This is true. Rep Given.
Printable View
Good point. I am not one to blame refs for a loss but that was atrocious. It might go down as the worst officiated game I have ever witnessed State play. I was really mad at Leach for not kicking that field goal when we got the INT to start the 3rd quarter, but now that I know how bad our kicking situation was I don?t really fault him for that now
Actually I can see the argument of counting a win over a team that would have been ranked if we had beaten them, but how can we possibly know? Texas A&M this year is surely an example, but what about A&M in 2014 and 2016? Probably?
I am definitely sticking to my guns about not giving credit for a team that was ranked at the time but turned out to be bad. Should Sam Pittman get credit for beating us on 2020, a year we finished 4-7, but the other 6 coaches who beat us that year not get credit?
Mullen is the best coach in MSU football history. Mullen's won/loss record speaks for itself regardless where the opponent finished the season. Also, MSU now has more players in the NFL ever because of Mullen and company. I don't understand the need to belittle what Mullen did here.
It seems people want to belittle Mullen to excuse Leach's meager results so far. However, frame up the current situation how ever you want. Fact remains Mullen was extremely good at MSU. It remains to be seen what comes of the Leach era.
I haven't seen anyone belittling Mullen. Calling out facts and trends is not belittling - its called analysis. As you stated, by wins and loses, Mullen is arguably our best coach ever. However, it is also a fact that Mullen was not as good as Jackie against teams that finished the season ranked. Mullen's player development is born out by the number of guys in the league. Mullen's lack luster recruiting style has been shown to have inhibited us and UF - and there are many factual examples.
Doing it by where they finished is to purposely take a shot at someone. Wonder who? Nevermind Dan beat what? 3 top 10 teams in back to back weeks in '14 I think??
People on this board were discounting the '14 season within the year because Auburn, A&M and LSU all ended up "having down seasons". People have posted the same about JoMo's win against #8 Auburn in 2018 before the season was even over.
Personally, I've always gone by the "ranked at time of game" approach - mainly because it helps perceptions about the program. Which sounds better for us? "Jackie's first season in '91 was highlighted by a nationally televised win over #13 Texas", or "Jackie's first season was highlighted by a close, early season battle against a Texas team that wound up 5-6"?
I'm not going to knock the OP for presenting facts - how you use it to make an analysis is up to the reader.
It works both ways. What about 2007 Auburn? Why shouldn't Croom get credit, simply because the voters didn't realize Auburn was top 25 in that particular week? We knew by the end of the year that Auburn was a top 25 team.
Ultimately, I want to credit wins over teams that really were good, not based on how they seemed the time. Also, its important that everybody who beat a particular team that year all get credit or none, rather than some get it and some don't based on scheduling quirks. See the example about us last year being ranked for 1 week.
I don't really care. My point is there is a whole lot of time spent arguing negative points in the MSU fanbase when a school like Ole Miss would would claim both and try to make some other ranking relevant to add to it, then somehow get ESPN to recognize that stat only when talking about Ole Miss, then have Greg McIlroy state it every 4 minutes during their games for the next 2 seasons.
Brunswick you get it. It seems like when we beat someone good or do something good a lot of our fanbase downplays it like "well they weren't very good this year" or "MSU just got lucky", when conversely om trumpets every little thing they do(no matter how irrelevant)as spectacular.