If you think it's cyclical... are Dan Mullen and John Cohen guys who can make it non-cyclical and make us more "yearly relevant".
MSU Sports - Is it really cyclical? Discuss.
- Thread starter missouridawg
- Start date
relevance is postseason participation.
Baseball should never be at the point that we aren't a regional team at least 4 out of 5 times. I hope Cohen can get us back to that level. If you aren't in the bottom 4, you will make a regional.
Football - bowl game 4 out of 5 years especially in today's climate. Way too many bowl games for us not to schedule 4 cupcake OOC games and win 2 SEC games.
Basketball - my stand has been 3 out of 5 years make the tourney.
Baseball should never be at the point that we aren't a regional team at least 4 out of 5 times. I hope Cohen can get us back to that level. If you aren't in the bottom 4, you will make a regional.
Football - bowl game 4 out of 5 years especially in today's climate. Way too many bowl games for us not to schedule 4 cupcake OOC games and win 2 SEC games.
Basketball - my stand has been 3 out of 5 years make the tourney.
because I don't know that there's necessarily been a distinct pattern of our teams winning and losing over the years. The only thing that you can really say is that with our history of resources, we're going to have some good years but more than our share of bad years as compared to other SEC other programs.
As far as Cohen and Mullen go, I'm on the bandwagon for both coaches but I'd be lying if I didn't say that Cohen doesn't at least worry me a little. I think he can get the job done, but I just have a feeling that his fiery personality is going to bite him in the *** one day. Mullen, on the other hand, is one of the most important things to happen to State in decades. Everyone is obviously happy with him from wins/losses perspective and the fact that he's whipped the rebs twice, but I can't overemphasize how important it is for a coach to be able to come in to Starkville and prove that you can win here WITHOUT cheating and/or being perceived as a cheater. As much as I hated losing Diaz, the fact that MSU was a launching pad for a coach to land a job at Texas was huge also. If Mullen can put together another couple solid seasons, the perception of MSU football as being a coaching graveyard may finally change.
As far as Cohen and Mullen go, I'm on the bandwagon for both coaches but I'd be lying if I didn't say that Cohen doesn't at least worry me a little. I think he can get the job done, but I just have a feeling that his fiery personality is going to bite him in the *** one day. Mullen, on the other hand, is one of the most important things to happen to State in decades. Everyone is obviously happy with him from wins/losses perspective and the fact that he's whipped the rebs twice, but I can't overemphasize how important it is for a coach to be able to come in to Starkville and prove that you can win here WITHOUT cheating and/or being perceived as a cheater. As much as I hated losing Diaz, the fact that MSU was a launching pad for a coach to land a job at Texas was huge also. If Mullen can put together another couple solid seasons, the perception of MSU football as being a coaching graveyard may finally change.
As, DS suggested, making the post season 80% of the time should be what we want. In viewing the past decade we are way below that mark in the big 3.
We have, what appears to be, good leadership right now so I anticipate it to translate into consistent winning.
Football: Everything we have seen from Mullen leads me to believe we will sustain some level of success while he is here. As long as we schedule wisely, we should win 6 games a year minimum, which could get us closer to that 80% mark. We dont have the margin for error that some of the other schools do (see: Bama, LSU, Auburn, etc) Look at OM. They win back-to-back Cotton Bowls then immediately **** the bed. This year is big for them. Win less than 6 games and the wheels could come off. We are in a similar situation. If we dont win 6 or more games this season, Mullen will take a pretty big hit.
We have, what appears to be, good leadership right now so I anticipate it to translate into consistent winning.
Football: Everything we have seen from Mullen leads me to believe we will sustain some level of success while he is here. As long as we schedule wisely, we should win 6 games a year minimum, which could get us closer to that 80% mark. We dont have the margin for error that some of the other schools do (see: Bama, LSU, Auburn, etc) Look at OM. They win back-to-back Cotton Bowls then immediately **** the bed. This year is big for them. Win less than 6 games and the wheels could come off. We are in a similar situation. If we dont win 6 or more games this season, Mullen will take a pretty big hit.
For football it's absolutely cyclical. Just look back throughout the football history of both OM and MSU. Good years, bad years, good years, bad years. Some of the good and bad years will last longer than others, but in football its more about the resources we have to work with compared to the competition. We may sustain some success for a period, but I'd venture to guess that without something changing in the landscape that period will be followed with a return to the norm, which will then be followed with another period of success. Same principle applies at OM.
In baseball, its not cyclical. There is absolutely no reason that MSU (or OM for that matter) cannot sustain a successful baseball program. Right now at least, there is just not the wide gap between our resources and anyone else's resources that you see in football.
Basketball is the same as baseball in that its not really cyclical, or at least it shouldn't be. Basketball is different because if you can bring in 1-2 players with elite talent every year or two, you will be able to compete and sustain some success. It's simply a function of one or two players being able to carry a basketball team.
In baseball, its not cyclical. There is absolutely no reason that MSU (or OM for that matter) cannot sustain a successful baseball program. Right now at least, there is just not the wide gap between our resources and anyone else's resources that you see in football.
Basketball is the same as baseball in that its not really cyclical, or at least it shouldn't be. Basketball is different because if you can bring in 1-2 players with elite talent every year or two, you will be able to compete and sustain some success. It's simply a function of one or two players being able to carry a basketball team.
I would argue it's a mean and standard deviation issue. A good coach raises your mean performance. Standard deviation is probably a bit harder to control and is what some might call luck. A football team that averages 10 wins per season will have a much easier time getting a 12 win season every now and then, and may have an 8 win season just as often. It's much harder for an 8 or 9 wins a year coach to get that 12 win season. It's a similar thing for baseball and basketball. If you have a coach that raises your mean performance, you'll be much more likely to hit those seasons where you win it all. That's why you can't judge a coach by a single good (or bad) year. That's why you fire a 21-38 head coach even though the previous year he won a bowl game. In the average that's a horrible record.
leadership is where the rubber meets the road and the task is by far most difficult in football. If we can hang onto Mullen which won't be easy then I expect us to be in a bowl game every year while he is here. I just think the guy knows what he is doing with his offense and he won't tolerate poor defensive coaching it appears. Simply put he is a fierce competitor with a great football mind and a gift for marketing. Let's just hope he loves us as much as we love him.</p>