The Truth About Head Coaches and MSU Football

[Dildoes]

Let me preface this post by saying that it certainly doesn?t appear that the Moorhead hire is working out. I?d love for the guy to succeed, but right now it looks like he?s not even treading water. Our recruiting efforts took a slight bump up, but the on-the-field product has fallen short of honestly reasonable expectations. I say this so folks don?t think I?m trying to make excuses for Moorhead/Cohen.

The truth is that 9 times out of 10, any time we hire a new head football coach, it?s gonna be disastrous. Look at the field that was available when the Moorhead hire happened. Look at who our best options were. Understand this through the lens of the 2017 coaching search and the 2018/2019 results. This is something that will be repeated most years we could be on the hunt for a new coach. The list of desirable, available coaches that would ?be a good fit? is very small on any given year and may honestly be empty on most. The stars aligned with Mullen, and yet even he wasn?t a perfect match (more on that later).

Whether you like it or not, the Moorhead hire was a good one on paper. Again, it doesn?t appear to be panning out, but he checked most of the boxes you could have asked for (although missing a key one coming up). I was particularly happy with having another HC dedicated to a specific offense. The OC/DC position being the revolving door that it is (and this is happening everywhere, not just MSU) promotes this aspect - I?m of the opinion it?s much easier to re-tool a defense with a given set of players than to try and do the same with wildly different offenses (especially with our recruiting profile).

I say all this to say that, provided Moorhead doesn?t right the ship, the next head coach needs to be one with strong MSU ties. I?m not even sure if such a person exists that would also be a good coaching fit, but I don?t believe we will be successful in truly elevating the program without this aspect. Hudspeth is the obvious answer, but he may not have the coaching chops to achieve that success. For all the good Mullen did for the program, he clearly never intended on MSU being his last coaching stop. This ultimately limited his ceiling here. I don?t blame Mullen for this at all - he?s entitled to his own ambitions - but it clearly influenced his performance. I can almost guarantee that Moorhead will/would have been the same way. With this in mind, any coaching hire without a strong chance of sticking around through success is just asking for another roll of the dice 3, 5, or 10 years down the road.

The only way to break that cycle is to truly elevate the football program through a decade+ of sustained success. Otherwise, we?ll continue to be a stepping-stone and subject to regression to the mean every time we make a hire. This is where an MSU guy can make the difference. He would actually have a non-monetary reason to stick around through success. We need our Frank Beamer if we even want to have a shot at this lofty goal (not a perfect analogy given VaTech?s current state, but you get the idea).

The ?total package? coach probably doesn?t and may never exist. But maybe, just maybe though, a guy like Hudspeth, with the right coaching pieces around him, could achieve this success. At any rate, I?d feel much better about the future of the program if our next hire had a realistic chance of sticking around because he wants to build MSU into a long-term winner.

[ShotgunDawg]

I completely agree, but you can't force it.

We tried this with Rocky and that was a disaster as well. Michigan continues to try this, and has had little success.

If there is an MSU guy that has the ability to do a great job, then hire him, but you can't force it.

[Liverpooldawg]

Let me preface this post by saying that it certainly doesn?t appear that the Moorhead hire is working out. I?d love for the guy to succeed, but right now it looks like he?s not even treading water. Our recruiting efforts took a slight bump up, but the on-the-field product has fallen short of honestly reasonable expectations. I say this so folks don?t think I?m trying to make excuses for Moorhead/Cohen.

The truth is that 9 times out of 10, any time we hire a new head football coach, it?s gonna be disastrous. Look at the field that was available when the Moorhead hire happened. Look at who our best options were. Understand this through the lens of the 2017 coaching search and the 2018/2019 results. This is something that will be repeated most years we could be on the hunt for a new coach. The list of desirable, available coaches that would ?be a good fit? is very small on any given year and may honestly be empty on most. The stars aligned with Mullen, and yet even he wasn?t a perfect match (more on that later).

Whether you like it or not, the Moorhead hire was a good one on paper. Again, it doesn?t appear to be panning out, but he checked most of the boxes you could have asked for (although missing a key one coming up). I was particularly happy with having another HC dedicated to a specific offense. The OC/DC position being the revolving door that it is (and this is happening everywhere, not just MSU) promotes this aspect - I?m of the opinion it?s much easier to re-tool a defense with a given set of players than to try and do the same with wildly different offenses (especially with our recruiting profile).

I say all this to say that, provided Moorhead doesn?t right the ship, the next head coach needs to be one with strong MSU ties. I?m not even sure if such a person exists that would also be a good coaching fit, but I don?t believe we will be successful in truly elevating the program without this aspect. Hudspeth is the obvious answer, but he may not have the coaching chops to achieve that success. For all the good Mullen did for the program, he clearly never intended on MSU being his last coaching stop. This ultimately limited his ceiling here. I don?t blame Mullen for this at all - he?s entitled to his own ambitions - but it clearly influenced his performance. I can almost guarantee that Moorhead will/would have been the same way. With this in mind, any coaching hire without a strong chance of sticking around through success is just asking for another roll of the dice 3, 5, or 10 years down the road.

The only way to break that cycle is to truly elevate the football program through a decade+ of sustained success. Otherwise, we?ll continue to be a stepping-stone and subject to regression to the mean every time we make a hire. This is where an MSU guy can make the difference. He would actually have a non-monetary reason to stick around through success. We need our Frank Beamer if we even want to have a shot at this lofty goal (not a perfect analogy given VaTech?s current state, but you get the idea).

The ?total package? coach probably doesn?t and may never exist. But maybe, just maybe though, a guy like Hudspeth, with the right coaching pieces around him, could achieve this success. At any rate, I?d feel much better about the future of the program if our next hire had a realistic chance of sticking around because he wants to build MSU into a long-term winner.

Hudspeth is unhireable at MSU right now. We are on probation and we can not go hire a guy with NCAA baggage. I'm not sure we would ever hire him.

[Cooterpoot]

Moorhead wasn’t a great hire on paper IMO. Sorry, there were things missed by our slack ass AD.

[Todd4State]

What you are talking about is why I think MSU should hire Shane Beamer. He doesn't have the NCAA baggage that Hud has and may be more qualified.

The thing about it as far as MSU football it's like from an upper management level we don't do enough to reach our ceiling. It's almost like on some level they don't really believe that we can be really good or that our ceiling is really only 7-8 wins and why go for more than that because hey, we're MSU. I feel like we limit ourselves or we make really obviously poor choices.

For example- what a poster said on here yesterday about "Stricklin's model" about how the "MSU formula" is to hire up and coming assistants except in rare cases like baseball. WTH is that? Does anyone here really and truly believe that we can't at the very least hire one of the best coaches in the Sun Belt? And why restrict ourselves to just up and coming assistants? It does make our last search make some sense because every rumored or confirmed candidate was an assistant there were ZERO former head coaches above the FCS level. Hiring assistants only is an extremely risky way to manage a coaching staff of a SEC football team.

And then there's the S&C issue. Why would we ever think that it's a good idea to go cheap there? That's insane to me.

I just feel like the MSU AD is constantly trying to lower expectations recently and that's a huge disconnect- especially at the prices that they charge for tickets and the gameday atmosphere which is basically unchanged since 2013.

I just wish that they would actually TRY to be first class in football instead of "hey we hired this offensive guru from Pennsylvania who coached at an Ivy League school who's just going to out scheme everyone so we can just go cheap on S&C now."

I feel like MSU totally alienates our fans in sooooo many ways in football- probably more than any program in the SEC. And yet in baseball it's completely the opposite. And yeah I know MSU baseball is the crown jewel of MSU athletics but could MSU at least TRY in football?

For example:

1. Hired a coach that literally no one likes at any level in the MSU family. And he's probably not a bad guy- but he's not a fit at all. You have a 1% minority that support the guy, probably 60% that want him gone and 39% that just feel sorry for him. And maybe his daughter.

2. We hear about absolutely frustrating lack of common sense issues off the field- like going cheap on S&C and not focusing enough on discipline. Is it really too much for ANY fan base to ask that their team line up correctly and not get into fights during the game?

3. The gameday issues that we have to deal with EVERY year at the beginning of the year. Traffic issues in game one for the past how many years? It's like MSU sees the Men in Black at the end of the year and stare into their little pen light and forget everything gameday related. Metal detectors not working. Concession stand issues. New food promised. Where?

4. Being forced to "like" certain logos. I see interlocking MSU's every single gameday even though it hasn't been used in 20 years. Is it really too much to bring something similar back to MSU football? For every other school in the SEC- no. I don't buy the "We can't buy it back from Nike BS either." Well take it out of LT's retirement pension then if that's the case. And then why are we wearing white helmets every game? "Because the players and recruits like them"? But totally screw the people paying to watch the product. As I said before the MOST excited I've ever seen our team about a uniform- 2014 against USM when we brought out the 1999 throwbacks with maroon helmets. What other school does this to their fans?

5. Playing the biggest game in the state on Thanksgiving. This is just dumb. Especially if you're trying to get a sellout. MSU football or your family. You choose. Or you can have Thanksgiving by the comfort of Dorman Hall just like the Pilgrims.

[Cooterpoot]

This idea that we need a Frank Beamer is horse shit. His career is the exception, not the rule. And you’ll see now that long term coaches just aren’t a thing anymore. And anyone wanting Hud is a damn fool.

[Leroy Jenkins]

5. Playing the biggest game in the state on Thanksgiving. This is just dumb. Especially if you're trying to get a sellout. MSU football or your family. You choose. Or you can have Thanksgiving by the comfort of Dorman Hall just like the Pilgrims.

I don't think its about getting butts in the seats. I think the intent/logic was exposure; having a large TV audience while the majority of the country is gathered around watching football at Grandma's house on Thanksgiving. Back before everything was live-stream on 250 channels, we would play on Thursday night pretty regularly throughout the season. That was about the only way we could get on a major network and didn't have to compete for the TV exposure. I had hoped that with the SEC welfare check and SECN money we would have moved beyond that by now.

[Mobile Bay]

As long as Brent Venables is not a head coach somewhere then you cannot say the coaching pool is short.

[Todd4State]

I don't think its about getting butts in the seats. I think the intent/logic was exposure; having a large TV audience while the majority of the country is gathered around watching football at Grandma's house on Thanksgiving. Back before everything was live-stream on 250 channels, we would play on Thursday night pretty regularly throughout the season. That was about the only way we could get on a major network and didn't have to compete for the TV exposure. I had hoped that with the SEC welfare check and SECN money we would have moved beyond that by now.

I think the "exposure" thing is a thing of the past. Now it's simply a poor decision.

[Cooterpoot]

Nobody associated with State believes we can have a top program. Most fans don’t believe it either. So, how will we ever be great?

[msbulldog]

I disagree Poot.

[basedog]

Playing on Thanksgiving has been going on a long time. It’s not dumb when we are winning. I’ve seen sellouts or close to it going way back to say 1970.

Dumb fire, yes it is now, but I’ve been told Joe’s interview was excellent and he got rave reviews from many other coaches.
Saying Cohen is dumb, I don’t see it, I also don’t see him as being bad. Regardless what a few on here may say, but our athletic department is way ahead of the past, I see better years ahead as looking back from way back to now is night and day!

To think coaching hires is easy, just check out our past list.

[1bigdawg]

Playing on Thanksgiving has been going on a long time. It’s not dumb when we are winning. I’ve seen sellouts or close to it going way back to say 1970.

Dumb fire, yes it is now, but I’ve been told Joe’s interview was excellent and he got rave reviews from many other coaches.
Saying Cohen is dumb, I don’t see it, I also don’t see him as being bad. Regardless what a few on here may say, but our athletic department is way ahead of the past, I see better years ahead as looking back from way back to now is night and day!

To think coaching hires is easy, just check out our past list.

Ditto on Cohen. I believe he is doing a better job. Moorhead was considered a home run hire by many who should know. It has not worked but neither do most coaching hires.

[KB21]

Ditto on Cohen. I believe he is doing a better job. Moorhead was considered a home run hire by many who should know. It has not worked but neither do most coaching hires.

I’m not sure anyone who was hired in that hiring cycle has been a home run hire.

[Dawgfan77]

I don?t think they have to have MSU ties. I do however believe these things in order
1. Must have southern ties preferably SEC coaching experience as an assistant. So they understand the conference
2. Must have demonstrated a successful HC resume at the G-5 level
3. Understand offense and schemes to take advantage of weakness
4. History of developing players
5. Display a history of good recruiting

[Really Clark?]

I’m not sure anyone who was hired in that hiring cycle has been a home run hire.

Mullen, Cristobal, Josh Huepal, Billy Napier and Sonny Dykes have been dang close if not a home run. Herm Edwards has been better than a lot thought he would be.

[dawgs]

As long as Brent Venables is not a head coach somewhere then you cannot say the coaching pool is short.

He's turned down bigger programs with more history and more money than we've got over the years. He's not a HC by choice, not for lack of opportunity.

[Bothrops]

Nobody associated with State believes we can have a top program. Most fans don’t believe it either. So, how will we ever be great?

We won't.

[dantheman4248]

Mullen, Cristobal, Josh Huepal, Billy Napier and Sonny Dykes have been dang close if not a home run. Herm Edwards has been better than a lot thought he would be.

Josh lost two games already this year. I disagree on him.

[KB21]

He's turned down bigger programs with more history and more money than we've got over the years. He's not a HC by choice, not for lack of opportunity.

Remember when Bud Foster used to be mentioned for head coaching jobs? Yeah. That’s Brent Venables now.

[Coach34]

Nobody associated with State believes we can have a top program. Most fans don’t believe it either. So, how will we ever be great?

2014- 10-3
2015- 9-4
2016- 6-7
2017- 9-4
2018- best roster we have had in modern history...1980 only other one that compares- 8-5 underachievement

We have to find the guy like Mullen that recognizes the diamonds in Miss, Looziana, and Bammer- and can reel in a few top notch guys each year. Have a team ready to compete with the top 10 every 3-4 years. Being a Redshirt program is ok- telling WR recruits the 1st thing they are going to learn to do at State is block is not.