🏈 5 most improved teams this fall?

[TerryP]

That's all fine and dandy, but Nebraska is recruiting by itself in the middle of the country. Tennessee is in a hot bed of recruiting in the South, but also packed with other top flight programs.

One half of the D1 talent is found in the SE, where one school has a strong brand.
One tenth of the talent is found in the MW, where one school has a decent brand.

One school has an inherent advantage where it all starts: D1 talent.

I'm beginning to thing you're focused on this from a football perspective whereas it's about an Athletic Department. There's the second advantage for UT: branding because of its Athletic Department. What program do you point to outside of football where Nebraska is a brand in and of itself? Men's wrestling? Whereas we're pointing to basketball, baseball, and others with Tennessee.

It's those two advantage which give the Vols a better chance at fielding a competitive football team than the Huskers.

---

---

A bit of a side note, but related.

Several years ago when discussing men's basketball this very subject came up about Alabama's chances of being nationally competitive. People pointed to guys (in state) on different rosters as the reason why without looking at the need for Alabama to take a more national approach. State talent, even with surrounding states mixed in, wasn't the answer.

Nebraska is in a very similar situation. They aren't—and at this point really can't—dip into the SE for football talent. They can't on the national stage as well. Tennessee, meanwhile, is grabbing five star quarterbacks out of California.

 

[NickelDoubleDog]

We can add Wisconsin, Minnesota, N and S Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Missouri and they still don't have the number of D1 prospects that are in UT's area. (To make if fair we should add the DMV and Virginia's to UT's area, but let's not.)

In August, on one medium (TicToc) Nebraska ranked #18 in followers and interactions. That's great for one program out of 130. Tennessee ranked sixth.

Better branding for Tennessee is yet another advantage demonstrated there. IF I were to look at TWTR and FB I'm sure to see the same result.

---

---

Let's take this one step further and look at what Nebraska's issues have been.

Since they hired Callahan to take their offense "into this century" their recruiting emphasis has changed: it's skill position players. It's not unlike what we're seeing at USC right now but their talent isn't on the same level as what Riley has attracted. What's missing is the same with both programs: who do they have, and have they had, in the trenches?

---

---

It's a little ironic to see similarities between UT and Heupel and Nebraska and Callahan. Both schools going with hopes of high powered offenses and have left the defense to fend for itself. (Remember hearing "Black Shirts" a lot during Callahan's last days? That's what led to Pelini.) UT going defense to offense, Nebraska ran from offense to defense.

Who's comments on Nebraska are these? They aren't accurate

 

[TerryP]

Who's comments on Nebraska are these? They aren't accurate

Which comments?

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

I have to say.... Vandy!

 

[NickelDoubleDog]

Which comments?

the odd comparisons of Heupel to Bill Callahan at Nebraska, who hasn't been there in 15 years. Callahan recruited a ton of good defensive players, NFL guys, some first round draft picks too.

 

[TerryP]

the odd comparisons of Heupel to Bill Callahan at Nebraska, who hasn't been there in 15 years. Callahan recruited a ton of good defensive players, NFL guys, some first round draft picks too.

The movement to bring him in was to boost offensive production. The group leading the way for his exit? The ol' Black Shirts.

 

[BamaFan334]

One half of the D1 talent is found in the SE, where one school has a strong brand.
One tenth of the talent is found in the MW, where one school has a decent brand.

One school has an inherent advantage where it all starts: D1 talent.

I'm beginning to thing you're focused on this from a football perspective whereas it's about an Athletic Department. There's the second advantage for UT: branding because of its Athletic Department. What program do you point to outside of football where Nebraska is a brand in and of itself? Men's wrestling? Whereas we're pointing to basketball, baseball, and others with Tennessee.

It's those two advantage which give the Vols a better chance at fielding a competitive football team than the Huskers.

---

---

A bit of a side note, but related.

Several years ago when discussing men's basketball this very subject came up about Alabama's chances of being nationally competitive. People pointed to guys (in state) on different rosters as the reason why without looking at the need for Alabama to take a more national approach. State talent, even with surrounding states mixed in, wasn't the answer.

Nebraska is in a very similar situation. They aren't—and at this point really can't—dip into the SE for football talent. They can't on the national stage as well. Tennessee, meanwhile, is grabbing five star quarterbacks out of California.

How did I know you'd bring up Nico. And he hasn't even officially signed yet. Outside of him, Casey Clausen is the only other quarterback from California, and that's not someone to make an argument around. On top of that, what results have we seen from Tennessee that Nebraska hasn't been able to replicate? Technically that makes my case for me. Even with all of those advantages you give Tennessee, Nebraska has been able to achieve just as much if not more. So while we can give Tennessee the recruiting win, it hasn't given them any kind of advantage in our discussion.

Also, I don't consider Tennessee a big name is baseball. They have done well over the last 3-4 years from my quick research, but every other year has been mediocre to not so bad. I think LSU, Florida State, Miami, Vanderbilt, Texas, Cal State Fullerton, South Carolina, and even Rice when I think college baseball. Tennessee is nowhere near those programs or in my mind.

Basketball, I will give to you because they have a solid program women and men's.

Football though, Nebraska is more thought of than Tennessee if we want to think about where their status is in the history of a sport.

All of the aside, athletic departments, boosters, recruiting, facilities, Nebraska has the easiest path to relevance again. When it comes to wins and losses, they have the easiest chance at winning against their schedule than Tennessee does. Playing Georgia, Alabama, and Florida every year is a tough narrative to break. You're essentially looking at 1-2, easily each year in conference play with those three teams, if not 0-3. Then you have toss up games where it's 75/25 and 50/50. Nebraska in theory has a 50/50 shot against their entire schedule (if we want to look at FPI the percentage actually looks higher than 50/50 and closer to 70/30 for the season Morning Mash: Finding some strong individual performances in a loss). Coaching got them against Northwestern, but their athletes had them a big lead before stupidity kicked in. So get a decent coach and Nebraska is back before Tennessee.

 

[mando]

Wow did not know Nebraks./UT debate was going to break out. My only point was I believe Nebraska can make it back and I sure hope the Viles never do although they appear to be finding their way out of the ditch. Hopefully they will continue to not care about defense and something will happen that puts them back in the ditch for another decade.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Wow did not know Nebraks./UT debate was going to break out. My only point was I believe Nebraska can make it back and I sure hope the Viles never do although they appear to be finding their way out of the ditch. Hopefully they will continue to not care about defense and something will happen that puts them back in the ditch for another decade.

Yeah, surprised to see the bandwidth on this topic. Relative to conference strength, clearly an easier path for Nebraska.

Head to head, I’d pick UT over Nebraska by 14, or more.

 

[TerryP]

How did I know you'd bring up Nico. And he hasn't even officially signed yet. Outside of him, Casey Clausen is the only other quarterback from California, and that's not someone to make an argument around. On top of that, what results have we seen from Tennessee that Nebraska hasn't been able to replicate?

Frost is in his fifth year at Nebraska, right? Results that Nebraska hasn't been able to duplicate. Can we start with UT's 23 wins over that period versus Nebraska's 15?
You're so focused on the tree here you're missing the forest. I used Nico as an example of how the Tennessee name is a national name; the inherent advantage they have on the recruiting trail. It's reflected in how these classes have been ranked nationally.

Nebraska came in with the 41st best class last year. UT was top 20. in '20 they were neck and neck: UT with more blue chip players while Nebraska had more signees. UT was 11th the year before, Nebraska 20th. The 28 committments in '19 put Nebraska close to UT again, but UT, again, has more blue chip guys.

Your assertion was Nebraska has an easier path to relevance again. Nothing supports this. UT has more tradition (yes, it matters) and a much larger recruiting base of more talented players. It's all starts with Jimmy's and Joe's.

(I'd side with Heupel on the X's and O's and do so very hesitantly. He's definitely a better offensive coach.)

Football though, Nebraska is more thought of than Tennessee if we want to think about where their status is in the history of a sport.

Bruh. No.

Tennessee was a national brand in the '30's. Nebraska didn't show up on the national stage until the late 60's with their first title in 1970.

 

[BamaFan334]

Frost is in his fifth year at Nebraska, right? Results that Nebraska hasn't been able to duplicate. Can we start with UT's 23 wins over that period versus Nebraska's 15?
You're so focused on the tree here you're missing the forest. I used Nico as an example of how the Tennessee name is a national name; the inherent advantage they have on the recruiting trail. It's reflected in how these classes have been ranked nationally.

Nebraska came in with the 41st best class last year. UT was top 20. in '20 they were neck and neck: UT with more blue chip players while Nebraska had more signees. UT was 11th the year before, Nebraska 20th. The 28 committments in '19 put Nebraska close to UT again, but UT, again, has more blue chip guys.

Your assertion was Nebraska has an easier path to relevance again. Nothing supports this. UT has more tradition (yes, it matters) and a much larger recruiting base of more talented players. It's all starts with Jimmy's and Joe's.

(I'd side with Heupel on the X's and O's and do so very hesitantly. He's definitely a better offensive coach.)

Bruh. No.

Tennessee was a national brand in the '30's. Nebraska didn't show up on the national stage until the late 60's with their first title in 1970.

You're wrong here and you know it.

To say Tennessee has national reach and Nebraska doesn't is laughable. Please graph the rosters and see what they look like. Nebraska has a bigger footprint. And don't then start saying, "well Tennessee doesn't have to go as far as Nebraska".

I also NEVER said Frost was the guy to get them back either, I simply said their path was easier to relevance.

You can say it till you're blue in the face, but Nebraska is known for football in college football circles more than Tennessee. You're attempting to regionalize that part of your arguement, but go to the West Coast and they will tell you Nebraska, the Midwest the same, and the North the same. The South holds your arguement. Who cares when they won their first Natty and if Tennessee had some early relevant years. You saying Miami doesn't hold clout and they weren't anything consistent till the 80's.

The whole record during Frost's tenure is irrelevant as well, because that's not the question or the point. Tennessee hasn't fallen off a cliff like Nebraska, correct, but they also aren't beating Georgia, Florida, nor Alabama. Winning those 75/25 games. That's all dine, but Tennessee will not regain relevance until they can beat Alabama and/or Georgia and that won't be happening any time soon, to go on top of winning every other game they play.

 

[NickelDoubleDog]

Frost is in his fifth year at Nebraska, right? Results that Nebraska hasn't been able to duplicate. Can we start with UT's 23 wins over that period versus Nebraska's 15?
You're so focused on the tree here you're missing the forest. I used Nico as an example of how the Tennessee name is a national name; the inherent advantage they have on the recruiting trail. It's reflected in how these classes have been ranked nationally.

Nebraska came in with the 41st best class last year. UT was top 20. in '20 they were neck and neck: UT with more blue chip players while Nebraska had more signees. UT was 11th the year before, Nebraska 20th. The 28 committments in '19 put Nebraska close to UT again, but UT, again, has more blue chip guys.

Your assertion was Nebraska has an easier path to relevance again. Nothing supports this. UT has more tradition (yes, it matters) and a much larger recruiting base of more talented players. It's all starts with Jimmy's and Joe's.

(I'd side with Heupel on the X's and O's and do so very hesitantly. He's definitely a better offensive coach.)

Bruh. No.

Tennessee was a national brand in the '30's. Nebraska didn't show up on the national stage until the late 60's with their first title in 1970.

Nebraska has more National titles and more program wins compared to Tennessee. Nebraska is universally regarded as a better program, historically speaking, than Tennessee.

Nebraska with a good coach wins the Big Ten West 85% of the time, which puts you in position to be making major bowls.

 

[TerryP]

You're wrong here and you know it.

To say Tennessee has national reach and Nebraska doesn't is laughable. Please graph the rosters and see what they look like. Nebraska has a bigger footprint. And don't then start saying, "well Tennessee doesn't have to go as far as Nebraska".

I said brand recognition and it's back up, as one example, by social media metrics. We can move to Sagarin ratings if you'd like: the eyeballs on on the Vols.

You can say it till you're blue in the face, but Nebraska is known for football in college football circles more than Tennessee. You're attempting to regionalize that part of your arguement, but go to the West Coast and they will tell you Nebraska, the Midwest the same, and the North the same. The South holds your arguement. Who cares when they won their first Natty and if Tennessee had some early relevant years. You saying Miami doesn't hold clout and they weren't anything consistent till the 80's.

I'm blue in the face? Your pointing to Nebraska and asserting "their status is in the history of a sport" and then saying who cares when they won their first national title?

You go to the West Coast? Tennessee was "smelling roses" before Nebraska.

I've listed example after example, not opinion after opinion, of where the Vols are as compared to Nebraska. What more metrics do you need to see where UT leads?

 

[TerryP]

Nebraska has more National titles and more program wins compared to Tennessee. Nebraska is universally regarded as a better program, historically speaking, than Tennessee.

Nebraska claims five. Tennessee claims six. I know they're back to back, both in the top ten, and I want to say there's a 40-50 win differential.

Tennessee had five national titles before Nebraska had its first. And historically speaking they're a better program?

If only titles were a metric, a barometer, to judge things in football ...

 

[NickelDoubleDog]

Nebraska claims five. Tennessee claims six. I know they're back to back, both in the top ten, and I want to say there's a 40-50 win differential.

Tennessee had five national titles before Nebraska had its first. And historically speaking they're a better program?

If only titles were a metric, a barometer, to judge things in football ...

4 titles before the modern era. But whatever.

Both were great in the 90s, Nebraska was better. Nebraska was better in the 70s and 80s as well. Recently both have been bad, Nebraska worse currently.

Tennessee Zero Heisman winners. Nebraska has 3

 

[SoCalPatrick]

4 titles before the modern era. But whatever.

So historical is now off the table.

 

[BamaFan334]

I said brand recognition and it's back up, as one example, by social media metrics. We can move to Sagarin ratings if you'd like: the eyeballs on on the Vols.

I'm blue in the face? Your pointing to Nebraska and asserting "their status is in the history of a sport" and then saying who cares when they won their first national title?

You go to the West Coast? Tennessee was "smelling roses" before Nebraska.

I've listed example after example, not opinion after opinion, of where the Vols are as compared to Nebraska. What more metrics do you need to see where UT leads?

It's not my opinion versus your facts. Social media footprint is a meaningless metric you're using to bend your opinion. Nebraska has a larger footprint fan wise, roster wise, appeal wise, and it's not hard to figure that out. Nebraska is widely considered to be a blue blood, Tennessee is not. The easier path to relevance is the path of least resistance and that is through the Big 10.

 

[NickelDoubleDog]

So historical is now off the table.

It matters, but there's history, and ancient history. There is an accepted timeframe of modern college football. The game wasn't even integrated when many of these teams were winning titles.

Minnesota has 7 national titles to their name - are they an elite program in CFB history? No

Tennessee is a great all time program, they just aren't at Nebraska's level. Not far behind.

 

[TerryP]

4 titles before the modern era. But whatever.

Casual dismissals of a sub-topic within a thread about improved teams that was hijacked by which between two is an easier rebuild. My head's spinning.

I laughed at the "modern era" comment. But hell, I'm still waiting on anyone to explain how the AP Poll was better than Houlgate.

 

[TerryP]

Nebraska has a larger footprint fan wise, roster wise, appeal wise, and it's not hard to figure that out.

Then why don't they draw the numbers that are used to reflect your assertions?

There was an in-depth study done with the findings released within the last month. It's subject was fan bases. Look up the study by TJ Altimore on college football fan bases. It's an easy search: his findings were published in a lot of places. You won't find Nebraska listed above Tennessee.