Quote Originally Posted by Reason2succeed View Post
Yeah, we did it and it has taken us 10 years to recover. From 2001 to 2009 was almost pure misery because of a few players and fewer years of relevance. I know we haven't been to Atlanta again but Mullen has already had more success than Sherrill. Sherrill gave us one year over 8 wins. We have people who are complaining because 8 wins are now expected. Mullen has been north of eight wins 3 times out of 7 seasons. And Mullen has done this without any drops below 7-5 in the middle.

So, almost half the time we will be 9 wins or better while never dropping below 7-5 and people are dissatisfied and want to risk the next 10 years for the possibility of an extra win or so. It's ridiculous.
It didn't take us 10 years to recover from Sherrill. It took us a couple of years to recover from Templeton.

Also, when comparing Sherrill and Dan, you have to remember to decrease Mullen's win total by one each year to account for a 12 game schedule with a FCS opponent. So adjusting to Sherril's era, Mullen would have basically gone 4-7, 7-4, 5-6, 7-4, 5-6, 9-2, 7-4.

For comparison, the Kang went 7-4, 7-4, 4-5-2, 8-3, 3-8, 5-6, 7-4 in his first seven years. Then he followed that up by winning 8, 9, and 7 regular season wins before retiring and letting an interim coach handle 2001 through 2003, with Crooms taking over in 2004.

So Mullen had a little bet better run than Sherrill for his first 7 years after inheriting a worse situation and facing a tougher SECW. Mullen matching sherrils 8, 9, and 10th year would require that he basically average 9 regular season wins a year. The only reason I don't think it's likely he'll do that is because of OLine recruiting, which could put a pretty low ceiling on us this year and next year.

ETA: that's not intended to say that Mullen hasn't done a great job. I'm just pointing out that comparing win totals between Mullen and Sherrill doesn't work.