Seriously. What is my opinion and what exactly makes it bad IYO? Any ******* can say, "your opinion is bad". How about something actually thoughtful and reasoned?
Dastardly Dan or The Kang?
- Thread starter blacklistedbully
- Start date
Seriously. What is my opinion and what exactly makes it bad IYO? Any ******* can say, "your opinion is bad". How about something actually thoughtful and reasoned?
Agree with you about Mullen being able to get and develop great QB's for his system. We got a little lucky with Dak, too. Dude has so much integrity he would not flip on us to LSU when they finally got around to offering a QB shot late.
Do not agree much with the, "#1 team in the nation" part. It was great for the month it lasted...but it passed some when we lost to Bama, then it came crashing down when we lost to OM, and then the loss to GT was more confirmation we were simply, "very good", not great.
Do not agree much with the, "#1 team in the nation" part. It was great for the month it lasted...but it passed some when we lost to Bama, then it came crashing down when we lost to OM, and then the loss to GT was more confirmation we were simply, "very good", not great.
I take Jackie. I personally believe Mullen was headed for the same type of collapse Jackie endured. He was already loading up on JUCOs, just like Jackie did, and he also was totally ignoring offensive line recruiting, just like Jackie did. I figure 2019 would be the first big drop off. I am not sure he would go 3-9, but I do think he would have dropped like a rock after this year. He already had a bad attitude.
He left at a great time honestly. It allowed us to reinvigorate the fanbase with some new blood. Who knows if JoMo can coach, but on paper he checks the boxes.
Also, as far as records go, Mullen's record is greatly inflated by the annual D2 opponent. Jackie did not have that. Overall I think Mullen was a little more consistent than Jackie, though. They both are probably about equal in my mind. Jackie's highs are cancelled out by Mullen actually leaving at a good time. If Jackie had left after 2000 or 2001, he would probably have a statue.
He left at a great time honestly. It allowed us to reinvigorate the fanbase with some new blood. Who knows if JoMo can coach, but on paper he checks the boxes.
Also, as far as records go, Mullen's record is greatly inflated by the annual D2 opponent. Jackie did not have that. Overall I think Mullen was a little more consistent than Jackie, though. They both are probably about equal in my mind. Jackie's highs are cancelled out by Mullen actually leaving at a good time. If Jackie had left after 2000 or 2001, he would probably have a statue.
Sorry you and others are unable to grasp the concept of setting parameters for an analysis so they reveal more comparable conditions. A comparison of coaching ability is what we are after...not an overall comparison of record or even just achievement.
Certain liberties must be taken for this study, as we simply cannot reconcile how much the 30-month NCAA investigation contributed to the last 3 year's results. If we were to assume based on his track record, and charted it, we would see a 5-year trend of going up 4 straight years then down from 10 to 8 wins in 2000.
We can only speculate, but it's probably reasonable to assume CJS, without the NCAA Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, would quite likely have continued winning at least 7-9 games a year, with associated bowls to go along.
It's difficult to gauge how much that NCAA investigation hurt...but not at all difficult to assume it was quite a lot.
Certain liberties must be taken for this study, as we simply cannot reconcile how much the 30-month NCAA investigation contributed to the last 3 year's results. If we were to assume based on his track record, and charted it, we would see a 5-year trend of going up 4 straight years then down from 10 to 8 wins in 2000.
We can only speculate, but it's probably reasonable to assume CJS, without the NCAA Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, would quite likely have continued winning at least 7-9 games a year, with associated bowls to go along.
It's difficult to gauge how much that NCAA investigation hurt...but not at all difficult to assume it was quite a lot.
I'm sorry sir, my typing is pretty bad at times. That was supposed to say "You could nitpick", directed at the other posters and readers, not you.
Sorry man, I was agreeing with you...
Looks to me like the board is divided, with a lot of folks on either side admitting it's close. And that's the biggest proof of concept, and kind of what was expected.
It's not, "settled science". It's at least debatable for both sides, which to me indicates we are a program that should not be considered as in danger of crashing without Mullen, as many fans of other schools predict. We've had a coach in recent history with similar results as Mullen when considered in context.
We've had plenty of sub-standard coaching for sure, but Mullen isn't and wasn't a savior. He came in and did a good job in most respects, and a fairly bad job in some. He raised the floor but also lowered the ceiling a bit. But he was the 2nd of the past 3 who did this for us.
There is no reason for others to expect the 4th or any following to be incapable of achieving as much or more. We did some very special things while Dan was here, and Dan gets credit for helping make that possible. But he was not so special that he's clearly better than the guy we have now.
Dan would step on his own dick enough every year to cost us a game or two. Yes, he was good enough to get us many more wins than that, but the fact remains he was self-limiting. I don't think JoMo will get in his own way like that. I believe he is an even better offensive mind, a better overall coach, and much better at attracting a great staff.
It's not, "settled science". It's at least debatable for both sides, which to me indicates we are a program that should not be considered as in danger of crashing without Mullen, as many fans of other schools predict. We've had a coach in recent history with similar results as Mullen when considered in context.
We've had plenty of sub-standard coaching for sure, but Mullen isn't and wasn't a savior. He came in and did a good job in most respects, and a fairly bad job in some. He raised the floor but also lowered the ceiling a bit. But he was the 2nd of the past 3 who did this for us.
There is no reason for others to expect the 4th or any following to be incapable of achieving as much or more. We did some very special things while Dan was here, and Dan gets credit for helping make that possible. But he was not so special that he's clearly better than the guy we have now.
Dan would step on his own dick enough every year to cost us a game or two. Yes, he was good enough to get us many more wins than that, but the fact remains he was self-limiting. I don't think JoMo will get in his own way like that. I believe he is an even better offensive mind, a better overall coach, and much better at attracting a great staff.
I have always believed that the prolonged NCAA investigation knocked us out. However, Sherrill signed the #13 class in 2002 and #15 class in 2003. So it seems the investigation didn’t stop us from signing some highly rated players. Dependable talent? I’m not so sure. But they were highly rated.
I may be totally wrong but here goes. JWS brought fire to a fan base his first 3-4 years. Couple bad breaks, Sleepy injury etc kept us just outside the chance to be relevant. Then a few year run where we weren’t very good against again a weaker SEC West lineup. I think he went through the motions, to an extent, until the Alabama game in 96. Me personally, I was ready for him to be gone, then the upset which I think lit a fire in him like when he took the job. Pretty good couple years after and we make the title game. Lord I loved it be we were way better than how our record showed. I’ll skip the witch hunt years though they should be relevant.
Same thing with DM. Great start. Fire in the fan base and a coach who wants to be here. Very consistent record wise with a great run in the middle. Couldn’t finish the deal when needed and he’s ready to leave. The last 2-3 years he’s coaching to get out.
Bottom line to me is both showed what is possible here. Different time, different era but while they brought a fire to a fan base and showed the potential of this school. Neither invested enough to follow through when it counted. I respect them both but they are just 1-2 at a mediocre school over the years who deserve much more from our coaches.
End of the day thanks but no thanks. I look forward to the day we put them 2-3 and it ain’t close. But for that I put DMat 1 right now because he’s the coach who made recruits see this school is capable even though we needed a new coaching staff who hopefully wants to be here and sell it.
Same thing with DM. Great start. Fire in the fan base and a coach who wants to be here. Very consistent record wise with a great run in the middle. Couldn’t finish the deal when needed and he’s ready to leave. The last 2-3 years he’s coaching to get out.
Bottom line to me is both showed what is possible here. Different time, different era but while they brought a fire to a fan base and showed the potential of this school. Neither invested enough to follow through when it counted. I respect them both but they are just 1-2 at a mediocre school over the years who deserve much more from our coaches.
End of the day thanks but no thanks. I look forward to the day we put them 2-3 and it ain’t close. But for that I put DMat 1 right now because he’s the coach who made recruits see this school is capable even though we needed a new coaching staff who hopefully wants to be here and sell it.
Guess the short of it is I love steak. I Cook it pretty good at times. Enough to enjoy and sometimes love it. But you never know if it’s good because of the cook or because of the steak! I don’t want to have to wonder with the next few cooks. We deserve to taste the best. Even if they cook it bad it’s still mighty damn good
C'mon man...don't be absurd. Take a deep breathe, get in touch with your head more than your heart and try to use logic.
It is indisputable that Mullen got an extra game every year, and that extra game was an added, "cupcake". It is indisputable that the minimum qualifications for making a bowl game were much lower under Mullen than CJS. There are literally 50% more bowls than there were under CJS. It is indisputable that if you take away that one additional cupcake win a year, and take away the 50% increase in bowl spots, we would not have made bowls in 2011, 2013 & 2016, all years we won the bowl we got.
Its' really simple math. You take away the cupcake win, not because Mullen was bad, but because it would not have been played. Can't get a W if you don't play the game. And if you lose that one extra win in 2011, 2013 & 2016 we would not have got into a bowl, as we would have finished 5-6, 5-6 & 4-7. So no bowl also means no bowl win. Can't get the W if you don't play the game.
There's no contorting going on here at all. You're just simply failing to grasp the logic. You're failing to understand the "removing of the final 3 years" is not about saying CJS should not have to own that as part of his career. It's simply and solely the most logical way to remove the influence of the unprecedented NCAA investigation from the analysis.
If the analysis was about who had the better coaching career at MSU, you'd leave it in, of course. But the analysis was an attempt to show, as logically as possible, what each man was capable of achieving at MSU all things being equal, or at least as close as we could get.
HC ability was quite clearly massively impacted in those last 3 years for CJS by the witch-hunt. If you can't accept that, I don't know what to tell you, because that is why it was removed...not from the record books...not from some other analysis we might do, but from the one where I clearly stated the objective was to compare performance of the two under normal seasons. It was to assume both coaches were operating under "typical" circumstances.
For that analysis , including the last 3 seasons that were unduly influenced by things other than HC coaching ability corrupts the data. Understand that for some other analysis it would be wrong to take it out. It just is not for this specific one.
If my goal was to make CJS look as good as possible vs Mullen, I would have done something more, such as not just disregard the tainted years, but actually replace them with an educated guess as to what CJS's record might have been based on his projection prior to the NCAA investigation. There is even a logical argument that could be made for that, and it would have helped, considering his trajectory over the previous 5 years. But I felt that was going too far and really would not be necessary to illustrate just how very competitive the results would prove to be.
In the end, I wound up comparing the first 10 years of Sherrill to the first 9 years of Mullen at State. Your push-back seems to be hyper-focused on not including the last 3 years of Sherrill, even though I suspect you get that the environment those 3 years was altered significantly and unfairly by the NCAA and a rival so obsessed with CJS's success at State that they paid people to lie to the NCAA about things we purportedly did. We know this because several of them, "changed their story" when it moved from an NCAA investigation to a legal proceeding where they could then become subject to perjury charges.
It is indisputable that Mullen got an extra game every year, and that extra game was an added, "cupcake". It is indisputable that the minimum qualifications for making a bowl game were much lower under Mullen than CJS. There are literally 50% more bowls than there were under CJS. It is indisputable that if you take away that one additional cupcake win a year, and take away the 50% increase in bowl spots, we would not have made bowls in 2011, 2013 & 2016, all years we won the bowl we got.
Its' really simple math. You take away the cupcake win, not because Mullen was bad, but because it would not have been played. Can't get a W if you don't play the game. And if you lose that one extra win in 2011, 2013 & 2016 we would not have got into a bowl, as we would have finished 5-6, 5-6 & 4-7. So no bowl also means no bowl win. Can't get the W if you don't play the game.
There's no contorting going on here at all. You're just simply failing to grasp the logic. You're failing to understand the "removing of the final 3 years" is not about saying CJS should not have to own that as part of his career. It's simply and solely the most logical way to remove the influence of the unprecedented NCAA investigation from the analysis.
If the analysis was about who had the better coaching career at MSU, you'd leave it in, of course. But the analysis was an attempt to show, as logically as possible, what each man was capable of achieving at MSU all things being equal, or at least as close as we could get.
HC ability was quite clearly massively impacted in those last 3 years for CJS by the witch-hunt. If you can't accept that, I don't know what to tell you, because that is why it was removed...not from the record books...not from some other analysis we might do, but from the one where I clearly stated the objective was to compare performance of the two under normal seasons. It was to assume both coaches were operating under "typical" circumstances.
For that analysis , including the last 3 seasons that were unduly influenced by things other than HC coaching ability corrupts the data. Understand that for some other analysis it would be wrong to take it out. It just is not for this specific one.
If my goal was to make CJS look as good as possible vs Mullen, I would have done something more, such as not just disregard the tainted years, but actually replace them with an educated guess as to what CJS's record might have been based on his projection prior to the NCAA investigation. There is even a logical argument that could be made for that, and it would have helped, considering his trajectory over the previous 5 years. But I felt that was going too far and really would not be necessary to illustrate just how very competitive the results would prove to be.
In the end, I wound up comparing the first 10 years of Sherrill to the first 9 years of Mullen at State. Your push-back seems to be hyper-focused on not including the last 3 years of Sherrill, even though I suspect you get that the environment those 3 years was altered significantly and unfairly by the NCAA and a rival so obsessed with CJS's success at State that they paid people to lie to the NCAA about things we purportedly did. We know this because several of them, "changed their story" when it moved from an NCAA investigation to a legal proceeding where they could then become subject to perjury charges.
Last edited:
Your exact words:
"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."
Now you're not only misquoting me, you're misquoting yourself.
That's probably the best take I've seen yet.
Mullen likely ends up just like Jackie if he stays. Remember, this would be his 10th year, and Jackie's 10th year was 2000. Many say we had national championship talent, just as they are saying right now. What happened a year after that? JUCOs ran out, Jackie's lack of line recruitment caught up. Sounds a lot like our 2019.
To me, that's why Mullen is #1. He left before he torched his own house, and at least gave the next guy a chance. The next guy brings his own fire, too. If I recall, Jackie had plenty of options there at the end too.
There you go again. Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you really not able to track your own posts?
While the comment was indeed not in your original comment (I never claimed it was), it was specifically in the post I responded to (I quoted it), a response to which you then took exception, claiming you didn't say it. Of course you did.
Of course you aren't. Why invest 60 seconds into actually reading a detailed response to your post when you can just continue ignoring facts and make emotional, inaccurate comments?
Last edited:
Latest
-
01
On3 Football
Kamario Taylor finalizing $7.5 million deal to return to Mississippi State for 2027 season
-
02
Softball America
2027 Mississippi State Preview
-
03
Maroon and White Football
What Auburn HC Alex Golesh said about facing Mississippi State
-
04
Maroon and White Football Recruiting
2027 OL Li'Marcus Jones flips back to Colorado from Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Kelley Jones named Bednarik Award Semifinalist