Stricklin endorses mullen future

[bully99]

According to Alex Scarborough of ESPN, Stricklan said "Dan has had as good a first five years at Miss State as any coach since WWII...He's got us set up." Pretty much sums up mullen future.

[engie]

There's the vote of confidence we've all been waiting for... While even managing to infuse "poor ole MSU" into the statement.

Add a nail to the coffin(s)

[MadDawg]

Good to see Stricklin gets it.

[FISHDAWG]

and then we read something like this .....
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/11/hot-pro...geted-schools/



"Dan Mullen, Mississippi State — Mullen’s agent has made sure to float his client’s name for every job opening in America the last few years. Don’t expect that to be the case this offseason. Mullen’s seat is warming in Starkville and no one — not even AD Scott Stricklin — is going to believe that Miami or Penn State or the Green Bay Packers or the Boston Red Sox or Manchester United is chasing MSU’s coach this time around."

I have stated before about his refusal to thwart rumors and we see why ...... I still don't understand his protected status on this board

[The Croom Diaries]

So do you think Stricklin called up USA Today or do you think USA asked him a question about Mullen's future? I mean, you know if it was the latter Stricklin would always tell them the God's honest truth. Can't you just imagine him saying (as we head into two very important games for our program), "well Mullen has really sucked it up this year so I'm kinda pissed and he'll have to win out to keep his job".

[smootness]

How did he insert 'poor ol' MSU' into his response?

What he said is accurate. He didn't say, 'What we've done is perfectly good enough at a school like MSU'. You have to have a sense of history when evaluating a coach's performance. It's why Vandy isn't going to fire James Franklin, even though if he had this level of success at a place like UGA, he'd be long gone.

Everyone uses history when evaluating.

[Sam&DeansDawg]

I don't know what to think about this.

[smootness]

and then we read something like this .....
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/11/hot-pro...geted-schools/



"Dan Mullen, Mississippi State — Mullen’s agent has made sure to float his client’s name for every job opening in America the last few years. Don’t expect that to be the case this offseason. Mullen’s seat is warming in Starkville and no one — not even AD Scott Stricklin — is going to believe that Miami or Penn State or the Green Bay Packers or the Boston Red Sox or Manchester United is chasing MSU’s coach this time around."

I have stated before about his refusal to thwart rumors and we see why ...... I still don't understand his protected status on this board

We don't have any idea who actually floated his name out there. It may have been his agent, but I'm not going to trust that MrSEC has iron-tight sources.

And how did he refuse to thwart rumors? I've heard him say multiple times that he hasn't interviewed for a certain job and is at State for the long haul.

[Coach34]

According to Alex Scarborough of ESPN, Stricklan said "Dan has had as good a first five years at Miss State as any coach since WWII...He's got us set up." Pretty much sums up mullen future.

they have been saying this the last 2 weeks

4-8 and a bad Egg Bowl is the only possible way I see us firing him

[engie]

How did he insert 'poor ol' MSU' into his response?

What he said is accurate. He didn't say, 'What we've done is perfectly good enough at a school like MSU'. You have to have a sense of history when evaluating a coach's performance. It's why Vandy isn't going to fire James Franklin, even though if he had this level of success at a place like UGA, he'd be long gone.

Everyone uses history when evaluating.

Using "history" without adding that our budget has tripled -- and that we are well on our way to one of the 30 richest college athletics programs in the country = "poor ole MSU" thinking and actions.

Judging Mullen purely by our history is JUST as ridiculous as ignoring our history altogether and expecting to be Alabama. The truth has to be in the middle -- I just don't have confidence in Stricklin being able to see it.

[smootness]

Using "history" without adding that our budget has tripled -- and that we are well on our way to one of the 30 richest college athletics programs in the country = "poor ole MSU" thinking and actions.

Judging Mullen purely by our history is JUST as ridiculous as ignoring our history altogether and expecting to be Alabama. The truth has to be in the middle -- I just don't have confidence in Stricklin being able to see it.

Ok, our budget has tripled. And what has happened to the budgets of the other schools in the SEC? They've stayed the same, right?

[The Croom Diaries]

Using "history" without adding that our budget has tripled -- and that we are well on our way to one of the 30 richest college athletics programs in the country = "poor ole MSU" thinking and actions.

Judging Mullen purely by our history is JUST as ridiculous as ignoring our history altogether and expecting to be Alabama. The truth has to be in the middle -- I just don't have confidence in Stricklin being able to see it.

This is the argument I've been making for weeks on end now. Mullen has gotten fat and happy by beating non-conference teams and sub-par SEC teams and and he's done it because the SEC has elevated him us to that point. The SEC has raised our floor, but Mullen has yet to raise our ceiling. And because the floor has been raised, comparing to the past is largely irrelevant because we are so far ahead of lower-tier conference schools we should always be able to start the year with a 4-0 record (unless we're playing another BCS team that year).

[The Croom Diaries]

Ok, our budget has tripled. And what has happened to the budgets of the other schools in the SEC? They've stayed the same, right?

You're missing the point. 5-6 years ago we were competing with C-USA and Sun Belt schools to get players because our facilities, tradition, stadium, etc. was on par with them (or just slightly ahead). Nearly all the other SEC programs already had great facilities, etc. The TV deals have done more for MSU, OM and Vandy than any other schools because it has allowed us to build these things so we can easily out-recruit lower-conference schools and compete with SEC schools. The problem is we don't win any recruiting battles against other SEC schools. Just like our performance on the field, our recruiting is stuck in the zone of mediocrity where we are just doing the minimum we should be doing.

[engie]

Ok, our budget has tripled. And what has happened to the budgets of the other schools in the SEC? They've stayed the same, right?

They haven't grown at the same pace that ours has grown.

But fear not -- we will keep him for 2 years too long -- and ALL positive momentum will then be lost -- and we will be fully back to where we belong in the basement of the SEC.

[smootness]

They haven't grown at the same pace that ours has grown.

But fear not -- we will keep him for 2 years too long -- and ALL positive momentum will then be lost -- and we will be fully back to where we belong in the basement of the SEC.

But they're still bigger than ours, and while our profile has increased from being in the SEC, it's still lower than just about every other team in the conference and lower than many non-SEC schools.

I'm not saying Stricklin is justified in keeping Mullen forever because we can't do any better, no matter what he does; I'm just saying that you have to use history in your evaluation, which you conceded. Yet because he's doing that, he's still exhibiting the 'poor ol' MSU' attitude? Doesn't make sense.

These are public statements. You really expect him to be nuanced in public statements? So you want him to say, 'Dan has had as good a first 5 years as any coach since WWII; that said, things have changed since then, and we now have to evaluate ourselves by a different standard. We can't change our history, but simply being as good as we have been in the past isn't good enough. At Mississippi State, we expect to continue to progress toward championships, and I'm not satisfied with what's happened this year. Things need to change in the near future or we'll have to look at making a change'?

[engie]

But they're still bigger than ours, and while our profile has increased from being in the SEC, it's still lower than just about every other team in the conference and lower than many non-SEC schools.

I'm not saying Stricklin is justified in keeping Mullen forever because we can't do any better, no matter what he does; I'm just saying that you have to use history in your evaluation, which you conceded. Yet because he's doing that, he's still exhibiting the 'poor ol' MSU' attitude? Doesn't make sense.

Keep a'twisting it. All these limitations do not seem to be stopping an Ole Miss team that doesn't lose a single draftable senior -- nor Vandy and Mizzou. Just Mississippi State.

LOOKING at history and using it as the basis of your argument are two VERY different things.

[FISHDAWG]

And how did he refuse to thwart rumors? I've heard him say multiple times that he hasn't interviewed for a certain job and is at State for the long haul.[/QUOTE]

you apparently weren't paying attention when his stock was still high ... I think he enjoyed the speculation and yes he did say Penn State had not interviewed him however, I never heard him say he wasn't interested ..... I did hear that Miami said the guy thought he invented football