UT Football.Is it plausible to believe we can win it all?

#152
#152
UT IE 95 said:
And those were killer run stoppers USC played last year too. :thumbsup:

Considering we don't have LSU on the schedule and FL will drop off significantly - I'd give our run game a lot of consideration.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

That Stanford defense is one to be reconned with.
 
#154
#154
utvolpj said:
Exactly. I was directing my comments toward them, not toward those who just don't like the coach.
Click to expand...

I'm saying I just don't think what you said is right. There aren't any UT fans that want UT to have a poor season. If you can find one post on this board that suggests otherwise, I'll relinquish.
 
#155
#155
kptvol said:
Name one year when the wrong national champion was crowned.
Click to expand...

You really can't do that. Too much hypothetical stuff.. and I gurantee if you switched up a team in every NCG eventually you'd have a different NC.. but thats all what ifs and no point in getting into it.
 
#163
#163
UT IE 95 said:
And those were killer run stoppers USC played last year too. :thumbsup:

Considering we don't have LSU on the schedule and FL will drop off significantly - I'd give our run game a lot of consideration.
Click to expand...
make up your mind here.....before TN's running game was "as good" as USC's. then you see the whole picture and pass that off to the inferior compeition that USC played, and then take it one step further to insinuate that our run game will be better because our competition gets weaker?
kptvol said:
Name one year when the wrong national champion was crowned.
Click to expand...
never said any of them were wrong. the way it is determined who plays for it is what is wrong.
 
#164
#164
jakez4ut said:
never said any of them were wrong. the way it is determined who plays for it is what is wrong.
Click to expand...

Not really. There are two teams that might have a dog in that fight: Auburn 2004 and USC 2003. I've already explained why neither of them deserved a title.
 
#165
#165
jakez4ut said:
make up your mind here.....before TN's running game was "as good" as USC's. then you see the whole picture and pass that off to the inferior compeition that USC played, and then take it one step further to insinuate that our run game will be better because our competition gets weaker?
Click to expand...

It fits perfectly. I'll recap. It started with someone posting a list of reasons that UT will not win it all. I followed that by asking for one team lacking a reason to not win it all. To that someone answered USC. I admit, they are good, but not without questions. One in particular is their running game. It is comparable to UT's running game last year and UT has every reason to believe their's will be better this coming season. (It was in here that you tried to equate 0.4 ypc to +10 min in TOP).

So yes, UT's running game was "as good" as USC's based on the stats and the inferior compeition that USC played. Also our run game will be better next year because our competition gets weaker.
 
#166
#166
kptvol said:
Not really. There are two teams that might have a dog in that fight: Auburn 2004 and USC 2003. I've already explained why neither of them deserved a title.
Click to expand...
why, because you say so? you "explanation" is lillte more than a bunch of what if's, coud'ves and should'ves. my sticking point with the process is that the system allowed two teams from the big 12 that weren't even the best teams in their own conference to play for a national title. which is why the process on determining who plays is flawed.

you don't win your conf, you should in no way shape or form be eligible to play for the NATIONAL title.
 
#167
#167
UT IE 95 said:
It fits perfectly. I'll recap. It started with someone posting a list of reasons that UT will not win it all. I followed that by asking for one team lacking a reason to not win it all. To that someone answered USC. I admit, they are good, but not without questions. One in particular is their running game. It is comparable to UT's running game last year and UT has every reason to believe their's will be better this coming season. (It was in here that you tried to equate 0.4 ypc to +10 min in TOP).

So yes, UT's running game was "as good" as USC's based on the stats and the inferior compeition that USC played. Also our run game will be better next year because our competition gets weaker.
Click to expand...
whatever.

i'll just say this, i wish we averaged 4+ YPC last season.
 
#169
#169
kptvol said:
And it's flawed because you say so? Good point.
Click to expand...
:hi: thanks. i don't think however, that it's that much of a leap to make the correlation that if you are not the best team in your conf, then how can you be the best team in the nation?
 
#170
#170
jakez4ut said:
:hi: thanks. i don't think however, that it's that much of a leap to make the correlation that if you are not the best team in your conf, then how can you be the best team in the nation?
Click to expand...

Without a championship game, OU is undoubtedly the best team in that conference. That's a luxury USC had, but OU didn't. How can you be the best team in the nation when you can't beat the Golden Bears?

Florida didn't beat every SEC team they played. Maybe they didn't deserve a shot last year.
 
#171
#171
kptvol said:
Without a championship game, OU is undoubtedly the best team in that conference. That's a luxury USC had, but OU didn't. How can you be the best team in the nation when you can't beat the Golden Bears?

Florida didn't beat every SEC team they played. Maybe they didn't deserve a shot last year.
Click to expand...
the conf. champ game/no conf. champ game, that's a whole separate issue....

the point still is, OU nor Neb, won their conf. so how could they be the best in the Nation? Answer: the polls said so. :whistling: If either of those teams had won the NT in their given years, you'd of had a 2nd and/or 3rd place Big 12 team ranked no. 1 in the nation. I didn't know the Big 12 warranted so much respect.

OU is undoubtably the best team in that conf huh? it's unfortunate that there is a scoreboard of the big 12 title game that says different. play harder next time.

FL was the SEC champ, real simple.
 
#172
#172
jakez4ut said:
the conf. champ game/no conf. champ game, that's a whole separate issue....

the point still is, OU nor Neb, won their conf. so how could they be the best in the Nation? Answer: the polls said so. :whistling: If either of those teams had won the NT in their given years, you'd of had a 2nd and/or 3rd place Big 12 team ranked no. 1 in the nation. I didn't know the Big 12 warranted so much respect.

OU is undoubtably the best team in that conf huh? it's unfortunate that there is a scoreboard of the big 12 title game that says different. play harder next time.

FL was the SEC champ, real simple.
Click to expand...

LSU won the SEC in 2001. They were probably the 3rd best team in the conference that year. Suppose UT goes undefeated next year, destroying everyone in their path. Then, before the SEC championship game, Erik Ainge is injured and can't play that one weekend. The Vols lose a squeaker to a 3-loss LSU team. Are the Vols now doomed to watch one-loss West Virginia play USC in the big dance because they won their conference and UT didn't?
 
#173
#173
kptvol said:
LSU won the SEC in 2001. They were probably the 3rd best team in the conference that year. Suppose UT goes undefeated next year, destroying everyone in their path. Then, before the SEC championship game, Erik Ainge is injured and can't play that one weekend. The Vols lose a squeaker to a 3-loss LSU team. Are the Vols now doomed to watch one-loss West Virginia play USC in the big dance because they won their conference and UT didn't?
Click to expand...
Again, i sure hate that there is a scoreboard that says differently.

and to answer your question, yep.

see this is where all the people that say "settle it on the field" start back stroking.

it should be "settle it on the field, so long as it is the teams that WE think should be settling it".

i seem to remember two years ago.......the NFC title game. Seattle and Carolina played to see who would go to the Super Bowl. the week prior, Carolina's RB got hurt and couldn't play. so they started their 4th string RB, and they lost, and Seatlle won the conf. and played and lost the SB. that same year, Pittsburgh, the 6 seed (which means they were NOT the best team in thier conf, per the rankings) proceeded to win every game in the post seaon and won the Super Bowl Championship.

not too bad for a team that was rated 6th best at the time they started huh? conversely, it would not have been prudent to put Pitt in the SB just because someone thought they were the best team, a la a poll. they "settled it on the feild". they had the ultimate judge of who's better that day.........a final score.

point is, if we just let the "ranking" dictate who played in the Superbowl, we would have seen Indy and Chicago in the Superbowl.

we got Pit and Seattle, because, surprise, surprise, they played the games.

and i'm not saying we need to go to an NFL style playoff, in fact i'm against it. just don't hand me this garbage that the BCS is "A OK", and works fine. It works, much like a car running on its rims. it'll get you there, but all the parts aren't there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top