Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

They've just played Florida early, Georgia and Bama in the middle, then the SEC Sisters of the Poor in November every year.

I went back to their bad downturn under Dooley and found this nugget:
Tennessee beat a ranked South Carolina on Halloween in 2009.
The Vols went on to lose their next 17 SEC games played before November (3.5 seasons-worth).

Nationally, I don't think people realize how bad Tennessee fell, as they'd always wind up 6-7 or something similar, often on an upswing to close out the year.  False hope.  But for one 4-year stretch, against anyone with a pulse, the Vols were a joke.
Even in 2013, when they finally won a pre-November SEC game, it was against South Carolina again....and drunk off of that win, proceeded to lose their next 4 SEC games. 

And none of that includes their 0-8 conference record in 2017. 

so the Vols sold their soul for the 1998 MNC and the curse is still strong?

Quote from: MrNubbz on June 15, 2020, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

How could Miami/tOSU not be getting better and better when they both went in undefeated?And USC lost twice

If you stink at first, it's easy to "get hot" as the season progresses.  It's a garbage argument for teams that don't belong.

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, but I thought the topic here evokes good teams that didn't win anything. I didn't say USC belonged in the title game--it didn't. I said it was a really good team that didn't win anything--and that at the end of the season, the way it looked, a lot of people--me included--would have expected it to do well in an NFL-like playoff format. It wouldn't have looked out of place playing against Miami or OSU--it didn't belong there the way CFB works, but in a different format it wouldn't have been dismissed, either. (Even under the current format, it probably wouldn't get it, as the playoff probably would have been Miami, OSU, Georgia, Oklahoma.)

As BAB pointed out, it was a team that played a tough schedule, with two early, close losses to very good teams (on the road, by one score each, one in OT; the teams finished 7 and 10 in the AP poll--they were 6 and 7 going into the bowl games). After going 3-2, the Trojans finished on a tear behind its Heisman trophy winning quarterback. This was--as I think the topic looks for--a very good team that didn't win anything of note.

But it did torch 12-1 Iowa in the Orange Bowl game (dropping the Hawkeyes from #3 to #8 in the AP). But don't take my word for it; take the voters in the AP Poll, who put USC 4th. Of note, in the Orange Bowl, after Iowa returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown, USC outscored Iowa 38-3, until Iowa scored a consolation touchdown with 50 seconds to play to make the final score--38-17--look respectable.

So yeah, a garbage argument for a team that stunk. Exactly.

So yeah, a garbage argument for a team that stunk. Exactly.

I wasn't pooping on your post, it's just that 2002 USC is the poster child for those who want to discount September losses.  Obviously, I don't agree with it.  

That USC team was co-champ of the Pac-10 (albeit losing to the 'other' team, who went to the RB).  

A team that lost twice early and then looked impressive the rest of the way would seem to be a good candidate for this topic, to me.