Evidence that Dan was shopping himself before the Egg Bowl

[Todd4State]

Ok - so if you focus on Top 25 only, Dan still had almost as many T25 wins in fewer seasons. The difference is we were playing 4-5 T25 teams a year under Dan and only 2-3 a year under Jackie. It created a perception of fewer Big Wins under Dan.

And before you go there - yes, 10 of those losses were in Jackie?s last 3 seasons. But, 2 of those wins were in season 10 of 13 - which Dan didn?t have here. So factoring that in, comparing 9 v 9 - Jackie was 7-24 and Dan 7-33. Dan played a far tougher schedule and had the same # of Top 25 wins as Jackie.

The thing about it is PERCEPTION is everything in football. It's WHO you beat. And Dan finishing up the year poorly in his best seasons other than 2010 hurt that big time. The fact of the matter is if we go 12-1 but that loss is to Ole Miss it's not going to be seen the same as a 12-1 season with a loss to Auburn.

And about Jackie having the same amount of wins in the top 25 despite playing fewer games against top 25 teams shows that he was better because he was beating a top 25 team essentially one out of every four times (rounded to make the numbers pretty whereas Dan did it one out of every five times (rounded to make the numbers pretty)

[RocketDawg]

The thing about it is PERCEPTION is everything in football. It's WHO you beat. And Dan finishing up the year poorly in his best seasons other than 2010 hurt that big time. The fact of the matter is if we go 12-1 but that loss is to Ole Miss it's not going to be seen the same as a 12-1 season with a loss to Auburn.

And about Jackie having the same amount of wins in the top 25 despite playing fewer games against top 25 teams shows that he was better because he was beating a top 25 team essentially one out of every four times (rounded to make the numbers pretty whereas Dan did it one out of every five times (rounded to make the numbers pretty)

I think that's only true in the state of Mississippi. A loss to Auburn is more forgiveable on a national level because they're the better of the two teams, and are peceived that way. Honestly, to me the OM game is just another important conference game. I'd much rather beat Alabama. It all depends on where you live and what you're exposed to on a daily basis.

[Todd4State]

I think that's only true in the state of Mississippi. A loss to Auburn is more forgiveable on a national level because they're the better of the two teams, and are peceived that way. Honestly, to me the OM game is just another important conference game. I'd much rather beat Alabama. It all depends on where you live and what you're exposed to on a daily basis.

I don't think so. See Michigan-Ohio State. Georgia-Georgia Tech. Florida-Florida State. Heck, if you are the coach at Jackson Prep you have to beat JA. The rivalries are what make football fun- but for it to be fun for your fans you HAVE to beat your rival. To me, the Egg Bowl isn't just another conference game. It is THE most important game. The bottom line is we beat them- it's good for us and bad for them. If you are a coach you have to know who your rivals and are you have to beat them at least somewhat regularly. Even Alabama winning the National Title this year- having lost to Auburn takes some of the luster off of it at least a little bit. For us to be the best school in the state- we have to beat them in football. That's not obsession- that's just the reality of the situation.

[BrunswickDawg]

The thing about it is PERCEPTION is everything in football. It's WHO you beat. And Dan finishing up the year poorly in his best seasons other than 2010 hurt that big time. The fact of the matter is if we go 12-1 but that loss is to Ole Miss it's not going to be seen the same as a 12-1 season with a loss to Auburn.

And about Jackie having the same amount of wins in the top 25 despite playing fewer games against top 25 teams shows that he was better because he was beating a top 25 team essentially one out of every four times (rounded to make the numbers pretty whereas Dan did it one out of every five times (rounded to make the numbers pretty)

You are right, football is about PERCEPTION - which is why I said I push back on the perception that Jackie was a better Big Game coach. The facts show he beat the same number of Top 25 teams in 9 seasons. He won a higher percentage of Top 25 games, but he also faced 1 less Top 25 team per season. The fact is at either of their %, I'd rate both of them as being pretty bad against Top 25 teams.

And if PERCEPTION is about who you beat, it is also about who you lose to. Jackie constantly, annually, lost to shit teams. '91 - Memphis (5-6); '92 - LSU (2-9), USC (5-6); '93 - Memphis (6-5), LSU (5-6), Arky St tie (2-8-1); '94 - LSU (4-7); '95 - LA-Monroe (2-9), USC (4-6-1); '96 La Tech (6-5), Kentucky (4-7), Arkansas (4-7); '97 - Arkansas (4-7); '98 - OSU (5-6), LSU (4-7); '99 - none; '00 - Arkansas (6-6); '01 - Troy (7-4); '02 USC (5-7); '03 - Tulane (5-7), Kentucky (4-8). For all his faults, Dan lost a total of 1 game like those in 9 seasons, while Jackie had 1 season where he didn't lose to some random crap team. For all the "perception", tell me what losing to teams like that does to your reputation.