Coach Jones has good record after bye weeks

[tenninohio]

Sometimes the truth is simply the truth. Deal with it.

thanks man; and then there are those who were actually held out for "slow" reasons: hope the extra year helped you:whistling:

 

[Crazy Ivan]

No they weren't. (According to rivals, 2011: UT #13, Vandy #71, 2012: UT #17, Vandy #29, 2013: Vandy #19, UT #21...the only time they were within 10 spots of one another was 2013, and those players would have been freshmen. 2012's players were sophomores. The bulk of the players came from classes very far apart).

There was little difference between the '#17 and #19 in the 2012 class. In the 2011 class, Dooley recruited 9 4*s, but only 6 remained by the 2013 season, with D. Arnett, C. Clear, and M. Couch gone, and Marcus Jackson and Curt Maggitt being out due to medical RS. That only left Marlin Lane, Tiny, Byron Moore, and Justin Coleman, and we know that neither of the latter 2 would have started if Butch had anyone else that could have started over them.

Dooley also recruited 9 4*s in his 2012 class, but by last season 4 of those 9 were gone - Deion Bonner, Devonte Bourqe, C. Patterson, and Dante Phillips. That left Drae Bowles, Daniel McCullough, Danny O'Brien, LaDarrell McNeil, and Nathan Peterman. Only McCullough and McNeil played more than a half, and neither one has been very productive.

Dooley only recruited 5 4*s in the 2013 class, and only North and JRM contributed last season. North was obviously a big contributor, and JRM was on ST, but Austin Sanders, Paul Harris and Jason Carr didn't, and Harris and Carr were recruited over and left

How many 4 star recruits did Franklin start in the game? Surely it should be around the same as we did (13) if, as you maintain, the recruiting classes were similar.

You tell me; all I know is Franklin got a lot of the top in-state players that Dooley was recruiting,

Is your argument really that we can only expect our coach to beat teams with inferior talent when the team is injury free? Because that is never going to happen. We had injuries. Vanderbilt had injuries. It's part of the game.

No, that's not my argument and your assertion is silly. I'm saying that there was not a big difference in the talent level between UT and Vandy last season, and when you are starting your 4th string QB and your top WR is out, the loss was not unexpected.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Losing to Vanderbilt is a perfectly acceptable outcome to you, and yet I'm the negative one. Makes sense.

Again, a silly assertion. Losing to Vandy is never 'aceptable'. My only point is Vandy was a decent team last season, and we were starting an 18 year old QB who was not ready to play last season. And yes, you are the negative one.

I don't even know what this means. He "won't need the players"? Huh? You just argued that he couldn't be held at fault for last year because he didn't have the players. But now he doesn't "need the players"? Really? Why is that? Have all of Vanderbilt's players (who, according to you were just as highly recruited as UT's players) changed? Or, rather, is it because they don't have the better coach anymore? Hmmm...maybe coaching is a major factor after all.

Good lord. It was just a joke, much like 'we gon whip dey ass'.

OK, you say that injuries are never an excuse, that all teams endure injuries. I agree with the latter, but will argue that rarely do teams suffer the loss of the 3 QBs and have to start their #4 QB. Vandy beath both UGA and UF last season, both of whom suffered key injuries leading up to that game. So Vandy either beat both of those teams because of those injuries or because Vandy was a pretty decent team. Which was it?

 

[General Jack]

No reason vandy should ever beat the Vols. I don't care what anyone says. If Candy wins this year Butch should be hung upside down from his toe nails.

I don't think you're going to have to worry about us losing to Vandy this year.

As for last year, get over it. Tennessee football has been down, but it's not because of CBJ. He's just dealing with the consequences.

 

[KBVol]

Vandy didn't convert the 4th.....the refs did!!

To be fair, it was obvious that they got good push on that 4th and short play, got the first down and got a poor spot. I know by the letter of the rule that it shouldn't have been overturned, but there was no doubt in my mind that Vandy got that first down.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

To be fair, it was obvious that they got good push on that 4th and short play, got the first down and got a poor spot. I know by the letter of the rule that it shouldn't have been overturned, but there was no doubt in my mind that Vandy got that first down.

Therein lies the problem. Whether or not the correction represents an accurate call, a rule which stipulates that there must be "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the original call does not allow any wiggle room whatsoever for "common sense" to dictate that a reversal was warranted. There simply was no way to see through that mass of humanity and definitively establish that the original call was wrong.

 

[Boca Vol]

Therein lies the problem. Whether or not the correction represents an accurate call, a rule which stipulates that there must be "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the original call does not allow any wiggle room whatsoever for "common sense" to dictate that a reversal was warranted. There simply was no way to see through that mass of humanity and definitively establish that the original call was wrong.

That's not true. Rocky Goode said after the game that common sense was allowed. The replay official must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the call on the field was incorrect.

Well, the ball carrier was beyond where he needed to be for a 1st down even though you couldn't see the ball. If you rule out that he didn't fumble it, and it wasn't between his legs, it had to be in his possession (in his arms) which was past the point needed.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

That's not true. Rocky Goode said after the game that common sense was allowed. The replay official must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the call on the field was incorrect.

Well, the ball carrier was beyond where he needed to be for a 1st down even though you couldn't see the ball. If you rule out that he didn't fumble it, and it wasn't between his legs, it had to be in his possession (in his arms) which was past the point needed.

Yes, I have heard that many times and I don’t buy it for a second. The rulebook stipulates a much higher standard than "reasonable doubt." Indeed, Rule 12 (Instant Replay), Section 1, Article 2 (Philosophy) states:

“The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

This position is reiterated in Section 7, Article 1 (Criterion for Reversal) which states:

“To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor” (see pp. 106 and 114, respectively, at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jIHADg&usg=AFQjCNG8lZMiSAPx7NVKWessTw1-a8H_BA).

These are the criteria which commentators have correctly identified time and time again as prerequisites for reversal of an on-field decision. The use of “common sense” for this purpose constitutes an exercise in liberality that is not permitted by such precisely delineated criteria. Indeed, it is willful neglect of the rulebook on par with the "phantom double play" pivot permitted in baseball whereby the runner is ruled out despite the fact that the shortstop is often no where close to being in possession of the ball when he is actually in contact with second base.

 

[KBVol]

Therein lies the problem. Whether or not the correction represents an accurate call, a rule which stipulates that there must be "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the original call does not allow any wiggle room whatsoever for "common sense" to dictate that a reversal was warranted. There simply was no way to see through that mass of humanity and definitively establish that the original call was wrong.

Agree with your point 100%. But in reality, there's no doubt in my mind that Vandy converted that first down. If they hadn't overturned the call, which I agree by rule they should NOT have, we would've caught a break and been very fortunate.

 

[Boca Vol]

Yes, I have heard that many times and I don’t buy it for a second. The rulebook stipulates a much higher standard than "reasonable doubt." Indeed, Rule 12 (Instant Replay), Section 1, Article 2 (Philosophy) states:

“The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

This position is reiterated in Section 7, Article 1 (Criterion for Reversal) which states:

“To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor” (see pp. 106 and 114, respectively, at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jIHADg&usg=AFQjCNG8lZMiSAPx7NVKWessTw1-a8H_BA).

Exercising “common sense” as grounds for reversing an on-field decision constitutes an exercise in liberality that is not permitted by such precisely delineated criteria. Indeed, it is willful neglect of the rulebook on par with the "phantom double play" pivot permitted in baseball whereby the runner is ruled out despite the fact that the shortstop is often no where close to being in possession of the ball when he is actually in contact with second base.

Keep in mind, the refs have access to some angles we don't have at home. Maybe they saw something.

Even with that, if the video evidence showed the ball carrier past where he needed to be (even though you couldn't see the ball) but you knew from video evidence it wasn't fumbled or between his legs, you can beyond a reasonable doubt conclude the ball-carrier possessed the ball and advanced it far enough for a 1st down.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I don't disagree with your logic but, again, the rulebook requires a higher standard than "reasonable doubt." We have all seen any number of instances in which an on-field decision was allowed to stand, simply because the video evidence was not sufficiently clear. And, in the play to which we are all referring, the video evidence quite simply was not sufficiently clear to overturn the original call.

 

[Boca Vol]

I don't disagree with your logic but, again, the rulebook requires a higher standard than "reasonable doubt." We have all seen any number of instances in which an on-field decision was allowed to stand, simply because the video evidence was not sufficiently clear. And, in the play to which we are all referring, the video evidence quite simply was not sufficiently clear to overturn the original call.

They do have additional angles that we don't see.

However, video evidence shows 2 things...what you see and what you don't see. They're allowed to use both.

 

[majic73]

hey Butch still liking those Big East plays you run; but, come on.....yes, they are freshmen, but the quote in today's Tennessean.....17 and 18 year olds????
now how many of those, long ago identified talent, were probably held back somewhere in their "education", and are older than the typical college freshmen.
call them freshmen, but don't call them 17, 18 year old boys. That quote is getting old.

Big East Plays ? The running game is based in Dive philosophies that are standard issue in the NFL. The passing game is a straight up layered West Coast attack.
I have no idea how your remarks have any validity when everything about the offense is rooted in tried and true football that you see at every level of the game including the NFL.

I think most freshmen are 17 and 18 and the generalization that the majority of them have been 'held back' is just not true .

 

[Volosaurus rex]

They do have additional angles that we don't see.

However, video evidence shows 2 things...what you see and what you don't see. They're allowed to use both.

I dare say that we are going to respectfully disagree on this one. "[V]ideo evidence shows . . . what you don't see" sounds rather esoteric to me. The rulebook is anything but ambiguous on the matter. No video angle to which we were privy nor any data that you have presented will convince me that the "letter of the law" was not clearly violated in this case. You disagree. So be it.

 

[tenninohio]

Big East Plays ? The running game is based in Dive philosophies that are standard issue in the NFL. The passing game is a straight up layered West Coast attack.
I have no idea how your remarks have any validity when everything about the offense is rooted in tried and true football that you see at every level of the game including the NFL.

I think most freshmen are 17 and 18 and the generalization that the majority of them have been 'held back' is just not true .

"Just not true"?? According to the UT sports information department, of the 36 incoming true freshmen, 53% are 18 years old and 47% are 19 years old. Of the latter, several will turn 20 during this current season. There are no 17 year old football players at UT. So yes, there is a learning curve re: Div I, but, they already know how to lace up their shoes and hit someone. Lose the quote, Butch.
As disciples of Kelly, Jones and Dantanio may never approach wizardry of Spurrier, Saban, Miles, but, the dink and dunk approach begins the turn-around (bricks still at Grand Valley, Central Michigan, University of Cincinnati).
In northern OH we have quite a big Jones following with several well known recruits from this area; I'm just saying, change the football spin(I mean language) regarding "babes on the field". Treat them as men with expectations and start referring to them as such.:detective:

 

[daj2576]

They do have additional angles that we don't see.

However, video evidence shows 2 things...what you see and what you don't see. They're allowed to use both.

Where do the review officials get additional angles? To my knowledge there aren't extra officiating cameras that aren't used by the broadcast crew, but I could be wrong.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Where do the review officials get additional angles? To my knowledge there aren't extra officiating cameras that aren't used by the broadcast crew, but I could be wrong.

The SEC may not have an identical policy, but this information from the Big Ten Conference's website (Big Ten Conference Official Site), although dated, suggests that your assertion is correct:

"Q. What will be the source of the video for replays?

A. All reviewable video will come direct from the television network broadcasting the game (ABC Sports, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Plus Television) and no other source. The Big Ten has had 90 percent or more of its 44 intraconference games televised during the past five seasons. If an intraconference game will not be televised, then the Big Ten will arrange for video exposure of the game in order to provide the same, consistent coverage throughout the Conference season."

 

[daj2576]

The SEC may not have an identical policy, but this information from the Big Ten Conference's website (Big Ten Conference Official Site), although dated, suggests that your assertion is correct:

"Q. What will be the source of the video for replays?

A. All reviewable video will come direct from the television network broadcasting the game (ABC Sports, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Plus Television) and no other source. The Big Ten has had 90 percent or more of its 44 intraconference games televised during the past five seasons. If an intraconference game will not be televised, then the Big Ten will arrange for video exposure of the game in order to provide the same, consistent coverage throughout the Conference season."

That seems to be correct. I also have a recollection of hearing announcers say that the replay officials are looking at the same views they have.

 

[Boca Vol]

Where do the review officials get additional angles? To my knowledge there aren't extra officiating cameras that aren't used by the broadcast crew, but I could be wrong.

Rocky Goode mentioned that last week. I would think they would have the same access as we do at home. If they had additional angles why wouldn't they show them on TV?

I thought it was odd as well, but that's what he said.

 

[DaddyChad]

I love the stats but let's be honest this is a young team and most of those stats were in inferior conferences.

I do think we have a good shot versus UGA but IDK that stats really mean that much.

 

[oregonvol]

Almost missed this response to me, since you didn't actually use quotes. Oversight or attempt to be clever? No idea. But let's correct the usual sophistry...

There was little difference between the '#17 and #19 in the 2012 class. In the 2011 class, Dooley recruited 9 4*s, but only 6 remained by the 2013 season, with D. Arnett, C. Clear, and M. Couch gone, and Marcus Jackson and Curt Maggitt being out due to medical RS. That only left Marlin Lane, Tiny, Byron Moore, and Justin Coleman, and we know that neither of the latter 2 would have started if Butch had anyone else that could have started over them.

Dooley also recruited 9 4*s in his 2012 class, but by last season 4 of those 9 were gone - Deion Bonner, Devonte Bourqe, C. Patterson, and Dante Phillips. That left Drae Bowles, Daniel McCullough, Danny O'Brien, LaDarrell McNeil, and Nathan Peterman. Only McCullough and McNeil played more than a half, and neither one has been very productive.

Dooley only recruited 5 4*s in the 2013 class, and only North and JRM contributed last season. North was obviously a big contributor, and JRM was on ST, but Austin Sanders, Paul Harris and Jason Carr didn't, and Harris and Carr were recruited over and left

First of all, UT had the #17 ranked class in 2012 & Vanderbilt had the #29 (not #19, as you stated). Not sure if you were trying to be dishonest, but I'll assume you just misread my post.

Second, simply listing the players that left UT or didn't pan out here proves nothing, since you obviously didn't list the players Vanderbilt recruited and where they ended up. Since there was no reason to list this without comparing it to Vanderbilt, I can only conclude that you are listing it in an attempt to obscure the issue.

We had far more highly ranked/highly sought after recruits signed over the 4 years preceding the 2013 UT/Vandy game, and even with attrition, we had far more still playing and active in the program.

How many 4 star recruits did Franklin start in the game? Surely it should be around the same as we did (13) if, as you maintain, the recruiting classes were similar.

You tell me; all I know is Franklin got a lot of the top in-state players that Dooley was recruiting,

Somehow you guys always avoid answering this question. So, I finally went back and looked. Near as I can tell, Franklin started all of 1 4* recruit in the UT/Vandy game. We started 13 4* recruits. Pretty big disparity, no?

I can see now why you didn't want to do any research of your own. But I don't see how you can continue to argue that Franklin had as many highly recruited players as we did or that we didn't have enough big recruits due to attrition (not that logic has ever really played a big part in these arguments anyway).

Franklin also started around 5 2* recruits. This is according to rivals.

Is your argument really that we can only expect our coach to beat teams with inferior talent when the team is injury free? Because that is never going to happen. We had injuries. Vanderbilt had injuries. It's part of the game.

No, that's not my argument and your assertion is silly. I'm saying that there was not a big difference in the talent level between UT and Vandy last season, and when you are starting your 4th string QB and your top WR is out, the loss was not unexpected.

If you expected Butch to lose, at home, to a Vanderbilt program with lesser recruits, less facilities, less tradition, less resources, etc. etc, simply because of a handful of injuries (and taking into account the fact that the opponent had plenty of injuries of their own), then I take it you have a far lower opinion of his and his coaching staff's abilities than any so-called "nega-vol".

OK, you say that injuries are never an excuse, that all teams endure injuries. I agree with the latter, but will argue that rarely do teams suffer the loss of the 3 QBs and have to start their #4 QB. Vandy beath both UGA and UF last season, both of whom suffered key injuries leading up to that game. So Vandy either beat both of those teams because of those injuries or because Vandy was a pretty decent team. Which was it?

Yes, Vanderbilt achieved alot last season. They were the perfect example of what a well-coached team can accomplish, even with less talented players (and they even managed to do it after their starting QB went down). James Franklin actually got his players to improve and play above themselves. He actually game planned to take advantage of his team's strengths and attack other team's weaknesses. He demonstrated that a good coach can take over a program and show immediate improvement on the field, with big jumps in wins and competitiveness. Hugh Freeze, Gus Malzahn, and Kevin Sumlin have also demonstrated the impact a good coach can make quickly in a program. It is sad that we don't hold our coaches to the same standard, but instead seek to always make every possible excuse for them, even when they lose to a team they obviously should have beaten.

 

[tenninohio]

Amen.

 

[majic73]

All of the stats mentioned about 'stars' and who had the most are impressive but I think the obvious has not been mentioned. Franklin had his best year ...in his third year . I will be happy to compare our program to his in Butch's 3 year .

Recruiting stars are great but not all telling . Dooley did very little 'need' based recruiting . He came up very short on linemen on both sides of the ball. This was most apparent of defense ...where the lack of even a 2 deep rotation at tackle only allowed about 1 half of meaningful defense. Also the Dooley regime did very little in the development of talent . Worley is a perfect example of a kid that responded to coaching. Take a look at how under developed Hunter is as a pro ...despite his wealth of talent. Look at the defense now compared to the last two seasons. One would have to assume that this lack of mental and physical development was global throughout the program . Finally , we played a freshman QB who is now our 3rd string QB . We had 2 guys at receiver that were running backs the year before , a walk-on , and a freshman. Its hard to win games and be consistent with that

There is a huge difference between excuses and reasons . I am going to choose to be very pleased with the vast improvement we have seen thus far , and optimistic for the continued growth of the team .