Of Vanderbilt and Knowing Your Role

by CornFromAJar on Jun 29, 2009 11:07 AM EDT Comment 8 comments

So it's the dog days, and you've got to get your college football wherever you can, but when I read a line like

The fact that Vanderbilt finished with seven wins is impressive enough, but that it did so in the SEC makes it all the more remarkable.

in what would otherwise be a pretty good preview piece on the NYT's The Quad blog, I gotta call foul. Seven wins by Vandy standards is pretty remarkable, but that includes just a 4-4 record against the SEC, with losses against Mississippi St. and one of the worst Tennessee teams in the last quarter century*. Let's not forget the Dores also lost to Wake and Duke, and let's not forget that against the 3 worst UT teams of the last 20 years or so Vandy is only 1-2, and let's shelve statements like

Now that the Commodores have removed the stigma of 25 straight losing seasons, the program can begin the process of becoming annual bowl participants, a step that starts in 2009.

because there's more than "stigma" at play here. I've long believed that like water, teams have a natural level. Tennessee's natural level is neither the team that lost to Wyoming last year nor 1998's dream season... it's probably closer to what we saw in 2001 or 2007 (but hopefully with more SECCG wins). Vandy's center is closer to "pesky competitor" than "perennial bowl contender."

A recent Braves and Birds post hints at the same idea, saying that teams rise and fall from the status of "elite." I do agree that teams can change their natural level (see over the last couple of decades the fall of Notre Dame and the rise of Florida from mediocre to omgiwishurbanmyerwouldfalldownahole), but I also think Vandy has miles to go and some probably insurmountable steps ahead of them to change theirs.

*Yes I see the irony in baggin on Vandy's season when it was more successful than UT's; I'm talking about results over time.

FanPosts are most often submitted by users. The views and opinions expressed in FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the editorial staff of Rocky Top Talk or SB Nation.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Natural Level is Transient

I have thought about this way more than I would like to admit. But it is unquestionably true. What was USC’s natural level in 1999? What is it now?

by kidbourbon on Jun 29, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops

I should have read your next paragraph before posting.

by kidbourbon on Jun 29, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It may be transient,

but there has to be a reason for it to change. With USC, the change came in getting an improved coaching staff and a serious upgrade in recruiting (with the latter mostly at UCLA’s expense).

With Vandy, Bobby Johnson appears to have moved the natural level upward. I don’t know if it can go any higher based on him alone, though. If they could break through the ‘recruiting at an academic school’ problem and get a more consistent pool of athletes in place, then the bar could go up higher. But until then, we may find that last season was a high-end deviation for a team that’s destined to hang around the 3-9 to 5-7 mark.

by Hooper on Jun 29, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Right,

How transient the level is depends on how large a scale you’re looking at. the last 18 years, what USC has done recently looks amazing; they look like they’ve gone from also-ran to elite overnight.

But USC’s rise is/was a correction upwards from a decade of sub-par seasons. USC is an historically elite team; what they did in the ‘90s was their low-end deviation. Oklahoma’s story is very similar. Very few teams rise significantly above their historic average and stay there—I can’t think of any team to have done it other than Florida (maybe Virginia Tech?). Vanderbilt is a .500-or-below team despite last year’s success, just like Duke is a below .500 team even though they won the ACC in 1989.

by CornFromAJar on Jun 29, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teams that have risen

Florida, Va. Tech, Miami (was nothing pre-1980), LSU.
You might throw Boise State in there.

by kidbourbon on Jun 29, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great call on Miami. LSU…IDK. They’ve traditionally been pretty strong, have won national championships, have a high historical winning %. I’d put them in the same boat as USC and OU: teams that are historically good-great that have occasional (and maybe decade-long) slips into mediocrity and below. Again, it depends on how large a picture you’re looking at.

Boise… IIRC they were a very solid I-AA program before moving up… they’ve made a much stronger transition to I-A than many others who have tried it (see the Sun Belt)… still, conference is too weak & they haven’t been doing it long enough. Guess I’m looking at a bigger picture rather than short-term success.

by CornFromAJar on Jun 29, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won't battle you over Boise

But I may have to respectfully disagree on LSU. The two-decade rule…I just made it up. If you are mediocre for two decades then your natural level is mediocrity.

Under this rule, ND has to turn it around in the next four years or they officially will be considered mediocre and there will be a nationwide ban on the movie “Rudy.”

by kidbourbon on Jun 29, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh please oh please

Under this rule, ND has to turn it around in the next four years or they officially will be considered mediocre and there will be a nationwide ban on the movie "Rudy."

lol, I hope so much that this happens, especially the second part!!!

Then, of couse, Urban Meyer will be headed up there to fix things I guess….

Tennessee WILL beat Georgia on the way to 9+ wins in '09!!!

by VolBrian on Jun 30, 2009 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs