Kellenberger writes....

[Bulldogg31]

I know I've told you before, but it just amuses me to no end the dubmass **** you say about Mullen while having a Jackie sig pic. By your standards Jackie should have been fired in 95. We have indisputably reached another level under Mullen, whether you agree or not is irrelevant. That doesn't mean there aren't other levels. Until we recruit consistently top 15 there will be years like this. I just don't understand why so many of you are so quick to pull the trigger on firing him when you idolize JWS whose record against a MUCH easier SEC does not compare favorably to Mullen. If this were year two of a similar start, I would be on your side. But, after losing our best player in history, our best defensive player leaving a year early, both starting corners going down before the season, I think this is not unexpected.

People remember the Jackie years much more favorably than they actually were. Under Jackie, we spent exactly 20 days ranked in the top 10. Three weeks in 1999 we reached #8. That's it.

The rest of the time we were either unranked of hovering around #23 or so.

Our final ranking in the much-heralded 1998 season? 25th.

We were decidedly mediocre for that decade, which unfortunately was a huge improvement over the decade before.

 

[InTheIttaBenaHotSun]

If you have to tell people you are better than them, you probably aren't. That's usually a trait we see from ole miss pricks.

Hey, you were the one that brought up the smart aleck comment "I'm better than you cause I don't accept med'ocrity!!!" I replied to a smart aleck comment with a smart aleck comment.....Truth be told, no I don't think I'm better than you - or anyone else on the board. I was just being a smart ***...I apologize.

 

[InTheIttaBenaHotSun]

It's an absurd arbitrary stance. Coaches and teams have down years and it can happen at any time. Throughout history of even the best that have ever been have had years at or even BELOW that schools historic norm. Besides Tom Osborn, who hasn't? I can't hardly think of other coaches NOT to have those years at some arbitrary time in their career. Crap, some have it happen in years 10 or greater. It's an asinine stance to demand never ending perfection and upward trajectory. Especially in light of history that shows even some of the greatest have had those type of years. That's not excepting mediocrity, that's understanding humanity and history. And when your history is still less than .500 demanding to never drop to that level in X number year is absurd in the extreme

I didn't say I demanded never ending perfection and upward trajectory...I said that we should win 7 to 8 games most years and sometimes win 6 games in a year - with an occasional 9 to 10 win season. In year 8 under Mullen, we shouldn't look as bad in certain areas, as we've looked, against lesser talented teams. Will we have seasons where we win less than 6 games?..Yes. Should that happen this season? With our schedule - No, it shouldn't but it might. We still have 8 games to get this thing turned around but if Dan would have done some things differently over the last 2 years we wouldn't be having this conversation. We're only one game off from where I thought we'd be at this point in the season. What I didn't expect to see is how poor we'd be playing to this point in the season....

 

[InTheIttaBenaHotSun]

No, it doesn't seem right, being that we're MSU and given our history but I think that's where we should be in a down year...Dan is a good enough coach to get us to where a down year is only 6 wins. He's got to get in gear and start caring again for that to happen. As I mentioned above, will we have years where we win less than 6 games? Of course but I don't think it should be this year - even with us losing Dak and others.