I know it was said he was allowed to go back out and recruit, but it looks like he is done in College Station. ESPN reported it so again, it must be true. Open the conversation for Fedora to TAMU.
Sherman officially out at TAMU.
- Thread starter mstatefan88
- Start date
I know it was said he was allowed to go back out and recruit, but it looks like he is done in College Station. ESPN reported it so again, it must be true. Open the conversation for Fedora to TAMU.
He just went 6-6, they wear maroon and white, and they are bowl eligible. They haven't even started play in the SEC yet and already have delusional expectations about winning seasons.
Wait, they almost beat, but lost to, their arch in-state rival, flagship Texas.
Wait, they almost beat, but lost to, their arch in-state rival, flagship Texas.
& their second half short comings this season,
He should have been fired Friday!
Something was way wrong!
Welcome to the SEC!
He should have been fired Friday!
Something was way wrong!
Welcome to the SEC!
Second half woes point directly to the coaching staff. If we were like that, I would want Mullen gone. It was not a few head scratching calls, but a complete breakdown in the second half of several games.
I think it would have been different if they had just lost the games straight up, but three (or more?) games with a double digit lead at half-time that were blown is inexcusable. Every team in the SEC with the exception of Vandy would be calling for their coach's head if it happened to them.
I think it would have been different if they had just lost the games straight up, but three (or more?) games with a double digit lead at half-time that were blown is inexcusable. Every team in the SEC with the exception of Vandy would be calling for their coach's head if it happened to them.
Mississippi teams are never going to excel when one of them wins two games and the other brags ad nauseum about how impressive their LOSSES are (Atlanta over a decade ago, losing to high-ranked teams the last two years).
That we are "delusional" for expecting more than two or four wins a season, while TAMU is not delusional for expecting more than .500.
By the way, Mullen is 20-17 (8-13).
Enjoy your championship. Mullen's shown recruits where championships are won.
By the way, Mullen is 20-17 (8-13).
Enjoy your championship. Mullen's shown recruits where championships are won.
Nobody on here has bragged about that. After getting blown out for years we are getting competitive. That is a sign of progress in our program.
Of course, that in no way compares to losing by 20+ margins and never having to say you got beat in a championship game....
Of course, that in no way compares to losing by 20+ margins and never having to say you got beat in a championship game....
Orgeron was "competitive" with the best SEC teams but never could beat any.
I'm just saying that in year three a team should win at least one "good" game. You're not even beating Auburn in a down year. Last year was a positive upswing for State in being "competitive" but this year was a regression. I'm not remotely saying you should fire your coach. I'm saying it's the absolute height of absurdity to suggest our firing a coach after a 4-win season followed by a 2-win season that was the worst in 70 years is somehow "delusional" or that our expectations are just insane. A State fan would allege such due to being blinded by bias, and Mandel would allege such because he doesn't know much of jack **** about us and is just kind of repeating message board drivel.
Yeah yeah, I know we suck worse than State. I'm simply tired of either of the two programs settling for mediocrity as a "good" year. It's not delusional for any SEC team to expect to have a winning season more often than not. Ask Vandy about resources and lack of fan turnout.
2008 showed that even in a complete rebuilding year we ("we" as in not necessarily Ole Miss but a SEC team in lil 'ol Mississippi) could excel. It showed that we could at least recruit well enough (Orgeron) to have the talent to do so under a half-decent coach. Should we expect 10 wins every season? Hell no. But if your coach goes from that to 2 wins in pretty quick fashion, something is %+%##+# wrong with him. Any program can expect a losing season here and there, but not this ****.
I'm just saying that in year three a team should win at least one "good" game. You're not even beating Auburn in a down year. Last year was a positive upswing for State in being "competitive" but this year was a regression. I'm not remotely saying you should fire your coach. I'm saying it's the absolute height of absurdity to suggest our firing a coach after a 4-win season followed by a 2-win season that was the worst in 70 years is somehow "delusional" or that our expectations are just insane. A State fan would allege such due to being blinded by bias, and Mandel would allege such because he doesn't know much of jack **** about us and is just kind of repeating message board drivel.
Yeah yeah, I know we suck worse than State. I'm simply tired of either of the two programs settling for mediocrity as a "good" year. It's not delusional for any SEC team to expect to have a winning season more often than not. Ask Vandy about resources and lack of fan turnout.
2008 showed that even in a complete rebuilding year we ("we" as in not necessarily Ole Miss but a SEC team in lil 'ol Mississippi) could excel. It showed that we could at least recruit well enough (Orgeron) to have the talent to do so under a half-decent coach. Should we expect 10 wins every season? Hell no. But if your coach goes from that to 2 wins in pretty quick fashion, something is %+%##+# wrong with him. Any program can expect a losing season here and there, but not this ****.
There's been plenty of bitching about the Auburn and South Carolina losses. But most of us realize that when you look at where we've come from in the 2001-2008 seasons just not losing to the bad teams and getting to 2 straight bowls is a pretty big improvement. We're laying the foundation for the future. BTW, we did beat a couple of SEC bowl teams last year, so it's not like all of Mullen's wins have been over **** teams.
Croom was given five years. Nutt was given four. Not much difference. Had Nutt had a winning season in year four like Croom did, or even won, say, five games, he'd still be here. He won two games. Against SIU and Fresno State. The previous year he won four games and lost to Vandy. He lost to Vandy three out of four seasons.
Now's the time in our cycle when we start over and "build for the future" as you say. I'm simply saying it's pretty absurd to see posts suggesting Ole Miss belongs in some shittier conference, while State belongs in the SEC. Make fun of the "two Cotton Bowls" (I do), but those were still the two best seasons a Mississippi SEC team has had in the last decade, along with the 2003 season as well. I'd say if State belongs in the SEC and isn't the worst job on the planet, Ole Miss belongs and can't be the worst job.
ETA: Ole Miss is down, so we're the poster boy this year for the "they'll never be great, they should just be happy with table scraps from the SEC" stuff from the press. They don't say this during a 10-win season at all. When State has a down year, State is the recipient of this stuff instead.
Now's the time in our cycle when we start over and "build for the future" as you say. I'm simply saying it's pretty absurd to see posts suggesting Ole Miss belongs in some shittier conference, while State belongs in the SEC. Make fun of the "two Cotton Bowls" (I do), but those were still the two best seasons a Mississippi SEC team has had in the last decade, along with the 2003 season as well. I'd say if State belongs in the SEC and isn't the worst job on the planet, Ole Miss belongs and can't be the worst job.
ETA: Ole Miss is down, so we're the poster boy this year for the "they'll never be great, they should just be happy with table scraps from the SEC" stuff from the press. They don't say this during a 10-win season at all. When State has a down year, State is the recipient of this stuff instead.
Nobody thinks you don't belong in the SEC, not even him. And nobody thinks you can't ever win 9 or 10 games in a season. You can and you have. In fact, 5 times in the last 12 years one of us won at least 9 games. The point I've been trying to make is that neither of us is ever going to consistantly win 8 games per season. We're both going to have the occasional 9-10 win season, but we're both going to have the occasional losing season. If we can average 7-8 wins over the long term, we'd both better be pretty happy about it. Either that or go ahead and find another team to root for now, because if we're not going to be happy with that we're going to be in for a lot of disappointment.</p>
[list type=decimal][*]RE: Mississippi's Football program; Define "mediocrity".[*]What is "acceptable" W/L record "these" days? [*]Did you ever think you would be sad that Vandy is Ole Miss's permanent SECE "rival"?[/list]<div>
</div>
</div>
Stages of Ole Miss progression.
1. Delusional stage- Firing Cuttcliff
2. Dumb *** stage- Hiring Ogeron
3. Desperate stage- Hiring Nutt
4. Lost in the wilderness stage- Having Archie search for a new coach.
From here on out Ole Miss will have to have Archie's approval before doing anything. When he is dead it will fall to Ely. Same situation Alabama was in for years with Paul Bryant Jr.</p>
1. Delusional stage- Firing Cuttcliff
2. Dumb *** stage- Hiring Ogeron
3. Desperate stage- Hiring Nutt
4. Lost in the wilderness stage- Having Archie search for a new coach.
From here on out Ole Miss will have to have Archie's approval before doing anything. When he is dead it will fall to Ely. Same situation Alabama was in for years with Paul Bryant Jr.</p>
Mediocrity would be winning six or seven games most seasons but never progressing beyond that occasionally, and losing to some crappy teams. Cutcliffe, other than 2003, was mediocre. It's easier for a non-Ole Miss fan to look at his W-L and think he was good, without really paying attention to who he lost to and points where we blew opportunities for much better. He even lost to Memphis to start that season. I don't know if he should have been fired after 2004, but I can say he was mediocre. If we shouldn't expect more than that, then really why do we have a football program? Why does anyone have a program just to "settle" for a certain level? Does State not want to win championships? Sure. We all do.
As far as acceptable in a total rebuilding year such as next season, six wins would be acceptable. We anticipated last season, 2010, would be a rebuilding year, and six wins would have been acceptable. We won four. We then would have accepted probably even five wins this year. We won two.
The Vandy question is very funny coming from a fan of a program whose East rival is Kentucky, per Wikipedia.
As far as acceptable in a total rebuilding year such as next season, six wins would be acceptable. We anticipated last season, 2010, would be a rebuilding year, and six wins would have been acceptable. We won four. We then would have accepted probably even five wins this year. We won two.
The Vandy question is very funny coming from a fan of a program whose East rival is Kentucky, per Wikipedia.
Since that is what you implied by your post. THIS board....Ogre has nothing to do with this discussion. Did ya'll brag about being competitive in losses under the Ogre? If so, I never saw that.
Geeze.........
Geeze.........
You said this....
Then IMMEDIATELY followed it with this.....
So, WTF?....by your definition and absolutes of mediocrity, doesn't 2003 fit the bill of "progressing beyond that (6-7 wins) occasionally"....Therefore, he was, by your definition, NOT mediocre?.... BTW, i think he was mediocre but you make zero sense. From what I remember, Cutcliffe was hired basically by the Mannings so that OM would secure Eli instead of losing out like they did on Peyton. Then once Eli was gone, Cutcliffe's reason for being at OM was gone, so as soon as he screwed up he was canned..... rightfully so in my mind given the reasons and circumstances of his hiring.
Then, in a another post you compared Nutt and Croom's tenures being very similar......seriously?
I also agree with you and OM that Nutt needed to be fire.... but yet again you get to the correct conclusion with completely ***-backward methods.
-Nutt immediately won 2 Cotton bowls in which he had at least 1 unbelievably awesome team... then took an inexplicable and unprecedented nose dive.
-Croom began losing his *** for 3 years, then had a mediocre Liberty Bowl year (which in hindsight was pure luck), followed by another year of shitting the bed.
You can't take two more different paths to getting yourself canned as a college coach... sans some turmoil outside of football.
Then IMMEDIATELY followed it with this.....
So, WTF?....by your definition and absolutes of mediocrity, doesn't 2003 fit the bill of "progressing beyond that (6-7 wins) occasionally"....Therefore, he was, by your definition, NOT mediocre?.... BTW, i think he was mediocre but you make zero sense. From what I remember, Cutcliffe was hired basically by the Mannings so that OM would secure Eli instead of losing out like they did on Peyton. Then once Eli was gone, Cutcliffe's reason for being at OM was gone, so as soon as he screwed up he was canned..... rightfully so in my mind given the reasons and circumstances of his hiring.
Then, in a another post you compared Nutt and Croom's tenures being very similar......seriously?
I also agree with you and OM that Nutt needed to be fire.... but yet again you get to the correct conclusion with completely ***-backward methods.
-Nutt immediately won 2 Cotton bowls in which he had at least 1 unbelievably awesome team... then took an inexplicable and unprecedented nose dive.
-Croom began losing his *** for 3 years, then had a mediocre Liberty Bowl year (which in hindsight was pure luck), followed by another year of shitting the bed.
You can't take two more different paths to getting yourself canned as a college coach... sans some turmoil outside of football.
That's too "occasionally." It was followed immediately by a year of absolute bed-shitting that made clear the next "occasion" of semi-glory would be far off. I think he should have had another year or two, though. Boone painted himself into a corner with his ultimatum.
Does that clear things up?
Does that clear things up?
It's like your making excuses when none are needed.
One great year interspersed in "six or seven" good years is my (and should be yours&OM's) wet dream of stretch in football....even with a 4 win season mixed in. To purposely split hairs, Cutcliffe's 10-3(7-1) team in 2003 was his 5th year and preceded by seasons of 8, 7, 7, 7 wins.
Again, I'm not faulting your points...I agree with both, Cutcliffes and Nutts, firings...I'm faulting the way your are explaining your theory behind your points.
But after rereading your post that I initially replied (I had stopped prematurely earlier), I noticed this...You may actually be totally delusional....
Tell mean by "acceptable," you meant "exceptional." After a 2-10(0-8) year, 6-wins would be an outrageously tall order for a first year coach. Especially since the guy in charge of hiring right now is the same guy who, more or less, chose Cutcliffe.
One great year interspersed in "six or seven" good years is my (and should be yours&OM's) wet dream of stretch in football....even with a 4 win season mixed in. To purposely split hairs, Cutcliffe's 10-3(7-1) team in 2003 was his 5th year and preceded by seasons of 8, 7, 7, 7 wins.
Again, I'm not faulting your points...I agree with both, Cutcliffes and Nutts, firings...I'm faulting the way your are explaining your theory behind your points.
But after rereading your post that I initially replied (I had stopped prematurely earlier), I noticed this...You may actually be totally delusional....
Tell mean by "acceptable," you meant "exceptional." After a 2-10(0-8) year, 6-wins would be an outrageously tall order for a first year coach. Especially since the guy in charge of hiring right now is the same guy who, more or less, chose Cutcliffe.