then there's the schedule. USC and Okl both went undefeated while playing a full Div 1 schedule of games. Auburn cant say that. They played The Citidel-a Div 1aa team. A weaker schedule.

Go do more research. Find strength of schedule or even record or opponents. Look at the number of ranked opponents all three played. You'll see the best two teams played. Above all, USC and Okl started at the top and never lost. No way in hell Auburn jumps them just because "going 8-0 in the SEC". Three teams went undefeated so someone had to be left out and the weaker one did - Auburn.

The fact that OU's cupcakes were better than Aurburns cubcakes should be irrelevant. Auburn finished winning 5 games against teams that finished ranked and while OU only won two such games. Both played 11 teams from major conferences.

 

[vol-un-tear]

ok. We know #1, #2 , #3.

Who's your #4?

Because if "playoffs will fix this" then you still haven't done enough research. While we were merely debating on whether Auburn should or should not have been in, you open up this notion that more teams will solve it. No, more teams mean even more teams get left out which clouds the picture even worse than one team getting left out.

#4 California (9-1)

#5 Utah (11-0)

#6 Texas (10-1)

#7 Louisville (9-1)

Which one makes it is and which ones dont? and still #11 Boise St (11-0) isn't in the mix.

The more teams you add, the worse the picture gets. And nothing is solved. Instead of Auburn crying "we got screwed" you have 8-9 teams saying "we got screwed". That's not fixing anything.

Not arguing either. Educating.

Auburn was punished for beating us twice. We were ranked 10 in the regular season and 15 in the championship game. More education. I don't care who is ranked 4.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

TIFWIW but talking to family and friends in Oklahoma and they are scared to death about the game with UT..To hear them tell it, they would rather play Auburn than UT..Most of them are under the impression UT is on the brink of being nationally relevant again and believe the Vols are gonna pull off a BIG upset somewhere on the schedule for 2014..They are worried it might just be the Sooners..

I believe UT will definitely reach the 6 win mark and could quite possibly win 8 or 9..If 8 or 9 is indeed the regular season win total, I would consider that a much more remarkable accomplishment than Auburn's turnaround last season..JMHO

Really! You sure they're not saying "UT" as in "Texas"?!?! With all due respect, anyone who says they'd rather play the defending SEC champ over TN, which is in rebuilding mode, is being a little unrealistic. Auburn runs one of the most prolific, difficult to defend offenses in all of CFB, with lots of returning starters from a team that was a play away from a NC. They also return a very good D. How does UT compare? Would you as a UT fan rather see your schedule filled with UTs or Auburns? I know programs are cyclical, but AU's in a different league for the foreseeable future.

 

[sjt18]

We would have been better off to line up and run right at people last season. It might have gotten us another win. Even though the linemen were talented, they weren't recruited to play Butch's offense.

I don't think that would have worked... then again what they did didn't work too well either.

Somewhat agree though I think that is overplayed. IMHO, there was a chemistry problem with that group. They were 5 very, very talented guys. Big, strong, quick, smart,... yet through two OC's and a few OL coaches they never seemed to reach potential. I think they didn't have a guy that lead them to be "killers". Jones talked constantly about them not finishing blocks/plays. If you paid attention, you could see it.

One particular play against Mizzou illustrated it great. One of the RB's was battling his heart out to break free. A couple of OL's gave up on their blocks and stood there watching the tackle. There was something lacking from that group that apparently can't be coached.

That's one of the problems I had with the '13 with regard to coaching. If your OL is playing like that then its time to insert a guy like Crowder who will aggressively finish blocks.

 

[sjt18]

We don't know if an opponent lacks talent or not. We have not seen many of the replacements. I know Matty Mauck destroyed us last season and he is back.

Mauk started 4 games. He was under 50% completion in 3 of them including UT. He will now be missing the 3 best WR's (by far) from last year. They lost a TON of production. So they replace guys. UT replaces guys. Who replaces guys with more talented guys and who returns the more talented players? I'm going to say that is UT by a fairly wide margin.

 

[sjt18]

I have no idea if your numbers are right, but it doesn't matter. If 70 percent of the guys on the roster are guys recruited by Jones, then 70 percent of the roster are freshmen and sophomores (minus the handful of JUCO players recruited).

I was answering one of the reasons given for him being unable to win. Supposedly the players he inherited were such bad mismatches for his O and D systems that an insurmountable hurdle was created. If the players on this squad do not "fit" his system then it isn't because he didn't select them.

 

[sjt18]

The truly sad thing about this is that Volunteerhillbilly is somewhat right. Auburn fired a coach a couple of years off of a NC. The OP in grand optimism is hoping that UT can go as far and fast as Auburn did. Realistically, they can't. Auburn was loading with talent and experience then hired a coach that looks pretty good to this point.

Jones has brought in talent but the team will have a good bit of inexperience and some holes on the roster.

But back to VH's point. I think most of us can agree that a 9 game swing would be pretty unreasonable. I think most of us would a agree that going from 5 wins to 12 wins is a major stretch. But some people act as if expecting ANY IMPROVEMENT in the record AT ALL... is just too much to expect from a coach making $3.5 million per year.

It UT were Auburn and Jones followed up a 5 win first season with a 4 or 5 win second season... you can bet he would be on very hot seat entering his third year. They might even fire him over 8 losses with one coming to a grossly less talented team.

Tolerance of failure... doesn't produce success. Jones has to prove he can lead UT to wins. He has to show REAL improvement.

 

[OrangeIsLife]

It's June 2, soooooooo......... 13-0 BABY!!! We goin wup dey azzzz!!!

 

[beasley11]

I think with a bit of luck that it is possible. The likely scenario is a six win season.

luck was a HUGE factor in AU even getting to Atlanta. So maybe we have a few "lucky" breaks then we can have an 8-9 win season.

 

[deaconkane]

Auburn had talent...just a horrible coach two years ago...Now Malzahn is back and that made all the difference...We don't have that luxury...We WILL but not yet.

auburn has a proven top defensive coaching staff also... Their defense is only gonna get better..

 

[VFL1800FPD]

auburn has a proven top defensive coaching staff also... Their defense is only gonna get better..

im pretty sure their defense wasn't very good last year...

 

[photovol]

Because Tennessee doesn't have anywhere near the talent that Auburn had, not even close, that's why!

I know it's sad, but in 2 more years we may indeed have the talent to match up with the big SEC schools, I hope!

 

[thebjd]

:good!::clapping::huggy:

This was well written.

To all posters that complain about UT's schedule, imagine if UT played in the SEC West! Auburn had to play aTm, Bama, LSU, Miss. St., Ole Miss, and Ark (who sucked).

Yes, UT had Oregon but that was off-set by the SEC East.

People also forget that had we not sucked then Auburn's schedule would have been tougher, as would Bama's, UGA's, USCe etc.