We are getting it from all angles. This is from mr sec

myusernamesucks

Redshirt
Mar 5, 2009
1,173
0
0
A year ago today, Mississippi State was sitting pretty at 3-0. Dan Mullen had finally gotten his first win over an SEC West foe not named Ole Miss (in a 28-10 win over Auburn). The Bulldogs would eventually work themselves all the way to a 7-0 record and a top 15 national ranking. Three years of building were finally paying off for State and its fourth-year head coach.

How quickly things can change.

When we at MrSEC.com mentioned throughout that 7-0 start that MSU had yet to beat a good BCS foe (Jackson State, Auburn, Troy, South Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi State were the wins), many Bulldog fans bit back. Their program had been in a rebuilding mode, we were told. Better to see victories over tin cans than losses to the big boys.

Today, Mullen gets much less protection from the fans who once cheered him. That’s because the so-called big boys of college football have kicked over and stomped upon Mississippi State’s castle. MSU has followed up on last year’s 7-0 start by losing five of its last six in 2012 and two of its first three in 2013. Losing seven out of nine games (with the wins coming against Arkansas and Alcorn State) is no way to please a fanbase. Not even fanbases that once defended cupcake scheduling.

As it turns out, the numbers for Mullen suggest the castle he’d constructed was built on sand in the first place:



* Mullen is 30-24 overall at Mississippi State

* His Bulldog teams are 2-17 against ranked opponents

* State is just 5-17 versus SEC West foes

* MSU is 13-20 in the SEC overall during Mullen’s tenure

* Of State’s 30 overall victories, five have come against FCS foes

* Only 15 of Mullen’s 30 victories have been gained against against BCS-level opponents



In addition, there’s a clear separation between the haves and have-nots that Mullen’s teams have bested to date:



* Mullen has recorded wins over Alcorn State (2), Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Jackson State (2), Kentucky (4), Louisiana Tech, Memphis (2), Michigan, MTSU (2), Ole Miss (3), South Alabama, Tennessee, Troy, UAB, UT-Martin, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt.

* State’s losses under Mullen have come against Alabama (4), Arkansas (3), Auburn (4), Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Houston, LSU (4), Northwestern, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Texas A&M.



In four-plus seasons in Starkville, Mullen’s squads have recorded wins over six teams that finished their seasons with winning records (MTSU 8-4, Louisiana Tech 8-5, Florida 8-5, Michigan 7-6, MTSU 10-3, Kentucky 7-6). The teams MSU has vanquished since 2009 have a combined record of 125-185.

That might get you to a middle-tier bowl game — which beats no bowl game at all — but it’s hardly the way to a division title.

If you personally ate more cupcakes than meat or vegetables, your doctor would tell you to change your diet. The question is: Can Mullen succeed if State changes its diet? Moving forward, we probably won’t find out from a non-conference perspective. MSU’s list of future out-of-league foes includes Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, UT-Martin, Louisiana Tech, Troy and Tulane. And after taking a 21-3 shot to the chin in this year’s opener against Oklahoma State, it’s doubtful that Mullen and AD Scott Stricklin will venture back into pay-for-play, neutral site game anytime soon.

In fairness to Mullen, the SEC West has been about the toughest division in football since his arrival in the Magnolia State. There haven’t been many teams who’ve beaten Alabama or LSU in that time. And — up until last year — Mullen had owned hated rival Ole Miss, going three-for-three in the Egg Bowl, marking the first time State had pulled a trifecta in the series since World War II.


Those wins over the Rebels and the confident talk of Mullen charged up the MSU fanbase. The school has sold so many tickets to football games in recent years that State has launched an expansion project at Davis Wade Stadium.

But despite all the “school up North” talk and the billboards at Mississippi’s borders, MSU seems to have fallen behind Ole Miss in both recruiting and hype. The Rebels scored a top 10 recruiting class last season. They’re currently ranked #9 by Rivals.com in terms of 2014 commitments. State is currently ranked #40 in the same listing. Hugh Freeze in just 16 games has already recorded wins over six BCS-level foes including a blowout win at Texas last week.

You can be sure State fans are aware of all of that.

Now, make no mistake, Mullen accepted a helluva challenge in Starkville. Of the 10 longtime members of the Southeastern Conference, State has fewer league titles — one back in 1941 — than every school but Vanderbilt. MSU fans might not want to hear it, but Mullen is basically trying to build the Vandy of the West. And building is a lot tougher in the West than in the East these days.

Still, MSU fans who once cheered Mullen have now realized that all those wins over cupcakes, creampuffs and other pastries didn’t actually prepare the Bulldogs for a move away from the kiddie table. One must wonder, then, if the future cupcakes on State’s schedule will be quite so filling for Bulldogs fans.

Mississippi State and Mullen still have opportunities to spring an upset and prove that they’re making progress this season — LSU, at South Carolina, at Texas A&M, Alabama. Games with rebuilding Arkansas and rival Ole Miss will be big and bigger as well.

For Mullen’s sake, it’s time to lay down an actual foundation. The one he’s put down so far has been made of sand… and the Tide (and Tigers and Aggies, etc) is coming in.
 

MSUDawg25

Redshirt
Jan 21, 2010
2,088
1
38
We beat ourselves last year? (3rd paragraph) That's the most msu thing ever.
 

was21

Senior
May 29, 2007
9,937
584
113
This writer is viewing it all from the perspective of winning the SEC West. Right now, State doesn't have to do that nor should those expectations be there. I still maintain winning 6 to 8 games a year is "the next level" for State at the present time given the state of the SEC and particularly the West. I'm not saying that our goal should be 6 to 8 wins, but if the result is 6 to 8 wins, quit bitching.
 

cheewgumm

Redshirt
Sep 15, 2012
792
0
0
Then our season is right on schedule?

He's making a great point. You can't build a propgram by beating up on crappy teams...if you do your building a foundation on sand. He's right.

Our fans can't see it and they have probably bitched so much that Stricklin will never make that "mistake" again, but our program is going to be worse off for it. Maybe they will realize it then, though probably not. There'll be someone else to blame then.


This writer is viewing it all from the perspective of winning the SEC West. Right now, State doesn't have to do that nor should those expectations be there. I still maintain winning 6 to 8 games a year is "the next level" for State at the present time given the state of the SEC and particularly the West. I'm not saying that our goal should be 6 to 8 wins, but if the result is 6 to 8 wins, quit bitching.
 

Bud.sixpack

Redshirt
Aug 24, 2012
218
0
0
Well, the year before Mullen got here we lost to La Tech.

Add to that over several years Tulane, UAB, Houston and blowouts to Ga. Tech and WVU. And don't forget the Maine.
 

00Dawg

Senior
Nov 10, 2009
3,217
513
93
What's the alternative? Play good teams and lose? Sit at home for the holidays at 5-7 talking about strength of schedule? We saw the former, albeit unintentionally, during the Croom years. Remember all the haranguing about catching West Virginia and Georgia Tech right as they improved into top 15 programs? The latter was 2009, and that was only more enjoyable because the last few years had been so frequently bad.
No sir, until we prove we can beat middle-tier SEC teams consistently, you keep that OOC schedule nice and light. BCS opponents are people like Indiana and UConn, who only have good teams once a half-century (although skuttlebutt says those type teams won't agree to home-and-homes with us). You get your team into postseason play. You try to get to the level where our 2010 performance is a regular thing, then you talk about upgrading the schedule. Not before.
 

horshack.sixpack

All-American
Oct 30, 2012
11,360
8,258
113
Yes. Forgo crappy bowls. If the next time we get to a bowl it is because we are actually a good team, I'd be fine with that.
 

cheewgumm

Redshirt
Sep 15, 2012
792
0
0
Instead of remembering the Croom years, why don't we go a little further back to the JACKIE years. He played Texas, Ok State too...but oh no...what..we won!! If we are going to go back in time, let's at leaset compare it to a successful coach we had.
 

seb304

Senior
Aug 26, 2012
710
675
88
Did anybody think Kentucky was any good when they were beating 4 patsies and squeaking out 2 SEC wins during their "bowl streak?" No, and it obviously didn't do much for the strength of their program either.
 
Nov 16, 2005
27,526
20,497
113
Ok so now we're Notre Dame? Turning down bowls because we aren't a "good" team, that's downright comical.
 

jakldawg

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
4,374
0
36
So many people are throwing the "this never woulda happened under Jackie!" card. Some fun facts about Sherrill's 5th year at MSU. After having a successful early run in Starkville (including a few bowl games!), there was a drop off. 1995: 3-8 including a Homecoming loss to LA-freaking-Monroe. Some seat-filler named Bruce Arians was the offensive coordinator.
1996: 5-6 (which, admittedly, we are looking at the same # of wins this season) with a lovely home opening loss to La. Tech, with some late season possible career-saving wins over Bama and Ole Miss.
 
Last edited:

cheewgumm

Redshirt
Sep 15, 2012
792
0
0
I'm not saying its all better under Jackie, but if it's fair to look back at

Croom years to prove what we should do now, then it has to be fair to look back at soem of Jackie's years where we scheduled and beat good teams OOC.
 

NCDawg.sixpack

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2012
1,125
1
38
This writer is viewing it all from the perspective of winning the SEC West. Right now, State doesn't have to do that nor should those expectations be there. I still maintain winning 6 to 8 games a year is "the next level" for State at the present time given the state of the SEC and particularly the West. I'm not saying that our goal should be 6 to 8 wins, but if the result is 6 to 8 wins, quit bitching.

By your logic, no MS State fan should even hope for a SEC West title again, because it is unattainable. Glad I was there for the '98 Game in Atlanta, and a shame none of our fans today will ever be able to see us get there. Guess Mullen was a snake oil salesman spewing all that malarkey when we hired him.
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
14,324
4,824
113
You can't build a propgram by beating up on crappy teams...if you do your building a foundation on sand.

Our fans are idiots.

You can absolutely build a program playing 4 cupcakes, two weak SEC teams (for us, usually UK and one of Auburn, Ark, and UM), and six teams that are in the top 25, with 4 of those teams often being in the top 15. Programs are usually built playing easier schedules than that. I'm not sure anybody has built a program by playing 8 to 10 ranked opponents a year. You need some games that provide a margin of error, giving some time to heal, time to get younger players experience, and time to work on areas of weakness in game situations.
 

seb304

Senior
Aug 26, 2012
710
675
88
No I'm saying that 4 crappy teams and 2 awful SEC teams doesn't make your program any better. Kentucky is a PRIME example of that.
 

00Dawg

Senior
Nov 10, 2009
3,217
513
93
I'd argue UK is a prime example of the dangers of a coaching change, but let's forgo that discussion for a moment.
All I remember about those UK teams is the bowl streak. I had to go look up their opponents.
The 2006 squad went 4-4 in the conference and 3-1 OOC, with a notable win over UGA.
The 2007 squad went 3-5 in the SEC and 4-0 OOC, beating #9 Louisville and #1 LSU.
The 2008 squad went 2-6, 4-0.
The 2009 squad 3-5, 4-0.
The 2010 squad 2-6, 4-0.

So, 5 bowls, 2 2-win SEC seasons, and despite being a pretty well-informed college football fan for the last 20 years, all I could remember off the top of my head was the bowl streak.
 

gptdawg

Redshirt
Jan 23, 2007
567
0
0
Amen Brother. you can't build a program losing to 8-10 top 15 teams a year.However you do have to win the games you should-not the cluster17 we've seen for the last year.

Our fans are idiots.

You can absolutely build a program playing 4 cupcakes, two weak SEC teams (for us, usually UK and one of Auburn, Ark, and UM), and six teams that are in the top 25, with 4 of those teams often being in the top 15. Programs are usually built playing easier schedules than that. I'm not sure anybody has built a program by playing 8 to 10 ranked opponents a year. You need some games that provide a margin of error, giving some time to heal, time to get younger players experience, and time to work on areas of weakness in game situations.
 
Last edited:

Hanmudog

Redshirt
Apr 30, 2006
5,853
0
0
Why in the blue 17 should we play a tough OOC schedule? I will never understand why some people think this is so damn important when we already play no less than 5 games a year against ranked teams as it is.

What does beating a team like OSU tell you that a win over LSU wouldn't?

I am not defending Mullens record here but if we have an uncanny knack for playing OOC teams when they are having the best year's in school history. We are snakebit as hell when it comes down to it.
 

Maroonthirteen

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
1,975
0
0
What is the point of this criticism?

This guys has a confernece website and points out the obvious about State. I am sure his readers from around the conference are captavated.

I know I would enjoy an article about how Vanderbilt has not beaten anyone with a winning record not named OleMiss or NC State to date. Also, how he is 0fer vs UGA/UF/USC. He is 0fer against all ranked opponents. Yada, yada, yada.

A perennial doormat has not beaten any perennial Top20 programs. What a revealing article!*
 

tcdog70

Junior
Sep 24, 2012
1,374
245
63
hell Yes, 4 cupcakes and 2 "Little Sisters of the Poor". Then try to win what you can with what's left. Playing in the SEC WEST is tough enough.
 

seb304

Senior
Aug 26, 2012
710
675
88
All I'm saying is that the bowl streak didn't alter anybody's perception of the Kentucky football program.
 

FlotownDawg

All-American
Aug 30, 2012
6,849
7,175
113
The problem is we're not winning games against SEC teams that aren't absolutely terrible. What I've come to expect under Mullen is to win our OOC games against patsies and win SEC games against teams that are absolute train wrecks or are having their worst seasons in many years. Mullen hasn't beaten an opponent that is on a equal playing field with us, and upsets are completely unattainable. Some fans are happy with only beating 4 terrible OOC teams and awful SEC teams. Others would like to see us be able to beat a team with equal talent or (gasp) even pull an upset or two. I'm in the second category. And since that is never going to happen under Mullen, I wouldn't be sad to see him hit the road soon.
 

Maroonthirteen

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
1,975
0
0
Ifs and buts

I am sure y'all may remember more games but Arkansas game 2010 and LSU 2009 are games that really stick out in my head. Those teams were good and we had a chance to beat them. If we win those games, these articles don't get written.

Mullen has to find a way in one of these games. I was hopefully that maybe some freak occurance would take place and we slip up on LSU this year. However now........I am praying we don't lose to Troy.
 

dannyripms

Redshirt
Sep 3, 2013
847
1
18
I don't have a problem playing a weak ooc team. I think what a lot of guys are saying is that dan isn't as good as advertised and some people are blinded by his overall record. not looking at the teams he won against. I bet most people here could care less about the ooc team as long as we can win one against the big boys every now and then, or at least hang with them and not get clobbered by them. and the fact that dan has a weak ooc schedule we may keep him and pass up on a better coach.
 

tuku 2

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
197
0
0
Because you recruit in Texas. Don't do a game against UCONN, there is zero advantage. You pick OOC GAMES FOR RECRUITING!!!
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
14,324
4,824
113
No I'm saying that 4 crappy teams and 2 awful SEC teams doesn't make your program any better. Kentucky is a PRIME example of that.

Beating 4 crappy teams and 2 bad SEC teams does more for your program than beating 3 crappy teams and 2 bad SEC teams. The reason UK's bowl streak didn't do anything for them is not that they beat OOC patsies, it's that they never beat any good teams. Playing 4 OOC patsies doesn't hold you back (although I'll agree that to the extent financially possible, we should avoid the absolutely terrible teams since we'll usually have a SWAC team on the schedule).

Playing 4 crappy OOC teams just raises the floor of the rebuilding years, which short of catching lightning in a bottle with an up and comer coach that falls in love with MSU, we're always going to have. It's a lot easier to get to the 8 and 9 win seasons when you have six wins in your bad seasons. The only potential problem with our schedule is that we could get in a "rut" where we start consistently beating 4 OOC teams, UK, and then the weakest out of UM, Auburn, Ark, and the other east opponent, and we consistently squeak into a bowl without the hope of improving. But we are not yet to the point that we need to worry about Stansburying our football team. Stansburying it would be an improvement, and then we could worry about transitioning to the next step without burning it to the ground.
 

cheewgumm

Redshirt
Sep 15, 2012
792
0
0
Well said...agree

--------->

I don't have a problem playing a weak ooc team. I think what a lot of guys are saying is that dan isn't as good as advertised and some people are blinded by his overall record. not looking at the teams he won against. I bet most people here could care less about the ooc team as long as we can win one against the big boys every now and then, or at least hang with them and not get clobbered by them. and the fact that dan has a weak ooc schedule we may keep him and pass up on a better coach.
 

Wether

Redshirt
Aug 15, 2013
26
0
0
Our fans are idiots.

You can absolutely build a program playing 4 cupcakes, two weak SEC teams (for us, usually UK and one of Auburn, Ark, and UM), and six teams that are in the top 25, with 4 of those teams often being in the top 15. Programs are usually built playing easier schedules than that. I'm not sure anybody has built a program by playing 8 to 10 ranked opponents a year. You need some games that provide a margin of error, giving some time to heal, time to get younger players experience, and time to work on areas of weakness in game situations.


Why does everyone here think you build programs through the schedules played. You build programs by stockpiling talented players, surrounded by coaches who can develop that talent and displacing teams that were previously stronger than you; thus creating more winnable games in the future. Or, you find a coach who has a system that is sufficiently unique and effective, recruit to that system and displace teams in the same manner. This discussion seems stuck on figuring out a way to make a mediocre team look respectable. If you want to look at how to build a program then look to S. Carolina--when they starting recruiting higher caliber players they got better. They displaced Tennessee and brought themselves closer to being on par with Georgia and Florida. Look at Texas Tech under Mike Leach. they had a system that was unique and effective and could be recruited to. they displaced teams like Nebraska and Colorado and brought themselves closer to being on par with Texas and Oklahoma. Look at a team like Oregon, etc.

Focusing on the schedule is a red herring and deflects attention away from the real inhibitor(s) of program building.
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
14,324
4,824
113
Why does everyone here think you build programs through the schedules played.

Focusing on the schedule is a red herring and deflects attention away from the real inhibitor(s) of program building.

17 if I know, but lots of our fans seem to think we need to play a top 5 or 10 schedule in the nation or it will hurt the program.

I do think scheduling is important though. With a great coach, it won't matter, although it might make a year or two difference in when they get to a good bowl and stay there. But if you don't have a great coach, but have a good coach, the extra momentum from additional wins resulting from playing 6 teams against ranked opponents as opposed to 8 teams against ranked opponents may make a difference in how successful he is long term.
 

esplanade91

Redshirt
Dec 9, 2010
5,656
0
0
I agree with everything except being the Vandy of the West. Vandy has just as easy of a schedule (even an easier SEC schedule) and still losses 10 games a year. Vandy is the Vandy of the SEC. We're the Kentucky of the West if Kentucky had fans who cared, a good high school football program to recruit from (Hefty Lefty and Couch are the only two football players I can name from Kentucky, and Hefty's high school played half its schedule against Ohio teams), and would quit scheduling Louisville.


I stick to my belief that MSU could easily compete on the same level as Auburn if MSU would get out of the way of MSU. Hire an AD who's qualified to he an AD, fire people before its years too late, and play just as dirty as the other 13 teams. Boom.
 

diddog

Redshirt
Sep 26, 2012
81
0
0
Playing such a weak OOC schedule certainly fools the fanbase and fooled most of this board into thinking that the program was on the rise under Mullen. When actual decent teams were played, the reality of the situation became apparent. I think that everyone, including Mullen, should understand where the program really is by playing teams that tell us that. It is easy to get to a bowl game every year with 4 cupcakes in OOC and two SEC wins. The fans, and even Mullen, might be fooled into thinking that our recruiting is good enough. If we play real teams, we will learn that we need much better players.