Just tweeted committedQuote:
Originally Posted by Goldendawg
Printable View
Just tweeted committedQuote:
Originally Posted by Goldendawg
2014 we had a legitimate shot of at the very least playing for a national championship. I don't think that happens in this current state of things. Dak may not have been a bulldog very long along with a slew of others. I'd much rather have the under the table dealings of before a million times over than this. We missed out on Cam for what 200 thousand? That's 7 figures if it was today.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Exactly. That was just 9 short years ago. No way we could keep a team like that together now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Bingo, well stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coursesuper
Yes there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Dak wouldn't have left after 2013. There was just no way for anyone to know he would have made such a big jump from 2013 (when he was solid but nothing special) to 2014 (when he probably should have won the Heisman, in hindsight).Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
It's possible he could have transferred somewhere after 2014, but remember that he could have done that anyway since he would have been a graduate transfer. I think we would have held on to him in 2015 since it's not like that team had a bunch of other superstars, so we could have put up a 7-figure package for him.
I don’t think we would have lost Dak. It’s the other guys like a Bear Wilson or Fred Ross that we would have had trouble keeping plus some others on D
Explain to me how we are positioned any differently than we were in 2009-2017. You can't. Because, factually, we aren't. Same money and resources relative to everybody else. If we make the right hires we can absolutely average 7.1-4.9 just like Dan did here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coursesuper
And if we were coming off 2014 right now we'd pay Dak the 1.5 or 2 it would take and have another 6 million to divided between the rest. Our resources are the same they've always been relative to the competitionQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
No there’s not. See I can do that too. I can spew bullshit with no real evidence at any time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSailsDawg
I don’t know how to put other than if you can’t see for yourself how the landscape of collegiate athletics has changed for the worse for us I can’t help out here. Don’t lose it if we end up in the same situation as Wazzu and Ore State.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Thats not really being fair. Mullen averaged 8 wins per after his 1st initial season- not to mention he won 33 games his last 4 seasons and had built a roster in 2018 that was his best yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
No he didn't. Taking year 1 away he averaged 7.38-4.62. Still very doable for lebby in years 2-9 if he stays here 9 years. Yall acting like that's now impossible in today's landscape is insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
And Dan also threw up a 5-7 in year 8. He averaged 7.1-4.9 over 9 seasons. Very doable for lebby.
The biggest difference is in 2009 with Cam we weren't willing to pay or play the game. Now we have the opportunity to do so because paying players isn't illegal anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I think the new schedule format is going to help us out too. Remember 2022 when we had to play Alabama, Georgia, and LSU and went 8-4? It's going to be very unusual IMO for us to have a schedule that brutal- maybe 2 teams like that but not three. With today's format that team is probably a 10-3 team on the year including the bowl if not better.
And to your point Moorhead averaged what? 7.5 wins in two years? Leach averaged 6.7 with funky SEC scheduling in 2020 and if you take out 2020 he averaged 8.
Mullen won 64 games in his last 8 seasons after a 5-7 1st season rebuild. 64 divided by 8 = 8Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Could Lebby average 7 wins? Probably. But it damn sure wont be any more than that. What we are saying is the road to 9 and 10 wins is going to be much tougher than it even was 5 years ago. College football is in a state of constant metamorphosis now.
No. He won 59 regular season games his last 8 years, 64 over 9 years, which is what the conversation was about. We were discussing whether 7-5/8-4 was possible anymore. Whether a bowl game is won or lost has nothing to do with that. And a lot of players and coaches don't even participate in bowl games. Irrelevant metric outside of playoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
You say Lebby won't average any more than 7 wins?Is that some big statement? The debate started when I said Dan averaged 7.1-4.9 and that I see no reason that we can't be that going forward, and what was said by those on your side of the argument in response is that 7-5/8-4 was no longer doable, that we couldn't be what we've been in the past anymore due to the new era of cfb. The best sustained run we've ever had was Dan's 7.1-4.9 run. That's doable. And our past as a whole is worse than that, more like 6-6 which is certainly doable.
No sane person is arguing we will be a 9 or 10 win program.
I believe things will return to the mean like they almost always do. I think we're starting to see some of the first signs of it now. Look at TAMU and the Jimbo contract. They're not going to spend that much again and have a limit on the assistant coach pool ($11M total). Also hearing LSU is having some NIL issues. I think we are a cycle or two away from starting to see some logic being applied. Think multi year deals that lock players in or have a financial penalty for leaving. Also, may see more teams like Bama, UGA etc. saying if you go into the portal you lose your spot. At some point, not just for the dollar aspect, but you e gotta think the coaches are going to get tired of recruiting and re-recruiting the same kids year after year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
I'm all for the kids cashing in. Yeah they get the scholly and perks that come with it but anybody here that believes the universities are putting academics first are fooling themselves. When you figure in class time and other requirements these kids are putting 12 hour days and a lot of that is before they get to homework. Also, their body and ability is their commodity. That can be taken from them in one snap of the ball. They deserve to make money...within reason.
Yes exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Dan had 69 wins here in 9 years. That's 7.6-5.1. The last 8 years his average was 8-4.9. Bowl games are relevant. The trend of players sitting out is still fairly recent. I don't think that was a big deal until maybe the last year or two of Mullen's tenure.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Also will add that Cohen was a terrible AD. Just terrible, and it couldn't have come at a worse time with all the changes that came at the time. Beer sales, NIL, etc. We were late to the game with all of those. The guy had no vision or strategic plan. When you're in a role like that you have to have those things. Anyway, point is we can come back from it but it's going to take some time. I believe Selmon is going to get us there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolph Dupree
It's not BS. It's understanding the new system. You can 100% build a program in the NIL age. And it's not really that difficult to understand either. Just because there is NIL and Portal doesn't mean there is not way. Here it is. Build your team around high 3 to 4 star players out of the portal that have 2 to 3 years left. They can not transfer again until they are a GT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coursesuper
The debate was whether we could "be a 7-5/8-4 program in this era." I said we could. That literally was my first statement on the topic at issue. Course disagreed and said that was the past and things are different now. I responded with a challenge to point out to me how we cannot possibly equal the best time in our history and average 7.1-4.9. He retorted that he couldnt explain it but that I should be able to see it for myself. C34 then chimed in to our debate with an irrelevant metric that Dan won 5 bowl games during his time here. I pointed out that has nothing to do with whether we can be a 7.1-4.9 program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Bowl games literally, factually, cannot be relevant to a debate of whether we can be a 7-5/8-4 program, not unless we switch to 11 regular season games. They can certainly be relevant to other debates though, such as whether or not they are important to make or a coach's overall win total at a school.
In today's World, MSU has to have a coach that can come in and teach the system effectively using what he has. He has to be a great recruiter that understands the Portal is now your "High School" source in that they can not transfer again. But anybody saying we can not duplicate Mullen win or loss record refuses to look at Leach's last year. 9-4... in the NIL and PORTAL WORLD.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I don't disagree. I would say that we don't know if leach could sustain being a 7.1-4.9 program in the portal era because he died before having the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSailsDawg
But I agree with your larger point that we can be a 7.1-4.9 regular season program in this era.
And if the debate is taken out of the context regular season only context, I also agree it is possible to average 7.67-5.1 counting bowl games, which is what Dan did.
There is a top QB in the portal, using it for an example. He has 3 years left. Pay him 1.5 Million. If he comes here, you got your franchise QB. And there is more than enough just like him except the rating may be a 4 star... a high 3 star.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I hate it for HS students. Less opportunities due to the portal. I hate the system. I hate the results for college football. But it can still be done and done at MSU
Kiffin has a good solution to this and that is to primarily recruit the portal over HS signees. Players an only transfer once (unless their coach leaves). By taking guys for their one transfer, they are at Ole Miss period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Bingo. J-Rob's flaky arse would've jumped first chance he got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
The missing part of this for a lot of our fans is that yes, it does appear that we have raised close to 10 million for the BI which is awesome, but this is not a one off. We can't spend 10 million for next year's team and simply expect to reload the BI with another 10 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSailsDawg
You commit to paying a QB 1.5 million A YEAR, then when next year comes, that is a big bill right off the top.
This is why I think the whole system is screwed, we may end up spending 7-8 million on next year's roster, and unless we land some real difference makers in the portal, we will struggle to go 6-6 or 7-5. Our schedule is tough and our roster is depleted. How do you keep going to alumni telling them we need another 8-10 million just to keep the team together for another year and go out and land impact players in the portal?
All the hype about Deion and all the players he brought into Colorado, and he went 4-8 with a damn good QB and a first round talent CB/WR in Hunter and that was in the Pac 12.
They get a 2nd chance to transfer once they become a gradQuote:
Originally Posted by OhGee
That's nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Who said it was? Jus ttalking about hoe we have a FA system in college football thats hurting it severelyQuote:
Originally Posted by BlackSailsDawg
Good grief, who is talking about poor ol Mittittippi Tate now?
I get that we didn't look great last year at WR, but we didn't look good anywhere. Bump has been learning from a good coach. I'm not ready to write off his coaching ability because he didn't manage to provide more polish to the turd this year. We clearly were just dysfunctional all over the program and not every coach on last year's staff is going to turn out to be a shitty coach. Some of them were just victims of circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by KOdawg1