Dastardly Dan or The Kang?

[baddawggy]

Jackie was a hard headed sob who who wouldn't recruit a decent qb.. Dan was a

I love Jackie Sherrill, but I have to give the edge to Mullen.

He did a phenomenal job. Only one season with less than 6 wins. Players in the NFL. Fletcher Cox is one the highest paid players in the league. We have a former QUARTERBACK starting for the Dallas Cowboys! We were #1 in the nation for a month. We played in the Orange Bowl. All this while playing in a DIVISION that produced 6 national champions and 4 Heismam trophy winners during his tenure.

I love JWS but all that trumps what he did...even winning the West.

Hard headed SOB who wouldn't recruit receivers. Jackie coached during bamas down years for the most part. Dan coached during bamas dominate years. Dan took us to #1. Advantage Dan.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Exactly!

 

[BiscuitEater]

Sure you can. It was clearly an anomaly...a result of the unprecedented lengthy on-campus rectal exam he received from the NCAA courtesy of the sore losers up north. If we're comparing the relative accomplishments/capabilities of the two coaches it would be silly to not extract those last 3 years.

And .. the whole Bucky 'network' revival tour was 'clearly and anomaly' too!

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

Same logic would say you could throw out 2009, 2013, & 2016 for Millernz. JWS gave us higher highs & lower lows. Don was much more consistent.

No, I think I like his anomaly logic. By that logic, we actually won the 2015 National Championship. We went 10-3 in the 2014 season, so those 3 losses were clearly anomalies and we can toss those out. So, in reality we were 10-0 and we should hang a banner.

 

[3407Dewey]

What both coaches showed

Seeing a lot of fans from other teams (especially UF) going on and on about how Muffins was the greatest coach in MSU history, taking us to unprecedented heights we had not seen before and will probably never see again now that he is gone. They talk a lot about # of bowls, # of 9 win seasons and the 10-win. So, I decided to take a quick look at how he compared to The Kang.

In order to be fair to the Kang, I think we have to remove the last 3 years of his tenure. We all know about the OM-funded smear-campaign and how the years of having the NCAA on-campus affected our recruiting/coaching, etc. If you chart his performance, it is clear the final three years were an anomaly. CJS averaged 4 wins more per year his first 10 than he did his last 3.

So, I'll compare CJS's first 10 years to Dastardly's 9. Some interesting facts:

SEC West standings:

• #1 - Kang 1, Dan 0
• #2 - Kang 2, Dan 1
• #3 - Kang 3, Dan 0
• #4 - Kang 4, Dan 3
• #5 - Kang 0, Dan 5

# of bowl games:

• Kang - 6 in 10 years
• Muffins - 8 in 9 years

Now this is a favorite mantra of those who want to tell us why we will suck without DD, while UF goes to the promised land. However, what they fail to mention is the fact that in DD's time there has been an average of 20 additional teams per year making a bowl, including 114 teams since 2009 that did not have a winning record going into the bowl.

There is no doubt that if Muffins had been operating under the same reduced bowls CJS had, we'd have missed at least 3 of the 8 bowls DD got us to. When one considers context, DD's bowl record, though still good relative to most other MSU coaches, is not really better than CJS.

While both coaches had a single 10-win season, The Kang did it in 12 games, needing to win in the Peach Bowl to get it. DD had two 9-win seasons, but The Kang had three 8-win seasons in years he had 1 fewer game than DD. It seems to me that "extra game" DD got was almost always a relative scrub...a team we would expect to beat every time.

I'm not denying DD did some really good things for us. I'm not denying that he elevated our program, raising the floor significantly over what most of our previous coaches had done. But I do think he's getting far more credit, and our program taking a much bigger hit in the eyes of many than is deserved.

Is that you can win at MSU. I'll never understand the perception among some of the sports pundits that State is so tough to win at. The last 20 years have shown us that good coaches can win big here.

 

[kired]

If you look at our winning % since 91 (Sherrill) thru last season --- and could remove Sherrill's last 3 years + Croom, we end up with just under a 60% winning percentage. That would put us around top 30 in the nation. Instead we're right around 50% when you include those 8 years... which drops you way down. I can't really find anything on winning percentages since 1990, but I'd guess that puts us around 75th or so. Big difference that 8 year stretch made in the recent history of our program.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Same logic would say you could throw out 2009, 2013, & 2016 for Millernz. JWS gave us higher highs & lower lows. Don was much more consistent.

Absurd. I can't even fathom how you arrive at this. Your example is cherry-picking. Mine is discounting the last 3 years which were as a matter of record occurring during the 30-month long NCAA investigation...an investigation for which CJS is suing the NCAA.

No comparison whatsoever.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Very well stated.

 

[thekimmer]

Well first of all...

Nothing in my OP is subject to whether CJS was "one of us" or "liked more". I provided stats and facts. Please highlight the parts of the post that are obviously tainted by feelings.

My comment regarding objectivity was not aimed at you specifically or intended to discredit your stats. I was just floating that notion more from my perspective than anything because my personal feelings about jackie being more positive than don I think definitely could cloud my perspective.

I think the external differences in the eras that both men were a part of complicates the comparison. Jackie won the west and overall tended to finish higher in the division but I think that a pretty good argument can be made that the division and SEC in general was not nearly as strong in jackie's day. For example, in jackie's tenure the SEC won 4 NCs in 13 years and 2 of those were from the west. In mullins tenure the SEC won 6 NCs in 9 seasons and all 6 were from the west. I also think one huge stat on mullins side that is missing from your comparison is the fact that he got us to a #1 ranking and kept us there for 4 weeks. Ultimately, I think a valid argument can be made either way.

 

[QuadrupleOption]

Absurd. I can't even fathom how you arrive at this. Your example is cherry-picking. Mine is discounting the last 3 years which were as a matter of record occurring during the 30-month long NCAA investigation...an investigation for which CJS is suing the NCAA.

No comparison whatsoever.

Throwing out 3 years of a coach's tenure to try and debate how great he was compared to a coach that just left is illogical. By that criteria, Croom was a great coach if you discount 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008.

 

[Sapsdawg]

I would argue dropping the last three years is tainted by feelings. I don't know if you prefer JWS, but his legacy would be a little different if he left after the second year. State had ZERO respect when he left. We were barely a juco level team in respectability. Love or hate Merlinz, State is highly respected now. Just look around.

 

[Go Budaw]

faced in the West in the mid-to-late 90’s, Mullen goes to Atlanta at least once, maybe twice.

Exactly. And this is by far the most important point. Bama and Auburn were average (save the early 90’s period for Bama) and LSU was pure trash for almost the entirety of Jackie’s first 10 years. All of those were Top 15 programs during Mullen’s 9 years, and Bama became the most dominant program in modern college football history during that time. Apples and oranges. Mullen had his faults, but he ran a far more consistent program than Jackie. No way in hell Jackie matches Mullen’s overall results in today’s SEC West.

 

[patdog]

That perception has slowly changed significantly over the years. We used to be considered one of the toughest places to win in the country. Now, we're generally considered a mid-level P5 school.

 

[blacklistedbully]

OK. I assumed you were referring to my OP since you quoted it in your post.

Of course you're correct about external differences making it a complicated comparison, though I would argue not so much that it contradicts the ultimate suggestion that DD was not the only coach who could win at MSU and is irreplaceable. I'm suggesting context matters a lot more than most people are willing to consider.

The fact that Bama has won 5 NC's, and AU 1 in Mullen's tenure at State does not necessarily mean it was harder to win the West for us. That fact alone does not by definition say that. Winning the SEC West has always been a daunting task for every school not named Bama, and even Bama has to fight like hell for it. Is Bama more dominant under Saban than they have ever been before...sure, but they were damn hard to beat in CJS' time as well. You may be talking about having a 2% chance of winning the West vs a 5%, (yes, I am pulling those numbers out of my ***, but I think you get the point). In either case, MSU winning the SEC West has been a long, long shot.

Also, keep in mind, the SEC started winning a lot more when the decision was mostly taken away from sports-writers. BCS didn't begin until 1998. Did the SEC really just "take off" in 1998, or did the introduction of systems designed to limit the effects of pollster bias have something to do with it? I'd suggest the SEC would have won many more NC's pre-BCS had there been such a system in place.

Finally, as mush as I enjoyed the run at #1 in 2014, it was ultimately fool's gold. Was a great year, but we were not the #1 team in the country. The final ranking trumps the previous ones. We were no more the #1 team in the nation than we were the unranked team we were the first 3 weeks. We were the #11 team. A great accomplishment, but it does mean the #1 stuff was premature.

 

[the dog is on the loose]

I still scratch my head at running 160 lb holloway up the middle of an sec defense time and time again along with shump being a running back while we had better rb's sitting on the bench. Wonder if prick will do that at florida? I washed my hands of mullen when we lost the south alabama game at home and him looking for another job every single season all the while saying how much he and megan loved starkville.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Have said more than once the reasoning for discarding the last 3 years was the 30-month rectal exam CJS, staff and athletes had to endure literally during those 3 seasons. I don't believe I have even made a case for CJS being overall better than DD.

My point is the comparison, when taken in context, suggests it is close enough to go either way, which then supports my contention it is "bad math" for people to think MSU was only capable of being as good as we have been the past 9 years under Mullen and Mullen alone...that we are doomed to "returning to the cellar" now that he has gone, that we were never close to as good as we were under DD and never can be as good or better again.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

If you're strictly talking about the making a bowl in the 90s versus the present, yes that's objective. Maybe I generalized my statement too much. I was calling the OP's argument subjective. My b for not being more clear and it seeming like I was callin you out, pal.

 

[blacklistedbully]

I am truly shocked you can't see the difference. Your examples are completely devoid of logic. Your latest attempt is to suggest discounting 4 of Croom's 5 years at State is the same as discounting the final 3 of a 13 year CJS career at State when those 3 directly correlated with the overwhelmingly significant addition of the 30-month NCAA investigation.

That is such bad logic..such a poor comparison I'm stunned you posted it.

 

[patdog]

Here's the thing though. You can't just ignore 3 years because you want to. They happened. And Jackie is responsible for his record in EVERY year he coached.

 

[Sapsdawg]

Have said more than once the reasoning for discarding the last 3 years was the 30-month rectal exam CJS, staff and athletes had to endure literally during those 3 seasons. I don't believe I have even made a case for CJS being overall better than DD.

My point is the comparison, when taken in context, suggests it is close enough to go either way, which then supports my contention it is "bad math" for people to think MSU was only capable of being as good as we have been the past 9 years under Mullen and Mullen alone...that we are doomed to "returning to the cellar" now that he has gone, that we were never close to as good as we were under DD and never can be as good or better again.

Sure you have, go back and read your posts. JWS was 7-5; 7-5; 4-5-2; 8-4; 3-8; 5-6; 7-4; 8-5 before having a great year in 1999 (1 great year) then 8-4; 3-8; 3-9; 2-10 (and the laughing stock of all college football for years). Where is the greatness? 1 year, that's it and we ended up finishing 13th, behind our 11th finish in 2014 (I think). Alabama's coaches in that time included Mike Dubose when we had our 10-2 year. Mike freaking Dubose. LSU had Curley Hallman and Gerry DiNardo. Mullen took our laughing stock of a program and has it held in high regard nationally. I agree with the poster who said we like Mullen less because of how he left and didn't embrace state, but you seem to forget Jackie was pining for the Alabama job the whole time he was here. It's Mullen, hands down.

 

[sleepy dawg]

By dropping the last 3 years, you also excuse the shape in which he left us. I blame Jackie more than anyone else for the Croom years. Not only do I not give him a pass for those years, I add to it at least 1 Croom year. And on the flip side, look at what Dan left us with. Dan left us with arguably the most talented team we've ever had. ****, that alone puts Dan ahead to me.

We're all sitting around talking about a 10+ win season this year for more than just Morhead. We're talking about it b/c Dan left us in as good a shape as you can leave a program while not retiring.

 

[maroonmania]

Well Mike freaking Dubose did win the SEC in 1999 with a 9-2 record and a 34-7 drubbing of FL in the SEC championship game. Just sayin'.

 

[Sapsdawg]

They also lost to Louisiana Tech and Tennessee that year and lost to Michigan in the bowl game. 4 of the wins that year by less than a TD. Again, just proves the point the SEC was MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to win back then. The conference didn't have the same cache it does today attracting all the best players across the country. Unless you want to argue DuBose was some stud coach.

 

[johnson86-1]

By dropping the last 3 years, you also excuse the shape in which he left us. I blame Jackie more than anyone else for the Croom years. Not only do I not give him a pass for those years, I add to it at least 1 Croom year. And on the flip side, look at what Dan left us with. Dan left us with arguably the most talented team we've ever had. ****, that alone puts Dan ahead to me.

We're all sitting around talking about a 10+ win season this year for more than just Morhead. We're talking about it b/c Dan left us in as good a shape as you can leave a program while not retiring.

The team wasn't in that bad of shape when Sherrill left talent wise. Croom inherited basically the same thing Mullen did. A team with some talent and with some holes but whose main problem was needing a change of leadership.

 

[thekimmer]

This is one of the biggest head shakers of all about the JWS era....

LSU was pure trash for almost the entirety of Jackie’s first 10 years. .

We went 2-7 vs LSU in the hallman/dinardo era which was otherwise a pretty dismal period for the tigahs.

Heck even the year we won the west they not only beat us they skull drug us 41-6 with an LSU team that finished 4-7.

LSU was jackie wayne's nemesis.

 

[blacklistedbully]

You're missing the point. The condition CJS left us in had as much or more to do with the 30-month NCAA investigation as it did our staff. The only way to offer a fair comparison is to consider the extenuating circumstances. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just, "forgive and forget" random bad years because, "they were bad and it hurts my analysis".

It should be obvious to just about anyone that the steep and sudden dive coincided exactly.with the timing of the 30-month investigation...one so nasty & brutal it is still on court dockets for CJS's lawsuit vs the NCAA. In order to have a fair comparison of each coach's relative effectiveness as the HC, it only makes sense to disregard that one section because it is so clearly tainted by the investigation and it's effect on the program...at least for the purposes of this analysis.

Again, my OP did not even suggest one was better than the other, rather I made some points about context that I thought should be considered, in particular as it relates to some people's suggestion that Mullen was the only MSU coach in modern history who could have achieved the results he did.

My personal opinion is that both coaches were significantly flawed, but both were also great for our program and at the very least, good coaches. I have a feeling JoeMo is going to prove to be much better, and eventually considered the best in our history. That's a guess, of course, but an educated one based on his track record and that of the staff he has assembled.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Of course Jackie is responsible for every year he was HC, though there really is no reasonable argument that denies the significant role the NCAA investgation played in the final 3 years.

But we're not talking about CJS's legacy or even his all-time record. The 3 years are removed because I believe it was necessary to give a more accurate comparison of what each coach was able to accomplish at State. In other words, do you think Mullen would have done just as well if he had to endure what Jackie did those 3 years? How about facilities? They started to get a little better under Sherrill, but got exponentially better for Mullen. That helps with recruiting as well as conditioning, etc. Do you think Mullen realizes the momentum he did if he didn't make bowls in 3 of those 9 years? How about if he lost the extra gimme-win per year? Are his results the same? Are some of you still speaking in hushed tones about the legend of Dan Mullen?

It's not as if I suggested we arbitrarily take away the 3 worst years. No, I specifically for purpose of this analysis alone, took away the last 3 exactly because the 30-month investigation at the end of CJS's tenure was too significant a factor, thus unduly tainting the analysis.

 

[Chesusdog]

Mullen had the better record and probably would've won more than Jackie if you flipped them, but gimme Jackie any day because he loves State and wasn't looking for a way out.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Better Coach: Mullen
Who I like more: Kang

Edit:
I think we're talking about two quite different eras of football. In many ways the amount of money and resources we - and almost all power 5 teams - have access to now are beyond what we had in the 1990s. Practically every recruit has YouTube videos and high school games from all over the country are available for coaches to evaluate. Not to mention practice facilities and training are much better now to the point that the 2018 MSU facilities are light years better than the 1998 facilities of Michigan, Nebraska, Florida, and all the other blue chips. The game is much more scientific and the body of knowledge modern coaches have access to is far more extensive. Jackie would struggle in the 2010s, just as Mullen would have struggled in the 1990s without the groundwork broken by others in offensive scheme development.

 

[RocketDawg]

^^^ THIS.

Those last 3 years under Jackie happened whether we want to admit it or not, and that skews your numbers towards Dan.

Here's the thing - with Jackie, you could expect uneven performances during the season as well as over the years. It's a team that could embarrass the SEC West and East champions in the same year (2000) but lose to South Carolina, LSU, and Arkansas (all mediocre teams).

Or beat Texas (#13), play like gangbusters against Tenn (#6) and Alabama (#7) then lose to Memphis in 1991.

I loved Jackie but you NEVER knew what you were going to get. And quite frankly he lost control of the team and program in 2001 and it took us a long time to recover (notwithstanding a bad hire in Croom).

Mullen made us respectable and made us a steady program. No, he didn't have a signature win against a top tier team. But he didn't lose to bad teams either. He wasn't perfect but if he'd stuck around he'd have the all-time wins record this year. He doesn't put a lot into recruiting, which was why he was never able to get over the hump.

Mullen did a good job. Mullen is a good coach. I don't understand trying to downplay what he did here.

He actually did have wins against top-tier teams. Florida and LSU come to mind. They just weren't top-tier after we beat them, partially because we beat them. Remember ... coaches who lose to us have a tendency to get fired.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Sure you have, go back and read your posts.

I did, and you are wrong. The closest I came to it was this:

"DD owns the title of, "worst record vs AP-ranked teams in history". I wonder how CJS might have recruited had we been able to upgrade our facilities to the extent we did for Mullen (and some for Croom). I suspect he'd have had even better teams than he had, thus more likely to win even more T25 games."

This was not in my OP, and it does not definitively say CJS was a better coach. It simply says I suspect CJS would have been able to recruit better with the facilities we've had the past 9 years, thus more likely to have won more T25 games. It's a fact that better players almost always translates into more wins.

Ask other school's fans if they hold our football program in, "high regard nationally" now that Dan is gone. I suspect you will find the majority have gone back to sneering and predicting we will slide right back down to the basement of the SEC. No...they think what Dan did was a miracle and the sign of a superb coach who was held back by being at MSU, and that we will be going back to being dog-**** now.

Maybe you will find a few that think we have a chance to do alright this year, maybe make a lower-tier bowl simply because we have so many starters returning.

 

[was21]

Mullen head and shoulders above Sherrill...and the last three years were part of Sherrill's tenure...just like the last three years of Mullen were part of his tenure

 

[Shamoan]

Additionally, mullen got America to believe that we were the greatest team in the land for over a month and we largely looked the part. that cannot be overstated enough. that is viewed nationally like kansas being the number 1 team in the nation 7 or 8 years from now. without mullen, we dont get dak or his development and the building and enrollment boom to starkville. aside from bond and madkin and a few bright spots here and there, we were a qb wasteland. mullen and specifically, his ability to mold qb's, changed that. jackie showed it could be done, but mullen built the foundation for future sustained success.

 

[was21]

stick to basketball

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I'll take Dan

Seldom saw a DM coached team that was not ready...can't say that about the Kang...not at all.

Also, JS did not have control of his players, he was way too lax.

Having said all, I did appreciate what the Kang brought to MSU.

 

[kendesu]

Coach	Winning Percentage	Average SOS*	Average SRS**	AP High	Final AP High
Mullen	60%	4.4	8.45	1	11
Sherrill	49%	3.0	2.67	8	13

<tbody>
</tbody>

*-Strength of Schedule; rating denominated in points above/below average; zero is average
**-Simple Rating System; takes into account average point differential and SOS; denominated in points above/below average; zero is average

If you rank the 22 seasons coached by Sherrill and Mullen by SRS, Mullen coached the top 3 seasons. Sherrill coached the bottom 6 seasons and 8 of the bottom 9.

View attachment 10703

 

[Sapsdawg]

You said very well stated in response to a post that said there can only be one kang. So, I am not wrong, but whatever. Jackie had one good year and left us as bad a train wreck as any major college program in the history of the world (ok ok, a little overboard). We're all pissed at Merlinz, but don't let it cloud your judgment what he did for state at a time it was very, very difficult to do it.

 

[blacklistedbully]

You said very well stated in response to a post that said there can only be one kang. So, I am not wrong, but whatever. Jackie had one good year and left us as bad a train wreck as any major college program in the history of the world (ok ok, a little overboard). We're all pissed at Merlinz, but don't let it cloud your judgment what he did for state at a time it was very, very difficult to do it.

Yeah, you were wrong then and even more wrong now. First, I've told people I don't necessarily agree with their remarks were, "very well stated". The post was thought-provoking and respectful. I thought it was particularly well written by a clearly intelligent, well-spoken poster.

As it happens I also agree with what most of what he said. The part you are hanging your hat on, that there can be only one Kang, is a minor detail, carrying no weight in my overall opinion of the post. The Kang is CJS's universally accepted nickname.

You think CJS had just, "one good year"? Really?

 

[blacklistedbully]

This might surprise you, but if you take away just the one extra cupcake game a year and the 50% increase in total number of bowls from Mullen's era , his average record at State would have been about 6-5. The loss of 1 cupcake win per year and the lack of extra bowls would have killed DD's overall record.

His record would almost assuredly have been:
4-7 No bowl
8-4 Bowl
5-6 No bowl
7-5 probably a bowl
5-6 no bowl
9-3 bowl
8-4 bowl
4-7 no bowl
7-4 probably a bowl

Of course, we can't really know how Dan would have done had the first 5 years resulted in 3 losing seasons. Does recruiting suffer? Does he get contract extensions? Can we attract a Grantham or a Collins?

Can't know for sure, but we can assume one less win per year, which would have had the net effect in some cases of 2nd win lost due to no bowl game. We'd not have had that great story line of "8 straight bowl games in 9 years".

 

[HD6]

Your opinion is bad enough, but the fact that you had to use a video instead of just embedding a GIF is embarrassing.