Not even close. Let's say Bama has 10-12 players who are drafted into the NFL. You know how many NFL players are on the worst NFL team? ALL OF THEM! No way a college team could ever compete with an NFL team.
SEC Network eventually worth $70+ Mill per team?
- Thread starter YoungB.sixpack
- Start date
Not even close. Let's say Bama has 10-12 players who are drafted into the NFL. You know how many NFL players are on the worst NFL team? ALL OF THEM! No way a college team could ever compete with an NFL team.
Bama has had 29 players taken in the NFL draft in the last 4 years, most of them in the first 3 rounds. That's enough for more than half an NFL roster. No doubt there's a big gap but Bama has been on a completely different level than any other college team ever lately.
The SEC is actually watched by almost 40% more people on a game-by-game basis. That means that when all the chips are on the table, our TV rights will be worth a minimum of 25% more than everyone else even IF we get killed in negotiations and accept bad deals -- which we wont -- not longterm anyway.
The B1G and PAC deals were negotiated several years after our deal -- hence why they are "better" in the short term -- but will get killed by the SEC in the longterm... even our tier 1 and 2 rights, which we will see in a few months have already been adjusted accordingly to be higher than any other competitors...
Every single one of those teams had inexplicable losses too. More terrible losses than marquee wins by a mile. Do we need to run through them again over Jackie's whole tenure? This was true for every single season besides 1999 and 2000 -- and several of the 2000 losses were still head-scratchers.
Disagree. We'll see though. I think you are overreacting to the manner in which we lost to the top teams last year moreso than the actual gap that exists.
We are definitely closer to the top of college football in general than we've ever been save one short run in the late 90s. Hence why WE are better off than we've ever been. We can't control what Alabama and LSU does -- but what we can control, we've done a pretty good job with.
So, does one marquee win cancel two head-scratching, terrible losses? Does beating Arky and average Bama and OM teams in 98 cancel getting thumped by a 5-win Oklahoma St team, a 4-win LSU, and a very average Kentucky team? Our other wins that year -- teams that went 8-36 combined. That's the year many here remember most fondly... How about all the other years that were even more skewed toward negative defeats?
In the end, I decided early in the Sherrill years that I'd go without those marquee victories to be shed of the embarrassing defeats -- and I've stuck with that ever since. Do I want Mullen to step up and beat someone of consequence? Yes. Do I want him to do it at the expense of losing to a 4-5 win Sun Belt team? No. Teams with alot of peaks almost always have alot of valleys as well -- so in the end it cancels into "what they are". I don't fault Mullen's teams for having a much flatter path toward where we're going...
This isn't empirical...
...but I agree with flab. I think the gap has widened. I always knew we were an underdog in the late 90's early 2000's under Sherrill. But I also felt like we could win. I never thought, there's no way. Now, when we play LSU & Bama, I don't feel there's chance we win outside of their whole team falling in a sinkhole. For comparisons sake:
'00 vs. West (Auburn) & East (Florida) champs, we won against both (Lost to LSU by 7)
'99 vs. eventual West champs @BDS (Bama), we held our own, could have won, but lost late (beat LSU)
'98 vs. eventual national champions in the SECCG (Tennessee), we held our own, could have won, but lost late (Lost to LSUby 35)
'12 vs. eventual national champions (Bama), we get our doors blown off (Lost to LSU 20)
'11 vs. eventual national champions (Bama), never in doubt loss (Lost to LSU by 13)
'10 vs. eventual national champions (Auburn), played them closer than anybody all year (Lost to LSU by 22)
Other than playing Auburn close, we haven't threatened a top team yet. Whereas, in the Sherrill years, we threatened and beat them frequently. I think we're better now talent-wise, or at least close, but the whatever our marginal improvement level, the big boys' margins have improved even more...
...but I agree with flab. I think the gap has widened. I always knew we were an underdog in the late 90's early 2000's under Sherrill. But I also felt like we could win. I never thought, there's no way. Now, when we play LSU & Bama, I don't feel there's chance we win outside of their whole team falling in a sinkhole. For comparisons sake:
'00 vs. West (Auburn) & East (Florida) champs, we won against both (Lost to LSU by 7)
'99 vs. eventual West champs @BDS (Bama), we held our own, could have won, but lost late (beat LSU)
'98 vs. eventual national champions in the SECCG (Tennessee), we held our own, could have won, but lost late (Lost to LSUby 35)
'12 vs. eventual national champions (Bama), we get our doors blown off (Lost to LSU 20)
'11 vs. eventual national champions (Bama), never in doubt loss (Lost to LSU by 13)
'10 vs. eventual national champions (Auburn), played them closer than anybody all year (Lost to LSU by 22)
Other than playing Auburn close, we haven't threatened a top team yet. Whereas, in the Sherrill years, we threatened and beat them frequently. I think we're better now talent-wise, or at least close, but the whatever our marginal improvement level, the big boys' margins have improved even more...
Sadly have to agree with this.
Semi-agree with this. We're not closer to the top if you are talking in comparison to competing with the LSUs and Bamas of the world, but overall in the grand scheme of things as a program ranking, then yes, we're in better shape. But if we are (for example) a top 20 program now vs a top 30 program in the 90s (arbitrary numbers), we're still as far away from the top five as ever. I do agree that we are better off than we have ever been if you don't compare us to Bama and LSU and the like, and that we can't control how good they are, only how good we are.
The next question is - what is our ceiling in the next 3-5 years?
Way to cherry pick the best 3 years of the Sherrill era to compare Mullen to. I agree. We're not as good as those teams are right now. But we're a lot better than the average Sherrill team was. Not to mention those 2 divisional champions in 2010 (Auburn & Florida) finished the season ranked #10 and #18 in the final polls. The SEC just wasn't anywhere near as strong back then as it is now.
I don't see the value in comparing us to Bama and LSU. Even if we sting them a couple times, I'd be surprised if we ever won more than 3 or 4 per decade against them. It is what it is.
But, next we play @ Auburn and @ Arkansas with completely new coaching staff coming off of their worst season in decades. We also get OM at home which I doubt will be a top 15 team when we play them, and we get Ok State on a nuetrual field. Those are the measuring stick games. If we can't go on the road and knock off Gus Malzhan with a freshman QB or Clint Mosely, go to Arkansas and win in year 1 of a huge rebuilding project, protect our house against Freeze, then I'll be very disappointed. If we go 3-1 in those games, everyone is happy.
But, next we play @ Auburn and @ Arkansas with completely new coaching staff coming off of their worst season in decades. We also get OM at home which I doubt will be a top 15 team when we play them, and we get Ok State on a nuetrual field. Those are the measuring stick games. If we can't go on the road and knock off Gus Malzhan with a freshman QB or Clint Mosely, go to Arkansas and win in year 1 of a huge rebuilding project, protect our house against Freeze, then I'll be very disappointed. If we go 3-1 in those games, everyone is happy.
I didn't mean it as an indictment of Mullen.
The SEC is clearly a different animal now. I just mean that versus the best teams in the conference at the time. The gap, to me, seems to be widening.
The SEC is clearly a different animal now. I just mean that versus the best teams in the conference at the time. The gap, to me, seems to be widening.
Yep...
We beat Bama 6 times in 12 years. Those Bama teams were cumulatively 37-36 in the years we beat them -- or overall 84-64 during the time period. We beat one "good" Bama team in 1996 in what was, according to the standards applied to Mullen, Jackie's first true marquee win in year six. In the rest of these wins, we capitalized on a team that was down no different than we did against Auburn and Tennessee in 2012 and Georgia and Florida in 2010.
We beat Bama 6 times in 12 years. Those Bama teams were cumulatively 37-36 in the years we beat them -- or overall 84-64 during the time period. We beat one "good" Bama team in 1996 in what was, according to the standards applied to Mullen, Jackie's first true marquee win in year six. In the rest of these wins, we capitalized on a team that was down no different than we did against Auburn and Tennessee in 2012 and Georgia and Florida in 2010.
By that same measure then, you've got to give credit to Mullen for beating Florida on the road and beating Georgia (not to mention a ranked Mississippi team on the road). It's not like he hasn't had some good wins in his career the like way too many try to make it sound.
Exactly. This was why I framed it like I did. If "beating Alabama is beating Alabama" then by the same measure "Florida must be Florida", "Auburn must be Auburn", "Tennessee must be Tennessee", "Georgia must be Georgia", and "Michigan must be Michigan".
You can't call what Jackie did against Alabama(in general) "signature" without also calling what Mullen has done against all the teams listed above "signature". So, which is it?
Beating a 7 win team is beating a 7 win team regardless of the name on the front of the jersey. That's why I say we have a real chance against LSU this year.
First 4 years...
It's been common to compare Mullen's record vs State's best 3-4 years under Sherrill, especially since Mullen has approached or matched State's best 4 year period in history.
For comparison of their starts at MSU,
Sherrill went 25-19-2 (.565) his first 4 seasons at State (and deep into his head coaching career)
7-5
7-5
4-5-2 (3 wins plus a forfeit by Bama)
8-4
Mullen went 29-22 (.569) his first 4 seasons at State (and first 4 of being a head coach)
5-7
9-4
7-6
8-5
Keep in mind that Mullen is still learning how to be a head coach. His record in his first 4 years as a head coach rivals Saban's, Miles', etc.
It's been common to compare Mullen's record vs State's best 3-4 years under Sherrill, especially since Mullen has approached or matched State's best 4 year period in history.
For comparison of their starts at MSU,
Sherrill went 25-19-2 (.565) his first 4 seasons at State (and deep into his head coaching career)
7-5
7-5
4-5-2 (3 wins plus a forfeit by Bama)
8-4
Mullen went 29-22 (.569) his first 4 seasons at State (and first 4 of being a head coach)
5-7
9-4
7-6
8-5
Keep in mind that Mullen is still learning how to be a head coach. His record in his first 4 years as a head coach rivals Saban's, Miles', etc.
See, I actually fall on your side of the fence on this one. I don't consider anything Mullen has done to this point to be truly "signature" -- but by the same measure, I don't see anything Jackie did in seasons 1-5 as "signature" either -- and Jackie certainly had many more head scratching defeats in that time period.
This is certainly as good of chance as we'll have against LSU for quite awhile most likely. Take out the 2 major mistakes and we had a good shot last year in Baton Rouge. We certainly moved the ball against them...
I'm with you for the most part, however, I think the marquee wins during the Sherrill era (and the lack of them in the Mullen era) do seem to indicate that we are farther from the top than we were. Everyone is better, but the top teams' marginal improvement is greater than our marginal improvement.
There were zero "marquee" wins in Sherrill's first 5 years. He didn't get his first until his 6th year. Simply beating better teams means nothing if you lose to worse teams. If we were "closer to the top", wouldn't we also, then, be "closer to the bottom" by definition?
I'd refer to Sagarin rankings to establish this over time -- but it only goes back to 98...
For some reason, this keeps becoming an apples-to-oranges comparison by using the best 3-4 years of the Sherrill era -- consequently referring to years 7, 8, 9, and 10 of his tenure.
I'll frame if like this - with Sherrill we usually had a good chance to beat highly ranked teams - and I miss that.
Sherrill beat Texas twice early in his career. I think Texas was ranked high when we played them. Also beat a ranked 9-4 Florida team. Mullen has done nothing like either of those.
Last edited:
Those Texas teams were 5-6 and 6-5 and neither went to bowl games. If those are marquee victories, Mullen's wins over Georgia, Florida, and Michigan are also -- and it should be argued that the wins over Auburn and Arkansas are as well.
A "ranked" 9-4 Gator Bowl-bound Florida team as a marquee victory? Does the ranked 9-4 Cotton Bowl-bound OM team Mullen destroyed in year one then somehow count differently? How? Because Florida's "name" somehow means something to you in 1992 -- but not 2010? See the gap in the logic?
Let's fully revisit these Jackie years that so many here are seemingly remembering as something other than what they really were:
1991 - lost to 5-win Memphis
1992 - got blown out by 2-win LSU and blown out by 5-win South Carolina. Beat 9-win Florida that you argue was marquee and I argue isn't**
1993 - lost to 5-win LSU, lost to 6-win Memphis, and tied 2-win Arkansas State. Lost to 6-win Kentucky and tied 5-win Arkansas
1994 - got blown out by 4-win LSU
1995 - lost to 2-win Louisiana Monroe and got blown out by 4-win South Carolina. Lost to 6-win Ole Miss.
1996 - got blown out by 6-win Louisiana Tech and got blown out by 5-win Georgia. Also lost to 4-win Kentucky and 4-win Arkansas. Got Jackie's first unanimous marquee win against 10-win Alabama at home**
So, in terms of "marquee" wins vs bad defeats, what would you then say our record was in those games in Jackie's first six years? Now, hold Mullen to the exact same standard and what is his record?
Last edited:
Those teams were highly ranked when we beat them. And one thing you are missing are the large number of times we almost beat really good teams. Yes, and almost-won is a lot better than a no-chance 30 point blowout.
Sherrill got within a goal line off sides call of beating a national champion. Sherrill gave us a chance to beat every team on the schedule. You can't say that about recent history.
I say Sherrill. Realistically, its that the rich have gotten a lot richer - which was the point of this thread.
Sherrill got within a goal line off sides call of beating a national champion. Sherrill gave us a chance to beat every team on the schedule. You can't say that about recent history.
I say Sherrill. Realistically, its that the rich have gotten a lot richer - which was the point of this thread.
This has turned into a Mullen vs. Sherrill argument.
I thought we were talking about the gap between the top teams and MSU. The gap has widened since the Sherrill era. The evidence is the lack of competitiveness against the top tier teams.
The influx of money has helped us, but it's helped the top teams more. That's my argument.
Whether it's better to beat top teams and lose to bad ones (Sherrill) or always beat bad teams but lose to good ones (Mullen) is for another thread.
I thought we were talking about the gap between the top teams and MSU. The gap has widened since the Sherrill era. The evidence is the lack of competitiveness against the top tier teams.
The influx of money has helped us, but it's helped the top teams more. That's my argument.
Whether it's better to beat top teams and lose to bad ones (Sherrill) or always beat bad teams but lose to good ones (Mullen) is for another thread.
+1
I will also agree there has to be a point of diminishing returns. But we obviously haven't gotten to that point yet.
I think all the money has brought improvements which made national recruits flock to top tier SEC teams. I'm not sure what else the top SEC teams could do to further improve.
Last edited:
So, what you really want is preseason bowl games against teams that are hyped to be more than they actually are? Because that's ALL those two victories over crappy Texas teams were. Ultimately, you are placing your hat on hollow victories against teams that had preseason rankings -- but actually are proven over the course of the season to not be very good? Got it. Why, then, do you dismiss our "marquee" victory over Auburn last year and Florida in the Swamp(among others)? And it's somehow fair to talk smack to Ole Miss fans about their "fake championships" when you are trying to call victories over non-bowl teams "signature"?
You should then be extremely excited about the OK State game under that same pretense.
So, Mullen hasn't "almost" beaten any really good teams? We didn't "almost" beat a Sugar Bowl-Bound Arkansas? We didn't "almost" beat a National Champion in Auburn? Didn't "almost" beat LSU -- really more than once? Didn't "almost" beat an 11-win South Carolina? Didn't push national #2(#1 at the time) Florida to the brink? Didn't "almost" beat defending national champion Auburn? None of that ever happened...right?
Mullen has coached 51 games for us now -- why be blinded by the last 5 and forget about the rest?
Mullen was a dropped pass from beating a national champion. Is there a point?
Sherrill gave us the ability to lose to every team on the schedule. And he did. 3x as often as he beat teams he wasn't supposed to beat.
Mullen has beaten every team in the SEC we've played multiple times other than Alabama and LSU. He's given us a chance to beat LSU. So, ultimately, you are basing your entire viewpoint on him -- on the inability to beat Nick Saban with a dynasty like no other I've ever witnessed.
Anotherwords, you prefer a victory over Ok State -- and losses against Troy and Kentucky...over the seasons that Mullen has been giving us? That's it in a nutshell.
Last edited:
This is one of the silliest lines of thinking in sports. Who cares what they were ranked when we played? All that matters is what they were ranked after the season was over. I'm not trying to jump in this pissing match, but this line of thinking is moronic at best.
We thought we had done something last year too by beating Auburn. Turns out at the end of the year that they, Tennessee and Arkansas were all terrible. It all works out in the end. Honestly though, I don't give a flying ****. To me, we still beat Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas in one season and I'll take that **** all day long I don't care what their records are.
What lack of competitiveness? Again you are basing an entire 51 game tenure on one season -- or more precisely, the last 5 games of one season.
Is everyone here totally blinded to our reality and history under Mullen by one bad stretch? Because that's certainly how it seems.
Run through Mullen's entire career for me and try to tell me with a straight face that we've had a "lack of competitiveness against top tier teams" -- because that's ********. We've had a "lack of competitiveness" against ALABAMA -- which this entire argument is now basically based on -- because they are the only SEC team that we haven't had a legit shot to beat in Mullen's tenure.
2009 - Gave national #2 Florida their best game all regular season.
2010 - Gave national champion Auburn their best game all season.
2011 - Gave national champion Alabama their second-best game all season -- other than the one they lost to LSU.
2012 - Got beat soundly by good teams -- and all of a sudden, the previous 3 years don't count for anything.
This whole...
..."blinded to our reality and history under Mullen" bit is a straw man.
Sherrill had bad losses. I was there, so point given and taken. But are we closer to the big boys now? Absolutely not.
Four times under Mullen have we legitimately threatened a big boy (LSU '09, UF '09, Ark '10, AU '10). But in the pre-ESPN makes it rain on the SEC era, i.e. the Sherrill era, we REGULARLY threatened and even beat those teams. That tells me the gap has widened.
This is NOT a Sherrill's best years versus Mullen's tenure argument. It's about if we are closer to the big boys now or further away. Does the tide raise all the ships? My contention is that the influx of money has, for now, widened the gap (raising the best teams more than it has raised us).
Please stop making this something it isn't.
..."blinded to our reality and history under Mullen" bit is a straw man.
Sherrill had bad losses. I was there, so point given and taken. But are we closer to the big boys now? Absolutely not.
Four times under Mullen have we legitimately threatened a big boy (LSU '09, UF '09, Ark '10, AU '10). But in the pre-ESPN makes it rain on the SEC era, i.e. the Sherrill era, we REGULARLY threatened and even beat those teams. That tells me the gap has widened.
This is NOT a Sherrill's best years versus Mullen's tenure argument. It's about if we are closer to the big boys now or further away. Does the tide raise all the ships? My contention is that the influx of money has, for now, widened the gap (raising the best teams more than it has raised us).
Please stop making this something it isn't.
Yes, I am excited about the OK State game. Not the wisest scheduling decision. But I am excited about the game.
Excellent points.
Tyson Lee stopped at the goal line against LSU.
Berry dropping a pass at the end of the Cam Newton Auburn game. Damn, I wish we'd have won that. Talk about a fly in Auburn's ointment. The ultimate middle finger to CamNewtonGate.
OT loss to Arkansas was the best loss I've ever seen. HELLUVA football game!
Strong effort against S Carolina.
Strong effort against Tebow's Florida.
This stuff needs to be brought up more often. I think you are right - disappointment in the Mullen era is more a result of raised expectations than anything else.
How do you quantify this? Fact is, the "big boys" now reside in the SEC. In Sherrill's tenure, for the most part, they didn't. That's why the SEC only won 3.5 national titles in Sherrill's career(only one from our division) -- and teams in our division have won 4 in a row in Mullen's career. That's why we went 6-2 in the SEC -- had a chance to beat the team that ended up winning the national title -- only to get systematically destroyed by Texas in the Cotton Bowl. When was the last time the SEC lost one of those, by the way?
So, is the argument that we've gotten further behind Alabama during Mullen's tenure? Or that we've gotten further away from the top overall? Those are two distinctly different things. I argue that the gap is larger with Alabama -- but we're still alot closer to the top overall.
Beating teams that were "good" in the SEC in the Sherrill era is not even remotely the same thing as beating "good teams" in the Mullen era.
The problem with that is that Alabama is the only one being used as an example of a "big boy" thus skewing the results -- and Sherrill NEVER saw a team even remotely like that juggernaut in his entire career at MSU.
Yes.
The only team(s) that you can make the case have increased the gap in relation to us in Mullen's tenure are South Carolina and Alabama. That's it.
As I already stated here initially -- the difference in "how quickly" a program can take advantage of new factors depends on the program. That's why a good coach can build Alabama and LSU into title contenders in 2 years and can build Florida and Georgia into contenders almost immediately. Basically, new factors affect those programs MORE QUICKLY than they do for the rest of us. That does not mean that those factors affect them to a GREATER EXTENT than they do for the rest of us.
That's the disagreement that you and I are having here -- you say that "the money has helped them more than the rest of us" -- while I contend that "the money simply helped them more quickly than it is helping the rest of us."
Excellent chance all 14 SEC teams finish this year in the top 30 in recruiting rankings -- potentially all in the top 25. In Sherrill's final year, with the "tremendous classes that started the streak" -- the(current 14 member) SEC had 9 in the top 30. Seems the "bottom 5" have done alot of rising in the talent they are actually getting to me...
Last edited:
In Mullen's first year, MSU beat #4 Ole Miss 41-27. See how much better it sounds when you make up random, bs rankings and apply them to teams that you beat or play a good game against in order to promote an agenda?
Texas was preseason #25 in 1992. (We were preseason #22.) They fell out of the rankings when we beat them never to return.
Auburn was unranked when we played them in 1992. (We were #18.) They were NEVER ranked at any point in that season.
We did not even play Tennessee in Jackie's second season at MSU.
So, I assume you actually want to talk about Jackie's first year at MSU. Details are important when attempting to argue about such things.
Texas was preseason #14 in 1991. They fell out of the rankings when we beat them in their first game never to return.
Auburn was unranked when we played them in 1991. They finished the year unranked as well.
Tennessee was #6 the week of the close game in 1991. They finished #14 at 9-3.
So, I ask you again... What part of this is better than anything that Mullen has accomplished?
And... By all means... please move on to Jackie's 3rd season when he went 3-6-2...
Please feel free to reference actual polls next time when talking numbers:
http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=718#.UYv0laKG3HQ
http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=1992#.UYv0fKKG3HQ
And the dates of the games:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/MississippiState.htm#1991
And Jackie's actual tenure at MSU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Sherrill
Last edited: