Mullen vs. Croom based on records and facts

[The Croom Diaries]

This was both eye-opening and depressing research for me. But I think it needs to be read to realize just how close these two eras have been, but it's been masked by the bowl games. Check it out: http://maroonandwhitenation.com/2013...yre-different/




/waits for Goat to tell me how misleading the stats are

[Coach34]

but it's been masked by the bowl games.

well, that does tend to make fans happier- going to bowl games doesnt suck

[Gordon Gekko]

I didn't look at the stats and don't care what they say. I'm not very happy with the state of the football team now but it in no way shape or form does it compare to the terribleness that was the Croom error.

I remember games where we didn't even get a first down until the fourth quarter, losing to Maine, Tulane telling us thanks for the check, LA Tech debacle, etc

[Coach34]

the State-Tulane game moved to Shreveport is still to this day the worst game I've seen in person- including pee-wee football. The 3-2 game is the worst I've watch on TV


I'll look at the stats later- but the brand of football we play now is light years ahead of where we were

[ShotgunDawg]

Yea, regardless of what the stats say, the brand football we play now is exponentially better.

[The Croom Diaries]

Obviously we are better now. That is not the comparison. It's record-wise and the 'stats' include doubling our budget and much better facilities (thanks, SEC) that factor into being able to recruit better. This isn't a comparison of who would you rather have as your coach, it's that Mullen hasn't done anything more than Croom did other than beat the crappy teams we should've been beating in the first place.

[stateskills]

Any analysis that starts with "let's throw out the outcome of a bunch of games that don't support my argument" shouldn't be considered actual analysis. C'mon man. You can do better than that.

"Masked by bowl games" doesn't even begin to cover the differences in these two coaching eras. As you wrote, "Mullen has never lost to a team that finished the season with a losing record." If Croom could say that - he'd still be here coaching.

Give up these ridiculous comparisons to Croom. First, it's insulting to Mullen. Second, it's insulting to anyone with any kind of football intelligence. Third, it makes you look like a moron.

[PMDawg]

yeah. Everyone knows I'm not a huge fan of Mullen, but I find this ridiculous. you cherry picked the one stat you listed that suited your agenda. I generally like your stuff, but this is a reach at best. I'll just leave it at that b/c I think you generally do pretty good work.

[stateskills]

it's that Mullen hasn't done anything more than Croom did other than beat the crappy teams we should've been beating in the first place.

That's the problem with your whole analysis. Croom didn't beat the crappy teams we should've been beating. Hell, no coach in our school's illustrious history in the past 60 years has beat the crappy teams he was supposed to beat throughout the course of his tenure...except Mullen. How about we start the conversation there?

[Ronny]

..prove Mullen is a far better coach than Croom, if you are looking strictly at the stats for empirical evidence.

The thing is, when Mullen arrived @ MSU, he was coming from Florida when he had just coached Tim Tebow to a Heisman trophy. Croom boasted no such credentials.

There were tremendous expectations put on Mullen when he arrived at MSU. He was supposed to be the savior of MSU football.

And things were looking like they going as planned in 2010 when MUllen coached up Chris Relf.

But since Relf graduated things have gone to shit.

Statistics will not measure the mutitude of ****-ups that have occurred in our football program since 2010. And to drag Croom into Mullen's implosion is unfair.

[bluelightstar]

Are y'all serious? He provided the records without Kentucky/Ole Miss and with Kentucky/Ole Miss.

I think it's very interesting that the only thing Mullen has done is beat Kentucky and bad non-conference teams. The thing is, I don't find that alone very impressive.

[Political Hack]

The Maine problem here is obvious.

[DownwardDawg]

The Maine problem here is obvious.

Lol!! Well played!

[DownwardDawg]

well, that does tend to make fans happier- going to bowl games doesnt suck

^^^This^^^^

It's not even close to the same.

[The Croom Diaries]

Any analysis that starts with "let's throw out the outcome of a bunch of games that don't support my argument" shouldn't be considered actual analysis. C'mon man. You can do better than that.

"Masked by bowl games" doesn't even begin to cover the differences in these two coaching eras. As you wrote, "Mullen has never lost to a team that finished the season with a losing record." If Croom could say that - he'd still be here coaching.

Give up these ridiculous comparisons to Croom. First, it's insulting to Mullen. Second, it's insulting to anyone with any kind of football intelligence. Third, it makes you look like a moron.

I didn't throw out the records, I included overall records. The reason I threw out UK and OM was to show that the only thing Mullen has done better than Croom is beat teams that suck. Yes, Mullen is a better coach. We are also paying him 3x the salary and have 2-3x the resources and haven't gotten much of a return on that investment with this mediocrity. If nothing else, look at his 28-29 record vs. FBS teams. That is mediocrity at it's finest.

[Goat Holder]

This didn't quite go as well as you thought, did it?

Number one, when you are trying to compare things, then you "take 4 games out" or whatever to err on your side of the argument, it renders your point invalid. Even still, that stats show marked differences in Mullen and Croom. And you also can't use the budget argument, because our competition's budget has increased just as much.

Grind that axe, pal.

[The Croom Diaries]

yeah. Everyone knows I'm not a huge fan of Mullen, but I find this ridiculous. you cherry picked the one stat you listed that suited your agenda. I generally like your stuff, but this is a reach at best. I'll just leave it at that b/c I think you generally do pretty good work.

I also said: Croom’s 24 SEC losses were against teams that had a combined 237-138 record (.632) and Mullen’s 23 SEC losses were against teams that had a combined 244-59 record (.805). I'd say I gave them both a fair shake. The entire basis of my argument is that aside from beating the weak that we should be beating with the kind of resources we have Mullen has performed about the same as Croom. Therefore, he is achieving the minimum. Croom was below the minimum....but even despite how awful of a coach Croom was he was at least able to get our team up a few times and upset some teams. I have to pick some stat to support the argument otherwise I'm pissing in the wind.

[The Croom Diaries]

This didn't quite go as well as you thought, did it?

Number one, when you are trying to compare things, then you "take 4 games out" or whatever to err on your side of the argument, it renders your point invalid. Even still, that stats show marked differences in Mullen and Croom. And you also can't use the budget argument, because our competition's budget has increased just as much.

Grind that axe, pal.

The budget argument is not a comparison to other SEC schools - although our budget has increased by over 100% while other SEC schools are around 30-60% so it's been more beneficial to us. The budget has to do with the gap it creates from us to the lower-tier conference schools, i.e. Troy, Bowling Green, UAB, etc. Our resources were once near their level, now we have blown them by, plus we have the benefit of offering players a chance to play in the best conference in America. There is no excuse to not only beat these teams, but beat them handily. Being able to beat them means nothing other than we are accomplishing what we are supposed to accomplish. It's not a feather in Mullen's cap. It's just a mark against Croom's inability to do so.

[sandwolf]

Give up these ridiculous comparisons to Croom. First, it's insulting to Mullen. Second, it's insulting to anyone with any kind of football intelligence. Third, it makes you look like a moron.

This is spades. There are some legitimate issues that you could write articles about, regarding Mullen, recruiting, the administration, use of the Dawgzillatron, etc........but trying to compare the Mullen era to the Croom era is just flat out ridiculous and it really calls your credibility into question.

[bluelightstar]

In one ear, out the other in this thread.