I'm talking it will determine the path MSU football takes for the next 20+ years. I'm saying this because of a 2 year coach we had back in the 1950s named Darrell Royal who had a moderate amount of success (6-4 for both of his seasons). While he didn't go straight to Texas after leaving us, he did end up winning a national title within 10 years of leaving - and a couple more in the decade afterward. What did MSU do during that time? You don't really want to know, or if you do know, you want to forget. So that leaves us with the present. We have a 2 year coach who has had a moderate amount of success and a bigger program is calling. If we lose him, it won't be like the 1960s and 1970s, but we might be losing out on a guy who delivers multiple national titles to some lucky school. If we keep him, we might be that school. If we had somehow kept Royal around, we might be one of the big players in the SEC right now, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt. Here's hoping Dan sticks around.
This will be a watershed moment for MSU football
- Thread starter UpTheMiddlex3Punt
- Start date
I'm talking it will determine the path MSU football takes for the next 20+ years. I'm saying this because of a 2 year coach we had back in the 1950s named Darrell Royal who had a moderate amount of success (6-4 for both of his seasons). While he didn't go straight to Texas after leaving us, he did end up winning a national title within 10 years of leaving - and a couple more in the decade afterward. What did MSU do during that time? You don't really want to know, or if you do know, you want to forget. So that leaves us with the present. We have a 2 year coach who has had a moderate amount of success and a bigger program is calling. If we lose him, it won't be like the 1960s and 1970s, but we might be losing out on a guy who delivers multiple national titles to some lucky school. If we keep him, we might be that school. If we had somehow kept Royal around, we might be one of the big players in the SEC right now, but we have to play with the hand we're dealt. Here's hoping Dan sticks around.
Dan Mullen staying at State in the face of an opportunity to go to an elite program like Florida will be a better moment for Mississippi State football - the current program, recruiting, and the future - than winning any bowl game we've ever played in.
And he is just smart enough to make sure every outstanding player in the state of Mississippi understands that. He is already out-recruiting the other school(s), but this could make MSU not just dominant in the state, but help us to recruit more effectively outside Mississippi.
This could be the start of something remarkable. I surely hope he stays in Starkville.
That is all.
/wool
And he is just smart enough to make sure every outstanding player in the state of Mississippi understands that. He is already out-recruiting the other school(s), but this could make MSU not just dominant in the state, but help us to recruit more effectively outside Mississippi.
This could be the start of something remarkable. I surely hope he stays in Starkville.
That is all.
/wool
60 years later, we may be at the same place again. 2 year HC with moderate success. Royal bolts and the rest is college football history. State goes on a shitastic run of hiring retread after retread (I'll give Tyler a pass, but he was never really accepted as a state guy) until Jackie, and some would argue that he was close to retread status. From Royal's successor, all the way to Mullen, not one MState head coach has been hired away to a better program. Not a single one. That's 60 years of relative coaching graveyard status.
Now here we are 60 years after Royal, staring the possibility of Mullen's departure right in the face. We can either decide to be in the big boy club or we can let him go. If he leaves, it is IMPERATIVE that grasshopper does not allow us to go back to the college football desert with retreads.
Now here we are 60 years after Royal, staring the possibility of Mullen's departure right in the face. We can either decide to be in the big boy club or we can let him go. If he leaves, it is IMPERATIVE that grasshopper does not allow us to go back to the college football desert with retreads.
after a four or five year stint is going to be a huge difference. If he leaves now, we may lose some of our key recruits (wr's in particular). Wouldn't it suck if Brassell and Singleton fell into the bear's laps b/c Mullin leaves? This would be our first year to really cash in on the "Mullin Brand" with recruits. We need him to stay and win long enough that we can stock the cupboard a little bit.
You'd have had some good success, possibly similar to what Vaught did at Ole Miss. Then when he retired, you'd have been back to the bottom of the heap, like we were.
You'd have toiled through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, just the same as we did.
A lot of people don't want to think this way, but a coach can only do so much for a program. That's why the best ones leave for better jobs where they can accomplish more.
Programs like ours, barring some outside factors changing other than coaching, will always find their way back to the norm. Gameplan and that program is the only outside factor I could see helping change things a little bit for Ole Miss and MSU, but the ultimate problem is that we both exist, and the state isn't big enough or strong enough to support two top notch programs. We cannibalize each other. Even when one school has down times, it's never a big enough difference or long enough period for one to completely take the other over.
You can't buy your way to the top. The major programs in college football, if you look at them, all have one thing in common, and that's a built in recruiting base or recruiting advantage of some sort. That's much bigger and much more important than facilities, coaching salary, or any other factors that you can control.
You'd have toiled through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, just the same as we did.
A lot of people don't want to think this way, but a coach can only do so much for a program. That's why the best ones leave for better jobs where they can accomplish more.
Programs like ours, barring some outside factors changing other than coaching, will always find their way back to the norm. Gameplan and that program is the only outside factor I could see helping change things a little bit for Ole Miss and MSU, but the ultimate problem is that we both exist, and the state isn't big enough or strong enough to support two top notch programs. We cannibalize each other. Even when one school has down times, it's never a big enough difference or long enough period for one to completely take the other over.
You can't buy your way to the top. The major programs in college football, if you look at them, all have one thing in common, and that's a built in recruiting base or recruiting advantage of some sort. That's much bigger and much more important than facilities, coaching salary, or any other factors that you can control.
Florida and Texas, and California probably.
There are plenty of players in MS and surrounding.
The Bears and Dawgs are in good shape in this way.
There are plenty of players in MS and surrounding.
The Bears and Dawgs are in good shape in this way.
I disagree with your premise that Ole Miss was destined to go back to the bottom when Vaught retired. You guys were at the top and Vaught and others thought they could stay there by putting off integration as long as possible and then just "dippin' their toes in it." Ole Miss didn't commit to recruiting majority AA classes until when, the late 80's?<div>
</div><div>As for the topic at large, I too have thought of the "history repeats" angle, but it doesn't always repeat. There are plenty of good coaches out there and if we choose one, he'll have something to work with immediately. A lot, in fact, thanks to Dan/Greg/Scott's work the last few years. Stricklin will have to nail the hire, if and when the time comes, and if he does, we can go on a nice run, maybe even build things up a little.</div>
</div><div>As for the topic at large, I too have thought of the "history repeats" angle, but it doesn't always repeat. There are plenty of good coaches out there and if we choose one, he'll have something to work with immediately. A lot, in fact, thanks to Dan/Greg/Scott's work the last few years. Stricklin will have to nail the hire, if and when the time comes, and if he does, we can go on a nice run, maybe even build things up a little.</div>
G
Goat Holder II
Guest
This post is just symbolic of the passive aggressive Ole Miss superior wannabe that you are. Of course, if it happened to the flagship, Ole Miss, it SURELY would have happened to lil ole Moo U. I mean, you say these things like they are fact, and you have nothing to base this on except what happened at Ole Miss. And let me tell you this, what held you back in the 70s and 80s is still holding you back right now, pal. The only reason you've had any success is because of your old money alums. Ole Miss and Mississippi State are too totally different schools that have taken different paths - need to stop comparing the two.
You're post is so typically ignorant on all levels. You are truly incapable of making an objective post. It's all about the self preservation of Ole Miss and you self esteem based off of it.
You have to admit that Ole Miss made several major, MAJOR mistakes back in those days.
You're post is so typically ignorant on all levels. You are truly incapable of making an objective post. It's all about the self preservation of Ole Miss and you self esteem based off of it.
You have to admit that Ole Miss made several major, MAJOR mistakes back in those days.
As has been said, for the first time in 60 yrs. we actually have a HC that other teams want. Dan has not only energized the fan base to levels rarely seen in these parts he's also doing a helluva job of keeping the best talent this state has to offer instead of us watching this talent go to our out of state SEC opponents and leave the scraps for us and ole miss to fight over. He also does a great job of pissing off the reb/bear fan base every chance he gets and backing it up by kicking their ***. I kinda enjoy this and him staying would add fuel to that fire as well.
You can bet your *** if Dan stays Bulldog wool will grow to lengths not seen since mammoths roamed the earth.
You can bet your *** if Dan stays Bulldog wool will grow to lengths not seen since mammoths roamed the earth.
If the Gameplan program improves the number of eligible talented players available, then we have a chance to move up in the realm of South Carolina, maybe Alabama in terms of talent production, but we're still behind in that area.
The other problem Mississippi has as a state, is that for Ole Miss and MSU, we are both in the northern part of the state, and for students in south Mississippi, LSU is often considered even more of the regional university than Ole Miss or MSU. That skews the number just a bit.
There is a reason Ole Miss and MSU are part of a group that hasn't won an SEC title since 1963, and it's not just poor management. There are other outside factors at play.
The other problem Mississippi has as a state, is that for Ole Miss and MSU, we are both in the northern part of the state, and for students in south Mississippi, LSU is often considered even more of the regional university than Ole Miss or MSU. That skews the number just a bit.
There is a reason Ole Miss and MSU are part of a group that hasn't won an SEC title since 1963, and it's not just poor management. There are other outside factors at play.
RebelBruiser said:
I for one second will not argue this point, but I always think to the state of Alabama.
There are two similar schools. Now they are larger but scale their size to their success and vice versa with Mississippi Schools and it doesn't add up. They aren't that much larger and wealthier of a state.
If you compare Alabama and Auburn success over the years to Ole Miss and MSU it exceeds us by leaps and bounds.
Now I will admit that I am young and have not seen the cycles of college football like some of you all, but these programs were both launched to the forefront back 50, 60, 70 years ago, right?
Is their recruiting base really that much more extensive than ours? Is their state that much wealthier than our?
Ole Miss and Mississippi State roughly each enroll about 19,000 students a piece
Auburn currently enrolls 25,000 and Alabama enrolls roughly 30,000
Compare this to UF's enrollment of 50,000, but yet I consider Alabama a more prestigous program, and I attribute this to early success. Not the state, because obviously the states dont compare.
Now the state of Albama's GDP ranks 41st at 33,096 and Mississippi falls at the bottom at 30,103. So their economy is ahead of our, but not nearly as much as their football programs are.
I think one of the largest differences is fan support, which granted comes with success. Alabama turns at 101,000 people on game day and Auburn turns out another 85,000. I know we kid them, but even though a lot of these fans aren't alumni they are shelling out their money on game day.
I think a school is Mississippi can be successful with the right combinations, look at Boise! Recruiting Base? Population? State wealth? Idaho's GDP ranks 48th. But yet we've seen them compete therefore drawing media love and name recognition. I don't think anyone would argue that you can attribute their success directly to their coach.
My Point I guess is our success will be extremely difficult I know, but an early period of it like Alabama sure could have launched a school way ahead nationally.
Define "major program." I don't see a superb recruiting base (or single ownership of a good one) or recruiting advantage for Oregon, Michigan, Boise State, Utah, Virginia Tech, Tennessee, or quite a few others. We can go back and forth on semantics, but the number one factor in the success of a program is coaching. The other stuff just makes that coach's job easier or harder. The good ones can win anywhere.RebelBruiser said:
and if a lesser program with a bigger uphill climb can be fortunate enough to land a coach that wants to stay long term despite better offers, you can have a run of success that goes above your potential as a program.
The minute Chris Petersen disappears, Boise is going to have a really hard time replacing him with someone nearly as good, and they'll fall back where they belong.
We had a discussion on this on Nafoom not too long ago. I've been thinking this way for probably the last 3-4 years now at least. UT, to me, is the 5th or 6th strongest program in the SEC in terms of what they are capable of accomplishing. Through the 90s, they were No. 2, at worst No. 3, because they had some good fortune and a coach that was on a really good run.
He eventually lost the edge though, and they started sliding back to normal UT. You can change your stripes temporarily, and maybe even make it last a decade or so, but long term, you are what you are, and it'll even back out.
Schools like Ole Miss and MSU have to make good hires by doing more background work and harder searches. Mullen, for instance, wasn't an obvious easy hire that was getting calls from everyone. If our schools do make one of those hires, we have to be ready to make another great move with the next one. You have to be a lot more shrewd with your management when you don't have the built in recruiting base or support. A school like Alabama can mess up a hire or 2, or 3, or 5, and they can get out of it in a hurry by going out and making the top coach an offer he can't refuse. They don't have to take as many chances, and when they do get the good coach, they have the base set up to maintain that success.
Program status does change for programs. The Florida schools are a great example. That state experienced a big population boom that eventually led to an influx of high school talent. The Big 3 in that state took advantage to have Top 10 programs the past 20 years or so. Other programs have popped up and started to weed through some of that talent (USF, UCF), and a lot of Big East and SEC schools have started to raid some of that talent too, so that those jobs aren't quite as easy as they were in the 90s, but they are still good jobs.
Recruiting base is the number 1 thing, financial support is No. 2. I've always said that our best chance to compete, and yes it does apply to both schools Goat (I'd have told you the same thing last year) is to land a great coach that is either an alum or for whatever reason just really wants to stay, and that coach still has to be able to outwork the good coaches at other strong programs, because it's not going to be as easy.
Most of our own fans would disagree with me, but I think it's healthy to look at reality. That way you can enjoy the good seasons when they come, hope the stars align for a really great season every so often, and if it doesn't go well, you have an idea what your baseline needs to be to what is unacceptable.
The minute Chris Petersen disappears, Boise is going to have a really hard time replacing him with someone nearly as good, and they'll fall back where they belong.
We had a discussion on this on Nafoom not too long ago. I've been thinking this way for probably the last 3-4 years now at least. UT, to me, is the 5th or 6th strongest program in the SEC in terms of what they are capable of accomplishing. Through the 90s, they were No. 2, at worst No. 3, because they had some good fortune and a coach that was on a really good run.
He eventually lost the edge though, and they started sliding back to normal UT. You can change your stripes temporarily, and maybe even make it last a decade or so, but long term, you are what you are, and it'll even back out.
Schools like Ole Miss and MSU have to make good hires by doing more background work and harder searches. Mullen, for instance, wasn't an obvious easy hire that was getting calls from everyone. If our schools do make one of those hires, we have to be ready to make another great move with the next one. You have to be a lot more shrewd with your management when you don't have the built in recruiting base or support. A school like Alabama can mess up a hire or 2, or 3, or 5, and they can get out of it in a hurry by going out and making the top coach an offer he can't refuse. They don't have to take as many chances, and when they do get the good coach, they have the base set up to maintain that success.
Program status does change for programs. The Florida schools are a great example. That state experienced a big population boom that eventually led to an influx of high school talent. The Big 3 in that state took advantage to have Top 10 programs the past 20 years or so. Other programs have popped up and started to weed through some of that talent (USF, UCF), and a lot of Big East and SEC schools have started to raid some of that talent too, so that those jobs aren't quite as easy as they were in the 90s, but they are still good jobs.
Recruiting base is the number 1 thing, financial support is No. 2. I've always said that our best chance to compete, and yes it does apply to both schools Goat (I'd have told you the same thing last year) is to land a great coach that is either an alum or for whatever reason just really wants to stay, and that coach still has to be able to outwork the good coaches at other strong programs, because it's not going to be as easy.
Most of our own fans would disagree with me, but I think it's healthy to look at reality. That way you can enjoy the good seasons when they come, hope the stars align for a really great season every so often, and if it doesn't go well, you have an idea what your baseline needs to be to what is unacceptable.
is why the Rebel Bears have soiled themselves. There is a genuine fear amongst the Rebel Bears, albeit not admitted, that we have landedone of the good ones. I am not ready to crown Dan Mullen the next Meyer, Saban, Stoops etc., but he sure as hell ostensibly shares some of the same characteristics of those guys. Will we everwin a National Championship? Who the hell knows. But, the foundation is being laid by our athletic administrationto put together facilities and a coaching staff that can compete with the big boys of college football. Again, not saying that Mullen is one of the top 5 coaches in the game (yet) or that we are on the verge of rattling off3 or 4 SECW championships, but the potential is undeniable.00Dawg said:
00Dawg said:
Oregon is in the Pacific Northwest. There is really room for one great program and maybe one good program in that part of the country. It's either Washington, WSU, Oregon, or OSU. Washington had a great program for a while by dominating the Pacific Northwest states and dipping into Northern California. Oregon has taken that over, with a nice little nudge from Nike. They've also benefitted from epic failures at Washington and WSU.
Tennessee, again, is a good example. They were playing above their status for almost a decade under Fulmer. They crept back late in his era and are actually a little below their potential at present time. They will work back to being a team that wins 60% of their SEC games. That's what they are. They will be above it some, below it some. They aren't a national power.
I mentioned Boise in the previous post. They've benefitted from a coach that really has stayed at a lower price for longer than normal. If that happens, you can have a period like the one UT had in the 90s, where you outpace your potential. When Petersen is gone (and he was the major catalyst behind Hawkins before), they will struggle to reach that level consistently with the next coach. Va. Tech is in a fertile recruiting ground, but they have also benefitted from having a coach that was willing to stay long term and keep them above where they might normally be as a program.
The truly major programs are the ones that can be great with one coach, lose that coach, and then easily replace that coach with another great one. MSU will never be Alabama, Florida, LSU, or Georgia. Can you beat those teams in a given year or even for a short period? Sure. Will you ever have the potential of those programs? No. There are haves and have nots even within the BCS. You can have great management that helps you play above your program's head, but that can't and won't last forever. That's why if you aren't a major program, you have to enjoy it when it's good and not get too greedy.
chew1095 said:
That's all entirely possible, and if Mullen really wants to stay in Starkville simply because he loves it that much, or whatever reason, and he does turn out to be better than just good, then you may have a chance to put together a run above your typical status.
The dilemma is that, whether you want to admit it or not, it is easier to win at other places, AND other places can afford to pay more money. If you have a coach like Chris Petersen that's happy to coach for less than he's worth and not take the easier job with the easier route to a title, then you can have great success. That's a rare case though. I'll give you an example. We all know Nick Saban is a great coach, maybe the best in the land. How many times has anyone mentioned his name in a coaching search since he arrived at Alabama? None. The reason why is because he's already at an elite job, and no other school has the ability to offer him significantly more money or a significantly easier job. The NFL could come in and swoop a coach like that away if they want a different challenge, but outside of that, you won't hear Saban's name on a list ever.
If Mullen does decide to stay and pull a Chris Petersen, you will hear his name in every coaching search, every off-season, just like Petersen, because there are other programs out there that know they could offer more money and an easier job.
I disagree with to an extent that it is "easier" to win at other places. Historically, yes; but, I believe there is parity in college football like we have not seen in the last 10 to 20years. Call me a Kool Aid drinker or naive, but I believe with the right formula of a very good HC, relative stability with assistants,an aggressive, but smart AD, a fertile recruiting area, money and fan/booster support (both financially and butts in seats), then any school in a major conference can win and do so on a consistent basis. And I am not talking about a bunch of 7-5 seasons. I am talking about competing for divisions and conferences championships on a consistent basis. One of the problems that we have had and that Ole Miss has had in recent years (decades)is that neither one of us has been able to put all of those pieces together at the same time. Personally, I think we are close.
If a program can maintain the stability, they can play above their status. That's the hard part though, and generally it takes some luck, timing, or at least a coach that just for whatever reason likes his job and is willing to turn down better offers.
But there is still a difference from job to job, often a big difference.
Louisiana produces almost twice as much NFL talent as Mississippi, and they only have one major university in the state. You don't think that makes LSU a MUCH easier job than MSU/Ole Miss/Arkansas? Of course it does. You also have to consider that most of south Mississippi is hardly in-state recruiting for Ole Miss or MSU too, so a good amount of that south MS talent doesn't grow up in Ole Miss or MSU communities.
Think of this incoming recruiting class from Mississippi this year. Think of all the talent that Ole Miss and MSU are fighting over. There are a lot of bitter head to head recruiting battles going on right now, and there are factions in each community pushing and pulling those players one way or the other. Now imagine that there are twice as many players with that level of talent, and on top of that, the coaches and communities for ALL of those players are pushing those players to your school. The only battles are schools trying to come in and poach your home grown talent, and they're starting out behind the 8 ball with no help from the local community or coaching staff. That's the difference between LSU and Ole Miss or MSU. Hell, Les freaking Miles is winning 10 games a year at LSU. Those fans really don't know how easy that job is.
That's before you even begin to discuss the size of the fanbase and the ability to pay a higher salary for a coach. There are a lot of places that can offer more money and an easier job. Lesser schools can win and play at a high level, but it's much harder to sustain and takes much better management.
But there is still a difference from job to job, often a big difference.
Louisiana produces almost twice as much NFL talent as Mississippi, and they only have one major university in the state. You don't think that makes LSU a MUCH easier job than MSU/Ole Miss/Arkansas? Of course it does. You also have to consider that most of south Mississippi is hardly in-state recruiting for Ole Miss or MSU too, so a good amount of that south MS talent doesn't grow up in Ole Miss or MSU communities.
Think of this incoming recruiting class from Mississippi this year. Think of all the talent that Ole Miss and MSU are fighting over. There are a lot of bitter head to head recruiting battles going on right now, and there are factions in each community pushing and pulling those players one way or the other. Now imagine that there are twice as many players with that level of talent, and on top of that, the coaches and communities for ALL of those players are pushing those players to your school. The only battles are schools trying to come in and poach your home grown talent, and they're starting out behind the 8 ball with no help from the local community or coaching staff. That's the difference between LSU and Ole Miss or MSU. Hell, Les freaking Miles is winning 10 games a year at LSU. Those fans really don't know how easy that job is.
That's before you even begin to discuss the size of the fanbase and the ability to pay a higher salary for a coach. There are a lot of places that can offer more money and an easier job. Lesser schools can win and play at a high level, but it's much harder to sustain and takes much better management.
UT has 13 SEC championships which is tied for second with UGA. They have 6 National Championships from some foundation or group which puts them second in the SEC to only Bama. They have 2 either AP or Coaches NCs which is 4th behind Bama, LSU, & UF. UT is a traditional power in the SEC with a huge fan base, tons of money, and a very fertile recruiting ground close by since they get tons of talent out of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. They are also pretty good at getting talent out of Florida. They are usually able to pull a couple of good ones a year out of Louisiana, Mississippi, or California and even reach up into places like New Jersey with some frequency.
UT has been way under performing relative to their history and tradition lately.
UT has been way under performing relative to their history and tradition lately.
I think there are more SEC caliber players in Mississippi than most think. I am not going to go so far as say there are as many as Louisiana or Alabama, but there are more than most think or want to believe. I think there are quite a few kids from smaller communities that have SEC ability, but either do not get the attention they deserve because recruiting sites do not bother to follow them or because their coaches are too dumb or ignorant of how the game is played. Arguably, the three best NFL players at their respective positions came from Mississippi and not a single one of them went to Ole Miss or State: Sweetness, Rice and Favre.
So, I am not exactly buying the argument that Mississippi cannot compete with other similarly situated states in terms of the number or quality of NFL/SEC players that the state produces.
So, I am not exactly buying the argument that Mississippi cannot compete with other similarly situated states in terms of the number or quality of NFL/SEC players that the state produces.
About how "you can't win with Mississppians because there's not enough talent in the state". Look back at Vaught's teams in the 60's- I saw a program from the 1969 UM/UT game and there was one thing that really stuck out to me- EVERY single one of UM's players came from Mississippi. Winning with Mississippians was precisely HOW Vaught was winning in the first place.
Now I don't know about MSU's roster at that time- but I would highly suspect that what was happening was Vaught was getting the best players in Mississippi and Shira or whoever was getting the leftovers. The records certainly indicate that.
The same could certainly happen again if either MSU or UM was able to secure 90% of the talent in the state- don't know how realistic it is that one or the other would get EVERY player.
The other reason Ole Miss hasn't been what they were in the 60's is because they have hired bad coaches for the most part since Vaught. Brewer was average, but he was one of Vaught's boys, and he could beat MSU, so that gave him a pretty long shelf life. Tuberville was the best you've had since Vaught, and Cutcliffe wasn't bad either- at least he got UM Eli. Kinard, Cooper, Sloan, Coach O, and now Nutt. Nutt is the best of that crew for sure.
Now I don't know about MSU's roster at that time- but I would highly suspect that what was happening was Vaught was getting the best players in Mississippi and Shira or whoever was getting the leftovers. The records certainly indicate that.
The same could certainly happen again if either MSU or UM was able to secure 90% of the talent in the state- don't know how realistic it is that one or the other would get EVERY player.
The other reason Ole Miss hasn't been what they were in the 60's is because they have hired bad coaches for the most part since Vaught. Brewer was average, but he was one of Vaught's boys, and he could beat MSU, so that gave him a pretty long shelf life. Tuberville was the best you've had since Vaught, and Cutcliffe wasn't bad either- at least he got UM Eli. Kinard, Cooper, Sloan, Coach O, and now Nutt. Nutt is the best of that crew for sure.
Are you saying thatRebelBruiser said:
mistakes by your nearby rivals is an inherent advantage? If that's the
case, explain Oregon State's impact on the mix. In the last 11 seasons,
while Oregon snagged 4 PAC-10 titles, the Beavers grabbed 4 seasons of
their own with 9 or more wins and a national ranking.
RebelBruiser said:
Tennessee helps my case, not
yours. Since 1950, they have 4 national titles under 3 different
coaches, spread out across eras, plus 15% of the SEC titles in the same
span and are 4th all-time in bowl appearances. They're a poster child
for the coach making the difference.
Virginia Tech is in fertile recruiting ground? Negative, Ghost Rider. VT was a bunch of also-rans before Frank Beamer showed up. Again, the coach. In this case, almost only the coach. They're now a national power, and should be able to hire a solid coach to take over when Beamer steps down.RebelBruiser said:
You seem to alternately have way too much focus on the here and now and then pick and choose a few random examples. LSU's impact on the national title chase post-1950 was pretty much limited to 3 seasons until Saban shows up on the scene. UGA has 20 years of comparable nothingness between Dooley's heyday and Richt's run in 2002. I'd include them in this discussion, but put them behind UT in the long-term view. UF replaced Spurrier with Zook. There's hardly any reason to discuss pre-Spurrier. How are you defining "major program"?RebelBruiser said:
Not to mention the fact that he didn't have black athletes.
The state's football talent is much different today than it was then. Back then, Vaught could bring in a class of 80 or 90 freshmen, weed them out, find the best 15-20, and play almost exclusively with those players. Depth of talent really didn't come into play.
We did hire bad coaches. Part of that is because we didn't have good ones knocking down the door. Part of it was poor management. When we did hire a really good coach, he was gone in 4 years, because someone else took him away.
That's what happens when you not only have to fight the money battle but the fact that your job isn't as easy as other places.
Can anyone honestly argue with me that either the Ole Miss or MSU job is more attractive than Florida, Alabama, LSU, or Georgia? Is either job more attractive than UT or Auburn even?
Strip it down to no roster and say you have to build a program at any of those locations from scratch. The facilities and support are already in place. The recruiting base is in place. You have everything that is currently at those locations, but no roster. Which jobs are the best?
ETA: Athlon's did this about a year ago for all 120 D-1 schools, and this is what they came up with in terms of which jobs a head coach would desire most (only the SEC schools listed here):
3. Florida
4. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. LSU
16. Tennessee
20. Auburn
26. South Carolina
32. Ole Miss
33. Arkansas
48. Kentucky
55. Mississippi State
69. Vanderbilt
I disagree with South Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas, UK, and MSU. I think Arkansas should be the highest of those, followed by Ole Miss, South Carolina, and MSU with a very slim margin between those 3. I also might swap LSU and Georgia, and I'd probably rank Vandy lower than 69. Anyway, the point is that it's foolish to think that there isn't such a thing as program status, and it isn't as easy as upgrading facilities and hiring a coach to fix it. You can overcome your program status, but it's tough to maintain if you don't have the elite base. I could make the argument all day, but I'm probably spinning my wheels with those that don't agree with me or don't want to.
I used to think if we just made an investment and hired the right coach, we could do what Alabama does. After being kicked in the nuts a few too many times, I finally decided to look for other reasons why certain patterns emerged.
The state's football talent is much different today than it was then. Back then, Vaught could bring in a class of 80 or 90 freshmen, weed them out, find the best 15-20, and play almost exclusively with those players. Depth of talent really didn't come into play.
We did hire bad coaches. Part of that is because we didn't have good ones knocking down the door. Part of it was poor management. When we did hire a really good coach, he was gone in 4 years, because someone else took him away.
That's what happens when you not only have to fight the money battle but the fact that your job isn't as easy as other places.
Can anyone honestly argue with me that either the Ole Miss or MSU job is more attractive than Florida, Alabama, LSU, or Georgia? Is either job more attractive than UT or Auburn even?
Strip it down to no roster and say you have to build a program at any of those locations from scratch. The facilities and support are already in place. The recruiting base is in place. You have everything that is currently at those locations, but no roster. Which jobs are the best?
ETA: Athlon's did this about a year ago for all 120 D-1 schools, and this is what they came up with in terms of which jobs a head coach would desire most (only the SEC schools listed here):
3. Florida
4. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. LSU
16. Tennessee
20. Auburn
26. South Carolina
32. Ole Miss
33. Arkansas
48. Kentucky
55. Mississippi State
69. Vanderbilt
I disagree with South Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas, UK, and MSU. I think Arkansas should be the highest of those, followed by Ole Miss, South Carolina, and MSU with a very slim margin between those 3. I also might swap LSU and Georgia, and I'd probably rank Vandy lower than 69. Anyway, the point is that it's foolish to think that there isn't such a thing as program status, and it isn't as easy as upgrading facilities and hiring a coach to fix it. You can overcome your program status, but it's tough to maintain if you don't have the elite base. I could make the argument all day, but I'm probably spinning my wheels with those that don't agree with me or don't want to.
I used to think if we just made an investment and hired the right coach, we could do what Alabama does. After being kicked in the nuts a few too many times, I finally decided to look for other reasons why certain patterns emerged.
Like I said, there are occasional shifts. Florida, as a state, experienced a population boom that created the powers of their footbal programs.
Good management helps, but it's more difficult at some places than others. The majority of the major programs you will find out there have the key ingredient of a talent base beneath them that's built in for them. There are a few exceptions, but MSU isn't cracking the upper echelon anytime soon. As I've said many times, there is a reason that 6 teams, and only 6, have won SEC titles since 1963, and it isn't just poor coaching hires, poor management, or investment. It's due to factors that can only be changed by outside forces. If Mississippi doubles in population, it'll be great for our programs.
On a side note, I'll be curious to see if post-Katrina New Orleans has any minor affect on LSU's program moving forward. They did lose some population over that.
On the LSU subject, they obviously had really poor management for a long time. I don't see how they could play at such a poor level with the type of talent they have at their disposal.
Good management helps, but it's more difficult at some places than others. The majority of the major programs you will find out there have the key ingredient of a talent base beneath them that's built in for them. There are a few exceptions, but MSU isn't cracking the upper echelon anytime soon. As I've said many times, there is a reason that 6 teams, and only 6, have won SEC titles since 1963, and it isn't just poor coaching hires, poor management, or investment. It's due to factors that can only be changed by outside forces. If Mississippi doubles in population, it'll be great for our programs.
On a side note, I'll be curious to see if post-Katrina New Orleans has any minor affect on LSU's program moving forward. They did lose some population over that.
On the LSU subject, they obviously had really poor management for a long time. I don't see how they could play at such a poor level with the type of talent they have at their disposal.
It depends on what you want your job to be. If you want to be A coach, you go where it's easy. If you want to be THE coach, you go where it's hard.RebelBruiser said:
On the radio today, Lou Holtz was talking about his interactions with Meyer prior to Bowling Green. He put in some good words for Meyer, then said Meyer called him back and said, "This isn't a good job." Holtz told him - "OF COURSE it isn't a good job. You go in there and make it a good job."
Does Mullen want to be A coach or THE coach? MSU can't offer as much money, but it offers an opportunity that Florida can never offer: the chance to be THE FIRST. And Mullen has already shown that he has the skills to put State on track for championships.
Florida = rich sorority girl driving a beemer... but sloppy thirds.
MagicDawg said:
He did take the Bowling Green job for 2 years, used it to spring board to a better job at Utah for 2 years, and then used it to spring board to a better job at Florida.
He got a lot of recognition at Utah, but he was working for the big money and best job, which is the case with most coaches. Maybe you can find one that treasures the challenge more than the money or the better shot at winning championships, but those are rare, and often those coaches end up losing their luster eventually because the job ends up beating them. See Greg Schiano-Rutgers/Jim Grobe-Wake.