Dear Legion of Mediocrity:

[Philly Dawg]

You are right about Tyler and right that it was from before my time, but there were no forfeits in Sherrill's time; he was actually the beneficiary of a forfeited win over Alabama. Include the forfeited games, and Tyler's winning percentages were .580 and .380, almost exactly the same as Mullen. He also had some ups and downs, winning 4, 9, 6, 9, 5, and 6 games, i.e. there were times throughout his tenure that you could say he was slipping. The same was true for Sherrill; you might have concluded he was slipping when he won only 3 and 5 games his 3rd and 4th year after winning 7 in his first two.

The problems generally relate to consistency and logic. For example, you take issue with losing to Auburn this year because of their record from last year. But this isn't last year; Auburn is a quality team this year. Sherrill certainly had bad losses, too, and my guess is that the same is true for Tyler. And Mullen beat #25/20 Ole Miss during his first year; you are either arbitrarily choosing the top 20 rather than the top 25 and/or choosing the poll that meets your needs.

Would we like Mullen to do as well every year as we remember Tyler and Sherrill doing based on their best years? Sure, but that isn't reality.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Sorry I did correct you will note. Published too soon. And I said that is a misleading fact. The numbers are right but presented in an inaccurate way.

 

[Wicked Pissah]

Really? Starkville is the worst city in the SEC? Are you sure you have been to Starkville? Have you ever been to Auburn? Oxford? Fayetteville? Depending on tastes, I can easily add other SEC cities to that short list. You sound like a member of the press from Yankee land that has never been close to Starkville. Miss.Stake sounds like a great name for you, reb.

yes, starkville is probably the worst town in the SEC. Over half the town looks like downtown Baghdad. I cold go on for pages but that isnt necessary. I do love starkville but dont fool yourself. Oxford and Auburn are similar small, southern **** towns. Only difference is both has a FEW more good eateries and bars. That is it.

 

[Miss.Stake]

Been to all 3 and what i said is just the reality of what it is

 

[Salty Sands Dawg]

You are right about Tyler and right that it was from before my time, but there were no forfeits in Sherrill's time; he was actually the beneficiary of a forfeited win over Alabama. Include the forfeited games, and Tyler's winning percentages were .580 and .380, almost exactly the same as Mullen. He also had some ups and downs, winning 4, 9, 6, 9, 5, and 6 games, i.e. there were times throughout his tenure that you could say he was slipping. The same was true for Sherrill; you might have concluded he was slipping when he won only 3 and 5 games his 3rd and 4th year after winning 7 in his first two.

The problems generally relate to consistency and logic. For example, you take issue with losing to Auburn this year because of their record from last year. But this isn't last year; Auburn is a quality team this year. Sherrill certainly had bad losses, too, and my guess is that the same is true for Tyler. And Mullen beat #25/20 Ole Miss during his first year; you are either arbitrarily choosing the top 20 rather than the top 25 and/or choosing the poll that meets your needs.

Would we like Mullen to do as well every year as we remember Tyler and Sherrill doing based on their best years? Sure, but that isn't reality.

Relative to the on the field records of both men that I cited, there were forfeits, thus making both records correct. You acknowledge that Coach Sherrill was the beneficiary of one. Therefore, it changed his record on paper to 75-75-2 from his on the field record of 74-76-2. It did not change the fact that we lost the game (Alabama 1993), no more than it changed the fact that we won all of the games that were taken from us from 1975-77. Just to put it into today's perspective, would it change your opinion about the status of the program if all of Dan Mullen's teams losses over the last 4+ years were forfeited by the NCAA to Mississippi State? Since you also acknowledge that it was before your time, then I will tell you that period of time (Tyler era) had a radical impact on our fan base (others have also made similar comments in this thread), not only from the improvement by winning games but also his ability to recruit great athletes to Mississippi State against much stronger opponents that had a lot more resources. I would encourage you to study the period of 1949-1972 (as well as the Tyler era). Our people (at that time) did not believe we would ever win until he came along. You are correct about the win totals from 73-78 but again you would have had to have known all of the variables that played into what was going on at that time. I'm not making excuses I'm simply trying to explain to you and show you that he took a doormat and made it into something in a short period of time against a lot bigger odds than we face today. It is a true shame that it ended the way it did because he had the tiger by the tale (relatively speaking).
Relative to your 2013 Auburn reference, I don't care what they are doing now or a month from now. The point was at the time we played them they were not very good. They simply outcoached us. Surely, you don't believe they had (or have now) better talent than Mississippi State?
As for your 2009 UM game poll point, I took the number straight out of the Mississippi State Football Media Guide! Just to double check it, I also went back and looked at my recording of the game which cites them as #25 on the television that day. Therefore, if another poll had them at #20 somewhere else then so be it.
Relative to your last statement, I stand by my point and perspective in my original post.

 

[diddog]

Well said. What is the future here with Mullen? More time at number 13 in the SEC (which is where we are now on about everyone's list - just google a current list). We are lucky because a) we play Kentucky every year as our permanent SEC East team, and they b) have been horrible since Dan has been coach.
So just how are we going to become competitive in the SEC? It is about the talent of our players. Plain and simple. We are behind everyone - everyone - in the SEC West in recruiting. We are behind everyone except Missouri in the SEC in recruiting right now - 13th out of 14th. About where our team is now in the SEC.
So, MSU fans seem to be content with playing four extremely weak non-conference games, beating Kentucky, and whoever else is very down that year, and getting blown out by all teams that are rated as "good" by national standards.
it's not going to get better. It's going to get worse. Just wait until Kentucky has better talent.

 

[was21]

Just curious: where did you get the stuff about Colorado?

 

[thatsbaseball]

Haven`t heard anything like this since we had 12 year olds running around the house

 

[thatsbaseball]

You haven`t even mentioned the Bulldog Club...Tyler was the driving force behind getting it started. Ever wonder why the PO box number is BT ?

 

[Philly Dawg]

With the on the field records included, the fact remains that these men have similar records to Mullen. I'm fully aware of our history, which is why I think its hasty to demand the replacement of a man whose record matches the most successful coaches in our history. I certainly do think Auburn has similar talent to MSU, just as Ole Miss did when they beat us last year. Although the programs had struggled, they had recruited very well, and by most accounts better than we had; talent was not their problem.

Bob Tyler and Jackie Sherrill had huge impacts on this program. But Bellard, Felker, and Croom show us that its not automatic that we match those two guys' success. And the expectations you place on the program are not to match those guys, but to consistently match those guys' best years, something neither of them could do.

 

[STATELAW]

Seems like he had the same problem as Mullen. Lack of SEC wins.

 

[engie]

In terms of SEC record, Mullen is only about 4% above our historical average. And that's indicative of official record and not actual results. I agree that Mullen's SEC has been stouter than any before it -- but has he really elevated us as a program in "on the field" results? The answer is no. He's been average. The same average of all our history. The difference is that the SEC is stronger -- we're stronger by proxy -- and we don't lose OOC games to average/bad teams anymore, while also scheduling smarter...

I've been on the Mullen train for a long, long time -- but he has GOT to show me something before this year is over. I saw more from Mark Hudspeth in the second half of the Western Kentucky game against Petrino than I've seen from Mullen in 2.5 seasons...

 

[Sutterkane]

Somebody has to lose in the division. And if every team goes 4-4, they will all fire their coaches and dedicate even more money and resources to make sure we are not getting to 4-4 in the conference.

LSU expects 6-2
Arkansas expects 5-3
Auburn expects 5-3
Ole Miss expects 4-4
Bama expects 7-1
A&M expects 4-4

That's mathematically never going to happen which is why coaches are fired every year. And if those records were even close? The East would be a coaching fire sale.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

I would encourage you to study the period of 1949-1972 (as well as the Tyler era). Our people (at that time) did not believe we would ever win until he came along. You are correct about the win totals from 73-78 but again you would have had to have known all of the variables that played into what was going on at that time. I'm not making excuses I'm simply trying to explain to you and show you that he took a doormat and made it into something in a short period of time against a lot bigger odds than we face today. It is a true shame that it ended the way it did because he had the tiger by the tale (relatively speaking).
Relative to your 2013 Auburn reference, I don't care what they are doing now or a month from now.

You are right, you do need to understand history and the variables to make a good judgement about where we stand today compared to that time. When you do a comparative study about Mississippi State football, SEC football, and teams in power conferences that are similar to us its not as black and white as your opinion makes it to be. I understand this is an opinion piece and therefore will use facts to make your case. But you have all but demanded us to check your facts and while the facts maybe right without perspective it slants your opinion and makes the reader (especially ones who already share that opinion) think one thing while the entire facts of the case you make are not entirely accurate.

There are three major criteria of programs in power conferences to have sustained success. Tradition (a winning history), money, and a leader. We do not have two of those three, tradition and money. I submit that those two go hand in hand for the most part and is the reason that the teams that have won all of the SEC championships are also the teams that are in the top 6 if those two categories. Whether we have the right leader at this time is the debate. We can't answer that at this time. But what we can do is to show the similarities and differences to similar programs that had success.

Bob Tyler came in and did a lot to turn this program around. There is no denying that but yet you do not accept all of the similarities put forth to you about the job Mullen has done to equal, better, or fall short of Tyler's accomplishments. I will try to do as close as an apples to apples comparison as I can but there will be data I can't find. In this case it will have to do with athletic budget at time compared to the rest of the conference. My assumption is that at that time it will be the same as today. At the bottom of the conference. In Tyler first 57 games (same as the number Mullen has coached) his record was 34-20-3. Mullen is 32-25. The winning percentage is .596 for Tyler compared to .561 for Mullen. He won two more games but for an accurate comparison you have to look at the competition as well. During those 57 games Tyler played against 11 ranked opponents compared to Mullen who has faced 21 (I think sports reference uses ranked at the time played). Nearly double the amount of ranked games. During that same time frame Tyler's record against those ranked opponents was 1-10, Mullen 2-19. Almost identical with a very very slight edge to Mullen. How about those games against ranked opponents. Tyler's point differential was 15 points per game. 12.09 points scored per game to 27.09 points allowed. Because of the number games back then Tyler played TSUN 5 times during that stretch His record 3-2. Overall he was 3-3 in his career. Mullen 3-1 so far. I will submit that Tyler came into a worse situation in the terms that historically we were in a terrible position. However, you have to consider the overall level of competition that he played versus what Mullen has had to overcome and that does offset it to a degree. Also, remember both men came to a program that was last in the league in win percentage in the SEC historically and Mullen also had to come into a significant rebuilding project as well. The similarities are startling between the two and yet in your opinion one is held in very high regard. As he should be but you should take your own advise and research this thoroughly because according to your criteria of a comparison to Tyler Mullen is matching him almost step for step.

 

[Philly Dawg]

I agree that Hudspeth is a good coach, but frankly, I also believe that Mullen would also be very successful somewhere like ULL.

 

[NCDawg.sixpack]

Philly,
One other thing but for Bob Tyler, Emory Bellard would have NEVER won the way he did in 1980 and 1981 because Tyler knew how to recruit better than any coach Mississippi State has had post-WWII.

Bellard did bring in John Bond, George Wonsley, Henry Koontz and other good players. I think he brought in Michael Haddix, too, but I'm not sure. After his first year, he seemed to quit recruiting, and you are basically correct. Bellard won with many of Tyler's recruits. Bellard's downfall is that he wouldn't or couldn't recruit well and he was gone in a "red-dog minute".