An interesting article about the history of Southern Miss football, SEC football, and college football's evolution in general. I think it's worth the read.

http://www.blackandgoldreview.com/2014/0...y-football

Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

Southern Miss took advantage of the fact they were early to FBS and the leftover sec talent had to go somewhere. Now that there are many more programs at the top level, they no longer have that advantage. The glory days are likely behind Southern Miss. I like our position much better than theirs given that we are within 4 hours of tons of talent in Florida and Ga.

Still weird that Blake Anderson was the guy who likely would have gotten the USM job had Johnson not gotten it.

What a sob story...just rebuild and retool your program...you made a bad hire! Get over it

(09-03-2014 10:31 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Still weird that Blake Anderson was the guy who likely would have gotten the USM job had Johnson not gotten it.

Yep and I wonder which he believes is a better situation.

(09-03-2014 10:33 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:31 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Still weird that Blake Anderson was the guy who likely would have gotten the USM job had Johnson not gotten it.

Yep and I wonder which he believes is a better situation.

Right now? There's no question.

Back in 2011? USM would have been the answer.

(09-03-2014 10:32 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  What a sob story...just rebuild and retool your program...

At this point, I wonder if they actually can.

Money is no guarantee of success, look at any number of inept P5 programs.
Being in a good recruiting area is no guarantee of success either, plenty of examples out there.

Success boils down to:
1. A president/chancellor backed by the board who demands success, provides the resources within reason, holds people accountable.
2. An AD who can raise money is nice but an eye for talent who understands what they see on the field and a vision for developing the program trumps any money raising resume an AD can have. You've got to be able to discern if a coach has a good scheme and talent but just caught some bad breaks or a coach is actually not that good but circumstances led to a good record. You have to understand that worked in Baton Rouge may not work in Starkville. Arkansas has a money raising master and he was stunned that Petrino might have personal issues (he contacted Petrino without talking to his employer!), then hired John L Smith, and recently hired a guy who has less women's basketball coaching experience than Hugh Freeze to be his women's coach. You can't sustain fund-raising with a bad product. The AD also has to have some sense about his team and potential opponents in scheduling (see the string of AD's signing NDSU games).
3. You need a coach who fits the community and recruiting base and can coach.

Conference affiliation won't make you automatically better and what the writer of the column misses is that yeah Saban, Bielmia, and to a good degree Les Miles want to win games by having monster lines and pounding teams into submission but Hugh Freeze, Kevin Sumlin, and Gus Malzahn want to pound teams into submission by spreading the field and maintaining a fast tempo.

Any coach who can line up five guys up front who can whip the guys on defense lined up across from them is going to do it. There are a limited number of players who can do that. The limited size of that pool is why for decades college football had dynasties. Teams that were top 5 year after year. But the rules started changing to help the passing game. More and more high schools embraced 7 on 7 football in the summer. Passing became easier because players came in as freshmen having thrown more passes under game conditions than kids in the NFL draft in the 70's.

The changes created a viable way to reduce the advantage of being able to load up on those freaks of nature who were big, strong, and fast.

The spread option works because if you can't get a big strong and fast defensive lineman, most coaches will sign a kid who is big and strong. When the spread option becomes even more common the result will be a coach who can't big, strong and fast, will opt for strong and fast and sign the guy who is too short and light to play up front and will play him up front and stop those teams. When that happens the smart offensive coach will sign big slow strong guys up front and play between the tackles.

(09-03-2014 09:26 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

The haters gonna hate. Let 'em cut off their noses to spite their faces.

(09-03-2014 11:11 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:32 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  What a sob story...just rebuild and retool your program...

At this point, I wonder if they actually can.

Certainly not with that kind of attitude

They act like someone came in and gutted them when what really happened is they slowly slipped behind. Now the program is in pieces. And not 1 person in Hattiesburg seems to know how to rebuild it.

(09-03-2014 09:26 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

I've always heard they tried to block USA joining when CUSA was formed but UAB and a couple of others overruled them. USA was then offered membership but turned it down. I have no direct knowledge that happened but I was told it by more than one south Alabama fan

At one time, USM had one of the premier "non P-5" football programs in the country. Nowadays, it will be all but impossible for any G-5 program to duplicate the kind of success that USM enjoyed against P-5 conference teams. This reality, one that every G-5 conference member faces, is hard for USM fans to accept. The creation of the P-5 cartel now ensures that teams in those conferences will have a nearly insurmountable advantage over every G-5 conference team. Crying about it doesn't help anything.

(09-04-2014 04:00 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:26 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

I've always heard they tried to block USA joining when CUSA was formed but UAB and a couple of others overruled them. USA was then offered membership but turned it down. I have no direct knowledge that happened but I was told it by more than one south Alabama fan

Louisville lobbied for us to join and got the votes for USA despite USM, but at that point our president had decided to stay in the Sun Belt. Our AD was at the airport to go accept the membership offer when he was instructed by the president to go home.

So we could have been a founding member of CUSA (and started football sooner) but USM blocked us; when Louisville lobbied for USA and got us the votes our president just decided to stay in the Sun Belt. So our president is to blame also. But that doesn't change USM's position on USA.

(09-04-2014 06:45 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 04:00 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:26 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

I've always heard they tried to block USA joining when CUSA was formed but UAB and a couple of others overruled them. USA was then offered membership but turned it down. I have no direct knowledge that happened but I was told it by more than one south Alabama fan

Louisville lobbied for us to join and got the votes for USA despite USM, but at that point our president had decided to stay in the Sun Belt. Our AD was at the airport to go accept the membership offer when he was instructed by the president to go home.

So we could have been a founding member of CUSA (and started football sooner) but USM blocked us; when Louisville lobbied for USA and got us the votes our president just decided to stay in the Sun Belt. So our president is to blame also. But that doesn't change USM's position on USA.

It was so easy when football was poor.Historically the best high school football in MS was played in the southern portion of the State.Many kids would turn down offers from Ole Miss/Miss State to go to SM simply because 25 years ago a 100 miles was alot further.

SM had little compettition for kids better than D2 so getting talent was as easy as falling off a log.

Now 15 or more FBS schools work MS to some extent.Travel is almost inconsequential to kids in some respect so the best "Fit" for academics and roster spots can be considered.All in all the "cheap" talent resource
has dried up and it simply is gonna cost alot more money to bring the same tier talent in that used to beat their door down.

It's difficult to understand that "marketing" now is extremely important just like any othder product today.To sit with arms folded and say we rest on our quality wins will no longer cut it......let SM be a lesson to us all.

(09-04-2014 06:45 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 04:00 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:26 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  Meh. Their wounds are largely self inflicted.

They deserve it if you ask me. They blocked USA when C-USA formed and has blocked them ever since. They never wanted USA to develop football because Mobile was their lifeline, for the most part, and they knew a good USA program isn't good for them.

USA starting football has hurt them. I did an analysis on Mobile and FL panhandle players going to USM before and after USA football started a while back and it's pretty compelling. It's funny they have worked so hard to block us because being in the same league with them would help them so much. Our fans would travel there and they'd make money. And they would be able to maintain a presence in Mobile by being able to play in Mobile. It's ironic actually.

I've always heard they tried to block USA joining when CUSA was formed but UAB and a couple of others overruled them. USA was then offered membership but turned it down. I have no direct knowledge that happened but I was told it by more than one south Alabama fan

Louisville lobbied for us to join and got the votes for USA despite USM, but at that point our president had decided to stay in the Sun Belt. Our AD was at the airport to go accept the membership offer when he was instructed by the president to go home.

So we could have been a founding member of CUSA (and started football sooner) but USM blocked us; when Louisville lobbied for USA and got us the votes our president just decided to stay in the Sun Belt. So our president is to blame also. But that doesn't change USM's position on USA.

It was so easy when football was poor.Historically the best high school football in MS was played in the southern portion of the State.Many kids would turn down offers from Ole Miss/Miss State to go to SM simply because 25 years ago a 100 miles was alot further.

SM had little compettition for kids better than D2 so getting talent was as easy as falling off a log.

Now 15 or more FBS schools work MS to some extent.Travel is almost inconsequential to kids in some respect so the best "Fit" for academics and roster spots can be considered.All in all the "cheap" talent resource
has dried up and it simply is gonna cost alot more money to bring the same tier talent in that used to beat their door down.

It's difficult to understand that "marketing" now is extremely important just like any othder product today.To sit with arms folded and say we rest on our quality wins will no longer cut it......let SM be a lesson to us all.

Yeah, you don't go from your best season to your worst in one year because of the SEC. They made a really poor hire at the same time that a lot of FBS programs in their region were catching up and starting to recruit against them. That poor hiring decision allowed those other programs to capitalize and pass them for the time being.

It reminds me of something else I have been telling people since we scheduled Montana State for our opener. The Big Sky is stronger than most of the FCS leagues that we normally schedule from because they are the only game in town for those players out west who got overlooked, underrated or simply didn't want to play for a perennial loser out west in a bigger conference. USM had little competition for recruits for a long stretch. They pillaged throughout the fertile grounds of MS, AL and LA and brought home the best of the best recruits. We at stAte rarely beat USM for a recruit just a few years back. Now I see them taking guys that we looked at and didn't offer or guys that we dropped. I don't say that to brag, just to illustrate how much things changed with some bad administrative decisions.

It is the reverse of what we experienced and while I think Jonesboro is a nicer town than Hattiesburg, it isn't uniquely situated enough to avoid the same fate as USM if we stop hiring the right kind of coaches.

USM stumbled right as ULL, ASU and La. Tech were taking off and USA was stepping into FBS. Now you have UTSA and a Tulane program that at least has shown small signs of life recruiting in USM's territory as well.

USM's supporters didn't go away overnight and they will still be there to build that program back to where it can be. They just have to make the right hires just like the rest of us and they have to schedule to right teams. As a fan of a program that lived in the USM shadow for a long time and wanted to emulate their success I hope they get back.... just not too much back!

Less than 3 seasons ago USM was 12-2. I don't think they will be down forever... Most of our programs could experience the exact same thing with the wrong coaching hire... Vanderbilt might be going through the same thing right now (time will tell.)

(09-04-2014 08:51 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Yeah, you don't go from your best season to your worst in one year because of the SEC. They made a really poor hire at the same time that a lot of FBS programs in their region were catching up and starting to recruit against them. That poor hiring decision allowed those other programs to capitalize and pass them for the time being.

It reminds me of something else I have been telling people since we scheduled Montana State for our opener. The Big Sky is stronger than most of the FCS leagues that we normally schedule from because they are the only game in town for those players out west who got overlooked, underrated or simply didn't want to play for a perennial loser out west in a bigger conference. USM had little competition for recruits for a long stretch. They pillaged throughout the fertile grounds of MS, AL and LA and brought home the best of the best recruits. We at stAte rarely beat USM for a recruit just a few years back. Now I see them taking guys that we looked at and didn't offer or guys that we dropped. I don't say that to brag, just to illustrate how much things changed with some bad administrative decisions.

It is the reverse of what we experienced and while I think Jonesboro is a nicer town than Hattiesburg, it isn't uniquely situated enough to avoid the same fate as USM if we stop hiring the right kind of coaches.

USM stumbled right as ULL, ASU and La. Tech were taking off and USA was stepping into FBS. Now you have UTSA and a Tulane program that at least has shown small signs of life recruiting in USM's territory as well.

USM's supporters didn't go away overnight and they will still be there to build that program back to where it can be. They just have to make the right hires just like the rest of us and they have to schedule to right teams. As a fan of a program that lived in the USM shadow for a long time and wanted to emulate their success I hope they get back.... just not too much back!

I think what he might have been saying is the SEC figuratively said Ellis Johnson is a great coach because of success he's had in the SEC. Unfortunately, USM believed this farce, not realizing that his successful approach in the SEC would not correlate Hattiesburg.

I remember Monken was a popular name on our board when we were talking about replacements for Freeze. Fortunately, Gus fell into our lap.