My homeboy Bill C.'s numbers say that the best Tennessee of the 90s was the 1993 team, and the 1998 team wasn't even one of the 50 best teams of the decade. But they do say that Tennessee was the 4th best team overall for the decade as a whole. Discuss. http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...1990s-rankings-florida-state-nebraska-florida
But we were definitely fourth best in the 90s and I don't even have to read the article to know who we finished behind.
But not as favorably as the '99 team. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/university-of-miami-hurricanes-college-football/
I'm sure they are, but I feel like teams in the Shuler (and Manning to an extent) era were good at taking a slight advantage over an opponent and running up the score with it. We could beat the 20th ranked team by 30 back then but as soon as we were equally matched we struggled mightily. 98 team didn't have that problem
The '93 team couldn't beat a busted up Alabama team and got trucked by Penn State. Nothing terribly impressive about them.
The '98 team is the one that I have the fondest memories of, and it isn't even a close call. But that team got really lucky and struggled mightily in many instances. I think the results from something like this are interesting in that it causes one to consider whether the best performing teams were the best teams. Stated differently: how many wins one way or the other can luck swing a season?
I don't have any knowledge on the specifics, but the talent level of great teams is always a slow dropoff. I can't imagine the '93 Bama team didn't have plenty of horses.
The 1997 team was better than the 1998 team, but Al Wilson taking over and pretty much telling everyone losing is unacceptable was the difference
That got promptly hammered at home by a bad LSU the week after they played Tennessee? Yeah, that one.