No Bump, BTW

#101
#101
Vercingetorix said:
. All I know is that you can't talk about Pearl on this forum without hearing that NOBODY CARED NUTHIN BOUT VOL BASKETBALL AFORE PEARL AND YOU KNOW IT! from a bunch of bandwagon-jumping jackholes. It's all in this thread. It's all in every Pearl-related thread. It's stupid.
Click to expand...

Show me. I can't find them. I see people arguing that Pearl put us on the map.

Haven't seen anyone in this thread say "UT Basketball was a wasteland before Bruce Pearl. "
 
#103
#103
LawVol13 said:
Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Oh man, I bet you are so mad right now.

I bet I can find more people trying to discount Pearls accomplishments by any means possible than people claiming UT basketball was a wasteland before he arrived.

Wanna play?
 
#104
#104
Muschump said:
Oh man, I bet you are so mad right now.

I bet I can find more people trying to discount Pearls accomplishments by any means possible than people claiming UT basketball was a wasteland before he arrived.

Wanna play?
Click to expand...

You're so pathetic that it's actually sad. Welcome to ignoreland.
 
#106
#106
LawVol13 said:
No, it's not. It's a stupid comparison. Tennessee was relevant in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Yale wasn't.
Click to expand...

UT was also relevant during every year of Mears' tenure and many while Devoe was here. That would cover mid 60s to mid 80s.
 
#107
#107
Vercingetorix said:
For God's sake, nobody in this thread is arguing that Pearl didn't do a great job at UT. I'm not even sure that anybody is disputing that Pearl was the best basketball coach Tennessee has ever had; the sport was so different when Mears was coach that it's like getting in an argument over whether Bill Belichick or Vince Lombardi was better. So why is it that for so many Pearl fans it has to be absolute? "UT basketball was NOTHING before Pearl." "UT basketball was NEVER ANYTHING until Pearl." "Pearl MADE UT basketball. Period." Why does it have to be absolute like that? Some of you guys are like a woman who goes through her new husband's stuff and makes him burn all the pictures of his ex-girlfriends.

I'm old enough to remember watching Bernard King play when I was a kid. I've been a UT basketball fan my whole life. Since I've been watching, we've been A) really good for awhile, then B) pretty good for awhile, then C) horrible for awhile, then D) back to pretty good for awhile, then E) back to crappy, and then finally F) good again. It's been a rollercoaster, not a wasteland. Just because you're a fan of Pearl doesn't mean you have to tear down everything that came before it.
Click to expand...

Great post and spot on. I've been a fan since the late 60s. Listened to EVERY game during the King-Grunfeld era
 
#109
#109
pl3 said:
That's great, no sarcasm. However, the discussion has been about national relevance, not fan relevance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What you're calling "national relevance" is a recent creation. Until the advent of ESPN and sports talk radio and the internet and the rest of modern media, only a handful of teams were what you'd call "nationally relevant." Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, etc. Pearl made Tennessee "nationally relevant" by appearing on PTI and playing weeknight games on ESPN -- media opportunities which simply didn't exist for any of his predecessors.
 
#110
#110
Vercingetorix said:
What you're calling "national relevance" is a recent creation. Until the advent of ESPN and sports talk radio and the internet and the rest of modern media, only a handful of teams were what you'd call "nationally relevant." Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, etc. Pearl made Tennessee "nationally relevant" by appearing on PTI and playing weeknight games on ESPN -- media opportunities which simply didn't exist for any of his predecessors.
Click to expand...

Agree to an extent. At the same time, like you mentioned there have always been relevant programs in football and basketball. Tennessee's basketball program just happens to not be one of them, which is all most of us were arguing.

A better argument would be is if Pearl really put us on the map at all. We'll find out in a couple years. I see it as more of an Oregon football, "flash in the pan," type situation rather than anything meaningful.

If he would've been able to continue to coach here... entirely different story.
 
#111
#111
Vercingetorix said:
What you're calling "national relevance" is a recent creation. Until the advent of ESPN and sports talk radio and the internet and the rest of modern media, only a handful of teams were what you'd call "nationally relevant." Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, etc. Pearl made Tennessee "nationally relevant" by appearing on PTI and playing weeknight games on ESPN -- media opportunities which simply didn't exist for any of his predecessors.
Click to expand...

You guys are right. Bp had nothing to do with getting national recognition for ut basketball and any coach would have done the same given the environment. Devoe, wade, jerry, buzz and Kevin had the networks clamoring to put ut hoops on primetime tv. They played nationally televised games on cbs against top ranked teams from dominant basketball conferences all the time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#112
#112
pl3 said:
You guys are right. Bp had nothing to do with getting national recognition for ut basketball and any coach would have done the same given the environment. Devoe, wade, jerry, buzz and Kevin had the networks clamoring to put ut hoops on primetime tv. They played nationally televised games on cbs against top ranked teams from dominant basketball conferences all the time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Funny, I remember watching Tennessee play a fairly decent number of games on TV back when I was growing up. (And back then, of course, it was all national TV.) Nowhere near as many games as now, of course, because there were nowhere near as many games televised back then -- and basically none in primetime. So you'd think that since we were supposedly totally irrelevant and off the national radar back then, we'd never have been on TV at all. And yet a few times a season, we were.

When did ESPN start broadcasting all these primetime basketball games during the week? Ten years ago?
 
#113
#113
If TV is a meaningful measure of how nationally relevant a basketball program is, and we've really been nationally relevant at all under Pearl, then how come almost all our first- and second-round tournament matchups have been stuffed into the early afternoon rather than the primetime slots?
 
#114
#114
Vercingetorix said:
Funny, I remember watching Tennessee play a fairly decent number of games on TV back when I was growing up. (And back then, of course, it was all national TV.) Nowhere near as many games as now, of course, because there were nowhere near as many games televised back then -- and basically none in primetime. So you'd think that since we were supposedly totally irrelevant and off the national radar back then, we'd never have been on TV at all. And yet a few times a season, we were.

When did ESPN start broadcasting all these primetime basketball games during the week? Ten years ago?
Click to expand...

We are talking about national relevance. Not growing up a ut fan relevance. Nationally, there is no comparison. And the major networks have been broadcasting games for years. Tn didnt play on cbs during the season. Period. One is not objective if they argue otherwise.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
Tennessee football has been on national television (especially CBS since you bring it up) MUCH more in the last 5 seasons than in the 90's. Must be because we've really started tearing it up lately, since media coverage hasn't changed at all.
 
Last edited:
#116
#116
tvolsfan said:
Tennessee football has been on national television MUCH more in the last 5 seasons than in the 90's. Must be because we've really started tearing it up lately, since media coverage hasn't changed at all.
Click to expand...

Irrelavant to the discussion. Different sport, different position of the sec relevant to the sport, and different contract.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#117
#117
OrangeBalls said:
Let's see, Pearl beat two #1's, won a few NCAA games that Mears never did and consistently beat the premier team in the conference in Florida. I'd say that's pretty comparable.
Click to expand...

Florida isn't the "premier" team in the SEC, nor are they our biggest basketball rival. They aren't even #2, that belongs to Vandy. And Pearl sucked against Kentucky, even when they were down his first couple of season. Their worst season in years under Billy Clyde, where they didn't even make the NCAAT, UK embarrassed UT twice.
 
Last edited:
#118
#118
pl3 said:
Irrelavant to the discussion. Different sport, different position of the sec relevant to the sport, and different contract.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
You're acting as if TV coverage is the only measure of national relevance. Are we more relevant than 10 years ago? Sure. But coverage was likely to increase regardless.
 
#119
#119
pl3 said:
Irrelavant to the discussion. Different sport, different position of the sec relevant to the sport, and different contract.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's not a different contract. The ESPN contract covers football and basketball.
 
#121
#121
pl3 said:
The cbs and other network games that bp/ut played in had nothing to do with the new sec contract signed in the last couple of years.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

How many of those were there? One a year?
 
#122
#122
tvolsfan said:
You're acting as if TV coverage is the only measure of national relevance. Are we more relevant than 10 years ago? Sure. But coverage was likely to increase regardless.
Click to expand...

Did ole miss become more nationally relevant? Auburn? South car? Alabama actually became less relevant. Ark became less relevant. Lsu became no relevant. Miss st became less nationally relevant. Georgia didn't become more nationally relevant. How many cbs nationally televised primetime games did those teams have over the past 7 years? They combined for less than tn during the same period. Some of you just have too much spite to be objective.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
pl3 said:
How many cbs nationally televised primetime games did those teams have over the past 7 years?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

How many have we had? I don't remember one primetime CBS game in Pearl's tenure.
 
#125
#125
pl3 said:
I think we played more network games last year than in the previous 15 years combined.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes, with the vast majority coming on ESPN, which coincides with the $2 billion ESPN contract signed with the SEC. Pearl increased the number of TV games, but that contract is also responsible for Tennessee getting increased exposure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top