Last Vol Team to Overachieve?

#51
#51
Eddie Vol Halen said:
This debate is always interesting, and it is always interesting to see how skewed the perception is to the reality.

Even during the Decade of Dominance, we were never the most talented team in the league. Yes, we were far closer to the top of the SEC talent-wise, but we were always #2 - #4. Some teams did underachieve during that time (Goff GA being the most glaring example - he had NFL teams in Athens during his tenure). Florida was always more talented than we were during that time span. They had more quality NFL'ers, more All-SEC, more All-Americans, etc. I think we had more draftees, but they had more who had solid NFL careers (clearly, we had our fair share of those too, but they did have more).

Another misconception is the 2009 team. That team was LOADED with NFL talent (especially compared to the last few years). It actually UNDERPERFORMED by at least one game under Kiffin.

The point is, almost every visit to the SECCG was an overachieving year, even in 1998. 2004 and 2007 are exceptional overachieving years. In 2004 we lost twice to by far the best SEC team of the decade (and its not even close if you review their roster, and where those players are now), and actually played an undefeated Auburn team closer than any other team by miles. We were the only team to score more than 20 points on that team that year if I remember.
Click to expand...
I remember reading an article where Kiffin was quoted as saying that his second year (2010) would be much tougher because of the players that Tenn would lose to graduation. That turned out to be Year Zero for Dooley.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
Rifleman said:
Does everyone agree that 8-5 after a bowl game would qualify as overachieving for this season?

Does anyone think the bar should be set lower or higher?

Obviously, we all want the bar higher, but I think 8-5 would be overachieving considering our schedule.
Click to expand...

that would be coach of the year status.. hell 6-6 and I vote Butch for coach of the year
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
I still am amazed that the '89 team went 11-1. Had some very good/young players that hadn't made it to great yet (Pickens, Andy Kelly). But secondary was so leaky that Majors had Pickens playing safety tackling with his eyes closed for the second half of the year. But Chuck Webb that year. Man, he was pure domination (not sure if that is is a word).
 
#54
#54
Rifleman said:
Recently, Dave Hart said that he believed that we will overachieve under Coach Jones. This made me wonder. What was the last Vol team that truly overachieved, VolNation? Second question, is Hart correct and, if so, what will that mean record-wise in 2013?

For my part, I think we have underachieved for a long time. Even our BCS Championship team did not really overachieve, in my opinion. I really think they were the most talented team that year. I would say the 1985 team that won the '86 Sugar Bowl, with Daryl Dickey at QB, is the only one that pops out immediately.

As to what overachieving might look like: I put together a table which shows the total Rivals recruiting points for the last 5 classes: 2009-2013.

Obviously, we've lost a lot of our recruits. Auburn has as well. Still, this is one interesting gauge to determine the relative status of each program.

TALE OF THE RECRUITING TAPE: 2009-2013


Obviously, Bama. :sick:

Interestingly, Florida is right there, with nearly as high a percentage of 4 & 5 star recruits.

Oregon and South Carolina jump out at me as teams that have probably overachieved.

Obviously, Vandy is an overachiever, and not just at sucking for once.

I think most of us agree that playing up to our recruiting ranking, considering the player attrition, would be overachieving. That would mean an 8-4 season and a bowl trip.

I would not consider 7-5 overachieving because one of the teams above us in recruiting, Auburn, has gone through a mini program implosion. However, if we can get the 8th win in a bowl I would still say we overachieved.

6-6 would be a meeting-the-most-basic-expectations kind of season. I agree with Hart and say we do better.

Note: two of our opponents have no ranked players per Rivals and are not listed. If we lose to one of those teams I will spontaneously combust.

It might be interesting to run these numbers again, with attrition, draftees and injuries subtracted from the totals. It would be best to do in late August once actual game rosters are set. Hopefully we don't lose anyone between now and then!
Click to expand...

without attrition included, chart has no meaning IMO..
 
#55
#55
LWSVOL said:
without attrition included, chart has no meaning IMO..
Click to expand...

Actually if you run the numbers, without accounting for attrition, you can get in the 60-70% range of being able to predict any teams performance over a season. While a more specific breakdown would probably create a higher percentage, it is also extremely cost ineffective for someone doing this evaluation for free.

His bottom line is correct, recruiting predicts outcome. Attrition is also fairly common among all teams. What you start to realize if you do this evaluation for a long enough time line is that this simple trailing average is correct far more often than not, and that where it fails typically reveals a coach who either over or under performs. In other words, the 30-40% of teams who don't fit this predictor are coached by guys like Kelly, Petrino, Jones, and Spurrier who over- perform, or guys like Chizik and Dooley who under-perform. Attrition accounts for a tiny percentage of this sort of evaluation breaking down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
coffeevol said:
I may get killed for this but I think 2009 under Kiffin we really did better than I thought, We pounded UGA and destroyed USCe on Halloween. Really had me excited for the future until that cold cold night....In Butch we trust.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. If anything, the 2009 team vastly underachieved. Lost to far less talented UCLA and Auburn teams at home, was blown out at an Ole Miss team that was bad when we played them, needed OT to beat a woeful Kentucky team, and laid an egg and Virginia Tech.

People remember the highs of killing Georgia and holding off South Carolina, but that team should have been 9-3 and in the Capital One Bowl. Make a kick at Alabama or show up for Ole Miss and you're talking 10-2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
LWSVOL said:
without attrition included, chart has no meaning IMO..
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't entirely disagree. I do think recruiting rankings are predictive of success and this analysis backs me up:

Recruiting by the numbers: Why the sites get the rankings right - CBSSports.com

However, even a 5-star recruit who is on the roster but does not break the rotation is functionally a non-contributor. The best way to measure two teams using recruiting scores would be to compare the rosters for those players most likely to play.

I am formulating a way to do that using the pre-game depth chart, but we won't have one of those until late August.
 
#61
#61
The "standard" at UT has to become a coacht that "overachieves". That may be the point of conflict between those who think that 6 wins would be "acceptable" with this year's team and those like me. If the bar set since 2000 by Fulmer, Dooley, and even Kiffin is "good enough" then six wins is "good enough". If you ever want to see UT at the top again... then they will need a coach that can get more than six wins out of a roster like the one Jones has this year.

UT MUST have a coach that makes more of a roster than the sum of its parts. The OP is right that not many UT teams have done that of late. I personally think the 98 team did and maybe the 2004 team. For the most part though, Fulmer was better at getting talent than coaching it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
Volfan2012 said:
7 and 5 will be overachieving especially with all the bad seasons we've had to endure.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.

Enduring bad seasons has nothing to do with what record would constitute overachievement this year.

The right coach will consistently beat the teams he should. Fulmer even did that. He seldom lost to an undermanned opponent. But the right coach will also make a habit out of beating teams that have better rosters. In that line of thinking, 7 wins would be "meeting expectations". Eight would be exceeding expectations. Nine would be overachieving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
Chad F said:
That's always been the heartbreaker for me as at Tennessee fan: watching our teams UNDERachieve on a regular basis. Showing up (or, in reality, not showing up) to two straight bowl games against ACC teams and getting the living crap kicked out of us. Knocking out LSU's starting QB in the first half of the SEC Championship Game in 2001 before making his backup look like Joe Montana in his prime during the second half and squandering a chance to play for the national title. Laying down like dogs to Florida on a yearly basis ... even when we had comparable talent. The entire Derek Dooley era. It's been painful.

Oh, well ... here's to better times to come with Coach Jones at the helm. Go Vols!!!
Click to expand...

i approve this message...lol its right on
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
sjt18 said:
Non sequitur.

Enduring bad seasons has nothing to do with what record would constitute overachievement this year.

The right coach will consistently beat the teams he should. Fulmer even did that. He seldom lost to an undermanned opponent. But the right coach will also make a habit out of beating teams that have better rosters. In that line of thinking, 7 wins would be "meeting expectations". Eight would be exceeding expectations. Nine would be overachieving.
Click to expand...

No coach "makes a habit" of beating teams with better rosters
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
99gator said:
No coach "makes a habit" of beating teams with better rosters
Click to expand...

Spurrier has. Petrino definitely has. A series of Oregon coaches have now. Petersen at Boise has... though I would argue that his otherwise light schedule helps. TCU's coach has. Even Wisconsin has.

So yes. There are coaches that make a habit of it. But for clarification... I'm not even talking about winning them all or even a majority. If a coach got one or two a year vs 5 or 6 teams with more talent then that would be a "habit" or pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
Interesting fact:

of 2008-2012 All-Americans

17.8% were walk-ons or 2 stars prospects
33.5% were 3 star prospects

This pool accounts for 86% of all recruits and produces over 50% of your All-Americans.

1st pick in the NFL Draft Eric Fisher, who Coach Jones brought to Central Michigan as a 2 star recruit, is such an example of one of these players.

Interesting question (hopefully):

Would we consider a team that started winning with two All-American 2 star recruits on their OL, overachievers? On the one hand, the staff recognized and developed that talent when everyone else missed it. On the other hand, they have two All-Americans on their OL, no matter how they got there.

I'd say they are still overachievers. They worked hard every day to become great, and took that All-American spot away from a 5 star prospect who took it for granted or was overrated or injured.

Still, if every player reaches his maximum potential, you are going to have a football team that is tough to beat on Saturdays. Recruiting rankings lose value at that point.
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
Preseason I thought a 7-5 regular season would constitute overachieving and 6-6 would constitute meeting expectations.

Right now we sit at 4-5.

Would everyone agree that winning the last three would be overachieving?

I think so considering the amazing turnaround of Auburn and the strong play of Mizzou. Really, the way things have played out, I think 7-6 would be an achievement this year.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
Rifleman said:
Preseason I thought a 7-5 regular season would constitute overachieving and 6-6 would constitute meeting expectations.

Right now we sit at 4-5.

Would everyone agree that winning the last three would be overachieving?

I think so considering the amazing turnaround of Auburn and the strong play of Mizzou. Really, the way things have played out, I think 7-6 would be an achievement this year.
Click to expand...

i think 6-6 would be overachieving as one of those wins had to come from a team that is better than us (oregon, florida, uga, usc, bama, mizzou and auburn) 5-7 is where we "should be" although before the season i would have said 7-5 under the assumption that mizzou and auburn would not be very good and we would split those games
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top