No Bump, BTW

#153
#153
pl3 said:
I didn't call you a pearl hater. I didn't say he was the sole reason for exposure. I didn't say the contract was of no significance. I didn't mention objectivity to anyone but you. That's what you accused me of and its all bs. I stated that tn earned national recognition when bp got to campus that they haven't seen in 20 years. I also asked why other teams under.the same contract didn't garner the same attention, and some even less.than prior years when they had better teams. You just kept mentioning that they are all on tv and its not " hard to grasp". People around the country weren't watching those teams play, but they were watching ut play elite teams from other conferences on a national stage. Somehow, those facts became debatable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I was being objective. You seem to be completely backing off your earlier comments. Earlier, you took offense to me saying "Bruce brought us attention, but so did the contract." Now, you seem to be conceding the contract helped with exposure. The bottomline is that vercingetorix is right; people didn't want to watch the teams that couldn't give a crap about basketball in our league, so Tennessee was on by default a lot. Yes, Pearl gets credit for being better than those schools, but the contract enabled him to be in a position to get on tv.
 
#154
#154
LawVol13 said:
I was being objective. You seem to be completely backing off your earlier comments. Earlier, you took offense to me saying "Bruce brought us attention, but so did the contract." Now, you seem to be conceding the contract helped with exposure. The bottomline is that vercingetorix is right; people didn't want to watch the teams that couldn't give a crap about basketball in our league, so Tennessee was on by default a lot. Yes, Pearl gets credit for being better than those schools but the contract enabled him to be in a position to get on tv.
Click to expand...

Again, more bs. I have to ask you to repost again. Show me where I said the contract didn't help exposure. Just repost it under my request here. You are right though. It becomes difficult to have a rational dialogue, when the other person is creating bs to bolster their argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#155
#155
pl3 said:
Again, more bs. I have to ask you to repost again. Show me where I said the contract didn't help exposure. Just repost it under my request here. You are right though. It becomes difficult to have a rational dialogue, when the other person is creating bs to bolster their argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I said this.
Pearl increased the number of TV games, but that contract is also responsible for Tennessee getting increased exposure.
Click to expand...

Your response was this.

I'm not going to get into it on here and start being called a pearlophile. If some of you believe ut was already relevant on the national stage before, or that the contract is the reason why and all teams and coaches are in the same boat, or that lucky shots are reasons for wins, or that playing tx, uconn, ks, nova, pitt and others on national tv was natural progression for the program due to contracts and any coach would have had us on the national stage, thats your option. It's really just denial and discussing it leads nowhere.
Click to expand...

But, now you're saying that you didn't dismiss the contract. It's very interesting.
 
#156
#156
LawVol13 said:
I said this.


Your response was this.



But, now you're saying that you didn't dismiss the contract. It's very interesting.
Click to expand...

Quite interesting that you surmise that I fully dismissed the contracts, yet nowhere do I say such a thing. For the nth time, if contracts were the main reason, then why did schools that I mentioned get no national play? Because their teams and coaches sucked. That's why. They weren't showcased. Tn was.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#161
#161
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...

Yes I know. UT had national relevance from the late 60s until the mid 80s. ARe you old enough to remember it?
 
#162
#162
When you have two players from the same team on consensus All-American squads, you are nationally relevant. It's not even arguable.
 
#163
#163
BelAirVol said:
When you have two players from the same team on consensus All-American squads, you are nationally relevant. It's not even arguable.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But, there's really no point in arguing with pl3. If you say anything other than Bruce Pearl was the sole source of bringing increased exposure, then somehow you're wrong and not being objective. Then he'll completely contradict previous statements and pretend he meant something else all along.
 
#164
#164
No question that Auburn, South Carolina, and all the SEC schools are more nationally relevant than before due to the contract.
 
#165
#165
BasketvolsFan said:
No question that Auburn, South Carolina, and all the SEC schools are more nationally relevant than before due to the contract.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes there is a question.

Auburn isn't nationally relevant. Period. The End.

The TV deal and PTI didn't make UT relevant, Bruce Pearl did. The End.
 
#169
#169
Muschump said:
Agree.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm not just talking about the present day.

With the exception of a couple seasons, UT wasn't really nationally relevant thoughout Pearl's tenure.

Much improved and we may have gotten more attention, but I wouldn't say UT was nationally relevant.
 
#170
#170
tvolsfan said:
To be clear, I'm not just talking about the present day.

With the exception of a couple seasons, UT wasn't really nationally relevant thoughout Pearl's tenure.

Much improved and we may have gotten more attention, but I wouldn't say UT was nationally relevant.
Click to expand...

Agree. I said this yesterday. If he would've continued here, it would have come.
 
#171
#171
Muschump said:
Agree. I said this yesterday. If he would've continued here, it would have come.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

From the moment he got here until the moment UT upset Memphis to take over the number 1 spot, it seemed like UT was steadily becoming great.

Since then, I haven't seen much to think greatness was coming.
 
#172
#172
OrangeBalls said:
They aren't overall but during the Pearl era they sure as hell were. What other team in the SEC won two national titles? Hell, Ky didn't get to a Final 4 until this year for the first time in a long time.
Click to expand...

Florida was the premier team for the first 2 years of Pearl's era. Yes they did sweep them their first NC year, but they split the next year and the game UT won came after Florida had wrapped up everything.

After that Florida was in no way the premier team after that. They didn't even make the NCAAT for the next 2 seasons and got in on the bubble in 2009-2010 where they made a quick exit. Last year was the first year they were good since their NC runs, which they also swept UT.
 
#174
#174
Muschump said:
No real point in arguing this but we were in the Elite 8 after that. And we all know what happened last year (and still made the tourney).

Maybe. Maybe not.
Click to expand...
Elite 8 was great, but it's hard for me to see that and be sure we were about to take off. It really just took one upset.

I needed to see more in terms of recruiting to be confident that it would get much better.
 
#175
#175
tvolsfan said:
Elite 8 was great, but it's hard for me to see that and be sure we were about to take off. It really just took one upset.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Should we really be diminishing the Elite 8 now, too? I mean, yea one upset on paper. Doesn't really matter. If they played on paper we'd have 4 number 1s in the FF every year. Every game won in the tourney is a big deal, upset or not.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top