Where should Tennessee be ranked, ALL-TIME, among College Football Programs?

[FGT]

LSU and Ole Miss I believe were the last two SEC schools to have a black player. That was 1972. That was the first year freshmen were eligible as well. My first cousin played WR at UT during this time and he often said if the SEC were integrated like it is today he never would have been offered a scholarship at UT.

 

[USMC Gators]

The CFDW has a pretty good all time ranking imo.

College Football Data WarehouseCopyright - StumbleUpon

I think we'll pass UGA if we win the Sugar. :cool2:

bump

 

[USMC Gators]

In the SEC:

1. Bama
2. UT
3. LSU
4-6. Auburn or UF or UGA

 

[Volosaurus rex]

The CFDW has a pretty good all time ranking imo.

College Football Data WarehouseCopyright - StumbleUpon

I think we'll pass UGA if we win the Sugar. :cool2:

'tis a fundamentally different ranking system but certainly one that appears to be predicated upon sound methodology. I would seriously quibble, however, with ranking LSU ahead of Tennessee. Young fans of that program probably do not realize that they are living through the golden age of LSU football. If you compare our series record against them, we are 20-9-3 (see Tennessee vs Louisiana State 1869-2011). If you took the last six years out of the equation, we would be 20-5-3 against LSU.

I stated previously that I found it difficult to reconcile the discrepancy between Billingsley’s rankings for Florida State (12th), Florida (20th) and Miami (27th), considering the fact that all three programs essentially came of age as major powers during the mid 1980s. I am just as befuddled by the discrepancy between CFDW's ranking for the three Florida powers. Clearly, he/they are giving Florida credit for greater overall strength of schedule, whereas FSU suffers on this front despite all of those years when they played both Florida and Miami.

 

[USMC Gators]

Because FSU played nothing but cream puffs until Bowden got there in the late 70's.

Edit: Kinda like how they don't play anyone now.

Edit 2: LSU is ahead because of schedule points and national title points (50 per each year for an AP/Coaches title).

 

[DjCrenshaw]

8th

 

[Boca Vol]

BocaVol, If you really want to assess the nationwide effect of integration on the college football landscape, I would reset the parameters of your search to begin with 1970. Obviously, the process had begun in the north much earlier. Jim Brown, Ernie Davis and Floyd Little, for example, were at Syracuse during the mid 1950s and 1960s. Lester McClain, however, was the first African-American football player in the SEC, beginning in 1968, if memory serves me correctly. Alabama didn’t get the message until 1970, when a 135-yard, 2-touchdown performance by Sam “Bam” Cunningham propelled USC to a 42-21 victory over the Tide on Sept. 12th, in Birmingham. Jerry Claiborne, a former Bryant assistant, said that "Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King did in 20 years" (Sam Cunningham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). As a point of fact, Wilbur Jackson was then on scholarship at Alabama but ineligible to play as a true freshman.

Thanks, rex. I agree with you about using '70 as a place to start. When you look at since then, the story gets a little weaker for UT but it looks more "normal" to the college football fans over 35. Here's what it looks like in terms of wins:


Rank Team name Winning
Percentage Games
Won Games
Lost Games
Tied Games
Played
1 Nebraska 0.78952 412 108 5 525
2 Oklahoma 0.76023 386 119 8 513
3 Michigan 0.75197 378 122 8 508
4 Ohio State 0.75654 372 117 8 497
5 Texas 0.71245 358 143 5 506
6 Brigham Young 0.68678 357 162 3 522
7t Florida 0.69238 351 154 7 512
7t Alabama 0.71212 351 141 3 495
9 Georgia 0.69724 350 150 7 507
10 Florida State 0.70341 349 146 4 499
11t Southern Cal 0.70766 345 139 12 496
11t Tennessee 0.68493 345 156 10 511
13 Auburn 0.68700 340 153 7 500
14 Miami-Florida 0.68008 338 159 0 497
15 Notre Dame 0.67936 337 158 4 499
16 Louisiana State 0.65109 323 171 9 503
17t Arkansas 0.62974 311 181 9 501
17t Virginia Tech 0.62826 311 183 5 499
19 Texas A&M 0.61853 309 190 3 502
20 Clemson 0.62325 307 184 8 499

 

[iluvsmesumdooley]

I'm not even sure why I got sucked into this conversation. History is for losers like us, Minnesota, etc. who have to live on past glory because we suck donkey balls now.

 

[Boca Vol]

I'm not even sure why I got sucked into this conversation. History is for losers like us, Minnesota, etc. who have to live on past glory because we suck donkey balls now.

I tend to agree. The only reason to throw "history" in someone's face is because the "present" sucks! Otherwise, it's pretty irrelevant what a program did in the days of leather helmets and round footballs.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Thanks, rex. I agree with you about using '70 as a place to start. When you look at since then, the story gets a little weaker for UT but it looks more "normal" to the college football fans over 35. Here's what it looks like in terms of wins:


Rank Team name Winning
Percentage Games
Won Games
Lost Games
Tied Games
Played
1 Nebraska 0.78952 412 108 5 525
2 Oklahoma 0.76023 386 119 8 513
3 Michigan 0.75197 378 122 8 508
4 Ohio State 0.75654 372 117 8 497
5 Texas 0.71245 358 143 5 506
6 Brigham Young 0.68678 357 162 3 522
7t Florida 0.69238 351 154 7 512
7t Alabama 0.71212 351 141 3 495
9 Georgia 0.69724 350 150 7 507
10 Florida State 0.70341 349 146 4 499
11t Southern Cal 0.70766 345 139 12 496
11t Tennessee 0.68493 345 156 10 511
13 Auburn 0.68700 340 153 7 500
14 Miami-Florida 0.68008 338 159 0 497
15 Notre Dame 0.67936 337 158 4 499
16 Louisiana State 0.65109 323 171 9 503
17t Arkansas 0.62974 311 181 9 501
17t Virginia Tech 0.62826 311 183 5 499
19 Texas A&M 0.61853 309 190 3 502
20 Clemson 0.62325 307 184 8 499

Even then, you still have, for the most part, the same teams in or hovering around the Top Ten, which reflects staying power. The two blips are BYU, which, of course, does not play the same caliber of schedule and Penn State, which simply did not consistantly enjoy the same degree of success once they joined the Big Ten. Oops I shouldn't forget Notre Dame, which we all know had been well off its previous high standard for some time prior to this year.

'tis interesting to note that, even with their golden age of the past decade, LSU still comes in only 16th. Oregon, despite all of their acclaim in recent years, doesn't even break the top 20.

 

[Boca Vol]

Even then, you still have, for the most part, the same teams in or hovering around the Top Ten, which reflects staying power. The two blips are BYU, which, of course, does not play the same caliber of schedule and Penn State, which simply did not consistantly enjoy the same degree of success once they joined the Big Ten. Oops I shouldn't forget Notre Dame, which we all know had been well off its previous high standard for some time prior to this year.

'tis interesting to note that, even with their golden age of the past decade, LSU still comes in only 16th. Oregon, despite all of their acclaim in recent years, doesn't even break the top 20.

Keep in mind all the forfeited games by Bama and Penn St. That skews their numbers a bit.

Regarding Oregon and some of those "newer" teams, look at it since 2000...when most of our recruits would most likely barely remember. UT chimes in at 27th. Bama and Penn State are way down obviously.

So it goes to show that the recruits of today have no clue what it's like for UT to be a top program. They've heard stories, I'm sure, but have never witnessed it themselves.

 

[bamawriter]

De-segregation, while important, really wasn't the watershed moment for college football, since various programs desegregated at different times.

A more critical moment to base "greatness" on would be the elimination of the one platoon rule in 1965. That's when players could specialize as either offense or defense, and unlimited substitution was allowed. Other than the forward pass, no rule change ever affected the game as much. Only two coaches ever won national championships under one platoon and two platoon rules: Darrell Royal and Bear Bryant.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Keep in mind all the forfeited games by Bama and Penn St. That skews their numbers a bit.

Regarding Oregon and some of those "newer" teams, look at it since 2000...when most of our recruits would most likely barely remember. UT chimes in at 27th. Bama and Penn State are way down obviously.

So it goes to show that the recruits of today have no clue what it's like for UT to be a top program. They've heard stories, I'm sure, but have never witnessed it themselves.

'tis hard to believe that I had a brain cramp of such massive proportion but, yes, I momentarily overlooked the effect of NCAA sanctions on Penn State's record. I was thinking only of onfield performance, which also took a bit of a dip after their entry into the Big Ten.

I will make two additional observations regarding the value of tradition and history. Tradition is very important to programs that have decades piled upon decades of it. Like it or not, that kind of tradition gives fans a fundamentally different type of appreciation. They have seen their program rise and fall, only to rise again . . . and again. Programs like Oregon, for all of their recent success, have only recently emerged from the exile of college football's proverbial wilderness. I fully understand the human tendency to place greatest value on glories achieved in the present and immediate past. However, it also reflects a fundamental devaluation of history, and a misguided one I might add, when kids emerge from high school incapable of placing the American Civil War within the correct half century. With that kind of educational experience, it is little wonder that their sense of historicity does not exceed their personal life experience.

 

[99gator]

De-segregation, while important, really wasn't the watershed moment for college football, since various programs desegregated at different times.

A more critical moment to base "greatness" on would be the elimination of the one platoon rule in 1965. That's when players could specialize as either offense or defense, and unlimited substitution was allowed. Other than the forward pass, no rule change ever affected the game as much. Only two coaches ever won national championships under one platoon and two platoon rules: Darrell Royal and Bear Bryant.

i think television is the other thing.

before 1980, if your team was on television, it was an event. television has effected recruiting and programs big time.

everyone makes a big deal about notre dame's deal with nbc, but a lot of schools now have about 10 of their games televised and most of them are national

 

[Boca Vol]

De-segregation, while important, really wasn't the watershed moment for college football, since various programs desegregated at different times.

A more critical moment to base "greatness" on would be the elimination of the one platoon rule in 1965. That's when players could specialize as either offense or defense, and unlimited substitution was allowed. Other than the forward pass, no rule change ever affected the game as much. Only two coaches ever won national championships under one platoon and two platoon rules: Darrell Royal and Bear Bryant.

bamawriter, I wasn't aware of the platoon rule. Nice recollection on your part and I would completely agree with you as that being a game changer.

'tis hard to believe that I had a brain cramp of such massive proportion but, yes, I momentarily overlooked the effect of NCAA sanctions on Penn State's record. I was thinking only of onfield performance, which also took a bit of a dip after their entry into the Big Ten.

I will make two additional observations regarding the value of tradition and history. Tradition is very important to programs that have decades piled upon decades of it. Like it or not, that kind of tradition gives fans a fundamentally different type of appreciation. They have seen their program rise and fall, only to rise again . . . and again. Programs like Oregon, for all of their recent success, have only recently emerged from the exile of college football's proverbial wilderness. I fully understand the human tendency to place greatest value on glories achieved in the present and immediate past. However, it also reflects a fundamental devaluation of history, and a misguided one I might add, when kids emerge from high school incapable of placing the American Civil War within the correct half century. With that kind of educational experience, it is little wonder that their sense of historicity does not exceed their personal life experience.

I see what you're saying about history and, yes, it is important. However, the story continues to change but there are traditions and legacies of which the foundation was built. But as time goes on they become less relevant in "today's" world.

The VCR was a great invention and was hugely popular in the late 70's up to the mid-late 90's....It has very little relevance in today's world.

I still listen to music on CD's and the kids look at me like I'm nuts. Hell, a lot of cars don't even come with CD players anymore because of Ipods, etc.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

For forum members who have no interest in history or anthropology, I am sure that the following statement will be utterly meaningless. However, the Lakota (more popularly known as western Sioux) had an eloquent maxim/proverb which stated, "A people without history is like wind on the buffalo grass." The implied message was that a shared history gives meaning and identity to us as individuals and members of a collective group. By contrast, we are rapidly becoming a society that practically defines its very existence based on technology and that is a sad, sad development.

 

[FGT]

Good thread. Appreciating the history of our country, football program, etc. does seem to be lost in a microwave society. I also find it fascinating to analyze the how and why when it comes to to the history of programs going through peaks and valleys or rising from years of mediocrity to elite status. I would imagine in college football it comes down to two variables : coaching and recruiting.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Certainly, those are the most critical. Institutional support vis-a-vis peer institutions and the relative availability of instate talent vs. the need to recruit on a regional or national basis also play into it.

 

[thebjd]

Florida has the lead on us for all-time series, so I would rank them over us. We might still be slightly above LSU. Still above Florida State and Auburn. Still would have us ranked over UF and possibly Michigan had it not been for the last 5 disgusting, despicable, embarrassing years

Florida did not play us every year pre-Spurrier. Even with the past few years we would be ahead of Florida. Michigan would be ahead of us and they are the winningest program all-time.

 

[deckerkd]

bamawriter, I wasn't aware of the platoon rule. Nice recollection on your part and I would completely agree with you as that being a game changer.



I see what you're saying about history and, yes, it is important. However, the story continues to change but there are traditions and legacies of which the foundation was built. But as time goes on they become less relevant in "today's" world.

The VCR was a great invention and was hugely popular in the late 70's up to the mid-late 90's....It has very little relevance in today's world.

I still listen to music on CD's and the kids look at me like I'm nuts. Hell, a lot of cars don't even come with CD players anymore because of Ipods, etc.

The very point you are making seems to be a bit of a paradox. The metaphor comparing music technology to the evolution and history of college football programs is relevant when put in perspective. The VCR, Vinyl records, and even the old crank telephones are precursors to the modern day inventions and without them there would be no modern innovations or improvements. Historical programs have thus paved the way for future success in college football and are inseperable in my opinion. The test of time and the evolution of great programs thru this test are certainly more respectable than the recent success that any program has enjoyed because this success could very well be temporary and thus in the larger scheme could well be less memorable as time goes by. Measuring the impact of any and all college programs is very relevant to history and future as well.