RANT: How does this football program achieve success if....

[BingleCocktail]

...it has never had a tradition of being successful? If the answer is continuing to hire personnel that are "has-been's and never-will-be's," then one has reduced success to the category of "luck." Luck is not a strategy or tactic to a goal. Period.

In order to build a winning program, it takes resources and, more importantly, institutional intent, which is to say that it becomes a priority for the University. If not, then it is reduced to simply operating a lifestyle business and keeping "in the black." The University decides to achieve or settle.

If an Auburn and a Clemson, who are both reasonably comparable institutions to MSU, can find a way to win a National Championship in football in the modern day, then I fail to see why MSU cannot. The reality is that for MSU this is *not* a priority...it is looking for economical solutions to keep it liquid financially and win just enough to keep it out of the red.

In the end, it comes down to defining "success." Unfortunately, it seems that the definition of success by many on this board don't seem to be the same as what the University's definition currently is.

 

[shotgunDawg]

What good coach hasn't been successful at MSU?

Since 1990, we've been a pretty successful SEC program.

I believe much of our downfall before then was in large part due to the location of Starkville & an extremely unbalanced SEC schedule that forced us to play Alabama & LSU every year when others did not & play them on the road every year. It was impossible to build a program under those circumstances, but those circumstances no longer exist

 

[thatsbaseball]

Plus administrations that were more concerned about the bathroom decor in the Boll Weevil lab than they were State having an athletic program we could be proud of. As to location the location was bad because we didn't fight for/demand proper infrastructure and access to our school....again lazy and apathetic leadership. Your post is good but it doesn't go back far enough and deep enough. Our biggest holdback has always been us.

 

[garddog]

Lack of willingness to pay coaches in the 50's and 60's. If you have never looked at the history and seen the coaches that left after just a couple years, you should do so.

 

[AROB44]

...it has never had a tradition of being successful? If the answer is continuing to hire personnel that are "has-been's and never-will-be's," then one has reduced success to the category of "luck." Luck is not a strategy or tactic to a goal. Period.

In order to build a winning program, it takes resources and, more importantly, institutional intent, which is to say that it becomes a priority for the University. If not, then it is reduced to simply operating a lifestyle business and keeping "in the black." The University decides to achieve or settle.

If an Auburn and a Clemson, who are both reasonably comparable institutions to MSU, can find a way to win a National Championship in football in the modern day, then I fail to see why MSU cannot. The reality is that for MSU this is *not* a priority...it is looking for economical solutions to keep it liquid financially and win just enough to keep it out of the red.

In the end, it comes down to defining "success." Unfortunately, it seems that the definition of success by many on this board don't seem to be the same as what the University's definition currently is.

Both those programs were built on massive cheating......something we have proven we are no good at.

 

[Dawgzilla]

...it has never had a tradition of being successful? If the answer is continuing to hire personnel that are "has-been's and never-will-be's," then one has reduced success to the category of "luck." Luck is not a strategy or tactic to a goal. Period.

In order to build a winning program, it takes resources and, more importantly, institutional intent, which is to say that it becomes a priority for the University. If not, then it is reduced to simply operating a lifestyle business and keeping "in the black." The University decides to achieve or settle.

If an Auburn and a Clemson, who are both reasonably comparable institutions to MSU, can find a way to win a National Championship in football in the modern day, then I fail to see why MSU cannot. The reality is that for MSU this is *not* a priority...it is looking for economical solutions to keep it liquid financially and win just enough to keep it out of the red.

In the end, it comes down to defining "success." Unfortunately, it seems that the definition of success by many on this board don't seem to be the same as what the University's definition currently is.

Auburn is not a reasonably comparable program to MSU. Auburn is one of the "Big 6" of the SEC. It's total enrollment is at least 25% larger than MSU's, it's total athletic budget is 50% larger, and its total revenue from football is almost 300% larger than MSU's. Auburn has certainly had its ups and downs as far as football goes, but it has been playing at a championship level as far back as the 1950's. They didn't just decide one day to make football a priority.

I'll give you Clemson as a comparable. Still bigger than MSU and with more money, but not to the scale of Auburn. Their program is historically more successful than MSU's (who's isn't?), but they only recently became a perennial contender. They were very lucky to find Dabo, back him financially, and wait patiently for the ROI.

 

[The Situation]

Auburn is not a reasonably comparable program to MSU. Auburn is one of the "Big 6" of the SEC. It's total enrollment is at least 25% larger than MSU's, it's total athletic budget is 50% larger, and its total revenue from football is almost 300% larger than MSU's. Auburn has certainly had its ups and downs as far as football goes, but it has been playing at a championship level as far back as the 1950's. They didn't just decide one day to make football a priority.

I'll give you Clemson as a comparable. Still bigger than MSU and with more money, but not to the scale of Auburn. Their program is historically more successful than MSU's (who's isn't?), but they only recently became a perennial contender. They were very lucky to find Dabo, back him financially, and wait patiently for the ROI.

Both Auburn and Clemson have Atlanta nearby, plus bigger home states, to pull players, fans, and resources. I’d argue that even they are not quite as similar for that reason alone.

We really are unique. Ole Miss is our best comparison because they face the same situation. We can also take tips from Kansas State, as they have the JUCO system, along with lessons learned from Clemson and/or Auburn.

To me, Auburn and Clemson show you that you must have a rabid, committed fanbase. That attracts players. K-State shows us that we must have a fundamental coach who coaches up and utilized JUCOS, which are a strength inside our state. We fight with Ole Miss for players, so it also appears we need a guy who understands MS and can appreciate that, the loyalty factor. Think Hugh Freeze here, he wasn’t going anywhere else and it aided their recruiting, while Mullen showed no such loyalty.

Everybody cheats so let’s leave that factor out as it relates to this discussion. All it does is derail good points of thought. If you stay in your lane this is not an issue.

 

[Antonio Brown's Foot]

Clemson is only one of two major State universities in South Carolina. They're also very close to Charlotte's economic power, and only a few miles from the Georgia and North Carolina State lines.

Auburn is also the 2nd largest university in Alabama, and they're close to Georgia and Atlanta in particular.

Starkville is close to...uhhh.....Tupelo.

 

[BingleCocktail]

Auburn is not a reasonably comparable program to MSU. Auburn is one of the "Big 6" of the SEC.

Interesting point. This makes me wonder if Alabama's success had any effect on Auburn's strategic plans for football

 

[The Situation]

Clemson is only one of two major State universities in South Carolina. They're also very close to Charlotte's economic power, and only a few miles from the Georgia and North Carolina State lines.

Auburn is also the 2nd largest university in Alabama, and they're close to Georgia and Atlanta in particular.

Starkville is close to...uhhh.....Tupelo.

Yep. I sure wish they had located MSU in Meridian with a satellite campus in Starkville, for the Ag stuff on the black prairie soil. We probably would have more of an oil focus and more coastal type programs. Toothpaste out of the tube and all, I guess.

I really do think about the long term viability of the university if the state continues its current plight. The only areas that are significantly growing are the Memphis area and the Coast and they aren't lighting the world on fire like an Atlanta, Charlotte or Nashville.