Decade by Decade rankings

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
While we have dropped off since 2000, thanks to CFBDataWarehouse, we rank 16th in their point system so far this decade. In the 90's we were 5th, 80s 20th, 70s 17th, and 60s 19th. Assuming, Fulmer turns it around over the next 2 seasons, it is likely that we can finish the decade around 11 or 12. Not bad, considering we had a losing season in there.
 
#2
#2
which i think goes to show the level of success we had in the 90's was not the norm for TN football...it was the best era in TN football history...and is a tough measuring stick to compare future or present status goind forward....

that said, there's no reason we shouldn't be top 10 or 15 going forward either....

Good stat.
 
#3
#3
(jakez4ut @ Apr 27 said:
...it was the best era in TN football history...
Click to expand...

The guy with his name on the stadium might argue that if he was still around.
 
#5
#5
(orange+white=heaven @ Apr 27 said:
Wonder what he'd think of the current game if he was still around...
Click to expand...
I think he'd realize that the teams that execute the fundamentals he always stressed are the most successful. The game hasn't changed much in that respect.
 
#6
#6
(hatvol96 @ Apr 27 said:
I think he'd realize that the teams that execute the fundamentals he always stressed are the most successful. The game hasn't changed much in that respect.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But then he'd see the size and speed of the kids coming out of high school and I think he'd have to shake his head at that.
 
#7
#7
(GAVol @ Apr 27 said:
The guy with his name on the stadium might argue that if he was still around.
Click to expand...


We were ranked 4th in the '50's, 9th in the '40's, and 5th in the '30's

 
#8
#8
With those numbers added then 13 is the overall average. Seems like cracking the top ten consistently is a reasonable goal, and that anything over 15 should be unacceptable considering the consensus that Neyland Stadium is easily in the top ten in college football in regards to venue, and that the Tennessee coaching job is considered one of the most prominent nationally.
 
#10
#10
(jakez4ut @ Apr 27 said:
which i think goes to show the level of success we had in the 90's was not the norm for TN football...it was the best era in TN football history
Click to expand...

Sorry, but thatÂ’s a statement that is completely false.

While the 90s was a great decade, Tennessee historically has ranked in the top 10 for all-time wins.

Which means that a ranking of 5 for one 10 year period can in no way be considered the best era of UT football. From 1925 – 1934 we had a 91.1% win percentage. From 38-46 we were 90%.

There have been several spans that were much better than the decade that spans 1990-1999, in which we won only 82.4% of our games.

The Dickey years and the early Battle years had a great win percentage.

There were several great spans pre-1950 that would be better than the 90Â’s decade.

It was one of our better decades, but in no way was it even close to our best era. During the era from 1925 through 1934 the 26 team gave up 34 points, the 27 team gave up 26 points, the 28 team gave up only 51 points, the 29 team gave up 13 points while scoring 330 points meaning the margin of victory for that team was an average 33 to 1.3 points, the 30 team 31, the 31 team 15 points, the 32 team 36 points, the 33 and 34 teams gave up 47 and 58 points respectively.

That 10 year span is far and away the most successful 10 year period in UT football.
 
#11
#11

Interesting post, therealUT. Any way we could get a link or a list of the "top 20" ranking in each of those decades, just to satisfy curiosity?
 
#12
#12
(OldVol @ Apr 27 said:
Sorry, but thatÂ’s a statement that is completely false.

While the 90s was a great decade, Tennessee historically has ranked in the top 10 for all-time wins.

Which means that a ranking of 5 for one 10 year period can in no way be considered the best era of UT football. From 1925 – 1934 we had a 91.1% win percentage. From 38-46 we were 90%.

There have been several spans that were much better than the decade that spans 1990-1999, in which we won only 82.4% of our games.

The Dickey years and the early Battle years had a great win percentage.

There were several great spans pre-1950 that would be better than the 90Â’s decade.

It was one of our better decades, but in no way was it even close to our best era. During the era from 1925 through 1934 the 26 team gave up 34 points, the 27 team gave up 26 points, the 28 team gave up only 51 points, the 29 team gave up 13 points while scoring 330 points meaning the margin of victory for that team was an average 33 to 1.3 points, the 30 team 31, the 31 team 15 points, the 32 team 36 points, the 33 and 34 teams gave up 47 and 58 points respectively.

That 10 year span is far and away the most successful 10 year period in UT football.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily say this to disagree, but another perspective would be to consider the level of competition between the 20's and 30's to the 90's. While there will never be a way to objectively judge the two periods, I think its pretty safe to say based on parity alone that the 90s winning percentage would stack up favorably to what we achieved back in the day...

I'm proud of our history, and the fact that we are a top 10 all time program. I'm looking forward to us getting back where we belong, starting in 2006.

 
#13
#13
(Vol 4 Life @ Apr 27 said:
I don't necessarily say this to disagree, but another perspective would be to consider the level of competition between the 20's and 30's to the 90's. While there will never be a way to objectively judge the two periods, I think its pretty safe to say based on parity alone that the 90s winning percentage would stack up favorably to what we achieved back in the day...

I'm proud of our history, and the fact that we are a top 10 all time program. I'm looking forward to us getting back where we belong, starting in 2006.
Click to expand...

Well, that too can be misleading. You look at a team like Sewanee, The University of the South, they had some of the most dominating teams in history before the 50s. So, when we see teams with names that we don't readily recognize as being major by today's standards, that in no way means they were not competitive in those days. The 33 Duke team went 9-1 losing only to us. Check out their schedule for that year. It was a very tough one.

Vandy and Kentucky fielded some great teams in those days. The Louisianna hyphen schools of today are on par with many that you see in our schedule for that era I pointed out. And, just as all major teams play a few hyphens each year, they did the same thing back then.

I think you'll find the competition hasn't changed that much, only the names have changed.

Some schools not major have become major and some that were very competitive at one point are no longer major.
 
#14
#14
I don't know that there's any way to dispute that the Vols from '38-'40 were the best ever. The point totals from those years are outrageous. In 3 years they lost twice and gave up a grand total of 75 points.
 
#15
#15
(cotton @ Apr 27 said:
Interesting post, therealUT. Any way we could get a link or a list of the "top 20" ranking in each of those decades, just to satisfy curiosity?
Click to expand...

The decade rankings are down for the 2000-2009 rankings, so I will do my best to satisfy at least the top 5, as I am a little drunk tonight and might very well tire from the search and retire for the night.

2000 and on
1. USC
2. Miami
3. Oklahoma
4. Ohio State
5. Texas
6. LSU
7. Florida State
8. UGA
9. Michigan
10. Oregon

90s
1. FSU
2. Nebraska
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Tennessee
6. Miami
7. Washington
8. Colorado
9. Ohio State
10. Penn State

80s
1. Miami
2. Penn State
3. Oklahoma
4. UGA
5. Nebraska
6. ND
7. Michigan
8. UCLA
9. USC
10. Auburn

70s
1. Bama
2. USC
3. OU
4. Nebraska
5. ND
6. Texas
7. Ohio St.
8. Michigan
9. Penn St.
10. Arkansas
 
#16
#16
(GAVol @ Apr 27 said:
I don't know that there's any way to dispute that the Vols from '38-'40 were the best ever. The point totals from those years are outrageous. In 3 years they lost twice and gave up a grand total of 75 points.
Click to expand...

Agreed in that any season where you go undefeated, untied and unscored upon is pretty hard to surpass. Which one was that, '38?

 
#17
#17
'39 . . . They went unscired upon throught the regular season and then got shutout in the Rose Bowl.
 
#22
#22
(Jasongivm6 @ Apr 27 said:
We were ranked 4th in the '50's, 9th in the '40's, and 5th in the '30's
Click to expand...
i wasn't aware of those...i was just going on what was posted orginally....

that said, the 90's were one of the most successful era's in our illustrious football history...and my only point was, when you look at the previous 3 decades, it was by far, more successfull than anything we had seen in most of our lifetimes. I'm not sure what the median age of posters on this board is, but i would guess the largest poplation is probably from mid teens to early 40's or so...just a guess mind you... So from that standpoint, for me during my lifetime, it was the most successful era i've witnessed.

and again, it is the era that we use to judge present and future performance against. Which i think would justify the "tough measuring stick" statement....that's all...wasn't trying to take anything away from the General or the teams prior to the 60's....
 
#23
#23
(therealUT @ Apr 27 said:
The decade rankings are down for the 2000-2009 rankings, so I will do my best to satisfy at least the top 5, as I am a little drunk tonight and might very well tire from the search and retire for the night.

2000 and on
1. USC
2. Miami
3. Oklahoma
4. Ohio State
5. Texas
6. LSU
7. Florida State
8. UGA
9. Michigan
10. Oregon

90s
1. FSU
2. Nebraska
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Tennessee
6. Miami
7. Washington
8. Colorado
9. Ohio State
10. Penn State

80s
1. Miami
2. Penn State
3. Oklahoma
4. UGA
5. Nebraska
6. ND
7. Michigan
8. UCLA
9. USC
10. Auburn

70s
1. Bama
2. USC
3. OU
4. Nebraska
5. ND
6. Texas
7. Ohio St.
8. Michigan
9. Penn St.
10. Arkansas
Click to expand...

Thanks again, thereal UT. Anybody else notice that only one SEC team appears twice (UGA,) and that includes the partial decade? I think that shows how difficult it is to be consistently dominant in this conference.
 
#24
#24
(therealUT @ Apr 27 said:
The decade rankings are down for the 2000-2009 rankings, so I will do my best to satisfy at least the top 5, as I am a little drunk tonight and might very well tire from the search and retire for the night.

2000 and on
1. USC
2. Miami
3. Oklahoma
4. Ohio State
5. Texas
6. LSU
7. Florida State
8. UGA
9. Michigan
10. Oregon

90s
1. FSU
2. Nebraska
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Tennessee
6. Miami
7. Washington
8. Colorado
9. Ohio State
10. Penn State

80s
1. Miami
2. Penn State
3. Oklahoma
4. UGA
5. Nebraska
6. ND
7. Michigan
8. UCLA
9. USC
10. Auburn

70s
1. Bama
2. USC
3. OU
4. Nebraska
5. ND
6. Texas
7. Ohio St.
8. Michigan
9. Penn St.
10. Arkansas
Click to expand...




I don't know why USC is ahead of Oklahoma and Miami in the 2000+ decade

USC is 59-17 with a NC and a half with 2 seasons without winning records, Oklahoma is 68-11 with a NC, and Miami is 64-10 with a NC
 
#25
#25
(jakez4ut @ Apr 28 said:
i wasn't aware of those...i was just going on what was posted orginally....

that said, the 90's were one of the most successful era's in our illustrious football history...and my only point was, when you look at the previous 3 decades, it was by far, more successfull than anything we had seen in most of our lifetimes. I'm not sure what the median age of posters on this board is, but i would guess the largest poplation is probably from mid teens to early 40's or so...just a guess mind you... So from that standpoint, for me during my lifetime, it was the most successful era i've witnessed.

and again, it is the era that we use to judge present and future performance against. Which i think would justify the "tough measuring stick" statement....that's all...wasn't trying to take anything away from the General or the teams prior to the 60's....
Click to expand...

The 3 decades you mention were the hayday of Logan Young's pocket-book-Bama teams.

When a rich businessman is raiding your own state of its best players it is very difficult to field a competitive team, yet we were competitive anyway.

With Young buying the best players from Tennessee, it forced our staffs during that period to go out of the state and reach to the farthest corners of the nation, and at times, abroad to field a good team.

When we consider some of the very close losses we suffered to Bama during those years, consider what might have been had we had some of the following players during those games:

E. J. Junior from Nashville
Steve Sloan from Cleveland
Antonio London From Tullahoma
Clay Whitehurst from Nashville

Just to name a few. If you check their all-time lettermen you'll see a bunch from Memphis. Hmm, I wonder why?

The elder statesman of Alabama sports reporting, Bill Lumpkin, covered the entire period of Bear Bryant's tenure there. He said when he first began covering them he thought Logan Young was a member of the Bear's staff. That's how close he was and how much access he had.

It's a shame Alabama resorted to these tactics. It will forever leave a cloud over their accomplishments for the 40 plus years Logan Young was a buyer of players.

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top