What an ignorant statement by ESPNs Ivan Maisel

#26
#26
Originally posted by OldVol@Aug 23, 2005 11:10 AM
The only reason Iowa would pass on the top player is because they couldn't get them.
[snapback]130171[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Ahh, but that is the point. Remember, the article isn't about Tennessee. The article is about Iowa. UT is two sentence byline. Iowa's recruiting has been, "Blue chip meet cow chip.."
Now that Iowa is having success in the Big 10, they think they CAN start getting some of those players. Will it benefit them in the long run? That's the gist of it.

After UT's NC in 98 we stood a better chance at getting more of those players than prior. Of course Coach Fulmer took advantage of it - but has it really paid off in better players/teams than we had before 98?
 
#27
#27
I understand your point, but the reference is a little out of place.

Yes, a National Championship opens some recruiting doors. But I would say that by the early 90s Tennessee had moved into the category of Notre Dame, Michigan, Florida, Florida State, Miami etc. that could go just about anywhere in the country and get a kid to at least meet with them. We've been getting Blue Chips for years.

 
#28
#28
Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 23, 2005 11:36 AM
I understand your point, but the reference is a little out of place. 

Yes, a National Championship opens some recruiting doors.  But I would say that by the early 90s Tennessee had moved into the category of Notre Dame, Michigan, Florida, Florida State, Miami etc. that could go just about anywhere in the country and get a kid to at least meet with them.  We've been getting Blue Chips for years.
[snapback]130177[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

That's true. SEC Championships open a few doors as well.
Iowa being a Big 10 contender consistantly is relatively new for them and it's beginning to open doors. I think that's what the entire piece is driving at.

The writer could have easily chosen one of many schools as his byline example. He chose Tennessee and there's probably some twisted logic in that. I don't pretend to know why he chose UT, but I don't think he's wrong.
 
#29
#29
Picking Tennessee was fine, but I think it would have been a better comparison to compare the Iowa of today to maybe the Tennessee of 1993 - a program that had taken a definite step to rise out of medicority and gained some national recognition. That's when the recruits really start flowing.
 
#30
#30
Originally posted by GvHm6@Aug 23, 2005 11:48 AM
The writer could have easily chosen one of many schools as his byline example.
[snapback]130179[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


You're right, he probably could have. But, as OldVol has depicted, Tennessee was not a good choice. We've been known for nationwide recruiting for decades. A school without such a rep or respect definitely benefits in the recruiting department from success, but I would label our success as more of an effect of excellent recruiting and coaching than vice versa.

Regardless, the heads are just filling space until kickoff. Anything to keep people hitting their website.
 
#31
#31
Originally posted by GvHm6@Aug 23, 2005 11:29 AM
Ahh, but that is the point. Remember, the article isn't about Tennessee. The article is about Iowa. UT is two sentence byline. Iowa's recruiting has been, "Blue chip meet cow chip.."
Now that Iowa is having success in the Big 10, they think they CAN start getting some of those players. Will it benefit them in the long run? That's the gist of it.

After UT's NC in 98 we stood a better chance at getting more of those players than prior. Of course Coach Fulmer took advantage of it - but has it really paid off in better players/teams than we had before 98?
[snapback]130176[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Iowa had a top 5 recruiting class this year. Success breeds success. I know sports writers have to have something to say, but that's not a real flash, 'ya know.

I don't think Maisel knows that much about the reasons we've not won another title.

I don't pretend to understand all of the reasons why we lost 5 games in 02, but I'll bet you and I know more of the reasons than Maisel does.

In 01 Casey had great receivers. In 02 we had only Kelly and all the baggage that came with that situation. It caused a meltdown with the offense. You see, a little research would go a long way. It's not like this was an off the cuff statement. This was a written piece.

Why would he point out us anyway. We've been as successful as Ohio State and Florida State since they won their last titles. We've been as successful as Michigan since they won their title in 97 and we've been more successful than Florida since they won in 96.

Did these teams not attempt to cash in on their titles by going after the best players nationwide.

I think we all know the answer to that.
 
#32
#32
Picking Tennessee was fine, but I think it would have been a better comparison to compare the Iowa of today to maybe the Tennessee of 1993 - a program that had taken a definite step to rise out of medicority and gained some national recognition. That's when the recruits really start flowing.
Click to expand...


I agree.


Now if the Vols were to run the table this year and win another NC.. maybe the using UT was a mistake. :cross:

(Edit to add the quote/clarification)
 
#33
#33
Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Aug 23, 2005 11:57 AM
You're right, he probably could have.  But, as OldVol has depicted, Tennessee was not a good choice.  We've been known for nationwide recruiting for decades.  A school without such a rep or respect definitely benefits in the recruiting department from success, but I would label our success as more of an effect of excellent recruiting and coaching than vice versa.

Regardless, the heads are just filling space until kickoff.  Anything to keep people hitting their website.
[snapback]130183[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Choosing a team that is #8 all-time in winning percentage is not the best choice to further your point that they took off after the 98 season in regards to bluer chips.

It's nonsensical.

You had to have some level of blue in those chips to win all those games.

 
#34
#34
Originally posted by GvHm6@Aug 23, 2005 12:03 PM
I agree.
Now if the Vols were to run the table this year and win another NC.. maybe the using UT was a mistake.    :cross:
[snapback]130186[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Oh, we can hope. :rock:
 
#35
#35
Originally posted by OldVol@Aug 23, 2005 1:05 PM
Choosing a team that is #8 all-time in winning percentage is not the best choice to further your point that they took off after the 98 season in regards to bluer chips.

It's nonsensical.

You had to have some level of blue in those chips to win all those games.
[snapback]130187[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


It definitely was a strange reference to make out of thin air.

Oldvol, even I'll admit that there may be a little bias on Maisel's part showing in this one. :p
 
#36
#36
Originally posted by OldVol@Aug 23, 2005 12:00 PM
Iowa had a top 5 recruiting class this year. Success breeds success. I know sports writers have to have something to say, but that's not a real flash, 'ya know.
Click to expand...


It's fluff piece (giving props to Iowa/Big 10) written two weeks before the season starts. Articles like that are popping up in every news source in the world. Like you said, it was something to say two weeks before the season starts. I don't think it's really meant as anything more.

Why would he point out us anyway. We've been as successful as Ohio State and Florida State since they won their last titles. We've been as successful as Michigan since they won their title in 97 and we've been more successful than Florida since they won in 96.

Did these teams not attempt to cash in on their titles by going after the best players nationwide.

I think we all know the answer to that.
[snapback]130185[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
To that we also agree. Why he chose UT? I'm as befuddled as you. Maybe those other schools have more obvious reasons for a lack of success than UT, such as an aging coach at Florida State..etc?
 
#37
#37
Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 23, 2005 12:10 PM
It definitely was a strange reference to make out of thin air.

Oldvol, even I'll admit that there may be a little bias on Maisel's part showing in this one.  :p
[snapback]130191[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Yeah, bias usually slips through the cracks in subliminal ways. It's not always 'in your face.'

There were better examples to be had, but it should just be another clipping for the 'old bulletin board.'
 
#38
#38
Originally posted by GvHm6@Aug 23, 2005 12:13 PM
It's fluff piece
[snapback]130193[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Yes, we are inundated with feel-good stories right about now. I guess anything to avoid having to go out in the field and get your shoes dirty, huh?

I'll have to admit, I do enjoy most of them though.

The Tennessean did a nice piece this past week on Jason Swain and his brother, who is a walk-on.

It was a nice read.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl.../508190420/1035
 
#39
#39
Originally posted by Vol67@Aug 23, 2005 12:43 AM
Most people who know UT know they recruit nationally and have for DECADES.  Maisel at best is a hack and one that doesn't do research his articles and when he does ignores anything that doesn't fit with what he's writing
[snapback]130096[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



And there in lies the rub. I am telling you, for some reason UT has had the image of being strictly local. I cannot tell you why. As someone who has come to know more about your program, I see that you do recruit beyond the bounds of the state, but there is no question about it: the "reputation" of UT is that the team is dominated by kids born and raised in Tennessee.
 
#40
#40
Originally posted by lawgator1@Aug 23, 2005 1:00 PM
And there in lies the rub.  I am telling you, for some reason UT has had the image of being strictly local.  I cannot tell you why.  As someone who has come to know more about your program, I see that you do recruit beyond the bounds of the state, but there is no question about it:  the "reputation" of UT is that the team is dominated by kids born and raised in Tennessee.
[snapback]130227[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


If that's the perception it is born in ignorance of the program.

Our state has always been known as a very low producer of top Division 1 players.

There have been years when we actually only actively recruited as little as half a dozen kids.

I can't imagine how anyone could view us as being mostly local. Perhaps people assume that since we're the only program in the state of any national prominence.

It's far from the truth and has been for decades.
 
#41
#41
Originally posted by OldVol@Aug 23, 2005 1:06 PM
Perhaps people assume that since we're the only program in the state of any national prominence.
[snapback]130229[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



That may have a lot to do with it. I'd go so far as to say the only program right now with a national presence in that part of the country!

I mean, everyone expects that Florida, FSU, and UM are going to cherry pick nationally because they can find what they want pretty much in their backyard. Let's face it, the state itself is huge and growing and we have plenty of thugs that can be cultivated into football talent.

Folks figure Notre Dame recruits nationally. Same with USC, Nebraska (except for their offensive and defensive lines) and, say, Alabama.

The issue I think is perception of a school's legacy as a competitive program on the national level. The "big name" schools people figure do recruit nationally and that kids with talent want to go to the big name schools.

But people out there do not perceive that UT is a big name football school. I am not saying it -- other people are. No one speaks of UTin the same breath as Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. It does not matter that you are better than them. It matters that people speak of those big traditional powerhouses and assume that kids from obscure towns in Kanasas really want to go there.

People believe -- incorrectly -- that those same kids aren't looking at UT because the perception is that UT is not traditional national powerhouse. Now, anyone looking at the roster will see that kids are coming to play there from all over. But when you go into any bar here in Florida and start talking college football, UT is just not mentioned as one of the teams where kids from timbuktoo are going to want to go play.

 
#42
#42
Originally posted by lawgator1@Aug 23, 2005 2:25 PM
But people out there do not perceive that UT is a big name football school.  I am not saying it -- other people are.  No one speaks of UTin the same breath as Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc.  It does not matter that you are better than them.
[snapback]130242[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I don't know who would say that.

Some schools get more coverage because they have larger TV markets.

But UT has traditionally won more games than USC, Miami, Penn St.,
Florida St.

Not to meniton Tennessee in a list of elite programs and to mention Miami goes against logic. Much of the greatness attributed to Miami was during the cheating years and UT still has a betther winning percentage. :p

Notre Dame couldn't be listed as an elite program right now.

If folks are living in the past they should also put Yale and Army in that elite list. Ahh, those were the days.
 
#43
#43
I don't think all-time winning percentage is that big of a deal in most players minds. I doubt many recruits would account any school history except for the recent ten years or so.

But lawgator has a point, on the national scene, Tennessee for some reason is viewed as just a small notch below Miami, FSU, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.
 
#46
#46
Personally I don't see the big fuss over an article written by a blowhard about Iowa. If there is no national perception of Tennessee being a national team why are they ranked #3 in so many polls? All anyone would have to do is watch a game on tv at Neyland Stadium and the sheer size of the stadium, not to mention the rabid fans in attendance, would tell them everything they need to know about Tennessee's reputation. If they started watching early enough and saw just the starting lineups they would realize that Tennessee recruits nationally. And ya'll are right, have been recruiting nationally for decades!!!
 
#47
#47
It might be a regional. But I guarantee you, and I've had many CFB discussions with many people, ask a person to list college football powers outside of the south, and not many people will say Tennessee. I happen to know and realize that UT is a power house for all intents and purposes, but the national perception of us is not quite at that very upper echelon of teams. I think it's wrong, I don't know why it is but it is.
 
#48
#48
Probably because you are talking mainly to people on the west coast. What do they know about football anyway? :p
 
#50
#50
For the umpteenth time, just in case any of you missed my opinion on ESPeeN many, many times before:

:espn: :espn: :espn: :espn: :espn: :espn: :espn:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top