Is MSU Football at Top 20 Program?

[ShotgunDawg]

This from The Athletic today.

Granted, it's only a 4 stretch, but is what we've done over the past 4 years unsustainable?

According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football.

Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it.

Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcrzsDiUwAIXEk2.jpg

[msstate7]

2019 and 2020 seasons will help answer this question. We have a really good team this season with a new coach, but we lose a ton after this season. If a new coach can keep us going somewhat in 2019 (bowl) and then have us back to 8-10 type season in 2020, maybe we can sustain it.

[BayouDawg]

That?s some really good info. I do think with the right management there is no reason our football program can?t see similar success as okie state and maybe even better.

[confucius say]

During that 4 year stretch we averaged a regular season record of 7.75 wins and 4.25 losses (31-17).

Yes, just under 8-4 is very much sustainable even with the P5 nonconferencr opponent each year. The key is the thing that Dan did best-having really good qb play. That is why we should always hire an offensive head coach. Bc of our location, we will always be able to recruit athletes and DL to play good defense.

[TUSK]

"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%)

[MetEdDawg]

I was actually in the car thinking about this the other day. We won 9 games 3 times in those 4 years. There aren't many teams in the country that can do that. Now we did have one breakout season in there in 2014, but that was mitigated by how we ended.

I think what's more important is that if we go based on that graph, then I would say we aren't treated like we are a Top 20 program. We are still treated like a Top 40 program. There are only 2 teams in the SEC higher on that list than us. But we still have goobers on the radio saying we go 7-5 or that we are on completely different tiers than teams like LSU when in actuality we really aren't. Kids coming out of high school right now have seen us be better than all but 3-4 teams in the SEC over the last 4 years. But we still don't get treated like that.

I think if you take all of college football history into account, we are Top 40. If you take the last 4 years into account, we are a Top 20 program.

[BrunswickDawg]

Mississippi consistently falls in the Top 5-6 for NFL players produced per capita. However, that was never enough talent to support 3 D1 programs. The OM/MSU/USM battle for players kept all 3 from ever getting enough quality talent to compete on a consistent basis. USM falling by the wayside, coupled with the influx of SEC money, has awoken OM and MSU. However, OM and their culture will prevent them from ever being a consistent winner. They will always suffer from boom and bust cycles due to the type coaches they hire, the recruiting "stars" instead of needs, and their shortcut to fame culture. That leaves MSU as the legitimate threat to put a stranglehold on the talent in the state - and gives us the ability to compete long term.

[KOdawg1]

Imagine how much better we could be now that there seems to be more of an emphasis on recruiting.

[ShotgunDawg]

"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%)

All time, I agree with you.

I'm looking more at from "at this point going forward"

[Jack Lambert]

Mississippi consistently falls in the Top 5-6 for NFL players produced per capita. However, that was never enough talent to support 3 D1 programs. The OM/MSU/USM battle for players kept all 3 from ever getting enough quality talent to compete on a consistent basis. USM falling by the wayside, coupled with the influx of SEC money, has awoken OM and MSU. However, OM and their culture will prevent them from ever being a consistent winner. They will always suffer from boom and bust cycles due to the type coaches they hire, the recruiting "stars" instead of needs, and their shortcut to fame culture. That leaves MSU as the legitimate threat to put a stranglehold on the talent in the state - and gives us the ability to compete long term.

I grew up pulling for USM. I also had a football scholarship offer from them. Didn't play college football. Was tired of it. Went to State because my friends went to State. Left school joined the Marine Corp. Got out of the Marine Corp and finished at State. Now I hate both USM and Ole Miss. However if Ole Miss ever grew some balls and played USM I would pull for USM in that game.

[Covercorner2]

2019 and 2020 seasons will help answer this question. We have a really good team this season with a new coach, but we lose a ton after this season. If a new coach can keep us going somewhat in 2019 (bowl) and then have us back to 8-10 type season in 2020, maybe we can sustain it.

Was thinking about this today, actually. We should be PRETTY good next year (2019), too. It seems like we lose a lot, but look at what we will still have:

QB: Key; Mayden; Shrader

RB: Hill; Gibson; Webb; and we should be signing a stud this year, too (one of Grey, Emery, Ealy, Thompkins)

WR: Whop; Austin Williams; Dear; Guidry; Mixon; Todd; Mitchell; Couch; Thomas; Torbor. We only lose one WR

TE: Green; Jones; Roberson; Cumbest; Spivey; Gardner

OL: Reese; Eiland; Williams; Champion; Phillips; Dolla Bill; Suggs; Story; Cunningham

DL: Kobe; Fletcher; Rivers?; Spencer; Jackson; Autry; Odom; Lovett; Crumedy; Moore; King Ani; Russell; Pickering?

LB: Leo?; Thompson; Gay; Kilby- Lane; Dunning; Brule; Watson; Derick Hall?; Longshot Nakobe Dean?

DB: Cole; Dantzler; Williams; Smitherman; Landrews; Preston; Murphy; Guidry; Reed; Maybe Turnage?

[TaleofTwoDogs]

That's some really good info.

What info? I don't see a graph or link. Yes, I am signed in.

[Lord McBuckethead]

You should always list Pickering as #1 DL. Even with the ? mark.

[Political Hack]

Long shot or chip shot?

[Johnson85]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcrzsDiUwAIXEk2.jpg

Might be useful to look at the teams on that list that should be better than us, should be ~ the same, and should be worse. A lot of those have historically been good or have been good recently, but don't really have any reason to be good going forward (e.g., TCU, Michigan State, Baylor, Iowa, etc). Of course some should have been better historically. I would say there's not anybody on that list that we just have a big advantage over. I guess arguably Iowa, Utah, Baylor, and TCU depending on how sustainable you think TCU's success is? Then there are a good number that have a massive advantage over us (UGA, UF, FSU, OSU, Bama, LSU, etc) and then a mostly it's teams that are roughly equal to us if you look at natural recruiting territory versus competition versus money available versus fan support, etc. The SEC money and the separation of the Power 5 from the Group of 5 teams has let MSU take more advantage of its recruiting territory and also put MSU on much more equal footing to a lot of schools that otherwise would have financial advantages.

[Bubb Rubb]

"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%)

I really hate the "all time" talk because it doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not diminishing sustained success...it's worth something. But when people talk about great football programs, folks like to bring up, for example, Tennessee. Yes, their "all time" record is strong. But they haven't done anything of note in more than a decade. That 1998 championship won't win them a single game next year.

Likewise, the fact that MSU sucked for the better part of the 20th century and during the Croom error won't lose a single game for us next year.

As of right now, at this time, MSU is no doubt a top 20 program.

[TUSK]

All time, I agree with you.

I'm looking more at from "at this point going forward"

Roger that... I think if y'all go 3-0 vs LSU, AU & FLA this year (and don't get upset by anyone), y'all are a Top 20 team for as long as you can maintain that momentum...

[Liverpooldawg]

I really hate the "all time" talk because it doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not diminishing sustained success...it's worth something. But when people talk about great football programs, folks like to bring up, for example, Tennessee. Yes, their "all time" record is strong. But they haven't done anything of note in more than a decade. That 1998 championship won't win them a single game next year.

Likewise, the fact that MSU sucked for the better part of the 20th century and during the Croom error won't lose a single game for us next year.

As of right now, at this time, MSU is no doubt a top 20 program.

All time means a LOT. Sure there are a few newbies to the club and a few blue bloods drop out. Most of the blue bloods stay there over the long haull.

[IMissJack]

This from The Athletic today.

Granted, it's only a 4 stretch, but is what we've done over the past 4 years unsustainable?

According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football.

Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it.

Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcrzsDiUwAIXEk2.jpg
Is Baylor?

[IMissJack]

It depends on whether the SEC network money is here to stay.

[ShotgunDawg]

Is Baylor?

No. Perhaps the rule is that your success has to span multiple coaching staffs.

So Mullen gets credit for where we are currently on this list, but it's only one data point. Moorhead sustaining or growing Mullen's success would go a long way in meaning that MSU can have sustainable success due to its resources rather than just having a good coach.

Without Meyer, Florida is just a program that happen to have one awesome coach.

Without Stalling and Saban, Alabama is the same as Florida.

[msbulldog]

"According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football."

Without a doubt there is a shift way more parity in CFB, especially in the SEC, TV money has evened thing up a lot! we're not in the league of the Bama's and aTm, but we ain't the little sisters of the poor anymore. Another factor is we have more generous donors than we had in the past.

"Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it."

I don't know about a sleeping giant, but in my time as a fan basically 50 years, I have really only seen 2 successful periods. The first one as Bob Tyler whose success was derailed by the NCAA over a 10% discount on a shirt given by a hometown store, who gave the same discount to every college student, Larry Gilliard. The second successful period was the Kang, Jackie Sherrill, who the NCAA followed from Pittsburgh to aTm and on to MSU. I'll give Jackie this much, he was always one step ahead of the NCAA boys and he became the highest paid coach in the country, when he took the aTm job.

"Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?"

Without a doubt, the only bright star in our prior AD's was Carl Maddox, who raised a lot of money and started upgrading our facilities.

HAIL STATE!

[Turfdawg67]

The UGA thing is a surprise. Must be due to the one losing season Richt had. Take that away and they have to be top 10 at least.

[confucius say]

All time means a LOT. Sure there are a few newbies to the club and a few blue bloods drop out. Most of the blue bloods stay there over the long haull.

It's meaning less and less with the tv money.

[confucius say]

Is Baylor?

Sans the briles fiasco, yes they were.

With the distribution of money these days, especially in the sec, All that is necessary to be a college football top 20 program is a great coach who is a good recruiter with a recruiting base or a good coach who is a great recruiter with a recruiting base.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Spurrier won 11 games like 2 or 3 years in a row at South Carolina then fell off when he got old and unengaged, Mike Gundy has had OK State going for a while now. I think we are approaching OK State of the SEC West status.

Need one more ''big time'' year and I think we will have earned it. 2018 is that year.

Then we can start worrying about being Clemson or whoever else.

I think we would beat the doors off a lot of teams in the Big 10 and Big 12. SEC and ACC are running CFB right now. B10 and B12 are falling behind.

[Liverpooldawg]

It's meaning less and less with the tv money.

Yet the same teams are still at the top most years. I means as much as it always has.

[TUSK]

Spurrier won 11 games like 2 or 3 years in a row at South Carolina then fell off when he got old and unengaged, Mike Gundy has had OK State going for a while now. I think we are approaching OK State of the SEC West status.

Need one more ''big time'' year and I think we will have earned it. 2018 is that year.

Then we can start worrying about being Clemson or whoever else.

I think we would beat the doors off a lot of teams in the Big 10 and Big 12. SEC and ACC are running CFB right now. B10 and B12 are falling behind.

dead. nuts. on.

[confucius say]

Yet the same teams are still at the top most years. I means as much as it always has.

Clemson. Tcu. Baylor. Oregon. Stanford. Ok state. Mich st. Miss st.

[TUSK]

No. Perhaps the rule is that your success has to span multiple coaching staffs.

So Mullen gets credit for where we are currently on this list, but it's only one data point. Moorhead sustaining or growing Mullen's success would go a long way in meaning that MSU can have sustainable success due to its resources rather than just having a good coach.

Without Meyer, Florida is just a program that happen to have one awesome coach.

Without Stalling and Saban, Alabama is the same as Florida.

This is completely inaccurate.

[confucius say]

This is completely inaccurate.

You think mcewlain and/or muschamp would have won big at Bama?

[TUSK]

You think mcewlain and/or muschamp would have won big at Bama?

I dunno... I do know that Bammer less Saban & Stallings still isn't remotely comparable to Florida...

[biggun]

This from The Athletic today.

Granted, it's only a 4 stretch, but is what we've done over the past 4 years unsustainable?

According to history, maybe, but over the past 5-8 years, we've seen a paradigm shift in college football.

Perhaps, MSU was a sleeping giant between 1950 & 1990. Perhaps, MSU football really started with Sherrill becoming the head coach, which crumbled because of probation & then a bad hire following it.

Perhaps, prior to Greg Byrne, MSU football was one of the worst managed football programs in history?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcrzsDiUwAIXEk2.jpg

?All-Time College Football Playoff Rankings 2014-17?

?All Time? and ?2014-17? don?t seem to go together

[Liverpooldawg]

Clemson. Tcu. Baylor. Oregon. Stanford. Ok state. Mich st. Miss st.

Dude, Clemson won a Natty in the 80s. The rest of those have yet to win one. They have very few conference titles as well. Except for Clemson those are all next tier programs.

[confucius say]

?All-Time College Football Playoff Rankings 2014-17?

?All Time? and ?2014-17? don?t seem to go together

All time playoff rankings. Playoff didn't start til 2014

[confucius say]

Dude, Clemson won a Natty in the 80s. The rest of those have yet to win one. They have very few conference titles as well. Except for Clemson those are all next tier programs.

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)

[confucius say]

I dunno... I do know that Bammer less Saban & Stallings still isn't remotely comparable to Florida...

Why you say that? Keeping in mind that this is about today's college football landscape, not the 1970s.

[Pit Bull]

During Dan Mullen Era......I would go for Top 30 on average and during his best years, maybe top 25. All time.....top 50.

I remember when FlaState was horrible prior to Bowden getting there. MSU beat them like 59 to very little and we were average. I remember when K-State was horrible, but Bill Snyder sort of changed them into a top 25-30 program. I think we can get to be like FSU and KSU during their hay days and JOMO may be the guy to do it....we'll just have to see. If we don't at least go 9-3 with this year's team, I'll be worried.

[TUSK]

Why you say that? Keeping in mind that this is about today's college football landscape, not the 1970s.

ooooooh, I get it... I agree... Florida with Meyer/SOS is definitely > Bammer (minus all of their successful coaches and periods)....

So is LSU, UGA, UT, AU, A&M, etc....

[confucius say]

ooooooh, I get it... I agree... Florida with Meyer/SOS is definitely > Bammer (minus all of their successful coaches and periods)....

So is LSU, UGA, UT, AU, A&M, etc....

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.

[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.

[TUSK]

Stretch over the 2000's Bama looked like shit for the most part. This is just since the playoff started.

FIFY

[Liverpooldawg]

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.

That list is also using a VERY small sample size. Doing well over that time period does NOT make you a Top 20 program. Sustain it for 20 years and then you can talk. I still say the more things change the more they stay the same.

[confucius say]

That list is also using a VERY small sample size. Doing well over that time period does NOT make you a Top 20 program. Sustain it for 20 years and then you can talk. I still say the more things change the more they stay the same.

The landscape has changed. What you have done the last 10-15 years is much more indicative of what your place in college football will be going forward than what you did pre 2000.

[BrunswickDawg]

That list is also using a VERY small sample size. Doing well over that time period does NOT make you a Top 20 program. Sustain it for 20 years and then you can talk. I still say the more things change the more they stay the same.
Yes - the CFP era is a short span, but that doesn't discount the changes that have happened over the course of the BCS/CFP era. The money and exposure drastically changed many school's ability to compete - including MSU.
The fact that in a 4 year span none of the traditional programs I listed show up in the Top 25 is a prime illustration of that change
If you look at this list - how many of them would you have placed ahead of MSU over the past 4 years if you were just guessing based off tradition?

Nebraska - 5 National Titles across a 30 year span, 53 bowl games, 46 conference titles, 893 wins
UCLA - 1 National Title, 17 conference titles, 36 bowl games, 577 wins
Texas - 4 National Titles across 3 decades, 53 Bowl games, 32 conference titles, 897 wins
Miami - 5 National Titles across 3 decades, 39 Bowl games, 9 conf. titles, 623 wins
Tennessee - 6 National Titles across 5 decades, 52 Bowl games, 16 conference titles, 833 wins
Texas A&M - 3 National Titles across 3 decades, 38 Bowl Games, 18 conference titles, 732 wins
Arkansas - 1 National Title, 42 bowl games, 13 conference titles, 701 wins
GT - 4 National Titles spanning 70 years, 44 bowls, 16 conference titles, 728 wins
Va Tech - 10 conference titles, 31 bowls, 738 wins
West VA- 15 conference titles, 36 bowls, 744 wins
Colorado - 1 national title, 28 bowls, 27 conference titles, 694 wins
Minnesota - 7 national titles across 60 years, 19 bowls, 18 conference titles, 688 wins
Wisconsin - 29 bowl games, 14 conference titles, 697 wins
BYU - 1 National Title, 35 bowl games, 23 conference titles, 568 wins
S. Carolina - 1 Conference title, 22 bowls, 602 wins

Fact is over the past 4 years - and really 9 years more than likely - we have out performed a large number of traditional powers.

[Liverpooldawg]

The landscape has changed. What you have done the last 10-15 years is much more indicative of what your place in college football will be going forward than what you did pre 2000.

I hope so, sort of. If that's what Bama is going to do we all just need to quit.

[Liverpooldawg]

Yes - the CFP era is a short span, but that doesn't discount the changes that have happened over the course of the BCS/CFP era. The money and exposure drastically changed many school's ability to compete - including MSU.
The fact that in a 4 year span none of the traditional programs I listed show up in the Top 25 is a prime illustration of that change
If you look at this list - how many of them would you have placed ahead of MSU over the past 4 years if you were just guessing based off tradition?

Nebraska - 5 National Titles across a 30 year span, 53 bowl games, 46 conference titles, 893 wins
UCLA - 1 National Title, 17 conference titles, 36 bowl games, 577 wins
Texas - 4 National Titles across 3 decades, 53 Bowl games, 32 conference titles, 897 wins
Miami - 5 National Titles across 3 decades, 39 Bowl games, 9 conf. titles, 623 wins
Tennessee - 6 National Titles across 5 decades, 52 Bowl games, 16 conference titles, 833 wins
Texas A&M - 3 National Titles across 3 decades, 38 Bowl Games, 18 conference titles, 732 wins
Arkansas - 1 National Title, 42 bowl games, 13 conference titles, 701 wins
GT - 4 National Titles spanning 70 years, 44 bowls, 16 conference titles, 728 wins
Va Tech - 10 conference titles, 31 bowls, 738 wins
West VA- 15 conference titles, 36 bowls, 744 wins
Colorado - 1 national title, 28 bowls, 27 conference titles, 694 wins
Minnesota - 7 national titles across 60 years, 19 bowls, 18 conference titles, 688 wins
Wisconsin - 29 bowl games, 14 conference titles, 697 wins
BYU - 1 National Title, 35 bowl games, 23 conference titles, 568 wins
S. Carolina - 1 Conference title, 22 bowls, 602 wins

Fact is over the past 4 years - and really 9 years more than likely - we have out performed a large number of traditional powers.

If you go back and look at the post war Final AP polls they basically look a lot like they do now. There will be the flash in the pans, the rise and falls with coaches, a few powered that have dropped, and a very few new powers, and the same group of about 20 or so that you keep seeing again and again. That last group may take a few years off every now and then, but they usually return after a while. I seriously doubt that changes much. What we have to shoot for is being the next FSU type. I think we do have a shot, because our situation in the past has been somewhat unique. Very few schools in that situation ever escape......but we may have already done it. I'm not talking about just sports either. Oklahoma State And VPI might be the only other real examples.

[deadheaddawg]

Only 2 teams had lower football budgets than us in 2017 (Missouri and vandy). You can win with smaller budgets, but it does make it harder. We are definitely at a disadvantage money wise. Being in the SEC helps, so 12th in the SEC isn't like 12th everywhere else, but there are more than 20 total teams ahead of us.

Just got to keep making good hires if needed. And the good news is, If we continue to we can move up a few of spots on the revenue list

[DanDority]

No to O.P.