When is firing a lame-duck coach too early?

[skb124]

That Houston team was ranked for 10 weeks that year.

They jumped back into the polls after beating us, and they had already beaten #5 Oklahoma State and Texas Tech earlier that season. You are being stupid if you say they were not a good team. And as I have already said, the refs hosed us in that game not once, but twice.

I'm not saying I wasn't disappointed with losing to Northwestern, but it was a bowl game and Tyler russell had the worst game of his college career.

The Auburn loss was absolutely disappointing.

I'm not going to read the rest of your post because as you said it was way too long.

 

[Shamoan]

They jumped back into the polls after beating us, and they had already beaten #5 Oklahoma State and Texas Tech earlier that season. You are being stupid if you say they were not a good team. And as I have already said, the refs hosed us in that game not once, but twice.

I'm not saying I wasn't disappointed with losing to Northwestern, but it was a bowl game and Tyler russell had the worst game of his college career.

The Auburn loss was absolutely disappointing.

I'm not going to read the rest of your post because as you said it was way too long.

i maintain that houston was not a very good team. they were mediocre, but not good. they werent a top 15 team nor were they a top 25 team. again, when we played, they were NR, at the end of the season, they were NR. beating oklahoma state or texas tech doesnt mean **** when you lose to utep, central florida, east carolina, or air force, or any combination thereof. good teams dont lose to teams in the bottom half of fbs, much less at at rate of 4 in a single season. that is something a mediocre team does. i agree on us being hosed, but thats all on dan for not challenging (calling a time-out for a review) that illegal forward pass. the buck stops at dan, PERIOD.

that houston team was no more of a top 25 team in '09 than we were a top 15 team last year. we spent over half the season in the top 25 last year and made it as high as 12, but we were not a top 12 team. your argument for houston would imply that you think msu was a top 12 team last year. it doesnt work that way bud. you will get endlessly lambasted if you think msu was a top 12 team last year. top 12 teams dont lose 5 of their last 6 games.

about northwestern, we had a colossal talent advantage, as i have already proven. perhaps dan should have put dak in after russell threw his 3rd interception....if he does that, the game might have been different. and really, maybe even before that. that northwestern team SHOULD have 5 INTS off russell. they got absolutely hosed on one of russells pics where the db clearly had his hands under the ball, but we got a favorable call....as it was, russell was allowed to play and throw one more pic on the day. 4 INTs, should have been 5....was it a bad game? absolutely, but at some point, mullen should have tried dak when the game wasnt over. dak came in when the game was over. he had 2 rushes for 20 yards and a single incomplete pass. if a qb isnt having a good day and has already thrown 3 ints, you dont give him an opportunity to throw a 4th. if you do give him an opportunity to throw his fourth and that qb takes it, you open yourself up as a coach to exactly this type of criticism.

sorry, your just dead wrong on all accounts.

 

[skb124]

So there is no possible way you can be wrong about anything? Ever? You are telling me that Houston, who beat Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Mississippi State all in the same season was a bad team? Their only bad loss was UTEP. They lost to ECU in the CUSA championship (ECU's losses were West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Arkansas, SMU, and North Carolina. Terrible team huh?) They lost to Air Force in their bowl game. They lost to Central Florida who's losses were ECU (conference champ), Texas, Southern Miss, Miami, and Rutgers (Bowl game). I don't see how you are saying the teams they lost to are in the bottom half of the FBS.

I never believed we were the #11 team in the nation. But the rankings also don't tell you how good a team is. Being ranked high and then losing to Alabama, Texas A&M, and LSU in 3 consecutive games is going to drop you in the rankings, but does it really mean you are a worse team when you lose to teams that are better than you? Again, I'm NOT saying we were ever the 11th best team in the nation, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your rankings logic. We did not beat anyone to be ranked last year, Houston definitely did beat teams to deserve to be ranked.

Northwestern went 10-3 last year with losses to Penn State, Michigan, and Nebraska. They also beat us, Vandy, and Michigan State. They are also 3-0 on the year this year. They are not a bad loss at all.

 

[sleepy dawg]

Was going to list several of these

Steve Spurrior, Joe Paterno, Frank Beamer, Billy Brewer, Jackie Sherrill and Lou Holtz

Joe Paterno is a big one. He went 26-33 from 2000-2003. Many thought he would be fired. He went 11-1 the next year.
Steve Spurrier at SC. In his 3rd through 5th years, he was 6-6, 7-6, 7-6 with a losing conference record over that time. Of course Spurrier probably beat a top 20 team (or whichever arbitrary stat you guys have deemed important for now) during that time.

 

[Shamoan]

The only way you can prove me wrong in this instance is to stop posting false information. you clearly said houston was ranked 15th we we played them. you already know you are wrong and have failed to acknowled that, so now you crawfish into some justification as to why they were a "good team" by listing two victories over one team that i would consider good and a team that i would consider on-par with that same team. we were not a good team, so i have no idea why you listed msu as support as to why that houston team was good. their losses (not number, but quality) indicates that they were not a very good team. for the twelfth time, good teams dont lose to utep, air force, central florida, and ecu. sorry, they dont. and dont go putting words in my mouth...i havnt called them a bad team. mediocre =/= bad. so you can gtfo with that ****. i have just pointed out that they did in fact lose to some teams i consider bad. good luck convincing me or anyone else that air force, east carolina, central florida, and UTEP were worth a **** when stacked against even a houston team. your whole argument has now become attacking me for calling houston bad, when in fact, i have not said that. i called some of their losses bad (one of which you agreed with) and now we are trying to go completely off topic by debating the quality of teams that beat them. bottom line, good teams dont lose to utep, good teams dont lose to ucf, good teams dont lose to air force, good teams dont lose to ecu....much less all 4 in the same season so save those statistics for another day. those teams are mediocre at best....which is why a mediocre houston team lost to them.

here is an idea, instead of listing ecu's losses on the season (any team can lose to the teams you listed, so that doesnt prove a damn thing), how about you list the wins and show the quality of opponents they were able to beat....ECU: app state, ucf, marshall, rice, memphis, tulsa, uab, usm, and houston....kinda takes the luster out of it a little doesnt it, but feel free to tell everyone how excellent they looked in their losses.

but it gets better....those vaulted ucf knights had gallant victories over samford, buffalo, memphis, rice, marshall, houston, tulane, and uab......How ever did they get through THAT brutal of a schedule?

as if those wins werent emphasizing my point enough, air force beat the likes of nichols state, new mexico state, sandigo state, wyoming, colorado state, army, and unlv along with of course...HOUSTON.

utep was only able to muster wins over new mexico state, tulsa, marshall, and HOUSTON.

notice a pattern yet? they are only beating bad to mediocre teams....they dont have a single quality win among them.

as this board knows all too well, you dont judge quality by losses, you judge it by wins and no team that beat houston had a single quality win.

look, your standards might be lower than mine, but i would hardly consider any teams above listed outside of osu and potentially texas tech as anything other than mediocre. just because a team has an 8-5 record in cusa does not make them a good team. its not semantics....the same applies to all lower tier conferences. ill admit that occasionally, the stars align for some of these non-bcs aq schools, but those are exceptions to the rule that these teams largely are not very good.

i agree that the rankings can be inaccurate. not many teams in the nation could boast going through atm, bama, and lsu with a single win. beating teams like osu should vault you into the top 25, but losing to utep should drop your *** right back into obscurity....which is what happened to houston. if they deserved the ranking for beating osu, you must also acknowledge that they deserved the drop in ranking after losing to utep. it a two-way street.

northwestern is a mediocre team. they had a win over a 6 loss michigan state team (mediocre) and vandy who is the first team you have listed that i might consider to be a good team. Northwestern has only beaten cal (a team that only won 3 games last year), syracuse that is starting THIS season 1-2 with a win vs wagner, and western michigan. hardly the guggernauts of college football. on top of this, i have already explained the talent disparity...which is roughly the disparity we have between us and alabama.

no excuse will be good enough. msu simply has no wiggle room in the games i have listed an no amount of justification will change my mind that those teams were at least on-par with their respective years.