Is MSU Football at Top 20 Program?

[ShotgunDawg]

This from The Athletic today.

Granted, it's only a 4 stretch, but is what we've done over the past 4 years unsustainable?

According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football.

Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it.

Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?

[msstate7]

2019 and 2020 seasons will help answer this question. We have a really good team this season with a new coach, but we lose a ton after this season. If a new coach can keep us going somewhat in 2019 (bowl) and then have us back to 8-10 type season in 2020, maybe we can sustain it.

[BayouDawg]

That?s some really good info. I do think with the right management there is no reason our football program can?t see similar success as okie state and maybe even better.

[confucius say]

During that 4 year stretch we averaged a regular season record of 7.75 wins and 4.25 losses (31-17).

Yes, just under 8-4 is very much sustainable even with the P5 nonconferencr opponent each year. The key is the thing that Dan did best-having really good qb play. That is why we should always hire an offensive head coach. Bc of our location, we will always be able to recruit athletes and DL to play good defense.

[TUSK]

"all-time"? No.

over a particular period? Maybe.


edit: 2010-2017 looked like a pretty good run and it ranks #35 Nationally and #7 in the SEC (all games-win%)

[MetEdDawg]

I was actually in the car thinking about this the other day. We won 9 games 3 times in those 4 years. There aren't many teams in the country that can do that. Now we did have one breakout season in there in 2014, but that was mitigated by how we ended.

I think what's more important is that if we go based on that graph, then I would say we aren't treated like we are a Top 20 program. We are still treated like a Top 40 program. There are only 2 teams in the SEC higher on that list than us. But we still have goobers on the radio saying we go 7-5 or that we are on completely different tiers than teams like LSU when in actuality we really aren't. Kids coming out of high school right now have seen us be better than all but 3-4 teams in the SEC over the last 4 years. But we still don't get treated like that.

I think if you take all of college football history into account, we are Top 40. If you take the last 4 years into account, we are a Top 20 program.

[BrunswickDawg]

Mississippi consistently falls in the Top 5-6 for NFL players produced per capita. However, that was never enough talent to support 3 D1 programs. The OM/MSU/USM battle for players kept all 3 from ever getting enough quality talent to compete on a consistent basis. USM falling by the wayside, coupled with the influx of SEC money, has awoken OM and MSU. However, OM and their culture will prevent them from ever being a consistent winner. They will always suffer from boom and bust cycles due to the type coaches they hire, the recruiting "stars" instead of needs, and their shortcut to fame culture. That leaves MSU as the legitimate threat to put a stranglehold on the talent in the state - and gives us the ability to compete long term.

[KOdawg1]

Imagine how much better we could be now that there seems to be more of an emphasis on recruiting.

[ShotgunDawg]

"all-time"? No.

over a particular period? Maybe.


edit: 2010-2017 looked like a pretty good run and it ranks #35 Nationally and #7 in the SEC (all games-win%)

All time, I agree with you.

I'm looking more at from "at this point going forward"

[Jack Lambert]

Mississippi consistently falls in the Top 5-6 for NFL players produced per capita. However, that was never enough talent to support 3 D1 programs. The OM/MSU/USM battle for players kept all 3 from ever getting enough quality talent to compete on a consistent basis. USM falling by the wayside, coupled with the influx of SEC money, has awoken OM and MSU. However, OM and their culture will prevent them from ever being a consistent winner. They will always suffer from boom and bust cycles due to the type coaches they hire, the recruiting "stars" instead of needs, and their shortcut to fame culture. That leaves MSU as the legitimate threat to put a stranglehold on the talent in the state - and gives us the ability to compete long term.

I grew up pulling for USM. I also had a football scholarship offer from them. Didn't play college football. Was tired of it. Went to State because my friends went to State. Left school joined the Marine Corp. Got out of the Marine Corp and finished at State. Now I hate both USM and Ole Miss. However if Ole Miss ever grew some balls and played USM I would pull for USM in that game.

[Covercorner2]

2019 and 2020 seasons will help answer this question. We have a really good team this season with a new coach, but we lose a ton after this season. If a new coach can keep us going somewhat in 2019 (bowl) and then have us back to 8-10 type season in 2020, maybe we can sustain it.

Was thinking about this today, actually. We should be PRETTY good next year (2019), too. It seems like we lose a lot, but look at what we will still have:

QB: Key; Mayden; Shrader

RB: Hill; Gibson; Webb; and we should be signing a stud this year, too (one of Grey, Emery, Ealy, Thompkins)

WR: Whop; Austin Williams; Dear; Guidry; Mixon; Todd; Mitchell; Couch; Thomas; Torbor. We only lose one WR

TE: Green; Jones; Roberson; Cumbest; Spivey; Gardner

OL: Reese; Eiland; Williams; Champion; Phillips; Dolla Bill; Suggs; Story; Cunningham

DL: Kobe; Fletcher; Rivers?; Spencer; Jackson; Autry; Odom; Lovett; Crumedy; Moore; King Ani; Russell; Pickering?

LB: Leo?; Thompson; Gay; Kilby- Lane; Dunning; Brule; Watson; Derick Hall?; Longshot Nakobe Dean?

DB: Cole; Dantzler; Williams; Smitherman; Landrews; Preston; Murphy; Guidry; Reed; Maybe Turnage?

[TaleofTwoDogs]

That's some really good info.

What info? I don't see a graph or link. Yes, I am signed in.

[Lord McBuckethead]

You should always list Pickering as #1 DL. Even with the ? mark.

[Political Hack]

Long shot or chip shot?

[Johnson85]

Might be useful to look at the teams on that list that should be better than us, should be ~ the same, and should be worse. A lot of those have historically been good or have been good recently, but don't really have any reason to be good going forward (e.g., TCU, Michigan State, Baylor, Iowa, etc). Of course some should have been better historically. I would say there's not anybody on that list that we just have a big advantage over. I guess arguably Iowa, Utah, Baylor, and TCU depending on how sustainable you think TCU's success is? Then there are a good number that have a massive advantage over us (UGA, UF, FSU, OSU, Bama, LSU, etc) and then a mostly it's teams that are roughly equal to us if you look at natural recruiting territory versus competition versus money available versus fan support, etc. The SEC money and the separation of the Power 5 from the Group of 5 teams has let MSU take more advantage of its recruiting territory and also put MSU on much more equal footing to a lot of schools that otherwise would have financial advantages.

[Bubb Rubb]

"all-time"? No.

over a particular period? Maybe.


edit: 2010-2017 looked like a pretty good run and it ranks #35 Nationally and #7 in the SEC (all games-win%)

I really hate the "all time" talk because it doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not diminishing sustained success...it's worth something. But when people talk about great football programs, folks like to bring up, for example, Tennessee. Yes, their "all time" record is strong. But they haven't done anything of note in more than a decade. That 1998 championship won't win them a single game next year.

Likewise, the fact that MSU sucked for the better part of the 20th century and during the Croom error won't lose a single game for us next year.

As of right now, at this time, MSU is no doubt a top 20 program.

[TUSK]

All time, I agree with you.

I'm looking more at from "at this point going forward"

Roger that... I think if y'all go 3-0 vs LSU, AU & FLA this year (and don't get upset by anyone), y'all are a Top 20 team for as long as you can maintain that momentum...

[Liverpooldawg]

I really hate the "all time" talk because it doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not diminishing sustained success...it's worth something. But when people talk about great football programs, folks like to bring up, for example, Tennessee. Yes, their "all time" record is strong. But they haven't done anything of note in more than a decade. That 1998 championship won't win them a single game next year.

Likewise, the fact that MSU sucked for the better part of the 20th century and during the Croom error won't lose a single game for us next year.

As of right now, at this time, MSU is no doubt a top 20 program.

All time means a LOT. Sure there are a few newbies to the club and a few blue bloods drop out. Most of the blue bloods stay there over the long haull.

[IMissJack]

This from The Athletic today.

Granted, it's only a 4 stretch, but is what we've done over the past 4 years unsustainable?

According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football.

Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it.

Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?

Is Baylor?

[IMissJack]

It depends on whether the SEC network money is here to stay.