Is it me or do y'all forsee a Forward Bulldogs forming soon?...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
- Status
I feel like the results will speak for themselves. If we are competitive and win 6 games this year, everyone will shut up. If we don't, everyone will slide towards wanting him gone. I just hope we're not revisiting this after a 6 or 7 season in 2014.
I don't like putting absolutes on season. I don't want to say 'we have to win 6 games or else', because if the schedule shapes up for 8 or 9 wins, then we didn't get the job done. We should have won more games in 2012.
I don't like putting absolutes on season. I don't want to say 'we have to win 6 games or else', because if the schedule shapes up for 8 or 9 wins, then we didn't get the job done. We should have won more games in 2012.
The current state of this board reminds me of Croom's 2nd or 3rd year...where there were some who had seen him for what he was, and others who were holding out hope that it was just the remnants of Jackie's last two years.
No way --- not with all the consecutive sellouts we've had**
On that note - how in the world do we officially record 55,000 attendance at the Kentucky game? That's so absurd it's not even funny. It's like the administration thinks we're a bunch of idiots and will believe we're actually filling the stadium when my row along only had about 25 out of 40 seats filled.
On that note - how in the world do we officially record 55,000 attendance at the Kentucky game? That's so absurd it's not even funny. It's like the administration thinks we're a bunch of idiots and will believe we're actually filling the stadium when my row along only had about 25 out of 40 seats filled.
I`m starting to feel like this is going to come to a very unexpected climax in the not to distant future.
Nah we are just bitching here.
Nothing unexpected is going to happen, unless Mullen leaves on his own. (That would surprise me.) Otherwise, our AD is going to do just what is expected...sit on his hands and give us the ol' Frank Beamer line while we fall further and further behind the rest of the conference. And likely miss out on the possible Hudspeth hire while doing so.
Nothing unexpected is going to happen, unless Mullen leaves on his own. (That would surprise me.) Otherwise, our AD is going to do just what is expected...sit on his hands and give us the ol' Frank Beamer line while we fall further and further behind the rest of the conference. And likely miss out on the possible Hudspeth hire while doing so.
I hope not.
If our fans would look at where the program was, where it is now and where it's headed (rationally) they would see that change needs to happen ASAP.
Too many of our fans are fans of our coach and not our program. This is always the case with MSU.
If our fans would look at where the program was, where it is now and where it's headed (rationally) they would see that change needs to happen ASAP.
Too many of our fans are fans of our coach and not our program. This is always the case with MSU.
I think the issues go deeper than just the head coach, where there's an obvious split.
There's starting to be a split about the AD, given the tremendously bad scheduling this year after the basketball coaching search. His "taking sides" with Mullen won't help him either if the general word out of the Cigar Boys is true.
We're almost unanimous about compliance needing an overhaul -- but it's being blocked/shielded by the administration putting Keenum in the cross-hairs to an extent.
We need sweeping changes. A simple coaching change won't fix all our problems. Compliance still has to be overhauled...
There's starting to be a split about the AD, given the tremendously bad scheduling this year after the basketball coaching search. His "taking sides" with Mullen won't help him either if the general word out of the Cigar Boys is true.
We're almost unanimous about compliance needing an overhaul -- but it's being blocked/shielded by the administration putting Keenum in the cross-hairs to an extent.
We need sweeping changes. A simple coaching change won't fix all our problems. Compliance still has to be overhauled...
If the first order of business is Forward Compliance then I'm all for it.
NmDS
NmDS
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm starting to wonder whether Mark has the stomach for intervening where he needs to. He may be too hands off on the athletic side of things. Clearly, we must have a more steady hand of experienced, effective, level headed, adult leadership influence for both the basketball and football programs. If not Mark, then who?
GOOD GRIEF, I hope none of our fans are that stupid!
Mullen is a good coach. He's already proven that. Anybody talking about getting rid of a coach after a few losses and "disappointing" wins needs to back away from the edge. Teams have slumps. Happens all the time, every year. He got rid of a under achieving DC in the off season. He's not Croom. He will make corrections. I still trust him.
Lets wait and see how this season turns out. All this staining of panties and whining that's going on now will look foolish if we end up w 6-7 wins. Think that's about what everyone expected this yr anyway.
Oh and as others have mentioned, when we circle the wagons and start firing in, only helps others. Your lying to yourself if you think recruits and other coaches don't use all this clamoring for a new coach against us.
Mullen is a good coach. He's already proven that. Anybody talking about getting rid of a coach after a few losses and "disappointing" wins needs to back away from the edge. Teams have slumps. Happens all the time, every year. He got rid of a under achieving DC in the off season. He's not Croom. He will make corrections. I still trust him.
Lets wait and see how this season turns out. All this staining of panties and whining that's going on now will look foolish if we end up w 6-7 wins. Think that's about what everyone expected this yr anyway.
Oh and as others have mentioned, when we circle the wagons and start firing in, only helps others. Your lying to yourself if you think recruits and other coaches don't use all this clamoring for a new coach against us.
Nope. Personal opinion is that right now the real discontent is limited to small fish when it comes to monetary and political influence. If we're sitting at home in December with another Egg Bowl loss, maybe things start to change.
That being said, I still don't know that that kind of selfish faction even exists in our fanbase, and there were a ton of other issues going on with UM at the time that we don't have here.
That being said, I still don't know that that kind of selfish faction even exists in our fanbase, and there were a ton of other issues going on with UM at the time that we don't have here.
Not to be argumentative, but how is it rational thinking to have the opinion you do when that opinion is based on fear? Afraid of what our rivals are doing, afraid of what the other teams in this league are doing. Here's the thing, to be rational is to analyze a situation and compare historical similarities. So do that. Find examples of coaches from the big 5 conferences that coached at a school considered to be from the bottom half of that conference. Lets just do this for recent purposes, so since 1980. Find the coaches that had similar or even better success for their first 4-5 years. I'm talking wins and/or win percentage. Then list all the coaches that showed a similar pattern of a supposed downturn that warranted them being fired after year 5. Well you may have to extend that to years 6 and 7 because you may not find any fired after year five. Then bring that list back so we can investigate this rationally and see if the opinion is close to being correct. I know one thing you will find. It's the number of wins over five years that has meaning, the year the wins occurred is irrelevant. Also, just go ahead and eliminate Cutcliff from the list as he has already been discussed significantly.
I don't see it happening. We don't have enough people who will work together
Now, I could see something like this maybe happening for Stansbury if he was still here and if the message board war members had not already launched their fake letters...errr...nukes.
Now, I could see something like this maybe happening for Stansbury if he was still here and if the message board war members had not already launched their fake letters...errr...nukes.
"Historical" MSU teams didn't bring in $70million/year. We're #38 in total income and WELL on our way to the top 30(provided interest is retained and we can fill the joint, we will conservatively grow another $20 mil between the stadium and SEC network next year). We're not #77 like were were just 5.5 short years ago -- already 2 years into the SEC title streak.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/page/1
The only relevance to us is the here and now. We are no longer confined by the limitations of MSU past. Only the limitations of people thinking about it as if it's still yesteryear.
My opinion is not "based on fear" -- it's based on the reality of the here and now -- and the apparent directions for the future. We've got to stop using the past, when we were a "have not" monetarily, as the basis of our reality going forward. Use snapshots that are relevant to the current.
As for your desired research, I've already done it for the SEC.
This also shows SEC teams make a bowl in 46 of 62 instances(rougly 75% of the time).
Last edited:
That SEC research is incorrect to the criteria that was posted. First eliminate any team from the top half of the league. We have made great progress but are still in the bottom half of the league. Second, only concern yourself with coaches that have won at a similar level or higher. If you have researched it in just SEC you would know that not just in recent history but also since 1980 (giving us a bigger sample size for analysis) that no coach has coached for less than 6 years (Cutcliff who has proven he can still coach). Petrino was fired because of off the field. Every single coach has won a lot of games in this league for a number of years. No matter the perception at the time of how they are winning or losing. That does not matter. The analysis shows that if Mullen is thought to not be successful and fired after year 5 he would be the first. And statistically speaking to be thinking to do so would be irrational when looking at the data.
I know you have made the statement that we need to do this now because of what is happening elsewhere in this league. The numbers do not support that. Not in this league or any other. That is a reaction based from fear. You want to look at only this point forward but ignore our history, history of teams that have ackomplished what we would like to happen with this program is not a good way to succeed. If you don't know the past and understand the pitfalls of others who have failed and embrace where others have succeeded you are doomed to fall into the same traps. I know you look at a lot of data to make your arguments but you cannot find data to support this at this time. Five games can change mine and a lot of people's opinion but the numbers do not lie.
I know you have made the statement that we need to do this now because of what is happening elsewhere in this league. The numbers do not support that. Not in this league or any other. That is a reaction based from fear. You want to look at only this point forward but ignore our history, history of teams that have ackomplished what we would like to happen with this program is not a good way to succeed. If you don't know the past and understand the pitfalls of others who have failed and embrace where others have succeeded you are doomed to fall into the same traps. I know you look at a lot of data to make your arguments but you cannot find data to support this at this time. Five games can change mine and a lot of people's opinion but the numbers do not lie.
You can cook the books however you want to make it produce the results you want -- but I'm not going to do it for you. I simply produced results of research I've already done.
And no, the analysis does not show that if Mullen is fired after year 5 "he would be the first". He would simply be one of many. With the money we have invested now, no one would bat an eye if we decided to make a move at the end of the season. I've seen Cecil Hurt and other national writers saying he should be on the hot seat RIGHT NOW -- while our local hacks constantly remind them of our history, etc...
We're 12th in the league right now(Sagarin ratings and eye test). We're recruiting 13th in the league right now(24/7 composite). That's reality. If you are happy being the 12th best team -- with the 2 behind us outrecruiting us, that's your prerogative -- but you aren't going to convince me or anyone else(that isn't already convinced) that the way to go is holding the status quo -- when the status quo is already bad and still in decline.
In terms of SEC record, Mullen is currently about 5% above our historical norm -- and will, in all likelihood, finish this season 5% BELOW our historical norm for his CAREER. Sorry, that's not setting the woods on fire. That's being AVERAGE -- EVEN by MSU's own lowly standards. Thank goodness for the cupcakes in the nonconference and Kentucky...
Well, we have been in a pretty bad slump for a while now, especially since the Bama game last year. Mullen can't seem to even make corrections during halftime, so I wouldn't put much stock into "He will make corrections".
If there is, I hope they have a great replacement solution.
If MSU fires Dan Mullen after 1 bad year (and that remains to be determined), there better be an outstanding hire immediately to follow. It would have to be a hire where nobody questions the move. I think hiring Hudspeth could be rationalized, but it would still be a stretch. If we didn't have him locked down, who else is out there that would be a no brainer replacement and realistic?
In my opinion, there really aren't any proven HCs we could replace Mullen with and feel comfortable we made the right call. The only one I can think of is Petrino, but I very seriously doubt we go that route. That leaves us coordinators and retreads, which brings us back to the question of why the hell are we talking about replacing Mullen in the first place. I'd rather have Mullen and his likely 6-8 wins per year than start completely over. If we tank the rest of this year and show no improvement the next, fine, let's go any other direction, but making any moves at the point in time better result in a hell of a proven upgrade for it to make sense.
If MSU fires Dan Mullen after 1 bad year (and that remains to be determined), there better be an outstanding hire immediately to follow. It would have to be a hire where nobody questions the move. I think hiring Hudspeth could be rationalized, but it would still be a stretch. If we didn't have him locked down, who else is out there that would be a no brainer replacement and realistic?
In my opinion, there really aren't any proven HCs we could replace Mullen with and feel comfortable we made the right call. The only one I can think of is Petrino, but I very seriously doubt we go that route. That leaves us coordinators and retreads, which brings us back to the question of why the hell are we talking about replacing Mullen in the first place. I'd rather have Mullen and his likely 6-8 wins per year than start completely over. If we tank the rest of this year and show no improvement the next, fine, let's go any other direction, but making any moves at the point in time better result in a hell of a proven upgrade for it to make sense.
I expanded the analysis you are limiting it and changing the criteria to make your case. That's cooking the books. Probably because you know I'm right since you did not put forth an example to disprove what I stated.
The fact is that there has been no coach that has won the number of games he has in his first five years to be fired after five years from any bottom half team in this league since 1980. There is only one example of them not making it past 6 (Cut) beside Petrino which is erroneous data because of off the field issues. The are no examples to say that those were wrong decisions as the coaches proved to be successful. That is true then and today. The numbers do not care about perception or when the wins occur or how. You get to that point and its very high odds you will have on average at least a 10 year head coaching career with differing degrees of success. Usually at that same school or at a school at a higher level. Cut not withstanding. If Mullen doesn't he is the anomaly. Would be the first not to make it past five.
There are issues that I would like to see addressed but at this point in time the numbers do not back up what you are stating. But again you are basing your opinion on where we are in the league. That comes from a place of fear of being left behind in this league.
I will say and have stated that the next 5 games can be critical to the analysis. Lose out and your case becomes stronger. You can even examine all the teams in the league. A coach has a 0-2 win season after his first year and its better to go ahead and find a new coach they wont turn it around. 3-4 wins and the odds are better that they will turn it around but still more times than not you are just as likely to not turn it around. After that the variables take over and it's more difficult. I will say if he had never had a 8+ win season then your case holds water. But he has had two in five years and it doesn't matter the how's or why's the data shows that he can still be successful. To what degree is what's unknown.
The fact is that there has been no coach that has won the number of games he has in his first five years to be fired after five years from any bottom half team in this league since 1980. There is only one example of them not making it past 6 (Cut) beside Petrino which is erroneous data because of off the field issues. The are no examples to say that those were wrong decisions as the coaches proved to be successful. That is true then and today. The numbers do not care about perception or when the wins occur or how. You get to that point and its very high odds you will have on average at least a 10 year head coaching career with differing degrees of success. Usually at that same school or at a school at a higher level. Cut not withstanding. If Mullen doesn't he is the anomaly. Would be the first not to make it past five.
There are issues that I would like to see addressed but at this point in time the numbers do not back up what you are stating. But again you are basing your opinion on where we are in the league. That comes from a place of fear of being left behind in this league.
I will say and have stated that the next 5 games can be critical to the analysis. Lose out and your case becomes stronger. You can even examine all the teams in the league. A coach has a 0-2 win season after his first year and its better to go ahead and find a new coach they wont turn it around. 3-4 wins and the odds are better that they will turn it around but still more times than not you are just as likely to not turn it around. After that the variables take over and it's more difficult. I will say if he had never had a 8+ win season then your case holds water. But he has had two in five years and it doesn't matter the how's or why's the data shows that he can still be successful. To what degree is what's unknown.
(1) It won't be after one bad year, it will be after two years of teams having suspect effort and preparation in big games. (2) Nobody wants Mullen gone without having a replacement lined up. If Hud is lined up, he would be as good of a candidate as we could hire at any time. Unless we change the status of our program, we are not going to poach a proven coach from a big conference. Our pool is coordinators from successful BCS schools or head coaches proven at small schools. Whether Hud would turn out to be a good hire or not, he'd be as good of a candidate as we're likely to ever find. If we fire Mullen without one lined up, it will likely end up being a smaller scale Cutcliffe situation, where the decision might be justified but the perception will make it hard to hire a good coach. The only potential saving grace would be that the SEC is a lot more desirable now, we would be willing to pay top 25 money, and we basically have a schedule that comes as close to guaranteeing a bowl game as you can get in the SEC.
Again -- feel free to do the actual analysis in depth. Because "thinking" about it for 5 minutes is not quantitative analysis. Winning 8 last year was NOT successful. Not by any stretch. That was a 2-game underperformance with a spectacular crash and burn at the end that was absolutely deserving of a warm seat PRIOR to this season.
And what happened 20 years ago -- in a $5mil/yr SEC environment -- is hardly relevant to what happens today -- in a $70+mil/yr SEC environment. We simply aren't going to change each other's minds at this point. In TODAY'S SEC, Sherrill is probably gone in year 5 or 6 -- and Beamer is gone in year 3. I'm not saying it's a good thing -- but it's reality.
Last edited:
Why? It's the schedule that will guarantee State a winning season next year. I mean, with this year's incompetence on the offensive side of the football, anybody that has a 35% 3rd-down conversion rate on his resume should do the trick.
I have done the analysis. In depth looking at it different ways for a lot longer than 5 min and looking at different leagues as well. Again no example from you to disprove it my analysis just hyperbole and trying throw back to me. There is no need for me to do it. I've already have. If you have give me the name and not that list you gave earlier that includes a one year coach, coaches from the upper half of the league, etc. Look at just the last five years, 10, 30, it still holds true. Nutt? He coached for several years before UM. We both know you can't find one.
The idea that only this point in time forward is the only thing that matters destroys what ever analysis you think you have done. Only looking at the last two years forward same thing. You cannot do an accurate analysis by limiting the sample size. You get as much data as you can.
Things are different but history gives you a better idea to predict the future. You cannot disregard history and do a factual analysis. Do you honestly think that these same thoughts were not made 20 years ago? 40? Well everything was going to be different from that point on. That's was true then and now. But every time that a program has risen up from the bottom of their league and sustained some measure of success you will find more similarities to this case than not. If this is not the case with Mullen then this will be the anomaly. Not the other way around.
The idea that only this point in time forward is the only thing that matters destroys what ever analysis you think you have done. Only looking at the last two years forward same thing. You cannot do an accurate analysis by limiting the sample size. You get as much data as you can.
Things are different but history gives you a better idea to predict the future. You cannot disregard history and do a factual analysis. Do you honestly think that these same thoughts were not made 20 years ago? 40? Well everything was going to be different from that point on. That's was true then and now. But every time that a program has risen up from the bottom of their league and sustained some measure of success you will find more similarities to this case than not. If this is not the case with Mullen then this will be the anomaly. Not the other way around.
Link?
K
Naturally, I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
Again, Link?
You haven't even given me the direct parameters that you are asking for in a clear, concise manner -- thus leading to my perception that you are purposefully reverse-engineering from a conclusion -- in order to give you the "answer" that you want.
Where did I say anything about this point forward?
While this is true in judging overall bodies of work, I'm not judging overall bodies of work here. I'm doing qualitative analysis. Or, more precisely defining trends.
Correct -- just not in the manner you are trying to use it.
09 - 45th(Sagarin final ratings)
10 - 15th
11 - 31st
12 - 42nd
13 - 53rd(current -- with a high statistical probability of losing 4 of the last 5)
What does "history" tell you comes next with a trend this clear?
When Vanderbilt is in the top 30 -- the realities of the league has changed. The Big Boys have risen -- and they've taken the rest of us up with them. Our "floor" is NOWHERE NEAR the "floor" of yesteryear anymore. And our ceiling hasn't changed. So comparing "bottoming out" in the past to "bottoming out" now is extremely flawed.
That's the problem. We haven't "risen" anywhere. From Mullen's first year till now, we've actually gotten worse...
Last edited:
I gave the parameters in the original post you responded to. Link? Is that someway to try and divert the debate. Just go look at the record books. That is all you need to do. But the answer is this. If you are a team in the bottom half of a power conference and have a coach that wins over 50% of their games in the first five years of his stint at that school, regardless of how and when it occurs, that coach the majority of the time has proven to not only be successful during that time frame but has averaged over a decade of success at that or another school. The amount of success varies but not one has had only a five year career. You want what the majority does but if you study how programs have been built from the bottom of a power conference to have sustained success then you do not fire a coach with a better than .500 win percentage after five years. (Outside influence not withstanding). It does not matter the decade or if you choose to narrow the parameter to the last 5 years. It is very clear that the few teams that have done something similar (very few examples) they fell back to their normal historic levels or worse. Most examples you will find is that coach moved on after 4-6 years and they could not sustain the success that the previous coach built. We have made great strides financially in the last few years. That does not overcome how far behind we were for our history overnight. We have to maintain that level for another 2-3 years to really see the impact. And we are still in the bottom half of the league.
That's not reverse engineering that is doing a comparative analysis. Are there concerns? Sure there are. Are there indicators that what you are saying is true may prove to be true. Sure. But if it happens then this would be the anomaly not the other way around. If it continues to happen to other similar teams in power conferences then the data will change. But not before then.
So there is the parameter. Find the coaches that coached at school that was historically in the bottom half of a power conference. They had a .500 win percentage or higher for their first four - five years at that school. The numbers are even more telling if it is the first job for that coach or if they had coached for a short while at a smaller school. But the results show that the majority of the time they are successful and if they stay at that school they have success there at least to some degree for nearly a decade or more. The downturns happened for everyone one of those coaches. The ones that struggled the most are the ones that when the downturns happened it was either too big of a drop (4 games or more from one year to the next two or more times) or would keep having consecutive down years before a bounce back. But whether it was Earl Bruce winning 50% at Iowa State before going to Ohio State, Snyders tenure at K State, Beamer, Miles at Ok State, Saban at Michigan State, Nutt at Arkansas, Tubberville at UM, Spurrier at SC, Price at Washington State, Bobby Ross at Maryland, even Cutcliff and Brewer at UM and it looks like Franklin at Vandy is trending the same. Same type of numbers and all with various degrees of success. And Mullen has similar numbers. The odds that he would be different are against what you are stating.
That's not reverse engineering that is doing a comparative analysis. Are there concerns? Sure there are. Are there indicators that what you are saying is true may prove to be true. Sure. But if it happens then this would be the anomaly not the other way around. If it continues to happen to other similar teams in power conferences then the data will change. But not before then.
So there is the parameter. Find the coaches that coached at school that was historically in the bottom half of a power conference. They had a .500 win percentage or higher for their first four - five years at that school. The numbers are even more telling if it is the first job for that coach or if they had coached for a short while at a smaller school. But the results show that the majority of the time they are successful and if they stay at that school they have success there at least to some degree for nearly a decade or more. The downturns happened for everyone one of those coaches. The ones that struggled the most are the ones that when the downturns happened it was either too big of a drop (4 games or more from one year to the next two or more times) or would keep having consecutive down years before a bounce back. But whether it was Earl Bruce winning 50% at Iowa State before going to Ohio State, Snyders tenure at K State, Beamer, Miles at Ok State, Saban at Michigan State, Nutt at Arkansas, Tubberville at UM, Spurrier at SC, Price at Washington State, Bobby Ross at Maryland, even Cutcliff and Brewer at UM and it looks like Franklin at Vandy is trending the same. Same type of numbers and all with various degrees of success. And Mullen has similar numbers. The odds that he would be different are against what you are stating.
Last edited:
I'm asking you to link me to this exhaustive analysis you've allegedly done that isn't passing my sniff test. Provide us with the extensive data. "Go look at the record books" is a joke. Whenever I make an argument with someone, I bring my data to my argument with me. I don't say it's a fact and tell people to go figure it out for themselves. What I think you did, is take a preconceived notion about "who is similar to Mullen" -- come up with those names and make sure they fit your parameters -- and say, "yep, he's following the perfect blueprint. Anything else would be an anomaly."
64 teams in Power Conferences -- only counting the traditional bottom half - 32teams(eliminating 50% of available data)
Win .500 or better for 4-5 years(eliminating 80% of coaches from these 32 teams).
STAY at school longterm(eliminating another 50% at least).
So, basically, you set up parameters to a situation that throws away about NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of available data -- ultimately using a 2% data set -- and tried to call it "exhaustive". If it isn't reverse engineered -- it should be. Because it's a twisted thing of beauty.
Nutt at Ole Miss. Was in his 4th yr. Was above .500 when fired. Of course, he stayed on for the final 3 games to ultimately end up below 500. Theory fails under scrutiny with the first example that came to my mind. What he did before at Arky is immaterial to what he did at OM.
Let's consider the similarities between Nutt at OM and Dan Mullen, shall we?
- Led a team to a resurgence like they hadn't seen in quite some time and got the fanbase extremely bold and fired up.
- Had a hotshot in-state counterpart hired during tenure to counteract his success.
- Lost CONVINCINGLY to in-state counterpart while having a superior season in year 1 of other coach(by nearly identical scores and in how the games played out, no less).
- The next year, the young hotshot has the overall superior team -- and the vet flounders under expectations -- likely both fail to reach a bowl -- and dread the upcoming rivalry game.
The difference? Nutt kept recruiting at a high level. Something Mullen is failing to do. Mullen is literally Cutcliffing himself in recruiting right now.
So do we keep a coach for an extra season that has visibly quit on the field and quit in recruiting just to satisfy some faction of our fanbase that forever considers us a "have not" so we can say that he finished at/below .500?
I'm done with it. You believe it your way. I'll believe mine. We can revisit at the end of the season.
64 teams in Power Conferences -- only counting the traditional bottom half - 32teams(eliminating 50% of available data)
Win .500 or better for 4-5 years(eliminating 80% of coaches from these 32 teams).
STAY at school longterm(eliminating another 50% at least).
So, basically, you set up parameters to a situation that throws away about NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of available data -- ultimately using a 2% data set -- and tried to call it "exhaustive". If it isn't reverse engineered -- it should be. Because it's a twisted thing of beauty.
Nutt at Ole Miss. Was in his 4th yr. Was above .500 when fired. Of course, he stayed on for the final 3 games to ultimately end up below 500. Theory fails under scrutiny with the first example that came to my mind. What he did before at Arky is immaterial to what he did at OM.
Let's consider the similarities between Nutt at OM and Dan Mullen, shall we?
- Led a team to a resurgence like they hadn't seen in quite some time and got the fanbase extremely bold and fired up.
- Had a hotshot in-state counterpart hired during tenure to counteract his success.
- Lost CONVINCINGLY to in-state counterpart while having a superior season in year 1 of other coach(by nearly identical scores and in how the games played out, no less).
- The next year, the young hotshot has the overall superior team -- and the vet flounders under expectations -- likely both fail to reach a bowl -- and dread the upcoming rivalry game.
The difference? Nutt kept recruiting at a high level. Something Mullen is failing to do. Mullen is literally Cutcliffing himself in recruiting right now.
So do we keep a coach for an extra season that has visibly quit on the field and quit in recruiting just to satisfy some faction of our fanbase that forever considers us a "have not" so we can say that he finished at/below .500?
I'm done with it. You believe it your way. I'll believe mine. We can revisit at the end of the season.
Last edited:
- Status