Peer Pressure

[Jarius]

If Ole Miss gets the punishment that people who aren't dumbasses about their situation expect them to get, we will get players to compete for Championships without having to go off the deep end cheating. If they get hammered they will be a virtual nonfactor in instate recruiting for 3 or 4 years which will give us an opportunity to bury them. Whether or not we take advantage of that is on us, and it would not surprise me either way of how we handled them being a nonfactor.

[TopDog58]

Yes, Jackie had some memorable wins and had opportunities for more, but "Bad Losses" does not accurately depict the entirety of the Jackie era. We had TERRIBLE seasons under Jackie that people seem to ignore because he took us to Atlanta. I sat through 3-6-2 ('93), 3-8 ('95), and 5-6 ('96). It put Jackie on the hot seat - and if it wasn't for that miracle against Bama in '96 we would have seen a new coach. But, we stuck with Jackie because we were looking at the long game. While Dan has had some disappointing seasons, I have never seen anywhere near the crap I saw those 3 seasons in the mid-90's.

Those call in shows after those games were cringe worthy to listen to. The Arkansas State tie, loss to Northeast Louisiana (ULM), Memphis running us out of Davis Wade. I'll never forget after the Louisiana Tech loss sitting on Hwy 12 listening to the post game show. Someone asked Jackie on air if he would think about resigning.

[tireddawg]

This is what I'm talking about. First, learn from OM. You can't guarantee a championship even if you are cheating. All OM got out of it were a few wins over us and Bama which will all be vacated shortly and a Sugarbowl trophy that will soon be returned.

Look at Georgia, Auburn, and Florida. They almost routinely lose containment of their locker rooms. "If you pay a player he owns you".

We need to be patient and build the program until we can "expand" our outreach and it is not questioned because we have the history to back it up. Mullen is doing that but we can't be too hasty.

I agree. I'll take what Mullen's doing over what Freeze is doing. But if we were guaranteed a NC by cheating, I would take it. But if course, there's no guarantees.

I mean we used to complain about where we used to be & some said if we can just win 7-8 games a year, we would take it. Now that we're winning those 7, 8, 9, & even 10, we want more. That's natural. Some are concerned that we won't get back without Dak. But I believe that there's another qb out there that will take us to those heights & Thompson may be it.

Dan has done, in my opinion, what was needed to compete, by the hires he's made. He's shown me he is serious.

[Taog Redloh]

Yes, Jackie had some memorable wins and had opportunities for more, but "Bad Losses" does not accurately depict the entirety of the Jackie era. We had TERRIBLE seasons under Jackie that people seem to ignore because he took us to Atlanta. I sat through 3-6-2 ('93), 3-8 ('95), and 5-6 ('96). It put Jackie on the hot seat - and if it wasn't for that miracle against Bama in '96 we would have seen a new coach. But, we stuck with Jackie because we were looking at the long game. While Dan has had some disappointing seasons, I have never seen anywhere near the crap I saw those 3 seasons in the mid-90's.

Yup. I am enjoying Mullen's consistency.

[ShotgunDawg]

If Ole Miss gets the punishment that people who aren't dumbasses about their situation expect them to get, we will get players to compete for Championships without having to go off the deep end cheating. If they get hammered they will be a virtual nonfactor in instate recruiting for 3 or 4 years which will give us an opportunity to bury them. Whether or not we take advantage of that is on us, and it would not surprise me either way of how we handled them being a nonfactor.

I don't agree with this. The players that want to be paid will still look to be paid.

My guess is that they just trade in going to Ole Miss for going to Auburn or Tennessee. I'm not sure which players on Ole Miss' roster we would have gotten if they didn't buy off.

Which ones?

[BossDawg]

Guarantee you that most of them are less focused on correcting their program and more focused on taking us down. True sign of losers.

This. I don't care what they say or do to try and convince people otherwise, it's a d@mn bald-faced lie. They are flat out INFATUATED with State.

[Jarius]

Lets not act like we are spotless (especially with in state recruits). We have 4 and 5 star players on our roster too. If ole miss is on crippling probation their boosters are going to slow way down or they are going to get the death penalty. Taking ole miss out of the equation for any instate recruit that isn't a die hard ole miss rebel will put us in an excellent position in the state of Mississippi.

I don't agree with this. The players that want to be paid will still look to be paid.

My guess is that they just trade in going to Ole Miss for going to Auburn or Tennessee. I'm not sure which players on Ole Miss' roster we would have gotten if they didn't buy off.

Which ones?

[Political Hack]

If we cheated to the extent of competing for a national championship, I would take the punishment to win one

That's what Auburn fans say. "So what? Sometimes we go on probation. Sometimes we win a national title."

That's how ole miss views it too, except they went far beyond anything that's ever been done at State. To me, there's a significant difference in a kid getting a ride to campus or feeding him while he's there versus giving him brand new, loaded out loaner vehicles and a signing bonus of $60k or more.

[Johnson85]

Yeah, we did it and it has taken us 10 years to recover. From 2001 to 2009 was almost pure misery because of a few players and fewer years of relevance. I know we haven't been to Atlanta again but Mullen has already had more success than Sherrill. Sherrill gave us one year over 8 wins. We have people who are complaining because 8 wins are now expected. Mullen has been north of eight wins 3 times out of 7 seasons. And Mullen has done this without any drops below 7-5 in the middle.

So, almost half the time we will be 9 wins or better while never dropping below 7-5 and people are dissatisfied and want to risk the next 10 years for the possibility of an extra win or so. It's ridiculous.

It didn't take us 10 years to recover from Sherrill. It took us a couple of years to recover from Templeton.

Also, when comparing Sherrill and Dan, you have to remember to decrease Mullen's win total by one each year to account for a 12 game schedule with a FCS opponent. So adjusting to Sherril's era, Mullen would have basically gone 4-7, 7-4, 5-6, 7-4, 5-6, 9-2, 7-4.

For comparison, the Kang went 7-4, 7-4, 4-5-2, 8-3, 3-8, 5-6, 7-4 in his first seven years. Then he followed that up by winning 8, 9, and 7 regular season wins before retiring and letting an interim coach handle 2001 through 2003, with Crooms taking over in 2004.

So Mullen had a little bet better run than Sherrill for his first 7 years after inheriting a worse situation and facing a tougher SECW. Mullen matching sherrils 8, 9, and 10th year would require that he basically average 9 regular season wins a year. The only reason I don't think it's likely he'll do that is because of OLine recruiting, which could put a pretty low ceiling on us this year and next year.

ETA: that's not intended to say that Mullen hasn't done a great job. I'm just pointing out that comparing win totals between Mullen and Sherrill doesn't work.

[tireddawg]

I'm talking about a guarantee to win a NC. For me I would take the punishment. I understand the risk involved in getting caught but don't you think, even with the punishment, the chance to compete for another would be greater?
I don't know I would just love to see & hear the phrase Mississippi State University, your NCAA football National Champions.

[Taog Redloh]

If Ole Miss gets the punishment that people who aren't dumbasses about their situation expect them to get, we will get players to compete for Championships without having to go off the deep end cheating. If they get hammered they will be a virtual nonfactor in instate recruiting for 3 or 4 years which will give us an opportunity to bury them. Whether or not we take advantage of that is on us, and it would not surprise me either way of how we handled them being a nonfactor.

Did this happen after 1994? I don't remember back then, but it seems to me Tommy Tuberville was able to recruit pretty well (Deuce and Romaro come to mind) right after that. Had pretty good teams in 1997 and 1998, then Cutcliffe got Manning on NSD 1999.

I guess we recrooted pretty well too but I remember those teams being built primarily with JUCO talent rather than HS.

[HSVDawg]

FIFY

Exactly. LT and Croom are solely responsible for the lost decade from 2001 to 2009. They did way more damage than any NCAA sanctions possibly could have. Other than the one year postseason ban for 2004 when we went 3-8 anyway, the sanctions weren't all that severe as I recall.

[HSVDawg]

Yes, Jackie had some memorable wins and had opportunities for more, but "Bad Losses" does not accurately depict the entirety of the Jackie era. We had TERRIBLE seasons under Jackie that people seem to ignore because he took us to Atlanta. I sat through 3-6-2 ('93), 3-8 ('95), and 5-6 ('96). It put Jackie on the hot seat - and if it wasn't for that miracle against Bama in '96 we would have seen a new coach. But, we stuck with Jackie because we were looking at the long game. While Dan has had some disappointing seasons, I have never seen anywhere near the crap I saw those 3 seasons in the mid-90's.

I'll give you that 93 and 95 were bad. I remember those years even though I'd rather forget them. But 96 wasn't terrible. We beat Alabama and shut out OM in Oxford. The week before Alabama, we missed what would have been a game winning field goal against UK in Lexington and also lost a heartbreaker to Arkansas in OT the week after. If schedules were then like they are today, we would have had an extra fluff nonconference game in there somewhere that would have gotten us to 6-6 and bowl eligible. That team was realistically comparable to Mullen's 2011 and 2013 teams.

[Maroonthirteen]

The biggest thing to remember when comparing Sherrill and Mullen ...

In the 90s, Bama, AU and OM went through some turmoil and had a revolving door in the coach's office.

Dan has faced a much stronger west now compared to then.

[BrunswickDawg]

I'll give you that 93 and 95 were bad. I remember those years even though I'd rather forget them. But 96 wasn't terrible. We beat Alabama and shut out OM in Oxford. The week before Alabama, we missed what would have been a game winning field goal against UK in Lexington and also lost a heartbreaker to Arkansas in OT the week after. If schedules were then like they are today, we would have had an extra fluff nonconference game in there somewhere that would have gotten us to 6-6 and bowl eligible. That team was realistically comparable to Mullen's 2011 and 2013 teams.

'96 was the lesser of the 3, but not a good season for a coach on the hotseat. You also can't give too much credit to the "almosts" when you lose to La Tech by 15. Those "almosts" were also against a 4-7 UK and 4-7 Ark.

[Jarius]

Did this happen after 1994? I don't remember back then, but it seems to me Tommy Tuberville was able to recruit pretty well (Deuce and Romaro come to mind) right after that. Had pretty good teams in 1997 and 1998, then Cutcliffe got Manning on NSD 1999.

I guess we recrooted pretty well too but I remember those teams being built primarily with JUCO talent rather than HS.

Like I said, we may or may not take advantage of it. We went on a pretty good run from 97-2000. I also believe we have a better coach now than we did then and we also won't be on probation ourself this go round.

[Reason2succeed]

A couple responses.

Yes, the regular season used to be 11 game but you can't just reduce Mullen's win total to make a comparison because that was also another chance that he could lose another game but he didn't. This is esp true since aTm has been in the west.

I hear everyone blaming LT for Croom and I agree LT was basically working against our program. I was in undergrad and I realized that it was not to our advantage to schedule P5 teams OOC. (What the heck were we trying to prove? Win the west and we get respect. If not make a bowl game.)

But you can't totally blame LT for Croom. It's one thing to find someone to coach MSU in the early 2000s but it's another thing to find someone to coach MSU on probation, with a depleted roster, and discipline issues. There weren't too many up and coming hotshot coaches that would want to tie their name and fate to MSU back then. If you know someone who was interested let me know but I don't see it.

It sounds like Mullen has already addressed the OL recruiting issue. From everything that's been said Mullen has tBuck on that so we shall see how that progresses.

[Jarius]

A couple responses.

Yes, the regular season used to be 11 game but you can't just reduce Mullen's win total to make a comparison because that was also another chance that he could lose another game but he didn't. This is esp true since aTm has been in the west.

I hear everyone blaming LT for Croom and I agree LT was basically working against our program. I was in undergrad and I realized that it was not to our advantage to schedule P5 teams OOC. (What the heck were we trying to prove? Win the west and we get respect. If not make a bowl game.)

But you can't totally blame LT for Croom. It's one thing to find someone to coach MSU in the early 2000s but it's another thing to find someone to coach MSU on probation, with a depleted roster, and discipline issues. There weren't too many up and coming hotshot coaches that would want to tie their name and fate to MSU back then. If you know someone who was interested let me know but I don't see it.

It sounds like Mullen has already addressed the OL recruiting issue. From everything that's been said Mullen has tBuck on that so we shall see how that progresses.

I don't blame LT for hiring Croom. I thought it was a good hire when we made it. I blame him for not firing croom after 3 years of ineptness.

[Reason2succeed]

I don't blame LT for hiring Croom. I thought it was a good hire when we made it. I blame him for not firing croom after 3 years of ineptness.

Fair but the entire point of hiring him was PR and (just like with Rick Ray) to clean out the bad acters in the program.