Nick Stephens

#151
#151
kptvol said:
Uh? What? I didn't include ties in the winning percentage, thus, they did count as losses. Why did avoid counting the three best years of the 70s? Should we subtract 2001 from Fulmer?
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering where the 1979 SEC championship came from.

And no, I just stopped because my point was already made.

As for ties, I'm just saying if we still did ties, the GoF would flameout over them and consider them losses. So, if you were intellectually honest, you should chalk the ties up as losses.

Hellfire, how many times have y'all called an overtime victory a "moral loss?"
 
#152
#152
utgibbs said:
I'm still wondering where the 1979 SEC championship came from.

And no, I just stopped because my point was already made.

As for ties, I'm just saying if we still did ties, the GoF would flameout over them and consider them losses. So, if you were intellectually honest, you should chalk the ties up as losses.

Hellfire, how many times have y'all called an overtime victory a "moral loss?"
Click to expand...

We lost five games total from 1970 to 1972. Does that make a point for you?

SEC Championships:
University of Tennessee Athletics Fans

Thanks, junior.
 
#153
#153
utgibbs said:
You think we won the SEC in 1979??????????? :eek:lol: It's the only time I can remember losing to BOTH Mississippi schools!

As I have said, you don't remember the 1970's.

crusse, I'm disappointed. You don't have to be corrupted by the GoF.

1973 - 4 losses (one a bowl loss)
1974 - 3 losses (2 ties, including Vandy)
1975 - 5 losses (North Texas among them)
1976 - 5 losses
1977 - 7 losses
1978 - 5 losses (5 wins, 1 tie)
1979 - 5 losses

I'm already at 34 losses, KPT. And given GoF logic, a TIE in the old money is definitely a LOSS.

Wipe your noses, juniors. You deserve this humiliation.
Click to expand...

I notice how you leave out the 11-1 season, as well as the 2 10-2 seasons that started the decade. I know there's no way you'd do that on purpose.
 
#154
#154
crusse10 said:
I notice how you leave out the 11-1 season, as well as the 2 10-2 seasons that started the decade. I know there's no way you'd do that on purpose.
Click to expand...

Also neglected to point out that the 2000s had zero SEC Championships, so even taking away the one UT claims in '79 doesn't elevate the 2000s over the 70s.
 
#155
#155
Actually it's spot on. You seem to have no real grasp of reality and your fantasy of "remembering the 70's" is pretty funny. You're at least consistent but that's not always a good thing.

You see what I did there? Your post actually hits you on the head.

You Fail.
 
#156
#156
utgibbs said:
Actually it's spot on. You seem to have no real grasp of reality and your fantasy of "remembering the 70's" is pretty funny. You're at least consistent but that's not always a good thing.

You see what I did there? Your post actually hits you on the head.

You Fail.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to get your calculator out and do the math for the 70s you claim is wrong.
 
#157
#157
kptvol said:
Also neglected to point out that the 2000s had zero SEC Championships, so even taking away the one UT claims in '79 doesn't elevate the 2000s over the 70s.
Click to expand...

I am kinda curious why we claim that, as Bama went undefeated in 79...
 
#158
#158
crusse10 said:
I notice how you leave out the 11-1 season, as well as the 2 10-2 seasons that started the decade. I know there's no way you'd do that on purpose.
Click to expand...

No, I truly didn't do it on purpose. I'm glad y'all have "set the record straight."

And my point was already made long before.
 
#159
#159
kptvol said:
One of them is quite clearly on Nick Stephens.

You never explained how Hambone making the team worse led to us beating Kentucky and Vanderbilt.
Click to expand...

3-6 before firing, 2-1 after. The data shows he made the team better.
 
#160
#160
kptvol said:
I'd like you to get your calculator out and do the math for the 70s you claim is wrong.
Click to expand...

Directed at utvolpj, KPT. I "dequoted" his quote because it actually hit him on the head perfectly and squarely.
 
#161
#161
utgibbs said:
No, I truly didn't do it on purpose. I'm glad y'all have "set the record straight."

And my point was already made long before.
Click to expand...

What was the point? That the 2000s don't compare to the 70s at all because we won 1% more of our games, or that the bowl wins thing you claimed was so important actually favors the 70s?
 
#163
#163
utgibbs said:
Actually it's spot on. You seem to have no real grasp of reality and your fantasy of "remembering the 70's" is pretty funny. You're at least consistent but that's not always a good thing.

You see what I did there? Your post actually hits you on the head.

You Fail.
Click to expand...

huh? Did you eat paint chips as a boy? You don't make rational arguments, you ignore stats that prove you wrong and you act like you were completely aware of UT football from the time of Gen Neyland. Still not sure what you think you are doing on VN except giving everyone someone to point and laugh at.
 
#164
#164
I like how North Texas and a Vanderbilt tie make their way into the argument representing our "status", yet act like Wyoming and a Vanderbilt "loss" both don't exist on our 2000's resume.
 
#165
#165
utgibbs said:
Directed at utvolpj, KPT. I "dequoted" his quote because it actually hit him on the head perfectly and squarely.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one claiming the 2000s were so much better than the 70s, getting smacked in the face with stats, and then offering no explanation other than "wipe your nose, I win".
 
#166
#166
kptvol said:
What was the point? That the 2000s don't compare to the 70s at all because we won 1% more of our games, or that the bowl wins thing you claimed was so important actually favors the 70s?
Click to expand...

are you ignoring Fulmer's stellar bowl record? Shame
 
#167
#167
utgibbs said:
Only if misinterpreting data is the new interpreting data.
Click to expand...

You mean like claiming the three best years of the 1970s have no bearing on how our football team performed in the 1970s?

Or are you referring to citing 34 losses as proof that more than 39 losses occurred?
 
#168
#168
utgibbs said:
No, I truly didn't do it on purpose. I'm glad y'all have "set the record straight."

And my point was already made long before.
Click to expand...

What was the point? We lost more games in the 2000s than we lost in the 70s? Or was it that we had more losing seasons? Perhaps it was that we had 1 2-loss season in the 2000s, whereas in the 70s we had 3 seasons of 2-losses or better?
 
#169
#169
Played in more bowl games in 2000s. I think you got the math wrong there as well.

Doesn't matter. I set the record straight enough to begin with. Y'all can debate about what you remember, and I'll continue to feel there were a LOT more meaningful games in 2000s than the 1970s.
 
#170
#170
crusse10 said:
What was the point? We lost more games in the 2000s than we lost in the 70s? Or was it that we had more losing seasons? Perhaps it was that we had 1 2-loss season in the 2000s, whereas in the 70s we had 3 seasons of 2-losses or better?
Click to expand...

The point was your math for the 70s was wrong.
 
#171
#171
utgibbs said:
Played in more bowl games in 2000s. I think you got the math wrong there as well.

Doesn't matter. I set the record straight enough to begin with. Y'all can debate about what you remember, and I'll continue to feel there were a LOT more meaningful games in 2000s than the 1970s.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim there were more bowl games in the 70's, just a better record. More wins in the 70s, too. That's what you said was important. And they didn't hand bowls out like toilet paper back then, either.
 
#174
#174
utgibbs said:
Played in more bowl games in 2000s. I think you got the math wrong there as well.

Doesn't matter. I set the record straight enough to begin with. Y'all can debate about what you remember, and I'll continue to feel there were a LOT more meaningful games in 2000s than the 1970s.
Click to expand...

By today's standards, we'd have been eligible for a bowl in just as many games in the 70s as this past decade. The fact that bowls weren't set up the same way is the difference. Even though we played in fewer, we still won more, though. But I forgot, it's not about winning big games. It's about playing in them.
 
#175
#175
utgibbs said:
Played in more bowl games in 2000s. I think you got the math wrong there as well.
Click to expand...

utgibbs said:
You won't like my answer, because I think bowl wins are meaningful, including non-BCS bowls.
Click to expand...

so it bowl wins or bowls played now?


utgibbs said:
and I'll continue to feel there were a LOT more meaningful games in 2000s than the 1970s.
Click to expand...

they were meaningful but the sad thing is we lost most of them
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top