Saw a post from David Murray about Juco's...

[Really Clark?]

We know the one we have currently isn't so why hold on to him? We can't find a lifetime coach holding on to the average one.

And never said it was easy. That's why we should hire someone with head coaching experience next time as I would imagine if we knew about Hevesy and Dan's recruiting and revolving door DC's I doubt we would hire him given hindsight.

And that's the disconnect I think we have he is not average. You believe he is average while he has one of the better win percentages above the school's history in the league. That is a major barometer in determining how successful a coach is at that school. Let's try this who is a good coach in your mind? Not once in a lifetime type but just a good coach

[dawgday166]

I say we throw a cool 4 million and some sacrificial co-eds in front of Petrino to lure, I mean persuade, him to come here

You might be onto something here ****

[basedog]

Oh and one other thing... The ONLY reason I did band was so I could get a free education at the college of my dreams. And at least that's Mississippi State University while we're talking about free education here.

That's great! Your best post in a while, something positive.

+1

[Todd4State]

Not my head, my ass. I outgrew folks like you a long time ago. I have never said I know what is best for Msu future, but you have over and over again. Never arm chair for me, I've coached at the high school and college level. Did you coach band? Mr Play Station.

Please. I'm old enough.

You absolutely are telling me what you think is best for MSU you're just too hypocritical to even see it.

Congrats on being a coach. I'm still entitled to my opinion and that doesn't make you right.

And being a coach doesn't make you an expert on administration. Ask Scott Stricklin former cheerleader.

[Todd4State]

That's great! Your best post in a while, something positive.

+1

**** off

[Todd4State]

And that's the disconnect I think we have he is not average. You believe he is average while he has one of the better win percentages above the school's history in the league. That is a major barometer in determining how successful a coach is at that school. Let's try this who is a good coach in your mind? Not once in a lifetime type but just a good coach

Look at who you are comparing him too- Shira, Felker, Croom.

I'm comparing him to Herman, Fuente, Fleck etc.

But yes agree that's the disconnect.

[basedog]

**** off

Stay classy Mr Play Station.

[Really Clark?]

Look at who you are comparing him too- Shira, Felker, Croom.

I'm comparing him to Herman, Fuente, Fleck etc.

But yes agree that's the disconnect.

I believe I said I was comparing him to the rest of the league vs their school's history. But you are being obtuse to think we don't have to over come that history. But fine, don't know why you only choose guys with short track records and not in Power 5 conferences, Fleck I think of a good coach as of today is a .500 coach at a school who has won .519 of their games in history, so he is in the negative still. Fuente .531 win percentage at Memphis, their history is .475. Mullen is .606 vs our history of .472. For comparison as well with Fleck and Fuente, Mullen was .566 his first 4 years. In the SEC. Mullen has raised our historic avg from .472 to almost .500 in less than 8 years. He is a good coach.

Herman I think may end up being great but he isn't ranked yet because he doesn't have enough games. He is like .944 which will never last

[Todd4State]

Stay classy Mr Play Station.

Sorry about that. I'll focus on your lack of sports knowledge next time.

[oldtrickdawg]

How badly is winning trumping ideology ? Every opportunity I have had in my travels in recent years I questioned Auburn fans about their Cam Newton national championship...The common thread was their offering that nothing was proven...Now, we all know there was criminal activity there, most likely, lying there ,most likely, and some sort of grade manipulation there, most likely...Still the Auburn fans ,with whom I have spoken, clung to their nothing proven mantra...The poster child for vice and corruption, the NCAA, actually facilitated Auburn's winning the title by doing their FBI impersonation and the four monkey act...You know, see no evil, hear no evil,etc...In fairness to the NCAA, I can't imagine how many staff they must employ just to spin the truck load of indiscretions which are occurring at any moment..Anyone who believes college football is operating within the published rules is either living under a rock or uninformed...Generally, the JC recruits are suffering from grade stress, criminal stress, personality stress, or some other wart...Having said all that, Auburn won the national title with with a guy of about a tenth grader's maturity, didn't appear to be too bright, and turned down,allegedly, I don't actually know, 130 K from us to play at Auburn...

[Todd4State]

I believe I said I was comparing him to the rest of the league vs their school's history. But you are being obtuse to think we don't have to over come that history. But fine, don't know why you only choose guys with short track records and not in Power 5 conferences, Fleck I think of a good coach as of today is a .500 coach at a school who has won .519 of their games in history, so he is in the negative still. Fuente .531 win percentage at Memphis, their history is .475. Mullen is .606 vs our history of .472. For comparison as well with Fleck and Fuente, Mullen was .566 his first 4 years. In the SEC. Mullen has raised our historic avg from .472 to almost .500 in less than 8 years. He is a good coach.

Herman I think may end up being great but he isn't ranked yet because he doesn't have enough games. He is like .944 which will never last

I think Dan was/is a good coach, but I just think he's ready to move on. Dan himself has said that 10 years is a long time to be at school and has talked about that a few times over the year. I think he said something about it regarding Miles recently. We're in year eight. I LIKE 2010 Dan. I don't like 2016 Dan. I recognize what Dan has done BUT I'm very concerned that we are about to hang on to him too long and they're we're back to a multi year rebuilding project. We've never lost to a school like South Alabama under Dan until this year. That's NOT a good sign. Our offense and defense are currently both in middle/bottom of the SEC right now.

The thing about it with finding the next coach is you have to consider their situation as well. Dan should be better than PJ Fleck. We've been better than Western Michigan for awhile now- probably even as far back as the 60's. When you look at coaches you have to ask yourself how would this guy do with our resources? For example- staying with Fleck, he is one of the best recruiters in the MAC. His record is skewed heavily by his first season there but he turned them around in year two. And no I'm not advocating for Fleck to be clear just to give you an example.

I look at us right now and I think most of us agree right now that we have three main issues that is sticking with us- recruiting, offensive line play, and defensive performance.

Can we find a coach that can recruit better than Dan? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that can put together a better offensive line? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that will not have a revolving door at DC every year? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that can keep doing the good things that Dan does do? I would say probably although I could see the QB development possibly if not probably being as good.

How much would those three things being improved alone improve us? It's OK to look at the past, but we have to also consider and look at the present and the future as well.

And I'm not saying that we can't screw up the next coaching hire. That possibility is out there. But the way I see it, odds are also good or better that we won't screw it up and even if we do, we can always fire that coach. People bring up Rick Ray- well hell, we ended up with Ben Howland after that. And I never would have ever thought we would get someone like that for basketball. And yes, I would of course like to get it right the first time but even if we screw it up we can still fix it.

[Really Clark?]

I think Dan was/is a good coach, but I just think he's ready to move on. Dan himself has said that 10 years is a long time to be at school and has talked about that a few times over the year. I think he said something about it regarding Miles recently. We're in year eight. I LIKE 2010 Dan. I don't like 2016 Dan. I recognize what Dan has done BUT I'm very concerned that we are about to hang on to him too long and they're we're back to a multi year rebuilding project. We've never lost to a school like South Alabama under Dan until this year. That's NOT a good sign. Our offense and defense are currently both in middle/bottom of the SEC right now.

The thing about it with finding the next coach is you have to consider their situation as well. Dan should be better than PJ Fleck. We've been better than Western Michigan for awhile now- probably even as far back as the 60's. When you look at coaches you have to ask yourself how would this guy do with our resources? For example- staying with Fleck, he is one of the best recruiters in the MAC. His record is skewed heavily by his first season there but he turned them around in year two. And no I'm not advocating for Fleck to be clear just to give you an example.

I look at us right now and I think most of us agree right now that we have three main issues that is sticking with us- recruiting, offensive line play, and defensive performance.

Can we find a coach that can recruit better than Dan? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that can put together a better offensive line? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that will not have a revolving door at DC every year? I think we can.

Can we find a coach that can keep doing the good things that Dan does do? I would say probably although I could see the QB development possibly if not probably being as good.

How much would those three things being improved alone improve us? It's OK to look at the past, but we have to also consider and look at the present and the future as well.

And I'm not saying that we can't screw up the next coaching hire. That possibility is out there. But the way I see it, odds are also good or better that we won't screw it up and even if we do, we can always fire that coach. People bring up Rick Ray- well hell, we ended up with Ben Howland after that. And I never would have ever thought we would get someone like that for basketball. And yes, I would of course like to get it right the first time but even if we screw it up we can still fix it.

I can see a lot of that and agree with some. The only part I caution is the idea that the odds are better that we wouldn't screw up the next hire. That just doesn't hold water. Studies do show that the odds are greater that you will not met the present coaches record when dealing with some one who has surpassed your norm. Especially traditionally poor or average schools. The transition just doesn't work more times than not in these cases. Even schools who lose a coach to a better job often times struggle to equal their production. Weaker schools find it even more difficult and I think it takes on average a little over two coaching cycles to match that winning. Even elite schools have struggled at times going 1-2 sometimes more cycles to get back to their average or above. I'm not saying there may not be a time we have to part ways but it is not even close to simple. The schools who have done it best are the ones who have a clear vision of their foundation and what it takes to continue building. And they still miss in a cycle.

[Todd4State]

I can see a lot of that and agree with some. The only part I caution is the idea that the odds are better that we wouldn't screw up the next hire. That just doesn't hold water. Studies do show that the odds are greater that you will not met the present coaches record when dealing with some one who has surpassed your norm. Especially traditionally poor or average schools. The transition just doesn't work more times than not in these cases. Even schools who lose a coach to a better job often times struggle to equal their production. Weaker schools find it even more difficult and I think it takes on average a little over two coaching cycles to match that winning. Even elite schools have struggled at times going 1-2 sometimes more cycles to get back to their average or above. I'm not saying there may not be a time we have to part ways but it is not even close to simple. The schools who have done it best are the ones who have a clear vision of their foundation and what it takes to continue building. And they still miss in a cycle.

The reason I think we have a good chance of improving is because of our University leadership. Of course, that's Keenum essentially at least for a month or two.

We've hired in our major sports the past 10 years- Cohen, Mullen, Ray, Shafer, and Howland. We've been successful 80% of the time which is about as good as you can hope for. That doesn't include the hiring of Byrne and Stricklin which were both good IMO as well. And if Cohen had a losing season last year, I would have wanted him replaced in case you are wondering. And as I have often said about Dan- if he makes changes I would be fine with that. But he doesn't appear to be willing to make those. We'll let the season play out of course and see if I am right but it's not looking good right now.

[NCDawg]

Problem is I think Dan really want out, but nobody will hire him at the salary we pay him. I think he wanted the Miami job last year very badly, but Mark Richt was chosen. I think Dan is a good offensive coach, but as Todd4State mentioned, he has lots of negatives-no. 1 being too loyal to his offensive line coach who is clearly not getting the job done. No. 2 is his recruiting is not very good, especially for offensive linemen, and I think the primary reason is that they do not want to play for the offensive line coach. No. 3, and this matters very much to most State people, Ole Miss has blown us out 3 of the last 4 years, and will probably do so again this year. He was adamant about getting better after the loss 2 years ago, and said he couldn't wait until we played them last year. After they beat us very badly last year, it was like, ho hum, just another loss. It is clear to me and a lot of State people that he has lost the fire he once had, and if he refuses to get rid of the OL coach, I agree the time has come to consider going in another direction.

[tcdog70]

The reason I think we have a good chance of improving is because of our University leadership. Of course, that's Keenum essentially at least for a month or two.

We've hired in our major sports the past 10 years- Cohen, Mullen, Ray, Shafer, and Howland. We've been successful 80% of the time which is about as good as you can hope for. That doesn't include the hiring of Byrne and Stricklin which were both good IMO as well. And if Cohen had a losing season last year, I would have wanted him replaced in case you are wondering. And as I have often said about Dan- if he makes changes I would be fine with that. But he doesn't appear to be willing to make those. We'll let the season play out of course and see if I am right but it's not looking good right now.

the real drawback to any Coach coming to MSU and doing better that Dan is the Fact that we play in the SEC West. that would be 6 games a year that would a loss probability. Now the SEC east would be different--if We had Vandy-Ky-SC-Mizzou to deal with every year then things would be all shits and giggles. Even Ga-Fla and Tenn are pretty beatable. the SEC West is the football hall of terror.

[NCDawg]

the real drawback to any Coach coming to MSU and doing better that Dan is the Fact that we play in the SEC West. that would be 6 games a year that would a loss probability. Now the SEC east would be different--if We had Vandy-Ky-SC-Mizzou to deal with every year then things would be all shits and giggles. Even Ga-Fla and Tenn are pretty beatable. the SEC West is the football hall of terror.

If that is what most State fans think-that we can't be competitive in the SEC West, maybe the time has come to consider getting out of the SEC, joining a lower conference, and let the SEC West bring in some school that can be competitive, such as Florida State. Personally, I think we can be competitive if our coach will do what is necessary to make us competitive.

[maroonmania]

So tired of this OOC argument. Before 1970 we played 10 reg season games a year (I know earlier it was less but for time sake). Only 5-6 of those games were SEC for the bulk of the 60's, twice played 7 SEC games I think Tulane was the SEC team. We played non majors like Richmond, La Tech, Tampa, Samford, and Arkansas St and a weak Ind USM, nearly every year we had those type of teams on schedule.

Then from 1970-1991 we went to an 11 game reg season. Only 6-7 of those were SEC games. So again, 4-5 OOC. Nearly every season in the 1970's and for several of the 80's we played a non major or extremely weak DI. Sometimes both.

1992 started the 8 SEC game seasons. We still had weak OOC games. Ark State, ULM, East Tenn, etc. So I don't see the advantage Mullen has had getting to play 8 conference teams a season when some years we only played 5. The going to a 12 game schedule vs 10 didn't add OOC games, it added conference games.

The point of the argument is that, at least at MSU, we are MUCH more likely to win our non-conference games than back in the past. The days of getting routinely beat by CUSA type teams is over for the most part.

[Really Clark?]

The point of the argument is that, at least at MSU, we are MUCH more likely to win our non-conference games than back in the past. The days of getting routinely beat by CUSA type teams is over for the most part.

And who is to thank for that? Croom and JWS sure struggled with those teams. That's why the point doesn't work, they had the same type of scheduling and couldnt get it done. Our SOS on average is harder under Mullen than is was under JWS. And when Mullen got here we only had a what? $30-35 MIL budget. The money part hasn't come into play until the last few years. That's why it's a tired argument that statistically isn't true. The narrative is we added an incredibly weak OOC and that's part of why it has been for Dan to win than in the past. It's not true for the vast majority of the years.

[HoopsDawg]

And who is to thank for that? Croom and JWS sure struggled with those teams. That's why the point doesn't work, they had the same type of scheduling and couldnt get it done. Our SOS on average is harder under Mullen than is was under JWS. And when Mullen got here we only had a what? $30-35 MIL budget. The money part hasn't come into play until the last few years. That's why it's a tired argument that statistically isn't true. The narrative is we added an incredibly weak OOC and that's part of why it has been for Dan to win than in the past. It's not true for the vast majority of the years.

We only played 3 non conference for most of Jackies tenure. Anything that happened under croom is irrelevant.

[basedog]

We only played 3 non conference for most of Jackies tenure. Anything that happened under croom is irrelevant.

I would give you rep points for the title of your post, as I look back this post is all over the place from Juco's, recruiting, Mullen, past history, OOC games and others. I have received rep points so I shall share with you Hoops, here you go!