ShotgunDawg
07-29-2013, 10:37 AM
After all the discussions that have taken place over the past few weeks about how much better we are than the media gives us credit for, how our depth chart is full of talented players that are up for rewards, how we are good at positions that matter, but also how we really haven't recruited in the top 15 and lack "superstar" type players it got me thinking about who we are as a program and what would be a good analogy to make.
It seems to me that Mullen has created a money ball type atmosphere in Starkville and the best analogy to who we compare to as a program is the Oakland A's. Lets take a look at the similarities that both organizations share.
1. Both programs have less resources than many of their direct competitors.
2. Both organizations have found the arbitrage, the inefficiency, in their industry. For Oakland, that arbitrage was the signing of players that got on base a lot rather than players that were tooled out and hit HRs, because HRs cost money, and walks don't. For MSU, the arbitrage was talented small town high school players from MS that were under coached and under scouted in high school.
3. Both organizations are under covered by the media, which, in turn, creates a situation where the media doesn't fully understand them and thus undervalues what they do.
4. Both programs win a lot of games, but never really get credit for it because, in the end, they lack the superstar difference makers to win championships.
5. Both teams have smaller stadiums and crowds than the top echelon of their competitors.
Anyway, I would love to hear your thoughts on some more similarities between the two teams. If this isn't a good analogy then I would like to hear why not and also hear you offer another one.
I think its important for MSU to understand who WE are as a program and what we will have to do to succeed on a year in and year out basis. The truth is that in the current landscape of the SEC West, MSU has to do things differently than Alabama, LSU, and aTM. We simply don't have the resources, to try and win the same way they do. We must be innovative, take risks, and continually find the arbitrage in the recruiting and player development departments of college football.
Mullen has done an exceptional job of this, but the media doesn't respect it because they don't understand it. They look at recruiting ranking, stadium sizes, TV ratings, etc and they make up their mind and voice their perception of the SEC, not the reality.
Any thoughts?
It seems to me that Mullen has created a money ball type atmosphere in Starkville and the best analogy to who we compare to as a program is the Oakland A's. Lets take a look at the similarities that both organizations share.
1. Both programs have less resources than many of their direct competitors.
2. Both organizations have found the arbitrage, the inefficiency, in their industry. For Oakland, that arbitrage was the signing of players that got on base a lot rather than players that were tooled out and hit HRs, because HRs cost money, and walks don't. For MSU, the arbitrage was talented small town high school players from MS that were under coached and under scouted in high school.
3. Both organizations are under covered by the media, which, in turn, creates a situation where the media doesn't fully understand them and thus undervalues what they do.
4. Both programs win a lot of games, but never really get credit for it because, in the end, they lack the superstar difference makers to win championships.
5. Both teams have smaller stadiums and crowds than the top echelon of their competitors.
Anyway, I would love to hear your thoughts on some more similarities between the two teams. If this isn't a good analogy then I would like to hear why not and also hear you offer another one.
I think its important for MSU to understand who WE are as a program and what we will have to do to succeed on a year in and year out basis. The truth is that in the current landscape of the SEC West, MSU has to do things differently than Alabama, LSU, and aTM. We simply don't have the resources, to try and win the same way they do. We must be innovative, take risks, and continually find the arbitrage in the recruiting and player development departments of college football.
Mullen has done an exceptional job of this, but the media doesn't respect it because they don't understand it. They look at recruiting ranking, stadium sizes, TV ratings, etc and they make up their mind and voice their perception of the SEC, not the reality.
Any thoughts?