Let's take a different angle on Mullen's Top 25 losses....

[Railin Jemmye]

What games exactly would you have expected Mullen to win?

2009
@ Auburn, LSU, Georgia Tech, Houston, Florida, Alabama, @ Arkansas

2010
Auburn, @ LSU, @ Alabama, Arkansas

2011
@ Auburn, LSU, @ Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, @ Arkansas

2012
@ Alabama, Texas A&M, @ LSU

In bold are the games where we actually had a shot in hell to win. I want to know which games would have changed your perception of Mullen not winning the big games. Then explain why that particular game would mean so much.

 

[sleepy dawg]

The only game here that we should've won on paper was Auburn 2011. Every other team here was better than us at that time.

 

[Irondawg]

2009- Houston was there, but the refs totally hosed us there. LSU should have been a win as well that year (major upset)

2010- Auburn and ARK was both right there and we didn't close

2011 - South Carolina was right there too and we outplayed them for 57 minutes. That AU loss was a stinger as well.

I'd say if he had won either of the 2010 games I listed or SC last year and nobody mentions anything about Mullen.

But when you look back and see the number of times we had a very good chance to win and how many we actually won, it's pretty disappointing.

 

[Railin Jemmye]

100% agree.*

nm

 

[Railin Jemmye]

I'd say if he had won either of the 2010 games I listed or SC last year and nobody mentions anything about Mullen.

But when you look back and see the number of times we had a very good chance to win and how many we actually won, it's pretty disappointing.

That's pretty contradictory. We weren't as good as those teams. If you're going that route, you also have to look at all the close games that we DID actually win.

 

[Irondawg]

my point is the argument against mullen right now is that he's never beaten a Top 25 team, or another way of saying that is he hasn't beat anyone that we supposedly shouldn't have beaten. Although I'll argue FL was more talented than us.

But you only get shots at an upset so many times and a lot of those I would qualify as a small upset - not like beating Bama. We are basically 0-5 over a 3 year period. When we are more talented, we win all the time. That's is impressive.

When we are equally talented, we're not winning most of the game and when we have less talent, we're never pulling the upset. (somebody may argue 2009 OM, but i don't think the talent gap was very wide, if at all).

To launch a program upwards you have to start winning the majority of the "pick-em" games with close to equal talent and I'm not sure we're doing that very well. FL and TN were big wins, but at least for TN I thought we were a better team. I expected us to beat AU last year and I expected to beat SC last year as well if you want an answer to your original question

 

[Railin Jemmye]

Fair enough....personally I think we should have won one of those....

but that's splitting hairs.

The other games, we were straight out-classed for most of the games, and the closer ones (like Auburn 2010) took some luck on our part to be in.

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

At MSU you are looking for signature wins, i.e., games against favored opponents that can propel your program upwards in the eyes of recruits and the media. Looking at that list, I'd have to say that Mullen has missed a chance in each of his first three years to get such a win...

'09 - LSU (1st and goal from the 1)
'10 - Arkansas (Double OT thriller)
'11 - South Carolina (why is Banks not covering Jeffery?)

Winning any of those three game would have been a huge boost to the program and we had a chance to win all three.

I attended all three of those games. The first couple years you think, "well we are definitely getting better and challenging these powers," and are satisfied with the direction of the program (which mitigates the frustration of losing a little bit). But after that, and especially after just getting embarrassed by Bama & A&M, it's only natural to think, "when are we going to take another step?"

I absolutely think that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if we'd just put up any kind of fight in our first two losses this year (not win, just be competitive for a half or 3 quarters). To get blown off the field in the first quarter is just completely disheartening. To have it happen two weeks in a row is going to get people questioning the coaching staff. It's one thing to lose. But our fanbase is smart enough to know the difference between losing to a better team and getting shellacked like we belong in C-USA. Can't say I'm surprised it's got folks questioning Mullen.

 

[dawgstudent]

Here's the flip side - in the past - with our signature wins - we have had signature losses in the same season. If Mullen doesn't have any signature wins (in which I agree), he sure doesn't have any signature losses either.

 

[engie]

But when you look back and see the number of times we had a very good chance to win and how many we actually won, it's pretty disappointing.

No, it isn't. That's simply choosing to look for the darkness on the bright side of the coin. Which I can easily flip.

Games we had a good chance to win but didn't -
09 - Houston, LSU
10 - Auburn, Arkansas
11 - Auburn, South Carolina

Games we had a good chance to lose but didn't -
09 - Kentucky
10 - Georgia Florida UAB Kentucky
11 - La Tech Wake Forest
12 - Troy Tennessee

We are 9-6 in games that could have gone either way late in the 4th quarter. Of those, we beat 3 teams that have more talent than us - Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee, while losing to one team with less talent than us - Houston.

Some of you people badly need a little perspective instead of taking bs bear propaganda and forming your opinion around it.

 

[Irondawg]

Valid point and that's why I pointed it out that it's impressive that we've never lost to anyone we probably shouldn't have. To Engie's point I'm not looking for the darkness and I'm quite happy with Mullen although I am coming to the realization that maybe he's simply a very good coach and not quite as special as i originally thought he might be. And note, that's light years away from our typical history and i'll never complain too loudly during an 8 win season.

My point was that I've never really sat back and looked at how close we've been to making that statement win over a highly thought of team and then seen that we've never really crossed the line and it's disappointing. Not program killing, just disappointing.

 

[engie]

My point was that I've never really sat back and looked at how close we've been to making that statement win over a highly thought of team and then seen that we've never really crossed the line and it's disappointing. Not program killing, just disappointing.

It is only disappointing if you WANT it to be disappointing. You have to look at the fact that those teams were CLEARLY better than us talent wise. All of them other than Houston. We played over our heads a few times and almost pulled out games against superior teams.

What would really be disappointing is IF we had slipped up and beat a couple of those teams(which we obviously did NOT deserve to beat), just how ridiculously out of whack and delusional would our fanbase expectations be then? They would be much worse than they are now...and they are prettymuch unbearable as it is, given our "7-0" start against nobodies that still don't have a damn conference win combined. 0-20. STATEMENT victories only mean a damn thing if you can back them up.

I prefer "being what we are" every week. That's a top 25 team. Not a top 11 team. That is what we've gotten practically every week for 4 years now under Dan Mullen. The talent is starting to upgrade after the lull in the 10 and 11 recruiting classes, and the win total will too...

I swear, many here remember the "glory days" of MSU football alot differently than I do. Seems most choose to remember all of Jackie's giant-killer upset victories, while they've blocked out all the inexcusable, often blowout defeats that we suffered at the hands of vastly inferior opponents. So, I'll remind everyone. In 11 of Jackie's 13 seasons, he lost to at least one, often 2, teams with a LOSING RECORD.

 

[Irondawg]

There's a lot of truth in that, but recruits also remember statement wins - that Bama win may just swing 1-2 big recruits toward A&M now. If we beat LSU last week does it helps us with Leslie or one of the other big guys we're trying to get in for? maybe, maybe not.

Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with where our program is now and it's a 15-30 program and that's pretty damn good all things considered.

 

[dawgstudent]

Here's the thing - I think people wanted Mullen to be the coach that could take us to the level of the LSU's and Alabama's of the world. And that 7-0 start did nothing to taper those expectations. They even magnified them. I just don't think MSU will ever get to that point. We can easily be a 3-4 win team but Mullen is our guy to be a 7-8 win team with a step up year.

It just depends on what you want but considering our history, I'll take it. Is that settling to some? Probably so but like I have told Barrett Sallee so many times via the Twitter - you have to know your role. For me, our role is to be bowl eligible 4 out of 5 seasons.

 

[engie]

There's a lot of truth in that, but recruits also remember statement wins - that Bama win may just swing 1-2 big recruits toward A&M now. If we beat LSU last week does it helps us with Leslie or one of the other big guys we're trying to get in for? maybe, maybe not.

I don't think bigtime recruits that are already interested look at game by game results all that much. They look at their particular spot and role on the team. Leslie and Rumph would have to be blind to not see how they are a HUGE need for us right now, that they would have been difference makers in the LSU game, and that they've got a qb @ State that can make them a star in their first year.

Where it likely would help is planting our names in the minds of young highschool guys a few years away from the actual recruiting scene...

 

[tcdog70]

Who wouldn't be Happy to be a top 25 team every year? Top 11 would be nice, but playing in the SEC West makes that very difficult. 3- 4 wins in the West means You are Hell-on Wheels. If Dan would Man up in the Red Zone and do away with the "CUTE" plays We would be Way better and our Record would reflect it.

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

Our role?

Probably so but like I have told Barrett Sallee so many times via the Twitter - you have to know your role. For me, our role is to be bowl eligible 4 out of 5 seasons.

I mean if that's our role what are we doing? If this is the best we can hope for (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't), then what's the point? You will never be able to build a good program if you can't convince guys they'll have a shot to play for something more than a bowl game. You've got to instill in your fanbase and your team that there is a CHANCE that you could play for a league championship. Getting your doors blown off in the first quarter two weeks in a row doesn't help sell that idea. It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you were in the game or not.

That sounds a lot like "poor ole 'sippi state talk" dawgstudent. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly.

 

[Hotdiggydawg]

I mean if that's our role what are we doing? If this is the best we can hope for (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't), then what's the point? You will never be able to build a good program if you can't convince guys they'll have a shot to play for something more than a bowl game. You've got to instill in your fanbase and your team that there is a CHANCE that you could play for a league championship. Getting your doors blown off in the first quarter two weeks in a row doesn't help sell that idea. It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you were in the game or not.

That sounds a lot like "poor ole 'sippi state talk" dawgstudent. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly.

That was exactly my point in another thread but I got accused of being a two year old. We came close to beating LSU in 2009 and South Carolina and Arkansas in 2010 because we played over our heads. To play over our heads we need to believe that we can win those games. I just don't buy into the "we are poor ole Mississippi State'" thing. But to each his own.

 

[dawgstudent]

You strive for better but my expectations of our program are what they are. We won't ever fire a coach for taking us to a bowl game consistently. And I'm not saying there are years where we won't flirt with being a top program. Just everything has to fit perfectly like that 7-0 start. This year was a chance to be a top 10 program for 2012.

Just like Stansbury would have never been fired if he had made the tournament on a consistent basis.

We say "poor ole state" but in actuality - we are. You just have to do more with less, especially in football, considering our pecking order in the SEC. That just doesn't spell out to be consistently a top 10 program. Top 30 - I can see it.

Now I will agree - there is no reason we should not beat a top 10 program here and there which Mullen has yet to do. I just don't expect it on a consistent basis.

 

[engie]

I mean if that's our role what are we doing? If this is the best we can hope for (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't), then what's the point? You will never be able to build a good program if you can't convince guys they'll have a shot to play for something more than a bowl game. You've got to instill in your fanbase and your team that there is a CHANCE that you could play for a league championship. Getting your doors blown off in the first quarter two weeks in a row doesn't help sell that idea. It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you were in the game or not.

Fan expectations /=/ coach and team expectations. People thinking that they do are simply trying to make themselves feel important in their role as "fans". ALOT of guys perform their best when everyone doubts them and their backs are against the wall. Those kids and coaches don't(and shouldn't) give a damn what we think as individual fans. Their job is to show up every day to practice and games and be the best that THEY can be in every instance, both individually and as a team, and let the cards fall where they may. No one "predestines" them to succeed or fail. They can ALWAYS be the first @ MSU to step up and win a championship. We already came SIGNIFICANTLY closer than ANY non big 6 team in 50 years to winning the SEC...but like DS said, it takes the cards aligning PERFECTLY for us to have that chance.

But it is simply ignorant for us, as fans, to EXPECT it. Got 110 years worth of data saying it is unlikely...

 

[121Josey]

Bartender - More Kool-aid please

I don't think bigtime recruits that are already interested look at game by game results all that much. They look at their particular spot and role on the team. Leslie and Rumph would have to be blind to not see how they are a HUGE need for us right now, that they would have been difference makers in the LSU game, and that they've got a qb @ State that can make them a star in their first year.

Where it likely would help is planting our names in the minds of young highschool guys a few years away from the actual recruiting scene...

Games we had a good chance to lose but didn't -
09 - Kentucky
10 - Georgia Florida UAB Kentucky
11 - La Tech Wake Forest
12 - Troy Tennessee

You've been so drinking the kool-aid on your posts in this thread. Like people go to Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, etc because their role on the team. Maybe (not!). They go because they win the big games - play in the 2:30 games. When is your excuse when Leslie and Rumph don't commit to us? They went to a bigger school for their role on the team? The teams I've mentioned will make them a star. That's been proven. They want to play for a proven coach.

You said that you prefer being "what we are" every week. Is that 6-6 mediocrity? You've got to win games to advance your program. You left out a lot of games that we had a good chance to loose in your biased selection above.

 

[diddog]

You strive for better but my expectations of our program are what they are. We won't ever fire a coach for taking us to a bowl game consistently. .

The problem is that going to a bowl game with our current schedule is meaningless. We have by far the easiest OOC schedule in the SEC. Our permanent east game is Kentucky (currently the weakest SEC East team by a big margin). Last year we made a bowl with our toughest wins against Louisiana Tech and Kentucky. This year it is against Tennessee. Our next biggest win is against Troy. Let's put it this way - if we beat Ole Miss this year, that will be our best win of the season according to Sagarin.
The AD has created a schedule to fool most of the fans most of the time. It obviously works even for most Six Packer's. In the past two years, we have accomplished nothing more than we did during Croom's firing year (2009) and much less than we did with Croom in 2008. Just measure the wins against quality opponents. Sure, we have avoided the bad losses (barely to Troy). We were blown out by Bama, A&M, and LSU, and we have eliminated the quality opponents from our schedule. Sure it is unexpected that Auburn and Tenn would be so bad, but it is obvious that if Tenn was better, they would have beaten us. We were lucky to win that game by all accounts.

 

[dawgstudent]

It doesn't fool me but 9 wins are 9 wins.

And we weren't lucky to beat TN - we dominated them 3 out of 4 quarters.

 

[engie]

You've been so drinking the kool-aid on your posts in this thread. Like people go to Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, etc because their role on the team. Maybe (not!). They go because they win the big games - play in the 2:30 games. When is your excuse when Leslie and Rumph don't commit to us? They went to a bigger school for their role on the team? The teams I've mentioned will make them a star. That's been proven. They want to play for a proven coach.

You said that you prefer being "what we are" every week. Is that 6-6 mediocrity? You've got to win games to advance your program. You left out a lot of games that we had a good chance to loose in your biased selection above.

- el oh el... What previously banned poster are you again? Spanky most likely.

- Leslie is already committed to LSU dubmass. I never claimed that he would commit to State, but our new receivers coach does have him giving us a look. Rumph, on the other hand, we have an excellent chance with. We've also go Jaelen Strong, a 4* deep threat from Cali JUCO giving us a look and coming for a visit. What is your excuse when we get a few of them?

- A "proven coach" huh? You know a BUNCH about our receivers coach don't you? Know who Antonio Gates is? Actually, you probably don't...

- What games that we had a good chance to "loose" in my "biased selection"? Let me know...because that just makes Mullen's record in those games THAT MUCH MORE IMPRESSIVE.

- I never said "I'm happy being mediocre". In fact, you just made that up. I was referencing that with everytime a team "gets up" and beats someone they shouldn't, they almost always lose one the same way. It's the law of averages. In that regard, I'd rather beat the teams we are supposed to beat and lose to the ones we are supposed to lose to.

I guess you prefer to be like 2008 Ole Miss...Lose to Vanderbilt one week, then go to Florida and beat #1 in the Swamp the next, come home and lose to a 6-win South Carolina the next. I hate the rollercoaster teams. You would too if you had actually followed us closely in the 90s...

 

[HueFreeze]

How many recruits has he had to come here in 2009, 2010, 2011 that were 5* or special talented players?

If you care going to judge him on special and great coach ...shouldn't he have equal talent with those teams you are expecting him to beat

Guys I don't have the numbers but we have beaten everyONE we should have been except 2011 at Auburn. That is the only game we lost we should have won under Mullen and we started down 14 because of a ball deflected off of a helmet and lost on the 1 inch line with a QB that had 2 cracked ribs.

This is the first year in 4, that he has had a capable QB to LEAD our team, and he is a drop back passer ...a type that Mullen has never wanted/liked/ or recruited, but he is at MSU he had no choice but to recruit Russell to come here, because he had no one else he could have gotten

You may get wooly over false hype sometimes, but the fact is this program was in the dumpster with Crxxms ...we had 4 wr on our roster when Mullen walked in here, we couldn't ever really throw the ball at the spring game ...do you guys remember 5 spring games ago, we didn't even 17ing score!!

Patience ...this is the deepest team we have ever had at MSU and yes we are redshirting some talented guys, because we need the most talented guys we have ever recruited to actually be even better/faster/stronger than they were when they came in to compete with the LSU's and Alabama's of the division

does it suck to go 7-0 and then lose 3 straight, but it beats the heck out of going 3-9 or 3-8 and losing to teams like 2005 Ky (3-8) or 2006 Tulane at home (4-8)

teams that have beaten a Mullen coached team are 208-50
No team with less than 8 wins has beaten Mullen ever at MSU
the only 8-5 teams to beat MSU since 2009 were Auburn 2011; Auburn 2009; Arkansas 2009
MSU has faced LSU 2011; Bama 2011; Auburn 2010; Bama 2009 ///all played and won the nat'l title except lsu, somebody had to lose though

 

[dawgstudent]

I don't know - I think I would rather be an 8-4 team that is a rollercoaster than an 8-4 team that just beats all the teams they are supposed to.

 

[boatsandhoes]

you all make good points. I have been in this thing since birth so lord knows I know the anguish. I'll say this in adverse of some points. If TCU, Boise, Cinncinati (a few years ago when they were in the hunt until the sugar against FLA), Okla state, Oregon, K State, Utah can do it so could we. Most of those don't have near the talent rich recruiting base we do in the south. Oregon gets all cali kids, TCU (texas and aTm castaways), Boise (Cali kids). Who in the hell knows where K state and Utah get enough talent, but they have done it. There is no high school talent in oregon, utah, Boise, Id. Even being 8th at the recruiting trough is still better than #1 in those states.

 

[hidolladawgs]

I don't believe people are comparing apples to apples. Boise,TCU,K-State, don't play and recruit in the SEC.So its really not fair to say "if they can win in Boise,with zero talent to recruit from.Why can't we."The teams we lose too have better players and good coaching.It's going to take another 4-5 yrs before we get to Bama's and LSU's level.They have a roster full of 4-5 star players.Our players have to play perfect just to keep it close with these elite teams.The only way for us to seirously compete for championships in the next two yr's is if we get a gamebreaking player.Like a Manziel,Newton, Julio Jones,etc... Our coaches get the most out of their players. Sometimes you play these more talented teams and you are damned if you do and damned if you don't from a scheme standpoint.If you don't have a talent advantage,scheme advantage,or coaching advantage.Then you have to rely on luck i.e ball bounces your way and you are able to score non offensive td's and things like that.Tell me how often Mullen had more talent and lost. Not many, Bama had more talent than Texas A&M but,the ball bounced for A&M that day and they have a game changer @QB.Our talent is getting better but we are still at the bottom of the conference talent wise. We should win our last two games and go to a nice bowl game. Which is all we should expect until we have 4 yrs of top 10 recruiting like the rest of the SEC elite.Just my $.02

 

[engie]

The only fair example used here is K State. That is absolutely a comparable situation to MSU, with less in-state talent, in a tough conference, and they are 5th(at BEST) on the totem pole for recruiting Texas talent. Probably more like 10th. Not only do they get leftovers, they get the leftovers from the leftovers. Snyder has won big there a couple of different times and has never had excellent recruiting classes...

4 of the other teams have never won on a big stage. Heck, La Tech will go to the BCS this year most likely... Would they have accomplished that in the SEC? I say nowhere close. The struggles of TCU and Utah in big boy leagues basically confirm this suspicion.
TCU - Mountain West
Boise - Mountain West/WAC
Utah - Mountain West
Cinci - Big East. Will always be an undeserving team from that conference in a big game


The other 2 are beneficiaries of HUGE donors that have basically driven them to be nationally elite.
OK State - T Boone Pickens - ~ $500mil athletics donations making them nationally elite
Oregon - Phil Knight - ~ $500mil athletics donations + nike connection making them nationally elite

 

[boatsandhoes]

yah, true swing and a miss. It is really hard to come out of the SECw as division champ with the level of comp and $$$. Way easier to come out of Mtn West than SECW. TCU now in Big 12 so that changes that. No one in the SECW thinks 7-5 is acceptable...they're all firing coaches at 7-5.

But AH HAH, Kstate maybe I hit on one there. As far as oregon and ok state the only difference is donors and Nike. Lots of talent in Okla high school ball (tulsa, okc area) but I bet a high percentage of oregon kids come from cali.....I count 16 from oregon + or -.

http://www.goducks.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=500&SPID=233&SPSID=3378

 

[patdog]

I was about to respond to him, but you nailed it. TCU & Utah suddenly aren't top 10 teams now that they're playing in real conferences and Boise & Cincy wouldn't be either if they were in a real conference and OK St. & Oregon bought their way to the next level. Only real comparison is Kansas St. and even they are playing in a weaker league than we do. They play the #12, #15, #23 & #24 ranked BCS teams this year. We play the #4, #7 & #8 ranked BCS teams and this is a very "weak" scheduling year for us, both in and out of conference.

 

[patdog]

The grass is always greener. You say that because you haven't been frustrated by bad losses. I remember the 90s. There were a lot of losses that left me pissed as hell. I remember the big wins just like anyone else. But I remember the bad losses too, and they were just as bad as the big wins were good.

 

[dawgstudent]

Pat - I do too. I would much rather by the 8-4 team of 2000 than the 8-4 team of 2010.

 

[patdog]

Agree to disagree. But I'm not sure those are the best examples because of the different expectation levels those years. 2000 was a huge disappointment. We had really high expectations, especially after the UF & AU wins and had them crushed. I was pissed as hell about the LSU, Ark, & UM games. 2010 was by far the best season we'd had in at least a decade so most MSU fans were a lot more excited about 9-4 in 2010 than we were about 8-4 in 2000.

 

[johnson86-1]

The problem is that going to a bowl game with our current schedule is meaningless. We have by far the easiest OOC schedule in the SEC. Our permanent east game is Kentucky (currently the weakest SEC East team by a big margin). Last year we made a bowl with our toughest wins against Louisiana Tech and Kentucky. This year it is against Tennessee. Our next biggest win is against Troy. Let's put it this way - if we beat Ole Miss this year, that will be our best win of the season according to Sagarin.
The AD has created a schedule to fool most of the fans most of the time. It obviously works even for most Six Packer's. In the past two years, we have accomplished nothing more than we did during Croom's firing year (2009) and much less than we did with Croom in 2008. Just measure the wins against quality opponents. Sure, we have avoided the bad losses (barely to Troy). We were blown out by Bama, A&M, and LSU, and we have eliminated the quality opponents from our schedule. Sure it is unexpected that Auburn and Tenn would be so bad, but it is obvious that if Tenn was better, they would have beaten us. We were lucky to win that game by all accounts.

You need to stop eating glue or paint chips or whatever it is you're doing to cause you to not only think thoughts like this, but to communicate them.

And there is a world of difference between what this team has accomplished and what Croom's 2009 team did accomplish and would have accomplished against this schedule. Croom's 2009 team would be 50/50 for going bowling this year. It would have all the losses we have now, plus UT and Troy and a loss to UM coming up. Basically the whole season would come down to Arkansas. I personally think fighting for a gator bowl spot at this point in the season is better than hoping to make it to the Liberty bowl at 6-6.

It's tough to say how this team compares to 2007, but on average, I suspect it would do better against the 2007 schedule or this year's schedule. The 2007 team depended way too much on lucky breaks to get to the Liberty Bowl. You just can't rely on pick 6's to make up for an incompetent offense.

So you can say it's meaningless to win against our schedule, but Croom's teams couldn't have done it for the most part. No matter how meaningless you think it is, I'd much rather be a top 30 team and go to a bowl game than be a top 80 team and sit at home.

 

[dawgstudent]

I just would rather beat some top 10 teams and lose a game or two we weren't supposed to than "chalk" the whole season.

 

[engie]

Pat - I do too. I would much rather by the 8-4 team of 2000 than the 8-4 team of 2010.

Final ranking in 2000 - 24
Final ranking in 2010 - 15

The 2000 season was brutal for the last few weeks... I'll take 2010 all day over that.

 

[dawgstudent]

That's a good point but if the rankings were the same - I still take 2000.

Beating Auburn and Florida that year was fun, fun, fun.

 

[engie]

according to Sagarin.

In the past two years, we have accomplished nothing more than we did during Croom's firing year (2009) and much less than we did with Croom in 2008.

You should pay closer attention to your own data(Sagarin). Nevermind that it's incredibly hard to take you seriously when you've got the years wrong.

Sagarin:

current - 30 (likely finish inside the top 25)
2011 - 31
2010 - 15
2009 - 45
average under Mullen - 30.25, likely to be about 27.75 by season's end

2008 - 93
2007 - 37
2006 - 78
2005 - 107
2004 - 114
average under Croom - 85.8

Mullen is FIFTY FIVE(going on 60) teams better than Croom in his time here. He has literally surpassed HALF OF FBS in that time period.

Now, put this ignorant argument to bed and never bring it up again.

 

[diddog]

Read my posts here and elsewhere. I didn't say that Sagarin rankings for Croom's teams were better. I said that in the past two years, Mullen has not beaten any teams ranked higher than 40 in the Sagarin rankings. In 2007, we beat two - Auburn 13th - and Alabama 31st. Our best win in the past two years is Louisana Tech by Sagarin's rankings.
And that is pitiful.