Printable View
This just confirms to me that the national media expects MSU to be absolute doo doo in football despite being a consistent top 25 recruiter, having a 63,000 seat stadium, state of the art facilities, & pro caliber players in the NFL. Travis Haney just said that Mullen overachieved in a 5-7 year, where a team with all these resources lost to South Alabama, Kentucky, & BYU.
I like everyone else am excited about how the season ended, but "overachieving"? Goodness
http://i.imgur.com/FYe5Dgm.jpg
Your reading a lot more in to what he said than I would.
I would say over achieving is a compliment rather than a knock.
And he was spot on about the Cowboys being the right place for Da.
Yeah we have been a really bad football program for most of our history. It takes a long time to reverse that image.
Tells me Haney doesn't know shit about college football.
I didn't read it that way. It sounded like a good compliment to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
I think once Fitz does well and if we win 8 games with a different cast opinions will start to change.
Blast me if you want but I think in a lot of ways Mullen has it made in his current job. MSU is BY FAR in its best position in the history of the school to have a competitive football program in terms of budget, resources, exposure, etc. Heck, kids all over the place want to play in the SEC. YET, Mullen is only judged in his job performance by being compared against the lackluster history of MSU football when we had WAY more disadvantages than we do today. So anytime we win 6 or 7 games and make a bowl (even if done primarily on the back of beating OOC teams) then Mullen has overachieved and State fans should count their lucky stars he is around. I like Mullen and think he has done a nice job but he also has some obvious flaws as well. If the media and outside observers are ALWAYS going to predict us to be last in the SEC West every year no matter the circumstance then Mullen will always look like he is overachieving when he does anything beyond that. I wish I had a job where expectations were so low. Sure makes it easy to excel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time
Never heard of him.
Well, we shouldn't have lost to USA, UK, or BYU to begin with, and then the national media would be saying DM and MSU rebounded well after losing Prescott. However you chose to take Haney's comments, the fact still remains that we had no business finishing 5-7. If we had not destroyed OM in the EB, this place would be an absolute den of negativity.
The majority of the media knows absolute doo doo about football or MSU. We shouldnt have lost to USA, UK or BYU though
Isn't that the guy who tried to teach charles barkley how to swing a golf club? I don't listen to golf instructors about their opinion on football teams. *******
If we had played defense all year like we did in Egg Bowl and had a kicker, we would have at least been 8-4...
I thought Green Acres was cancelled years ago and that guy had died??
We shouldn't have finished 5-7. But, I think a lot of fans and media understand that outside of the elite programs every once in a while teams have a season like ours. I kind of viewed this season like Jackie's 3-6-2 team in '93. Everything that could go wrong did. Not a damn thing bounced our way. Every mistake came at the exact wrong moment. But, we bounced back in '94 and won 8 games. Same thing happened in '95. We just couldn't recover in '96 (which I chalk up to Keifer's death)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thick
The biggest thing that went wrong about this season was the total makeover on defense. Having to change DCs again and replacing the entire defensive staff while moving to a new scheme was not what you wanted in a year that you were on a learning curve with a new QB. I'm still not sold that a Sirmon defense is going to allow us to accomplish much but I guess we will find out next year since it looks like there will be no change. We looked good on defense in the BYU game and the second half of the Egg Bowl. Not a lot to hang your hat on but looks like we will get an infusion of JUCO talent on the defensive side so hopefully that will help quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
It was a compliment to Dan, but it definitely shows that they have an overly negative perception of State. The reality is that Mullen did a great job of keeping the team and recovering and building after a shitastic job getting the team ready for the season. That's not to say it's all on Dan; sometimes you just get a bad mix of players that won't take instruction until they bottom out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
But in no way was this year over achieving. We lost to a USA team that we never should have lost to, lost to BYU and UK teams that most charitably to Dan should have been toss ups that we should have split. I'm excited about the way we finished and Dan did a good job during the season of keeping things together (and handling Fitz the right way after USA), so plenty to be positive about and plenty of positive you can say about Dan's overall tenure (in which he has overachieved), but to say Dan overachieved this year is laughable.
To me, this is a common misperception...or at least an overstatement. If you actually dive into the numbers, taking away the forfeits that should never have happened, we have not actually been "really bad for most of our history".Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time
In fact, we've only been "really bad" a total of about 29 years of our nearly 120 years of playing football. We've just been so bad during a lot of those chunks that our overall record looks pretty bad.
I'm not talking about the occasional losing season or 3 in a 10-year-or so stretch, but rather when we've been mostly below .500 in those chunks. That's only happened from:
1928-1934
1958-1973
2001-2006 (Really bad)
Outside of those chunks, we've been mostly average...sometimes good, and sometimes pretty damn good. If you take away the 19 forfeits, we'd actually have a winning record all-time.
Furthermore, if you took away just the Bama series, you know, the most dominant football program of all time, we'd then be 542-464-36. BTW, did you know we've played Bama in Tuscaloosa 52 times, but in Starkville just 22 times? Did you know from the beginning of our Bama series through 1968, we had to play them as a visiting team 37 times, vs just 14 as a home team?
Would it surprise you to learn...if you look at seasons where we played at least 7 games, we have:
54 winning seasons
50 losing seasons
4 break even
Certainly we have not been a powerhouse, or even a very-good team throughout our history. But we not actually as historically bad as most of our fans seem to think.
That's not what he said. He said we overachieved in two games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
I was responding to the posted tweet, where he said "Even in a 5-7 season, his team overachieved, beat rivals, and made a bowl." Not sure what he said elsewhere, but that tweet is incorrect if you're looking at the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
I don't dwell on the past too much. Who cares what happened back in the 80's and back. The players, the media/coverage, the money, coaches' salaries, etc have all changed by gigantic leaps and bounds. What MSU has done since '91 is not bad, and could have been better in all honesty. The present is what really counts in moving forward. We had a down year because of some poor coaching decisions, lack of team leadership, some lack of talent, etc, but we could have and should have been better, period! While you can get upset over some nobody's opinion or not, we should still hold our staff accountable for the results.
Yes, we put it on our rival. We beat aTm and USCe, but all 3 of those teams would have beaten at LEAST 2 out of the 3 (USA, BYU, UK) we lost to on any given Saturday. That's what bothers me the most about this season, and IMO, that's a great deal of underachieving.
Exactly. I find it hard to believe that we don't have another kicker who could have been as good or better than Graves with a hurt back and that Aeris learned how to block as soon as Holloway got hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thick
At least Dan said he needs to be harder on our guys in the offseason so hopefully he corrects some things so this doesn't happen again.
I look forward to a much better 2017. Losing to USA, Ky, and BYU left me with a very bad taste for 2016 and 5 -7 is still 5 -7 even when we stomp UNM. 5 -7 also gets you no good press from a national media still in a love fest with UNM, many of which still confuse us with UNM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully
That is a lot of mental gymnastics on your part.
I believe Keifer played in 96. It was the 97 season that was played the season after his death. He died august of 97. We went 7-4 that season and missed on a bowl game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Why do all of you keep lumping byu in with USA and ky as bad losses?? Byu was on the road in the middle of the night on a weekday against an 8-4 team who had 1 point losses on the road at #19 Utah and on the road at Boise, and a 3 point loss on the road at #16 wv. Byu was a cu*t hair from being in a big 6 game. They weren't samford or umass.
Because I think we were better than them and should always win OOC games. JMO.
There are plenty of times you play teams favored to beat you, outplay them and should win, but lose (see Clemson v Bama last year). That doesn't make it a bad loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldendawg
ETA: you edited your post while I was replying to your pre-edited post.
Maybe...but it's true. We've had more winning seasons than losing. There's not a lot of "great" in there, and there's a significant amount of "bad", but we've mostly been fairly average, and occasionally good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time
College Football Data Warehouse has us #41 All-Time out of 125 teams. If you pull out the Ivy League (there due to their success through the 30's), we're at #39. Even if you pull out all the schools that are no longer FBS, or are now considered sad-sack FBS, we're still #39 out of approximately 100 or so teams.
So yeah....we're not technically what one should consider an historically bad team. But we are perceived that way.
Imagine how many teams that would have significantly worse All-Time records than they do to date if they played Bama, LSU, Auburn every year, and those Vaught teams of the late-40's through the mid 70's.
Something tells me we'd be a little higher than #39 if that were the case.
What it is, is what it is, but add the Tyler years' forfeits back to our wins and off our losses and things are a little better overall in our history. I think what happened on the field should not be changed record wise, except in the upcoming case of UNM!
Because we have better athletes, we should be faster, and quite simply they play nobody compared to what we play year in and year out. We should always be a more physical team then BYU. Do you think the 3 SEC teams we beat, would have beat them?Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say