Sorry Vandy

[ssgaufan]

Vandy is 2-0 against Auburn.

Shut your dirty whore mouth.

[Snaggletiger]

Similar situation at Duke.  Big ole brains up there so the academic thing gets in the way of recruiting.  Small stadium that unless they've upgraded in recent years, is the biggest dump I've ever set foot in.  Then, so is Cameron Indoor, but that seems to work in their favor for some reason.   

[Snaggletiger]

Shut your dirty whore mouth.

You must know that with an avatar like that, no one reads what you post.

[The Prowler]

Florida is a poor example. They were mediocre, yes. But had a history of being competitive.  Spurrier and Heisman?

Vandy has never been anything but a punching bag. Has as much a chance of becoming a legit SEC challenger in the long term as Jenna Jameson winning three consecutive Best Actress Oscars.

Whatever Kaos...Vanderbilt is going to become the standard of excellence and winning all while the student athletes hold a 3.5 GPA or higher (even the inner city kids). Stanford will be known as the Vanderbilt of the Pac-12.

[Snaggletiger]

I do love seeing Game Day at Vandy.  The signs they make are like watching The Big Bang Theory.

[ssgaufan]

You must know that with an avatar like that, no one reads what you post.

I'm not gonna lie, you cut me deep just then.

[Vandy Vol]

Spurrier looks really old to have won the heisman in 1990. I figured him for much older than 40.

I'm talking about when he coached there, which was essentially when Florida turned the corner to becoming a better team.  Chicago has a Heisman winner too, but that didn't turn them into a powerhouse.

During Spurrier's time as a player at Florida, they had 6, 7, and 9 game winning seasons, but then within a couple of years went back to several 4 and 5 win seasons, and even a winless season.  Spurrier as a Heisman QB was not the turning point for Florida becoming a consistent and "top tier" program.

[The Prowler]

How many Heisman winners does Vanderbilt have?

[Snaggletiger]

I'm not gonna lie, you cut me deep just then.

Definitely one of your hotter selections.  Sweet Haysuess!!!

[wesfau2]

Thinking outside the box.  A real go-getter.

A straight shooter with upper management written all over him.

[AUChizad]

Not that I don't think is a bit delusional about Vandy's status as a program, but I don't think it's as desolate as everyone is saying.

They're still in the SEC. There was a time not very long ago that everyone said that about Stanford. I don't see any reason we can't have a Stanford-level football team with similar admissions standards in the SEC. I'm not saying it's a chip-shot by any means, but I think Franklin laid some groundwork. I think if they don't fuck up (which based on who they're currently interviewing - Schottenheimer etc. it appears that they will), but IF they get a guy in there that can build on the groundwork that Franklin laid down, they can be successful.

Like I said though, all signs are pointing to them fucking this up.

[WiregrassTiger]

They're still in the SEC. There was a time not very long ago that everyone said that about Stanford.

I do not remember a single time hearing anyone saying that Stanford is still in the SEC. Who said this and when? Or, are you lying again? Are you?

[Vandy Vol]

How many Heisman winners does Vanderbilt have?

Not only did you misstate my stance in a hyperbolic fashion in your previous post, but you've completely missed the topic of discussion with this comment.

Football programs can improve.  That's my entire point.  No one is saying that Vanderbilt has become the mightiest program in the nation and that they're going to win the national championship next year.  No one is even saying that they are going to be consistently successful from here on out.

What I am saying is that they improved under Franklin, and given the right hire and continued support from the university, they can continue to improve.  Pointing to past failures or lack of awards in the past does not disprove what can happen in the future.  As I've already mentioned, if the fact that a football program has historically had little success absolutely prevents it from ever garnering future success, then Oregon, Florida, Stanford, etc. are all still shitty teams with no hopes of ever being consistently successful.

You might as well build a flux capacitor, buy a DeLorean, and drive back to 1970 to tell Shug that his team will never amount to anything because he has no Heisman winners.

[Vandy Vol]

Not that I don't think is a bit delusional about Vandy's status as a program, but I don't think it's as desolate as everyone is saying.

I'm not sure how stating that Vandy can improve is being delusional about their current status.  Saying that we can improve implies that we have room for improvement.

We're better than we were, but we're nowhere near elite; I know that.  My only point is that we have shown improvement due to the school's recent decision to give more support and funding to athletics, and that this improvement can continue.  Pointing to our past and saying, "BUT LOOK!  They're Vandy...they can't improve" is silly.  The past does not dictate the future, especially when you're making changes in the present.

[The Prowler]

Not only did you misstate my stance in a hyperbolic fashion in your previous post, but you've completely missed the topic of discussion with this comment.

Football programs can improve.  That's my entire point.  No one is saying that Vanderbilt has become the mightiest program in the nation and that they're going to win the national championship next year.  No one is even saying that they are going to be consistently successful from here on out.

What I am saying is that they improved under Franklin, and given the right hire and continued support from the university, they can continue to improve.  Pointing to past failures or lack of awards in the past does not disprove what can happen in the future.  As I've already mentioned, if the fact that a football program has historically had little success absolutely prevents it from ever garnering future success, then Oregon, Florida, Stanford, etc. are all still shitty teams with no hopes of ever being consistently successful.

You might as well build a flux capacitor, buy a DeLorean, and drive back to 1970 to tell Shug that his team will never amount to anything because he has no Heisman winners.

So, none?

[GH2001]

I'm talking about when he coached there, which was essentially when Florida turned the corner to becoming a better team.  Chicago has a Heisman winner too, but that didn't turn them into a powerhouse.

During Spurrier's time as a player at Florida, they had 6, 7, and 9 game winning seasons, but then within a couple of years went back to several 4 and 5 win seasons, and even a winless season.  Spurrier as a Heisman QB was not the turning point for Florida becoming a consistent and "top tier" program.

Most of those teams in that era played 10 and 11 game schedules. 9 wins ain't no joke. I see more 6-9 win seasons in their history than 0-3 win seasons. And I know vandy has lots of those.

Point is, fla had a lot less further to crawl to get to the top than vandy has had. Plus fla has a lot more going for it overall. It was a gold mine that just needed the right person in charge. I think it's a bad comparison.

[Vandy Vol]

Most of those teams in that era played 10 and 11 game schedules. 9 wins ain't no joke. I see more 6-9 win seasons in their history than 0-3 win seasons. And I know vandy has lots of those.

Point is, fla had a lot less further to crawl to get to the top than vandy has had. Plus fla has a lot more going for it overall. It was a gold mine that just needed the right person in charge. I think it's a bad comparison.

Point is, Florida was not a consistent, top tier team.  You may see more 6-9 win seasons, but there are a variety of 0-5 win seasons thrown in there, too.  1950, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1971, 1972, 1978, 1979.  Compare that to post-1990 Florida who has not had less than a 7 win season, and has only had two of those.

And again, I think y'all are misconstruing what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that Vandy can get to the same level as Florida in the same amount of time; I understand Florida had a better record even in their "shitty" years.  But what I am saying is that teams can have a turnaround.  Just because you have a less than stellar historical record doesn't mean that you will always maintain a less than stellar record.  Change can, and does, happen.  If it didn't, then Florida would still be having multiple 3-6 win seasons every few years, Oregon would still be winning only 2 games a season every few years, etc.

[Snaggletiger]

I do not remember a single time hearing anyone saying that Stanford is still in the SEC. Who said this and when? Or, are you lying again? Are you?

Don't think this went unnoticed.  ***snickers***

[AU_Tiger_2000]

I'm not gonna lie, you cut me deep just then.

I'm sorry, did you say something?  I was distracted.

[WiregrassTiger]

Don't think this went unnoticed.  ***snickers***

Thanks man. I hussle but I don't do it for the glory. I'm a team player. But it is nice to be recognized every now and then. That's why I try to Like someone every now and then, even if their post sucks cock.