Shotgun's Post on overachieving requires a historical perspective

[TaleofTwoDogs]

so I decided to look at our all-time record by decade. Where did we go wrong? As suspected, the Indians really got pissed in the mid 50's - 60's after those years it was a perfect roller coaster: 70's UP
80's DOWN, 90's UP, 2000's DOWN & 2010's UP.

Here's how it lays:

Decade Winning % Won Loss Tie Total Games
1900 0.463 25 26 4 55
1910 0.720 54 21 4 79
1920 0.507 38 37 10 85
1930 0.489 46 48 3 97
1940 0.695 57 25 4 86
1950 0.500 45 45 4 94
1960 0.330 31 63 5 99
1970 0.500 54 54 3 111
1980 0.446 50 62 0 112
1990 0.552 63 51 2 116
2000 0.356 42 76 0 118
2010 0.611 55 35 0 90
0.507 560 543 39 1142

note: on-field record only, NCAA forfeits under Tyler not counted

Winnest Coach - Allyn McKeen 65-19-3 .747% - Fired by AD Dudy Noble for going 4-4-1 (1948)
Current Coach - Dan Mullen 60-42-0 .588%
Of Interest - Jackie Sherrill 75-75-2 .500% (65-49-2 .570% before 2001)
Bob Tyler 39-25-3 .609% *
W.D Chadwick 29-12-2 .707% - 1st bowl game (Bacardi Bowl in Havana, Cuba)
Worst tandem - Wade Walker 22-32-2 .407% and Paul Davis 20-38-2 .345% combined
record 42-70-4 .375% (1956 -1966)

[missouridawg]

Anyone who thinks Mullen hasn't overachieved here has, officially, lost it. Go seek help.

[HSVDawg]

Good analysis. One thing of note however is as follows. It would be easy to look at that and say the 90's we were at .552 winning percentage and the 2010's we were at .611, look how much better Mullen has done than Sherrill in his heyday. But the actual truth is that Mullen has had 6 extra cream puff nonconference games that Sherrill did not have, because there were only 11 game seasons back then. The truth is that the records would be more equal between the two of them if Sherrill had a 12th game every year against an FCS type team. Just wanted to point that out.

ETA: I'd also be curious to know how you computed the decades, specifically for comparing Mullen and Sherrill who were our two most successful modern coaches. By my count, in the 2010's (which actually start in 2011) we are 46-31, not 55-35. I'm assuming you counted the 90's as 1900 - 1999 as well, which puts one Felker year in there and drags down the overall record. What I'd really like to see is Sherrill's 1991-2000 record (with a +10 win adjustment to account for all the extra nonconference games now) compared to Mullen's overall record from 2009-2016. That would tell a lot about how well Mullen has done compared to our modern standard.

[BB30]

Good analysis. One thing of note however is as follows. It would be easy to look at that and say the 90's we were at .552 winning percentage and the 2010's we were at .611, look how much better Mullen has done than Sherrill in his heyday. But the actual truth is that Mullen has had 6 extra cream puff nonconference games that Sherrill did not have, because there were only 11 game seasons back then. The truth is that the records would be more equal between the two of them if Sherrill had a 12th game every year against an FCS type team. Just wanted to point that out.

This debate gets brought up every time. The West was also a lot weaker during Jackie's tenure. Bama was not nearly as dominate, A&M was not in the West. LSU was down and still owned us for the most part. Auburn was slightly above average here and there. OM was not the same as they have been the last two years and Ark was Ark. Since Mullen has been here Bama and Auburn have both won and played for multiple NCs, LSU played for a NC against Bama let that sink in. The west has never been this strong. So I think those cream puffs probably cancel out due to competition faced in conference.

And up until this season we have not had very many if any WTF losses whereas The Kang has a couple if memory serves me correctly throughout his time here. Not knocking Jackie as those are some of my first and fondest memories as a young bulldog but the two are very hard to compare because CFB is quite a different animal now then it was even just a decade ago.

[Really Clark?]

Good analysis. One thing of note however is as follows. It would be easy to look at that and say the 90's we were at .552 winning percentage and the 2010's we were at .611, look how much better Mullen has done than Sherrill in his heyday. But the actual truth is that Mullen has had 6 extra cream puff nonconference games that Sherrill did not have, because there were only 11 game seasons back then. The truth is that the records would be more equal between the two of them if Sherrill had a 12th game every year against an FCS type team. Just wanted to point that out.

Sherrill also lost to several weak teams and his conference opponents were not as difficult. And would lose some bad conference teams as well. Yeah I know this year with USA and what not, but the track record between the two is different. You say adding the 12 th game as an FCS type team gives Jackie the same wins (which he had several soft teams during that time as well, Cal St Fullerton, Arkansas State, East Tenn St, etc.) but the reverse is that Mullen's consistency would actually have him with a good bit higher winning percentage if he the schedules of Jackie's area. I see this argument made a lot but it's only from the one direction of adding a cream puff for Jackie. Well if we all agree both would win those games regardless, then the comparison has to be what they actually did with the remaining schedule they played. And you also need to look at the number for Jackie's first 8 years compared to Dans. Jackie's winning percentage is greatly help from the 98, 99 seasons and Dan hasn't even gotten that far yet

[HSVDawg]

Sherrill also lost to several weak teams and his conference opponents were not as difficult. And would lose some bad conference teams as well. Yeah I know this year with USA and what not, but the track record between the two is different. You say adding the 12 th game as an FCS type team gives Jackie the same wins (which he had several soft teams during that time as well, Cal St Fullerton, Arkansas State, East Tenn St, etc.) but the reverse is that Mullen's consistency would actually have him with a good bit higher winning percentage if he the schedules of Jackie's area. I see this argument made a lot but it's only from the one direction of adding a cream puff for Jackie. Well if we all agree both would win those games regardless, then the comparison has to be what they actually did with the remaining schedule they played. And you also need to look at the number for Jackie's first 8 years compared to Dans. Jackie's winning percentage is greatly help from the 98, 99 seasons and Dan hasn't even gotten that far yet

Jackie's 1998 season was his 8th season. Mullen just completed his 8th season.

[HSVDawg]

This debate gets brought up every time. The West was also a lot weaker during Jackie's tenure. Bama was not nearly as dominate, A&M was not in the West. LSU was down and still owned us for the most part. Auburn was slightly above average here and there. OM was not the same as they have been the last two years and Ark was Ark. Since Mullen has been here Bama and Auburn have both won and played for multiple NCs, LSU played for a NC against Bama let that sink in. The west has never been this strong. So I think those cream puffs probably cancel out due to competition faced in conference.

And up until this season we have not had very many if any WTF losses whereas The Kang has a couple if memory serves me correctly throughout his time here. Not knocking Jackie as those are some of my first and fondest memories as a young bulldog but the two are very hard to compare because CFB is quite a different animal now then it was even just a decade ago.

I'm not trying to start a debate. Really just want to see the numbers. I still expect Mullen's numbers to be better even with a win adjustment for Jackie. Some quick math of adding 10 wins to the 1990's win total above still yielded a lower winning percentage than Mullen.

[Cooterpoot]

Jackie's 1998 season was his 8th season. Mullen just completed his 8th season.

And that 98 team lost how many games? How about 5 games. And they still won the west with 3 SEC losses. They lost to freaking Kentucky and were destroyed in their bowl game. 3 SEC losses this year gets you 3rd in the SEC. The stars aligned, there was no A&M, we won the west and were only ranked 23rd. There's no comparison really. The SEC West champ hasn't lost more than 1 SEC game in Mullen's tenure.

[Really Clark?]

Jackie's 1998 season was his 8th season. Mullen just completed his 8th season.

The stats up top started 2010 through today. But even if you want to do that Jackie was .527 win percentage against a weaker division and weaker SOS. Remove Dan's FCS wins since he has been here he has a .552 win percentage. Of course you have to adjust Jackie for the year we played East Tenn St but let's leave that alone. So Dan at least by the numbers with out adjusting for SOS wins an extra game every 3 years over Jackie. Just an opinion but I believe it's more than that when you account for all the other measurables. Probably an extra win every 2 years. Don't lose to horrible LSU teams, etc. I've never looked this up, but how many losses has Dan had to losing teams vs Jackie? Then compare to wins over 9 win teams. That would be interesting comparison as well.

[Homedawg]

Good analysis. One thing of note however is as follows. It would be easy to look at that and say the 90's we were at .552 winning percentage and the 2010's we were at .611, look how much better Mullen has done than Sherrill in his heyday. But the actual truth is that Mullen has had 6 extra cream puff nonconference games that Sherrill did not have, because there were only 11 game seasons back then. The truth is that the records would be more equal between the two of them if Sherrill had a 12th game every year against an FCS type team. Just wanted to point that out.

ETA: I'd also be curious to know how you computed the decades, specifically for comparing Mullen and Sherrill who were our two most successful modern coaches. By my count, in the 2010's (which actually start in 2011) we are 46-31, not 55-35. I'm assuming you counted the 90's as 1900 - 1999 as well, which puts one Felker year in there and drags down the overall record. What I'd really like to see is Sherrill's 1991-2000 record (with a +10 win adjustment to account for all the extra nonconference games now) compared to Mullen's overall record from 2009-2016. That would tell a lot about how well Mullen has done compared to our modern standard.

True. However, had Jackie not lost to Memphis, ne la, la tech etc etc as well as tied ark at his recited would be better. All the automatics weren't automatic. We've had one of those under Mullen. ONE!!

[Homedawg]

And that 98 team lost how many games? How about 5 games. And they still won the west with 3 SEC losses. They lost to freaking Kentucky and were destroyed in their bowl game. 3 SEC losses this year gets you 3rd in the SEC. The stars aligned, there was no A&M, we won the west and were only ranked 23rd. There's no comparison really. The SEC West champ hasn't lost more than 1 SEC game in Mullen's tenure.

No we went 6-2 in the league. The league championship game gave us our third loss. But your point about the league being tougher is valid.

[HSVDawg]

True. However, had Jackie not lost to Memphis, ne la, la tech etc etc as well as tied ark at his recited would be better. All the automatics weren't automatic. We've had one of those under Mullen. ONE!!

I don't really consider USA to be an automatic, nor do I consider Memphis or La Tech or La Monroe to be automatic in Jackie's case. USA was the 2nd best nonconference team on our schedule. Arguably the best even. Automatics are your Jackson States, Alcorn, NW State, and other FCS bottom feeders. Samford would be a more adequate comparison off this year's schedule. Jackie didn't get the luxury of even scheduling those types of teams even if he wanted to for one of the other 3 games, because back then (before the explosion in number of bowls) you could only count wins over a non-DI team towards bowl eligibilty once every 4 years, so nobody ever played those teams except very rarely.

[TaleofTwoDogs]

The "debate" between the Kang and Dan is interesting and it is difficult to compare the two on record alone. Both Jackie and Dan are great talent developers, but Dan has the advantage of a more progressive AD and more financial resources. Jackie played during a weaker conference period but had considerably less financial resources to develop a strong program.

The thing that I found most interesting was that our greatest coach was fired by the MSU icon Dudy Noble for a 4-4-1 record in 1948. Was he our Bear Bryant in the making and if he had coached State for 20 -25 years would we be an elite team in the SEC? Over the decades, it seems like most of our sux-a-tude was caused by poor leadership in the executive seat because we have had our share of good head coaches.