Is MSU Football at Top 20 Program?

[TUSK]

Yea that's my point. Bama no doubt has the best football history of all time in sec. But in today's landscape (tv money), that doesn't mean as much as it did 20 years ago bc the playing field has leveled. For instance, If Fla had Saban and Bama had Muschamp/Mcewain, Fla would be elite and Bama would be average.

It's all about hiring the right coach (which we all can afford to do now) and having a good recruiting base.

I wasn't aware this wasn't common knowledge... and, of course the welfare money has evened the playing field some... and great HCs and recruiters have always been paramount...

I'm on the same page with ya now, I think...

[BuckyIsAB****]

I wasn't aware this wasn't common knowledge... and, of course the welfare money has evened the playing field some... and great HCs and recruiters have always been paramount...

I'm on the same page with ya now, I think...

If MSU had Saban we would be elite and yall would be hoping to beat us.

MSU had a chance to hire Jimbo but didnt now that I think about it

[TUSK]

If MSU had Saban we would be elite and yall would be hoping to beat us.

MSU had a chance to hire Jimbo but didnt now that I think about it

Speaking of "missed hires", Bammer coulda hired Bobby Bowden and chose Bill Freakin Curry.... ugh....

[confucius say]

Speaking of "missed hires", Bammer coulda hired Bobby Bowden and chose Bill Freakin Curry.... ugh....

Hey, at least you didn't hire croom (not that Shula was much better).

[Todd4State]

I think we're more of a sleeping giant probably waking up more than anything. I do think we are better than some of our older fans give us credit for and I think THE biggest problem MSU football has is we have been conditioned that we are "not all that good in football" and that "Gee, I would be happy with beating Ole Miss and winning the Liberty Bowl with seven regular season wins."

Here's the REALITY. We have been grossly mismanaged in football up until the 1990's and then we became mismanaged again until Byrne came along and fixed it. According to my Grandfather- who attended the 1941 Orange Bowl and rode a train to get there and watched us win a SEC Title in Oxford- the problem MSU had for a long time up until about the time Tyler was the coach was that the Ag people and the Engineering people couldn't agree on who our coach should be and we always had a huge rift. And of course with MSU people when there is a huge rift what do we do? We have half of the fans acting like assholes and not supporting whoever the coach is. That includes not giving money for facilities and things like that. And probably complaining about the coach cussing in practice and/or during a game. That's why we were bad for years in the 50's and 60's. We were good in the 70's under Tyler and we got on probation. In the 80's we had two coaches- one who could coach but couldn't recruit and then one who wasn't a very good head coach and maybe was hired too young. Had success in the 1990's and then probation for most of the 2000's with another bad hire and then consistent success in the 2010's to where we are now.

Even with all of that going on- EVERY coach we have had since 1952 has had at least one winning season. The last coach that didn't was Slick Morton. That's over 60 years now. Also every coach we have hired since Bob Tyler except for Felker has gotten us to a bowl game. And if you go back to the 1960's every coach that we have hired has gotten us to a bowl game except for Shira and Felker. So, we have had consistent success which tells me that the potential was always there it's just that we were never really able to sustain it. Until now.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I believe GA, Penn State, and Stanford over us. Especially GA. LSU, although we own them would be on our level along with USC and FL. Lately they have been bad, but a 10 year average probably puts us in the top 25.

[dawgoneyall]

People don't realize to what steps our neighbor to the north went to to harm our program. They have for years (and I mean years) used every trick in the book to keep MSU down.

That BS isn't as easy now as once.

There are more and more "important people" who are State fans than 40-50-60-70 years ago. It makes a huge difference.

[Todd4State]

People don't realize to what steps our neighbor to the north went to to harm our program. They have for years (and I mean years) used every trick in the book to keep MSU down.

That BS isn't as easy now as once.

There are more and more "important people" who are State fans than 40-50-60-70 years ago. It makes a huge difference.

I notice that they mainly try to do the most harm when we pass them in football.

At any rate MSU also has athletic administration officials who have a spine as well at least since LT left. Except for maybe Stricklin.

[99jc]

"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%)

Stretch over the 90's Bama looked like shit for the most part. This is just since the playoff started.

[BrunswickDawg]

I think we're more of a sleeping giant probably waking up more than anything. I do think we are better than some of our older fans give us credit for and I think THE biggest problem MSU football has is we have been conditioned that we are "not all that good in football" and that "Gee, I would be happy with beating Ole Miss and winning the Liberty Bowl with seven regular season wins."

Here's the REALITY. We have been grossly mismanaged in football up until the 1990's and then we became mismanaged again until Byrne came along and fixed it. According to my Grandfather- who attended the 1941 Orange Bowl and rode a train to get there and watched us win a SEC Title in Oxford- the problem MSU had for a long time up until about the time Tyler was the coach was that the Ag people and the Engineering people couldn't agree on who our coach should be and we always had a huge rift. And of course with MSU people when there is a huge rift what do we do? We have half of the fans acting like assholes and not supporting whoever the coach is. That includes not giving money for facilities and things like that. And probably complaining about the coach cussing in practice and/or during a game. That's why we were bad for years in the 50's and 60's. We were good in the 70's under Tyler and we got on probation. In the 80's we had two coaches- one who could coach but couldn't recruit and then one who wasn't a very good head coach and maybe was hired too young. Had success in the 1990's and then probation for most of the 2000's with another bad hire and then consistent success in the 2010's to where we are now.

Even with all of that going on- EVERY coach we have had since 1952 has had at least one winning season. The last coach that didn't was Slick Morton. That's over 60 years now. Also every coach we have hired since Bob Tyler except for Felker has gotten us to a bowl game. And if you go back to the 1960's every coach that we have hired has gotten us to a bowl game except for Shira and Felker. So, we have had consistent success which tells me that the potential was always there it's just that we were never really able to sustain it. Until now.

Todd - interesting point about bowl games. To take that a step further - if you apply today's bowl volume and 6 win standard for eligibility across post-integration football, it looks even better. Shira was bowl eligible in '70 (6-5); Tyler would add 3 more bowls in '75 (6-4-1), '76 (9-2) & '78 (6-5); Felker gets there in '86 (6-5); and the Kang adds one in '97 (7-4). If you apply it all the way back to the beginning of the SEC, then Wade Walker adds 1, Darryl Royal gets 2, and McKeen adds 7, and Sasse adds 1 (possibly 2 with the 5-4-1 in '37). Image how different our history would be viewed with 17-18 more Bowl games in our history? I know that is a broad hypothetical - but it reinforces the fact that the talent has always been there. So much so that by today's win standards even Charlie Shira could coach a Bowl team (it also shows again how stupid we were firing McKeen). Add to this that in the modern era, as soon as we started any momentum, OM raised their douche alarm and assisted in efforts to get us on probation (Tyler, Jackie and Dan). It worked twice, and the 3rd time we thankfully overcame it.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

I don't think we're a sleeping giant. The size of our school and state, and how many schools are in the state competing for resources, dictate that. We weren't reaching our full potential though.

The tv money has obviously leveled the field for us, but I think that the leadership we've had since Keenum and Byrne were hired has been a bigger part of it than we realize. Byrne was able to move our program forward, Stricklin was at least good enough to keep the ship afloat, and it seems like Cohen has the potential to move us forward again, we'll find out soon. We're stable, we don't make rash decisions, we don't capitulate to the fanbase (hey Tennessee) though I don't think our fanbase really tries to drive things.

[Liverpooldawg]

Dude. The OP, my post about top 20 programs, and the entire thread has been about top 20 programs. Your first post in this thread was in response to whether your all time history plays a role in being a top 20 program today. You said it matters a lot and that's where this whole debate started.

Those teams are all top 20 programs now (I'm giving Baylor a sexual assault reprieve bc they were a top 20 program until briles went crazy)

It matters a lot. If you look at that list it's still mostly the usual suspects. You have teams that move in and out over time but if you look at the Final AP polls things started solidifying in the post WWII era. You have teams that drop out (Ole Miss, UT, Army, Navy, to name some), you have a few that are flash in the pan, you have a few that move in, but the core group doesn't change that much (Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma to name some) Tradition DOES matter. I'd say the only REAL gate crashers since WWII have been FSU and Miami. THAT had more to do with population growth in Florida than it did with money. It's no coincidence that the big three in Florida are finding it a bit harder now that the there are 7 FBS programs in the state. That population is more diluted now.

TV money didn't really level the the table top, it just gave the table longer legs. In our case, and there are some others like us out there, we never really tried to even climb on the table (post-war) till we hired Jackie. We also had a neighbor that kept putting lead weights on our neck when we started looking up at the table top. They don't have quite the capability now to do that as they once did, as has been pointed out in this thread. They still try, but it didn't work quite as well this most recent time. We also have leadership, for perhaps the first time in our history, that doesn't sit back and say thank you sir may I have another. Money DOES help, but it's more of a pre-requisite, not the means.

[confucius say]

It matters a lot. If you look at that list it's still mostly the usual suspects. You have teams that move in and out over time but if you look at the Final AP polls things started solidifying in the post WWII era. You have teams that drop out (Ole Miss, UT, Army, Navy, to name some), you have a few that are flash in the pan, you have a few that move in, but the core group doesn't change that much (Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma to name some) Tradition DOES matter. I'd say the only REAL gate crashers since WWII have been FSU and Miami. THAT had more to do with population growth in Florida than it did with money. It's no coincidence that the big three in Florida are finding it a bit harder now that the there are 7 FBS programs in the state. That population is more diluted now.

TV money didn't really level the the table top, it just gave the table longer legs. In our case, and there are some others like us out there, we never really tried to even climb on the table (post-war) till we hired Jackie. We also had a neighbor that kept putting lead weights on our neck when we started looking up at the table top. They don't have quite the capability now to do that as they once did, as has been pointed out in this thread. They still try, but it didn't work quite as well this most recent time. We also have leadership, for perhaps the first time in our history, that doesn't sit back and say thank you sir may I have another. Money DOES help, but it's more of a pre-requisite, not the means.

But it's not the usual suspects who are top 20 programs now. Tcu, mich st, ok st, msu, Oregon, Boise st, are all just as good teams as michigan and tenn over the past 5-10 years.

I feel like our fans 40 and under view things differently than those 40 and older. Personally, I think the college football landscape has entered a new modern era that began around 2012, thanks to the new tv revenue and exploding salaries/revenue. I think you have pre 1990, 1990-2012, and 2012-current. And I believe what you did pre 1990 has little to do with what you can be now. We have been just as good or better than mich and tenn the last 5+ years and there is no reason we can't be going forward.

[BrunswickDawg]

It matters a lot. If you look at that list it's still mostly the usual suspects. You have teams that move in and out over time but if you look at the Final AP polls things started solidifying in the post WWII era. You have teams that drop out (Ole Miss, UT, Army, Navy, to name some), you have a few that are flash in the pan, you have a few that move in, but the core group doesn't change that much (Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma to name some) Tradition DOES matter. I'd say the only REAL gate crashers since WWII have been FSU and Miami. THAT had more to do with population growth in Florida than it did with money. It's no coincidence that the big three in Florida are finding it a bit harder now that the there are 7 FBS programs in the state. That population is more diluted now.

TV money didn't really level the the table top, it just gave the table longer legs. In our case, and there are some others like us out there, we never really tried to even climb on the table (post-war) till we hired Jackie. We also had a neighbor that kept putting lead weights on our neck when we started looking up at the table top. They don't have quite the capability now to do that as they once did, as has been pointed out in this thread. They still try, but it didn't work quite as well this most recent time. We also have leadership, for perhaps the first time in our history, that doesn't sit back and say thank you sir may I have another. Money DOES help, but it's more of a pre-requisite, not the means.

I'll disagree a little on 1 point - I think we tried to climb on the table with Bob Tyler and the legs got cut out from under him. Tyler was building a program - and had two 9 win seasons (and contributed to a third under Bellard). If the NCAA had not have been so stupid - and conversely we hadn't been stupid enough to think we could sue and win - I think Tyler could have built us similarly to what Dan was able to do. It happened to be at a time of real growth in college football where you saw a first wave of non-traditional powers bursting on the scene (FSU, Miami, Clemson, BYU, Pitt) plus OM was down post Vaught. If Tyler had been able to coach 10-15 years, I think we could have ridden a similar wave the way those schools did.

[Liverpooldawg]

But it's not the usual suspects who are top 20 programs now. Tcu, mich st, ok st, msu, Oregon, Boise st, are all just as good teams as michigan and tenn over the past 5-10 years.

I feel like our fans 40 and under view things differently than those 40 and older. Personally, I think the college football landscape has entered a new modern era that began around 2012, thanks to the new tv revenue and exploding salaries/revenue. I think you have pre 1990, 1990-2012, and 2012-current. And I believe what you did pre 1990 has little to do with what you can be now. We have been just as good or better than mich and tenn the last 5+ years and there is no reason we can't be going forward.

But it is. The list is still mostly the usual suspects. That's my whole point. Things do change....but not much.

[Liverpooldawg]

I'll disagree a little on 1 point - I think we tried to climb on the table with Bob Tyler and the legs got cut out from under him. Tyler was building a program - and had two 9 win seasons (and contributed to a third under Bellard). If the NCAA had not have been so stupid - and conversely we hadn't been stupid enough to think we could sue and win - I think Tyler could have built us similarly to what Dan was able to do. It happened to be at a time of real growth in college football where you saw a first wave of non-traditional powers bursting on the scene (FSU, Miami, Clemson, BYU, Pitt) plus OM was down post Vaught. If Tyler had been able to coach 10-15 years, I think we could have ridden a similar wave the way those schools did.

We did some of the cutting ourselves under Tyler though. That's why I didn't go back that far.

[Johnson85]

I don't think we're a sleeping giant. The size of our school and state, and how many schools are in the state competing for resources, dictate that. We weren't reaching our full potential though.

The tv money has obviously leveled the field for us, but I think that the leadership we've had since Keenum and Byrne were hired has been a bigger part of it than we realize. Byrne was able to move our program forward, Stricklin was at least good enough to keep the ship afloat, and it seems like Cohen has the potential to move us forward again, we'll find out soon. We're stable, we don't make rash decisions, we don't capitulate to the fanbase (hey Tennessee) though I don't think our fanbase really tries to drive things.

^^^THIS^^^ We're no sleeping giant, but we have wayyy underachieved historically. I think what we've done since Croom looks about right. Hire a bad coach, and it will be a disaster. But between OOC and UK, it doesn't take anything spectacular to win around 7 games per year, just a better than average hire. The bar will get a little higher now with scheduling a Power 5 OOC each year. I think the Kang's time doesn't tell us as much because the gap between Power 5 and Group of 5 has grown so much since then.

[BrunswickDawg]

We did some of the cutting ourselves under Tyler though. That's why I didn't go back that far.

That's where having good University leadership comes into play - and further emphasizes the point. If Zacharis or Keenum had been president then, the we don't make those mistakes. Again, the point of this whole discussion is that for possibly the first time, we have the combination of strong University leadership, strong AD leadership, a strong financial position, excellent coaching and (at least from current signs) excellent recruiting. The talent level in MS has always been there - we just haven't had everything in place at one time to take advantage of it.

[confucius say]

But it is. The list is still mostly the usual suspects. That's my whole point. Things do change....but not much.

I guess that is where we disagree, which is fine. I think a 35-40% shift in a market (the market being top 20 teams) is a substantial change.

[BrunswickDawg]

But it is. The list is still mostly the usual suspects. That's my whole point. Things do change....but not much.

Some of the usual suspects, and some 2nd generation powers (like FSU) - but not all. Nebraska? UCLA? Texas? Miami? Tennessee? Texas A&M? Arkansas? Georgia Tech (#14 all-time in wins)? Va Tech? West Va? Colorado? Minnesota)? Wisconsin? BYU? South Carolina? I don't see any of those schools and they all - historically - have been above us. That's 15 of the top 50 winning-est programs of all time not in the top group now. All of those schools except VT, WVa, BYU, S Car & A&M have multiple national titles. All of them (except So Car) have over a dozen conference titles. Things have changed tremendously in the past 15 years - just based on those 15 team above.