Does exceeding our preseason rank mean we had a successful season?

[Tbonewannabe]

We started the year preseason #18. Right now we sit at #21 in AP, #25 in Coaches, and #23 in the Poll that matters. We finished #19 in the AP last year.

I would think if we exceeded our preseason ranking that means we exceeded National expectations or at least met them.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

No, because we all know our potential for the year was WAY higher. Any O and I think we beat UF and Kentucky (D held them to 14 at the start of the 4th, give them some help and they probably keep it that score), and finish 10-2. National media might say we exceeded expectations, but anyone that's seen our team play knows this terrible O cost us a great opportunity.

Also, I will say that this years' AP #10-25 is weaker than it was last year. Us and NW are ranked at 6-4, and that wouldn't have happened last year. Teams like Washington, Stanford, fake-MSU, PSU, Miami, TCU and Wisconsin are down vs last year and not a lot of new teams have popped up.

[Cooterpoot]

If we win 8 games, our season was good. I don't care what expectations were, win 8 and it's been a good year.

[Tbonewannabe]

No, because we all know our potential for the year was WAY higher. Any O and I think we beat UF and Kentucky (D held them to 14 at the start of the 4th, give them some help and they probably keep it that score), and finish 10-2. National media might say we exceeded expectations, but anyone that's seen our team play knows this terrible O cost us a great opportunity.

Also, I will say that this years' AP #10-25 is weaker than it was last year. Us and NW are ranked at 6-4, and that wouldn't have happened last year. Teams like Washington, Stanford, fake-MSU, PSU, Miami, TCU and Wisconsin are down vs last year and not a lot of new teams have popped up.

Well Vegas had us at 8.5 games, I am not sure if that includes the bowl game. Either way we are either 0.5 below assuming 2 more wins or 0.5 above assuming we win the bowl game.

I think a lot of people's expectations also hinged on 1) UK not being very good but they are likely a 9 win team, 2) UF not being good but Mullen is a good coach and UF has top 15 talent, 3)LSU game last year - the score being lopsided (assuming our talent level was a lot better than LSU, News flash - it isn't).

I personally thought we would be 9-3 with a possibility to be either 10-2 or 8-4. Unfortunately we lost UK who I figured we would beat.

[yjnkdawg]

If we win 8 games, our season was good. I don't care what expectations were, win 8 and it's been a good year.


Agree. You couldn't have stated it any more clearly or accurately.

[Tbonewannabe]

If we win 8 games, our season was good. I don't care what expectations were, win 8 and it's been a good year.

It seems our biggest issue is that people assumed we would have one of our top 5 seasons in MSU history with a new coach that changed the offense. I doubt anyone expected to struggle on offense including JoeMo. We have talent but no more than we have had on other teams in the past 10 years. Some people assumed that Moorhead would actually do more with this team than Mullen had proven that he could do.

[AROB44]

No, because we all know our potential for the year was WAY higher. Any O and I think we beat UF and Kentucky (D held them to 14 at the start of the 4th, give them some help and they probably keep it that score), and finish 10-2. National media might say we exceeded expectations, but anyone that's seen our team play knows this terrible O cost us a great opportunity.

Also, I will say that this years' AP #10-25 is weaker than it was last year. Us and NW are ranked at 6-4, and that wouldn't have happened last year. Teams like Washington, Stanford, fake-MSU, PSU, Miami, TCU and Wisconsin are down vs last year and not a lot of new teams have popped up.

So you speak for everyone?

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

So you speak for everyone?

lol is it controversial to say we aren't reaching our potential? Who disagrees with that? We were an injury away from winning 9 games last year. We improved on D, returned almost everything on O, and yet will have to work to win 8. Our O is averaging about 1/3 the ppg that it did last year and Rankin is the only real contributor gone. How can anyone say we've lived up to our potential when these same offensive players are so much less productive than last year? It's not even a hypothetical; last year PROVED our offenses ceiling is higher than how we've been playing. By definition that means we're not living up to our potential

[Tbonewannabe]

lol is it controversial to say we aren't reaching our potential? Who disagrees with that? We were an injury away from winning 9 games last year. We improved on D, returned almost everything on O, and yet will have to work to win 8. Our O is averaging about 1/3 the ppg that it did last year and Rankin is the only real contributor gone. How can anyone say we've lived up to our potential when these same offensive players are so much less productive than last year? It's not even a hypothetical; last year PROVED our offenses ceiling is higher than how we've been playing. By definition that means we're not living up to our potential

That potential is 100% based on Mullen calling the offensive plays. We also still have 2 games to go but will have played tougher defenses overall than we did last year. I don't understand how people don't comprehend that 2017 LSU at home doesn't equal 2018 LSU at Death Valley at night.

Pain did some statistical analysis and we are actually not far off last year when you take into account the defenses faced along with location. We are also ASSUMING that we will have the 2nd best record in the last decade even after a coaching change that changed our offense.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

That potential is 100% based on Mullen calling the offensive plays. We also still have 2 games to go but will have played tougher defenses overall than we did last year. I don't understand how people don't comprehend that 2017 LSU at home doesn't equal 2018 LSU at Death Valley at night.

Pain did some statistical analysis and we are actually not far off last year when you take into account the defenses faced along with location. We are also ASSUMING that we will have the 2nd best record in the last decade even after a coaching change that changed our offense.

NO!!! The potential is based on the roster. The coaches are the ones who are responsible for whether or not that team reaches that potential.

Florida underachieved relative to their potential under Mac. What that means is he didn't get what he could have from their roster or program. Mullen is not underachieving right now, which means he's getting the most out of his roster.

Whether a team achieves it potential is ALWAYS based on coaching. The team itself is what has the potential. Saying "last year we had a higher potential because Mullen called plays" is including coaching with the on field team talent.

With your logic no coach in history can ever be accused of underachieving, because if he's a bad coach that just means the potential was lower to begin with. And no coach can ever get praise fo doing really good, because if he's a good coach that gets included with the teams' potential so they should play like he gets them too.

If a big army loses a battle to a small one, do we say "well that army wasn't very good because the general sucked, so they didn't under perform" or do we say "Man that general sucked, his army was better and he's the reason they didn't do as good as they should have"? In the same way, if Moorhead can't get this O to be as good as the exact same players were 1 year earlier, then he underperformed and he's responsible.

Coaches are responsible for whether a team plays to it's potential, but the roster is what determines the team's potential.

[Tbonewannabe]

NO!!! The potential is based on the roster. The coaches are the ones who are responsible for whether or not that team reaches that potential.

Florida underachieved relative to their potential under Mac. What that means is he didn't get what he could have from their roster or program. Mullen is not underachieving right now, which means he's getting the most out of his roster.

Whether a team achieves it potential is ALWAYS based on coaching. The team itself is what has the potential. Saying "last year we had a higher potential because Mullen called plays" is including coaching with the on field team talent.

With your logic no coach in history can ever be accused of underachieving, because if he's a bad coach that just means the potential was lower to begin with. And no coach can ever get praise fo doing really good, because if he's a good coach that gets included with the teams' potential so they should play like he gets them too.

If a big army loses a battle to a small one, do we say "well that army wasn't very good because the general sucked, so they didn't under perform" or do we say "Man that general sucked, his army was better and he's the reason they didn't do as good as they should have"? In the same way, if Moorhead can't get this O to be as good as the exact same players were 1 year earlier, then he underperformed and he's responsible.

Coaches are responsible for whether a team plays to it's potential, but the roster is what determines the team's potential.

So if you change your offense from a triple option to a Mike Leach spread, you have the exact same expectations? Like it or not but Fitz was a horrible fit for our offense. Some games Joe has figured out how to get him in the correct plays and some he didn't.

For those same expectations, the defense is outperforming those expectations but now everyone is changing their predictions to include our new defense. With this defense, we should win 10 or 11 games. What should be said is, with our offense from last year and this years defense, we would win 10 or 11 games.

Offensive playcalling and use of offensive personnel is different than last year. That is why to truly compare you would need the same type of offense with a QB who has been in the exact same system for 5 years instead of 5 months.

[Goldendawg]

lol is it controversial to say we aren't reaching our potential? Who disagrees with that? We were an injury away from winning 9 games last year. We improved on D, returned almost everything on O, and yet will have to work to win 8. Our O is averaging about 1/3 the ppg that it did last year and Rankin is the only real contributor gone. How can anyone say we've lived up to our potential when these same offensive players are so much less productive than last year? It's not even a hypothetical; last year PROVED our offenses ceiling is higher than how we've been playing. By definition that means we're not living up to our potential

That we are ranked with a 6-4 record means to me that others know we should have won more games with this talent.

[BrunswickDawg]

That we are ranked with a 6-4 record means to me that others know we should have won more games with this talent.

By that logic others know that Florida and Kentucky - each with 3 losses - should have won more games with their talent.

[testuser]

Expectations on a yearly basis for us at MSU is 6-6. Anything else is gravy.

[DogsofAnarchy]

At MSU, if we go to a Bowl Game, we’ve had a successful season!! The sooner some of our idiot millennials get this....the better. We are NOT going any further until some of you accept that perception is not reality. Let Ole Miss live on that.

[Tbonewannabe]

That we are ranked with a 6-4 record means to me that others know we should have won more games with this talent.

Or it means our schedule at this point is tougher than expected. If UK and UF are both 4-6 then we aren't ranked like this. The AP poll doesn't care that we have talent which is why when you lose to Bama you don't drop like if you lose to Memphis.

[Quaoarsking]

Expectations on a yearly basis for us at MSU is 6-6. Anything else is gravy.

Uh, no. I'm a soft supporter of Moorhead, but gtfo with this awful attitude.

[testuser]

Uh, no. I'm a soft supporter of Moorhead, but gtfo with this awful attitude.

Total record: 570-547-37 (lost or tied more times than have won)

Adjusted record (not sure what this means): 553-565-36 (lost or tied more times than have won)


So, please take off your Mr/Ms optimist glasses and face reality.

[sleepy dawg]

At MSU, if we go to a Bowl Game, we?ve had a successful season!! The sooner some of our idiot millennials get this....the better. We are NOT going any further until some of you accept that perception is not reality. Let Ole Miss live on that.

Going to a bowl game does not make a "successful" season. We went 5-7 and went to a bowl game... Sure, it was nice to keep the streak a live, but that was not "successful". If you're succeeding every single year with relative ease, it's time to raise the bar a bit.

[Tbonewannabe]

Going to a bowl game does not make a "successful" season. We went 5-7 and went to a bowl game... Sure, it was nice to keep the streak a live, but that was not "successful". If you're succeeding every single year with relative ease, it's time to raise the bar a bit.

I agree that the bar probably needs to be raised. My problem is a lot of people raised the bar to basically the best season in MSU history or it was a disappointment. People act like 10-2 was a given even though we have 4 years in over 100 hundred seasons that has happened.

[Quaoarsking]

Total record: 570-547-37 (lost or tied more times than have won)

Adjusted record (not sure what this means): 553-565-36 (lost or tied more times than have won)


So, please take off your Mr/Ms optimist glasses and face reality.

Who cares what happened decades ago? What's our record since the SEC expansion kicked off the modern era of football?

[Tbonewannabe]

Who cares what happened decades ago? What's our record since the SEC expansion kicked off the modern era of football?

Two 10 win seasons in around 30 years although that was somehow the expectation this year. One of which happened when the SEC West wasn't dominating college football.

[sleepy dawg]

I agree that the bar probably needs to be raised. My problem is a lot of people raised the bar to basically the best season in MSU history or it was a disappointment. People act like 10-2 was a given even though we have 4 years in over 100 hundred seasons that has happened.

That's not completely true, at least not the way you spin it. It's not an every year thing either. Is it not okay for us to have thought 10 regular season wins this year was a very real possibility and be disappointed that we didn't achieve it? Why does this bother so many fans whenever all the stars were looking to align? We can't I look at the pieces we have and say based on last year and what I expect the new pieces to be, we look like a 10+ win team?

We won 8 regular season games last year and would've won 9 if Ole Miss hadn't taken out Fitz in that game. It seems and seemed pretty reasonable for us to at the minimum maintain that, but probably improve upon that, because we have some really amazing talent, and a lot of it. Turns out a couple of teams were a little better than we thought and our coach didn't have us anywhere near where we needed to be to compete for that number of wins. 10 wins with a great hire for a coach was very much in play. It wasn't even close to a long shot given last years season, so it makes complete sense for me to want and expect at the minimum 9 wins (assuming no major injuries). We were wrong about Moorhead more than we were wrong about Kentucky, Florida, and maybe LSU. We had tough games last year too. We played Georgia, Bama, and Auburn last year, who all finished the season in the top 10 and Bama and Georgia were 1 and 2.

Our expectations weren't out of line for our team. Where we were most wrong was thinking Moorhead is an offensive genius. He is not. He may be able to run 1 system good if he has the right players, but we were way wrong about him being an all around great coach. I admit I was wrong about him now, but if he was what I thought he was coming into the season, we are at a minimum a 9 win team this year, and very likely 10 win team.

[Tbonewannabe]

That's not completely true, at least not the way you spin it. It's not an every year thing either. Is it not okay for us to have thought 10 regular season wins this year was a very real possibility and be disappointed that we didn't achieve it? Why does this bother so many fans whenever all the stars were looking to align? We can't I look at the pieces we have and say based on last year and what I expect the new pieces to be, we look like a 10+ win team?

We won 8 regular season games last year and would've won 9 if Ole Miss hadn't taken out Fitz in that game. It seems and seemed pretty reasonable for us to at the minimum maintain that, but probably improve upon that, because we have some really amazing talent, and a lot of it. Turns out a couple of teams were a little better than we thought and our coach didn't have us anywhere near where we needed to be to compete for that number of wins. 10 wins with a great hire for a coach was very much in play. It wasn't even close to a long shot given last years season, so it makes complete sense for me to want and expect at the minimum 9 wins (assuming no major injuries). We were wrong about Moorhead more than we were wrong about Kentucky, Florida, and maybe LSU. We had tough games last year too. We played Georgia, Bama, and Auburn last year, who all finished the season in the top 10 and Bama and Georgia were 1 and 2.

Our expectations weren't out of line for our team. Where we were most wrong was thinking Moorhead is an offensive genius. He is not. He may be able to run 1 system good if he has the right players, but we were way wrong about him being an all around great coach. I admit I was wrong about him now, but if he was what I thought he was coming into the season, we are at a minimum a 9 win team this year, and very likely 10 win team.

1) Expecting basically the greatest season in MSU history is expecting a lot. Was it possible, yes but likely probably not.

2) Expecting 10 wins actually didn't take into account that maybe Fitz isn't very good in Moorhead's offense. It doesn't mean Fitz is a horrible QB. He is a Great QB in Mullen's offense, not so great in Moorhead's. This fact hands down cost us UF along with Mitchell not catching the damn ball when Fitz actually threw a good pass.

Everyone was talking about Moorhead's offense typically took 4-5 games before it really clicked. It didn't help that we ended up playing at UK during that process.

Answer honestly, if you replace at UK with at UGA, does your opinion change? Guess what, UK is actually giving up less points per game than UGA did last year although it is less than 1 point difference.

UF is honestly the biggest head scratcher but we just all assumed Mullen wouldn't improve them into a top 15 team this year. Everyone thinks about UF sucking last year but they still have top 15 talent. Even with that, we win if Mitchell catches that ball.