8-36 vs teams .500

[altshauf]

Let me just say this.

MTSU football has become so vanilla and boring, and I find it extremely difficult to watch online (only place I CAN watch them). We never take chances unless we are in desperation-mode. Really poor play-calling has doomed us for quite some time. I think we have the athletes to compete, it ain't the athletes boys... it's coaching. Since 2010 I have lost a lot of respect for Stock. I will argue that conservatism is great in life, but horrible on the football field when you never stray from it.
Bottom line...

I am an advocate for going and getting Tony Franklin as a head coach. After that, we need to go find someone that is a "name" offensive coordinator. Pay the max we can pay. In order to get butts in seats you need to win games AND you need to have an exciting style of play (not necessarily going deep every play, but setting things up for "the big play").
Over time I have grown tired of MT football. You all that have been here for quite some time know how I loved football. Guys it has gotten hard... really hard... to appreciate what we put out on the field. I still support the team, but am uninterested.

Basketball, on the other hand, has always been a good product since Davis took over. It always depends on recruiting with him. We really do have a good brand. Think about the programs that we have beaten in the past 5 years as opposed to football. In my opinion MT Basketball Program > MT Football Program...

 

[sWiley]

altshauf - we wouldnt even need to hire an offensive coordinator with franklin. Franklin would be OC/HC and we could dedicate all our main coordinator money towards one badass D coordinator. I'd love to have Manny back and I think he'd come if the pay was right. Another name that came to mind was Art Kaufman (someone I've ALWAYS thought was a great coach) for defensive coordinator, but he of course is now DC at California.

So that's a coach Stock had as a linebackers coach and didn't elevate to DC who is now DC at California.........

I know our fans feel like we never catch a break with assistants, but have you ever thought that maybe the person hiring those assistants is the problem? Kaufman isn't good enough to be DC here at MT but he is good enough for California? Stock can't even find the coaches when they are right under his nose....

 

[blueraiderJT]

The only problem with Franklin is that he's freakin crazy. I met him and he's out there. I mean he's like an emotional train wreck from what I heard and saw for myself. He couldn't handle the pressure of being an HC. No way. He just likes to create plays and stay low key.

Kaufman was a good coach for us but Cal is ranked 124th in total D and 125th and pass D. The only reason they are 5-5 right now is because of their O. (no. 4 in passing O) BYU will torch the poop out of them next week.

Kaufman is no upgrade over Nix.

 

[blueraiderJT]

The DC I would like us to go and get is Lance Guidry. That crazy cajun has had like 3 top 25 raked defenses as a DC. I like his energy too.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by sWiley:
altshauf - we wouldnt even need to hire an offensive coordinator with franklin. Franklin would be OC/HC and we could dedicate all our main coordinator money towards one badass D coordinator. I'd love to have Manny back and I think he'd come if the pay was right. Another name that came to mind was Art Kaufman (someone I've ALWAYS thought was a great coach) for defensive coordinator, but he of course is now DC at California.

So that's a coach Stock had as a linebackers coach and didn't elevate to DC who is now DC at California.........

I know our fans feel like we never catch a break with assistants, but have you ever thought that maybe the person hiring those assistants is the problem? Kaufman isn't good enough to be DC here at MT but he is good enough for California? Stock can't even find the coaches when they are right under his nose....

Both those coaches left for greener pastures (Kaufman to SoMiss under Fedora, and then to UNC), and Franklin to LaTech. They're both at Cal now, so unless you believe that both would have turned down Cal to remain here - it's now irrelevant that they were once coaches under Stock.

We weren't particularly good when Kaufman was here for 3 years (16-20), so you could make a case that whomever Stock hired after him actually performed better.

Those two cases don't prove that Stock can't find coaches. If anything, it proves he can't keep them around, for whatever reason (ego clash, $$$, opportunity at bigger/better programs).

 

[sWiley]

Kaufman would have stayed if he was elevated to DC and never gone to southern miss to begin with

instead, we went with.....Ellis? Whom which can't even do the job. Had to hire someone to hold his hand and carry the torch

Stock's hiring and management of assistants has been average at best. Mangus took a promotion just to get out of dodge because he hated it here. The Illinois hire was a total bust. Simmons was too young and not ready for the job (and then choked his wife out). Stock refused to get along with Franklin despite the success and just couldn't resist running him out of town. Faulkner is also under qualified and has no business being our offensive coordinator but has managed to retain his position (probably because he doesn't stand his ground when Stockstill wants to meddle in the play calling)

In the 9 years Stock has been here, not a single one of our offensive coordinators have been hired to an upgraded position. Every OC we have had under Stock has taken a lateral or downgraded position or has been fired. That is a VERY telling trend. And now we are about to have his son at the quarterback position.

Good luck with that



This post was edited on 11/20 4:06 PM by sWiley

 

[mtutmut]

Originally posted by Hop45:
I agree that our record will be where most thought it would be. However, how we got there is what disturbs me. We have really laid a couple eggs this season. Without the wasted opportunities, we could have over achieved. It just seems like we are never able to get over that hump and do better than what we think. The FIU game was a microcosm of what has gone wrong the last couple years. Just gets frustrating year after year, same old stuff. I am proud of the job Stock has done since he has been here. Is it wrong to want more?

No....it is not wrong to want more. We fans need to be more vocal to Massaro and at the coach's show. They need to hear that we are not being entertained. It is this simple. FIU had nothing to play for, and we did. We had the athletic advantage over them, but Stockstill was not able to inspire the players. I get the strong impression that Stockstill just is not a good motivational speaker. We have lost too many games that we should have won at really bad times. He has failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance our program, and has in fact, lost the interest of real football fans with his spineless approach to the game. I will defend Stockstill as a good man, but I can not, and will not, defend him as an effective coach. He is mediocre, at best. For our program, it is actually better to have a bad coach that you can get rid of than a mediocre coach that just hangs around long enough to drive the program into the ground due to a lack of interest. Either Stockstill changes, or we need to demand that a change in coaching take place.

This post was edited on 11/20 9:28 PM by mtutmut

 

[My Boy Blue]

Cool. Everyone seems happy to just keep going 7-5, or maybe even 8-4! Hooray! That means success right? More people coming to the games right? People in the community walking up to the ticket office and buying tickets to keep those stands full right? Is that what is happening here? If it is, I must be blindfolded on game day.

Listen, to each their own, but we need a change at the top. Simple really. He has taken us as far as he can in increasing televised games, bowl games (low-level bowl games), recruitment, support/fans, etc. Time to have someone come in and take us higher.

Remove your blue-tinted colored glasses and slowly...slowly walk away and think about it.

 

[ToddMalone]

Growing up a rabid Vols fan during the 70's and 80's, I enthusiastically endured plenty of 7 - 5 and 8 - 4 seasons. Made trips to the holy land (Neyland Stadium) as often as I could.

MT is my favorite college team now. 7 - 5, 8 - 4 seasons are just fine with me. I'd even be OK with 6 - 6. But before I come back to M'boro to watch games MT needs to schedule some better competition on the field, teams with history and tradition. But I guess that's hard to do when we don't much in regards to history and tradition ourselves.

This post was edited on 11/21 12:56 PM by ToddMalone

This post was edited on 11/21 12:58 PM by ToddMalone

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by My Boy Blue:

Cool. Everyone seems happy to just keep going 7-5, or maybe even 8-4! Hooray! That means success right? More people coming to the games right? People in the community walking up to the ticket office and buying tickets to keep those stands full right? Is that what is happening here? If it is, I must be blindfolded on game day.

Listen, to each their own, but we need a change at the top. Simple really. He has taken us as far as he can in increasing televised games, bowl games (low-level bowl games), recruitment, support/fans, etc. Time to have someone come in and take us higher.

Remove your blue-tinted colored glasses and slowly...slowly walk away and think about it.

I look around the G5 and I don't see a whole lot of teams who have achieved the "higher" level that you're talking about.

I see Boise. I see Northern Illinois (who achieved this higher level only after 3 decades of struggling).

That's about it. Out of 52 or so G5 teams, 2 have achieved this higher level (and it's debateable whether or not they will stay there over the long term).

Now, what makes you so conviced that all we have to do is make a coaching change and *poof* - all our dreams will instantly come true?!?

I'm not crazy about 7-5/8-4, but I realize that, with what we're working with, that's not really a terrible outcome. In fact, looking around, that probably puts us in the top 10-20 out of 52 G5 teams.

 

[sWiley]

Originally posted by RaiderDoug:

I look around the G5 and I don't see a whole lot of teams who have achieved the "higher" level that you're talking about.

I see Boise. I see Northern Illinois (who achieved this higher level only after 3 decades of struggling).

That's about it.

Utah and TCU were both once considered mid majors when they were a part of the mountain west. Their success has paid huge dividends as they're now both in a top league and, last time i checked, ranked. So add those 2 to your list of Boise and Northern Illinois. Also, Central Florida. Wildly successful team that parlayed their success into a conference upgrade. Sure, they've come back down to earth some lately, but that's because they play in a better conference now. Also, Marshall sure seems to be playing well lately, so it's hard not to count them up there. Utah State played in bowl games in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (and won 2 of them) and is 8-3 thus far this year with a huge spanking of BYU. Lousiana Tech I would also say is well above us. Won the WAC in 2011, went 9-3 in 2012 (and coulda went 10-3 if they didnt decline a bowl), off year in 2013, and #1 team in CUSA in 2014. They're well above us (and always have been). Nevada also well above us. Been ranked many times, originators of the pistol, also went into BYU stadium this year and won, great records each year.

Shall I keep going?

This post was edited on 11/21 10:27 PM by sWiley

 

[JohnDavidBlue]

We lost to a FCS school in McNeese State in 2012 and finished the season with a 45-0 defeat from a Gus Malzhan coached team. The week prior, Troy beat us everywhere except on the scoreboard. We were a bad 8-4 team. A guy at my work received free tickets and said to me after the Troy game..."you guys are not that fun to watch".

In 2013, Everybody and their brother knew that CUSA was down. The stretch after Marshall including UAB, FIU, SoMiss, and UTEP was the biggest cake walk that I could remember. MT, however, did what it needed to do only to get blown out at a bowl.

Everyone I used to tailgate with is done with the brand. Noone comes anymore. It is all the same thing: Boring and conservative football. The average football fan is dumb but not that dumb. MT isn't fooling anybody.

The last two seasons of 8 wins have a big asterisk by each one. At least we beat WCU last year.

This post was edited on 11/22 12:45 AM by JohnDavidBlue

 

[Raiderclyde]

Originally posted by RaiderDoug:

Originally posted by My Boy Blue:

Cool. Everyone seems happy to just keep going 7-5, or maybe even 8-4! Hooray! That means success right? More people coming to the games right? People in the community walking up to the ticket office and buying tickets to keep those stands full right? Is that what is happening here? If it is, I must be blindfolded on game day.

Listen, to each their own, but we need a change at the top. Simple really. He has taken us as far as he can in increasing televised games, bowl games (low-level bowl games), recruitment, support/fans, etc. Time to have someone come in and take us higher.

Remove your blue-tinted colored glasses and slowly...slowly walk away and think about it.

I look around the G5 and I don't see a whole lot of teams who have achieved the "higher" level that you're talking about.

I see Boise. I see Northern Illinois (who achieved this higher level only after 3 decades of struggling).

That's about it. Out of 52 or so G5 teams, 2 have achieved this higher level (and it's debateable whether or not they will stay there over the long term).

Now, what makes you so conviced that all we have to do is make a coaching change and *poof* - all our dreams will instantly come true?!?

I'm not crazy about 7-5/8-4, but I realize that, with what we're working with, that's not really a terrible outcome. In fact, looking around, that probably puts us in the top 10-20 out of 52 G5 teams.

My standard about achieving the "higher level" isn't limited to the two teams of Boise or Northern Illinois (whom we actually beat once during their 3 decades of struggling) and MT played Boise in the 1-AA playoff days in 1990 and lost a heartbreaker. Both teams are clearly ahead of us in just about any respect of football with their recent success in BCS bowls, being ranked, and having successive seasons with bowl eligibility records.

My criteria into the higher level is winning outright conference championships and/or being ranked--MT has done neither since moving to FBS football. Not even once! Two co-championships 13 and 8 years ago simply doesn't get it done.

Utah Utes successfully moved from mid-major territory (WAC and Mountain West), that is probably the best example of a program migrating upwards to the top levels in football. Even ranked this year in the Pac12. They have permanently (if one can call anything permanently) escaped the inertia of mid-major status. Boise is half way there. Beyond Boise and Northern Illinois: there is Nevada (who was not long ago 1-AA and in the playoffs while Boots was coaching)--they have been ranked and won championships, Texas Christian University (won a NC in the 1930's) and enjoying success today; our conference mate Marshall (especially 1999 season and this year) and expanded their stadium from approx. 30,000 to 40,000 not long after moving to 1-A; ECU, Louisiana Tech, [/B]and Houston-[/B]-both arguably can be placed ahead of MT as a program and certainly all three have better visibility nationally than MT as a fan base on the NYT College Football map. There's Central Florida and Fresno State [/I]who been ranked before in FBS/1-A. Cincinnati, [/B]has been a top 5 program not long ago. And there is historic programs like Miami of Ohio, BGSU, and Ball State who have had at least a one year wonder seasons (Miami of Ohio also the cradle of coaches) since MT has been 1-A. And a BYU Cougar teams that needs no further explanation necessary.

Whoops, that listing just kicked us out well out of the top 10 of G5 programs. That would put us at best number as #16 of 52 program. Guess I'd better stop while we're still can be counted as top 20. For sure, MT is not a top 2-3 program in G5. Sorry don't see the strong optimism (wish it were so, though). Not going to get there in 2014 no matter if we win out or win the bowl game--though I hope we do to build into something special in the next year or so.

This post was edited on 11/22 5:24 AM by Raiderclyde

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by sWiley:

Utah and TCU were both once considered mid majors when they were a part of the mountain west. Their success has paid huge dividends as they're now both in a top league and, last time i checked, ranked. So add those 2 to your list of Boise and Northern Illinois. Also, Central Florida. Wildly successful team that parlayed their success into a conference upgrade. Sure, they've come back down to earth some lately, but that's because they play in a better conference now. Also, Marshall sure seems to be playing well lately, so it's hard not to count them up there. Utah State played in bowl games in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (and won 2 of them) and is 8-3 thus far this year with a huge spanking of BYU. Lousiana Tech I would also say is well above us. Won the WAC in 2011, went 9-3 in 2012 (and coulda went 10-3 if they didnt decline a bowl), off year in 2013, and #1 team in CUSA in 2014. They're well above us (and always have been). Nevada also well above us. Been ranked many times, originators of the pistol, also went into BYU stadium this year and won, great records each year.

Shall I keep going?

This post was edited on 11/21 10:27 PM by sWiley

I see teams like:

Utah - 50 million dollar budget, Pac12 team, playing in the WAC since 1962. This is not a mid-major.

Central Florida - 41 million dollar budget, brand new stadium in 2007. For some history - it took them 7 years to have a player drafted . It took them 12 years as a D-IA team to have a 10 win season. MT doesn't have UCF's facilities, doesn't have 16 more million bucks to blow, and doesn't have Orlando as it's recruiting home territory.

TCU - This is a team with 2 national championships (yeah, the big ones), was a member of the SWC since 1923. This is not a mid-major.

The schools above are not like the others you have listed.

Marshall
- we're 1-1 since we joined the conference. They're having a nice year,
but I don't see Marshall has a program that's significantly ahead of
us. They had a losing season just 2 years ago. Let's see what happens
when Cato leaves. In fact, we'll very likely be battling them in
conference for the next decade.

LaTech - They just went 4-8 last year. They had less home attendance than we did last year. This is a program you look up to?

Nevada
- has the advantages of being the "state" school. Has a 7 year head
start. Just had a losing season, only has 7 non-winning seasons since
2000. We only have 8. They averaged only 24k last year. They had a nice
run under ColinKap, but has pretty much regressed to the average.


While all these programs have had one or two incredible seasons here and there, none of them (except the P5 schools you've listed for some reason) are significantly ahead of MT on a year-to-year basis.

The difference between 8-4 and 12-0 at our level can be something as simple as one dynamic player (think Cato, or Colin K), or a team that's loaded with seniors, or a favorable schedule, or just plain dumb injury luck.

This post was edited on 11/22 11:59 AM by RaiderDoug

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by Raiderclyde:
My standard about achieving the "higher level" isn't limited to the two teams of Boise or Northern Illinois (whom we actually beat once during their 3 decades of struggling) and MT played Boise in the 1-AA playoff days in 1990 and lost a heartbreaker. Both teams are clearly ahead of us in just about any respect of football with their recent success in BCS bowls, being ranked, and having successive seasons with bowl eligibility records.

My criteria into the higher level is winning outright conference championships and/or being ranked--MT has done neither since moving to FBS football. Not even once! Two co-championships 13 and 8 years ago simply doesn't get it done.

Utah Utes successfully moved from mid-major territory (WAC and Mountain West), that is probably the best example of a program migrating upwards to the top levels in football. Even ranked this year in the Pac12. They have permanently (if one can call anything permanently) escaped the inertia of mid-major status. Boise is half way there. Beyond Boise and Northern Illinois: there is Nevada (who was not long ago 1-AA and in the playoffs while Boots was coaching)--they have been ranked and won championships, Texas Christian University (won a NC in the 1930's) and enjoying success today; our conference mate Marshall (especially 1999 season and this year) and expanded their stadium from approx. 30,000 to 40,000 not long after moving to 1-A; ECU, Louisiana Tech, [/B]and Houston-[/B]-both arguably can be placed ahead of MT as a program and certainly all three have better visibility nationally than MT as a fan base on the NYT College Football map. There's Central Florida and Fresno State [/I]who been ranked before in FBS/1-A. Cincinnati, [/B]has been a top 5 program not long ago. And there is historic programs like Miami of Ohio, BGSU, and Ball State who have had at least a one year wonder seasons (Miami of Ohio also the cradle of coaches) since MT has been 1-A. And a BYU Cougar teams that needs no further explanation necessary.

Whoops, that listing just kicked us out well out of the top 10 of G5 programs. That would put us at best number as #16 of 52 program. Guess I'd better stop while we're still can be counted as top 20. For sure, MT is not a top 2-3 program in G5. Sorry don't see the strong optimism (wish it were so, though). Not going to get there in 2014 no matter if we win out or win the bowl game--though I hope we do to build into something special in the next year or so.

This post was edited on 11/22 5:24 AM by Raiderclyde

I'll give you Fresno, in addition to NoIll, and Boise.

After that you list


ECU - 36 million budget, bet us by a only 7 last time we played. DIA since 1978. They finished 1991 ranked #9 in the nation, before we were even playing real football.

Houston - 42 million budget. The finished ranked #4 in 1976, and #5 in 1979. Between 1952 and 1990, they finished the season ranked 15 times. They've won 4 SWC conference titles (the conference that included A&M and Texas) before we even went FBS/DIA.

Cincy - 61 million dollar budget. 61!

Do you really think those are in any way comparable programs to MTSU?


And then:

LaTech - a joke?

Nevada - Nothing special since ColinKap gone to the NFL.

Miami Ohio - 0-12 last year. Doesn't break 16k in attendance
BGSU - barely breaks 15k in attendance, 50-51 since 2006 (MT is 51-49 in the same span).
Ball State - has 4 winning seasons 2000-2014 - barely makes 15k in attendance.

These are the teams you look up to?




I don't even get the logic of being angry at your football team about some fan map made by collecting facebook likes of people who are "Fans" of which ever team won the last national title.

Facebook says we have no fans!!

Facebook also says that if I click like on a picture of money, i'll get $1 million dollars in the next 7 days!!!!

This post was edited on 11/22 12:02 PM by RaiderDoug

 

[MTFNBY5]

Doug: I wish you would use a different term than "real" football. Heck, that's what the "power" conference fans say about us NOW. I accept D-1, top-level, highest tier, etc but it is an affront to all fans who have followed MT during the "Small College", 1-AA era to say we weren't following a "real" college football team all those years. As for one, I would still be buying season tickets and joining the BRAA even if we had not made the move to D-1 in FB.

In addition, I have enjoyed watching several D-3 FB games at Sewanee. Also, I am possibly one of the few MT fans who have gone to see an OVC game since we left the conference. In both cases I felt I was watching "real" college football.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by MTFNBY5:
Doug: I wish you would use a different term than "real" football. Heck, that's what the "power" conference fans say about us NOW. I accept D-1, top-level, highest tier, etc but it is an affront to all fans who have followed MT during the "Small College", 1-AA era to say we weren't following a "real" college football team all those years. As for one, I would still be buying season tickets and joining the BRAA even if we had not made the move to D-1 in FB.

In addition, I have enjoyed watching several D-3 FB games at Sewanee. Also, I am possibly one of the few MT fans who have gone to see an OVC game since we left the conference. In both cases I felt I was watching "real" college football.

Honestly, I don't consider FCS/DIAA or whatever its called to be in any way comparable to what we're doing now. If MT dropped down to FCS, I very likely would not pay any attention to
MT athletics. I'd rather see them drop football and concentrate on
basketball.

It may still be "real" football, but I don't think you'll find very many people who care what goes on in FCS. I don't even know why those teams bother.

As far as I'm concerned, MT football started in 1999.

And as for my comparison, I don't think anything we did at the FCS level is in any way relevant when comparing us to our peers in the G5.

 

[sWiley]

Wow Doug. I really don't even know where to begin. I didn't realize you were that deluded. Always pegged you as one of the more logical and rational posters here, but you're really making me rethink that. LaTech, Nevada, and all the other schools I listed have ALL achieved more than MT at one point or another. (Hell, they've all at least been ranked once before) You want to point to attendance which means NOTHING (especially in today's age). Not even SEC stadiums are full anymore. You want to easily dismiss teams like ECU, Cincy, Houston, etc. because of their large budgets, well, how the hell do you think those budgets got so large? (Let me help, winning and building a program correctly) If ECU was so much more prestigious than us, Stock would have left when he had the offer. The reality was, we were about equals at the time and Stock thought he could elevate us further. (then ran his best OC out of town in Franklin). ECU has done nothing but move forward while we've stagnated and arguably regressed since then. These things are not even debatable Doug.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Originally posted by sWiley:
Wow Doug. I really don't even know where to begin. I didn't realize you were that deluded. Always pegged you as one of the more logical and rational posters here, but you're really making me rethink that. LaTech, Nevada, and all the other schools I listed have ALL achieved more than MT at one point or another. (Hell, they've all at least been ranked once before)

Who cares if at one point they did well if they suck now?

At one point, we won 10 games. We've got an SBC title.

And this is the point - out our level, high level success is fleeting. It comes and goes just like that.

The goal should be a year in and year out winning program, because those epic years don't last , and for the most part, that's what we have.

Originally posted by sWiley:
You want to point to attendance which means NOTHING (especially in today's age). Not even SEC stadiums are full anymore.

I'm not concerned with attendance. I put that in there because so many people seem so concerned with it.

I've said before 18-20k usually will put us smack dab in the middle of the G5. Average isn't great. But Average isn't bad either.

Originally posted by sWiley:
You want to easily dismiss teams like ECU, Cincy, Houston, etc. because of their large budgets, well, how the hell do you think those budgets got so large? (Let me help, winning and building a program correctly)

I agree, they've built their programs correctly.

But it took them a heck of a lot more than 14 years, and they saw plenty of hard times before those big budgets.

The fact is, we're still in our infancy. They're grown up programs, decades ahead of us.

Originally posted by sWiley:
If ECU was so much more prestigious than us, Stock would have left when he had the offer. The reality was, we were about equals at the time and Stock thought he could elevate us further. (then ran his best OC out of town in Franklin). ECU has done nothing but move forward while we've stagnated and arguably regressed since then. These things are not even debatable Doug.

We we're about equals at the time? Are you sure?

Because the 2009 ECU Pirates won CUSA and finished 9-5 and went to the Liberty Bowl and averaged 41k fans.

That's "equals" to you?


You may not want to admit it, but if you want to see our equals (in budget, tradition, fan support, facilities, media exposure, Q-rating, etc) - look at the SBC, look at the MAC, look at our CUSA peers. And then maybe you'll realize that compared to our equals, we're not doing so bad.


Any why are you so convinced that any regression must be laid at the feet of Stockstill?

I promise you, if you hired Nick Saban tomorrow, this team isn't getting ranked, we're not all of a sudden going to start selling out week after week, we're not going to start going 12-0 every year.

And I'm not even sure how you've convinced yourself that we've regressed. We're very likely in the best 3 year stretch of football since we've got D-IA/FBS, and you have to go back 20 years to find 3 straight winning seasons. Our recruiting classes are getting better. We're finishing near the top of our conference.

How is that regression?

We've had disappointments, but no program anywhere is immune to those. Don't confuse disappointments with regression of the program.

 

[sWiley]

Are you flippin serious? You are questioning whether we have regressed? OPEN YOUR EYES, LOL. Our teams from 2006 and Dasher's early years would DISMANTLE this piss poor sorry excuse for a team we have. Football is not relative. Just because we've had 7 or 8 or even 9 wins in a year doesn't mean we had a good team. Are you seriously going to call our 8-4 team that got clobbered at Ark St. 45-0 (and tried to find every reason in the book to lose to Troy the previous week) and then stomped in the bowl game a good team? The 8-36 record against greater than .500 teams is very telling because it shows any time we face a program that's half way decent we lose, which was the original point of the post. Again, that's not even debatable. We win 19% of the time when facing teams with a winning a record (and a winning record doesn't even ensure that they are good!)

 

[sWiley]

Originally posted by sWiley:
If ECU was so much more prestigious than us, Stock would have left when he had the offer. The reality was, we were about equals at the time and Stock thought he could elevate us further. (then ran his best OC out of town in Franklin). ECU has done nothing but move forward while we've stagnated and arguably regressed since then. These things are not even debatable Doug.

We we're about equals at the time? Are you sure?

Because the 2009 ECU Pirates won CUSA and finished 9-5 and went to the Liberty Bowl and averaged 41k fans.

That's "equals" to you?

Fans in the stands and a teams budget doesn't measure the strength of a football team. There are tons of teams with huge budgets and 70k+ in the stands who totally suck ass. When I say equals, I'm saying if MT were to meet ECU in a bowl game that year, you can bet your ass the line would be within 3 or 4 points of one another. And I promise it would have been if we were to play.

I don't give a shit about attendance and fans in the stands. Good teams and solid programs find a way to work around those issues. Shitty teams who can't move their program forward use it a crutch and ace-in-the-hole excuse.

A program's history really isn't relevant either despite you constantly bringing up the fact that we've only played Div. 1 for 14 years. How long has UCF and USF played Div 1? What about ODU, who is about equal to us on the field? They just freakin' started their program and have just as many wins as us this year (including a marquee win against La. Tech now). Boise St. went Division 1 three years before us and have tasted success for the past 10 years, being new didn't seem to hold them back much...[/QUOTE]

 

[MTLover]

We are a program that is happy with 8-4 record and a bowl game being our ultimate goal! We can live with such expectations for decades without making a change! I am not even going to get into a discussion on the pathetic Men's BB standards.

This post was edited on 11/22 6:25 PM by MTLover

 

[RaiderDoug]

I had a big long rebuttal typed out and accidentally hit the back button and lost it.

This post was edited on 11/22 9:27 PM by RaiderDoug

 

[TeKEraider]

Not worth it anyway. Just enjoy the W. Let the rest of 'em be miserable. Great win. About as far from boring as you can imagine. GO BLUE! GO STOCK!

 

[MTLover]

I have always been a supporter of Stock and given him the benefit of the doubt, except when I see an entire game with the same play calling over and over and over, and when our team fails to show up for important games.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by mtutmut:

He is mediocre, at best. For our program, it is actually better to have a bad coach that you can get rid of than a mediocre coach that just hangs around long enough to drive the program into the ground due to a lack of interest. Either Stockstill changes, or we need to demand that a change in coaching take place.

But will Stockstill change?? Good luck with that!

 

[MTLover]

We don't necessarily have to struggle for three decades to end up being good. In a few years, WKU will surpass us and that's because they are aggressive! We, on the other hand, sugarcoat major failures in the two most important programs: FB and Mens BB. Somehow Stock is becoming another Kermit Davis.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by My Boy Blue:

Cool. Everyone seems happy to just keep going 7-5, or maybe even 8-4! Hooray! That means success right? More people coming to the games right? People in the community walking up to the ticket office and buying tickets to keep those stands full right? Is that what is happening here? If it is, I must be blindfolded on game day.

Listen, to each their own, but we need a change at the top. Simple really. He has taken us as far as he can in increasing televised games, bowl games (low-level bowl games), recruitment, support/fans, etc. Time to have someone come in and take us higher.

Remove your blue-tinted colored glasses and slowly...slowly walk away and think about it.

I agree with everything you said, but the reality of the situation is that we're currently wearing an extremely bad contract that Massaro negotiated with Stockstill, and it would take more money to buy us out of that contract and hire someone else than we can afford. Frankly, I think Massaro is as much to blame here as anyone.

 

[mtutmut]

Massaro is the catalyst of all change. I have a strong feeling that he keeps tabs on what is being said on both message boards. He got rid of Andy Mac quick enough when he saw how most of the fans thought of him. Massaro and Stockstill are close, but that could actually work to our advantage. An AD is much more likely to care about what the fans want than a head coach would, and last time I checked, Chris was Rick's boss. We fans have to be more vocal to Massaro. Bitching about things on the message board is one thing, but how many have ever taken their concerns to Chris. I have, and he does seem genuinely concerned about what fans have to say as long as it is done in a constructive and respectful way. He knows that many fans are not entertained by Stockstill's product. Now, he just needs to hear it from more mouths.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by mtutmut:
Massaro is the catalyst of all change. I have a strong feeling that he keeps tabs on what is being said on both message boards. He got rid of Andy Mac quick enough when he saw how most of the fans thought of him. Massaro and Stockstill are close, but that could actually work to our advantage. An AD is much more likely to care about what the fans want than a head coach would, and last time I checked, Chris was Rick's boss. We fans have to be more vocal to Massaro. Bitching about things on the message board is one thing, but how many have ever taken their concerns to Chris. I have, and he does seem genuinely concerned about what fans have to say as long as it is done in a constructive and respectful way. He knows that many fans are not entertained by Stockstill's product. Now, he just needs to hear it from more mouths.

I've emailed Massaro about other issues in the past, but I've never complained to him before about a coach. I agree with you he needs to hear from us about this situation, so, I think I may just send him an email.

I will say this, I have supported this university and this football program for years as an alumnus, member of the BRAA, season-ticket holder, etc., and have contributed thousands of dollars to them. I think I've earned the right to complain to him (in a constructive and respectful way) and let him know how I feel. I'm simply fed up with Stockstill's brand of coaching.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to see how our fellow fans feel about the situation, as well. There's not a game that goes by that multiple people don't complain about Stockstill's coaching style, and there's always a good many folks that get up and leave before the game it's over--totally frustrated at what they're seeing.

Massaro needs to hear from us, folks. Who else in onboard beside myself and mtutmut?

 

[mtutmut]

I would like to add that I would like to have Massaro "inspire" Stockstill to reform his methods, not replace him yet. Rick does a lot of things right. We just need him to correct some of his bad habits, and ineffective coaching methods. New standards in education have forced me to revise my teaching style, and I believe that Stockstill can modify his techniques to be more effective and entertaining if he is properly "motivated" to do so. Almost all coaches are stubborn to some degree. Many do not have a good relationship with their AD. We would be in a good position if we could just get Massaro to get Stockstill to correct his shortcomings. There is potential. I just do not think that Stockstill can or would do it by himself. Maybe he can't. Change usually begins from an outside source.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Originally posted by mtutmut:
I would like to add that I would like to have Massaro "inspire" Stockstill to reform his methods, not replace him yet. Rick does a lot of things right. We just need him to correct some of his bad habits, and ineffective coaching methods. New standards in education have forced me to revise my teaching style, and I believe that Stockstill can modify his techniques to be more effective and entertaining if he is properly "motivated" to do so. Almost all coaches are stubborn to some degree. Many do not have a good relationship with their AD. We would be in a good position if we could just get Massaro to get Stockstill to correct his shortcomings. There is potential. I just do not think that Stockstill can or would do it by himself. Maybe he can't. Change usually begins from an outside source.

Stock is not going to change his strategy, his style...he has been a head coach for a decade.

 

[MidTnBlues]

What style and methods/strategy/styles are you all referring to?

 

[mtutmut]

Originally posted by Blueraider_Mike:

Originally posted by mtutmut:
I would like to add that I would like to have Massaro "inspire" Stockstill to reform his methods, not replace him yet. Rick does a lot of things right. We just need him to correct some of his bad habits, and ineffective coaching methods. New standards in education have forced me to revise my teaching style, and I believe that Stockstill can modify his techniques to be more effective and entertaining if he is properly "motivated" to do so. Almost all coaches are stubborn to some degree. Many do not have a good relationship with their AD. We would be in a good position if we could just get Massaro to get Stockstill to correct his shortcomings. There is potential. I just do not think that Stockstill can or would do it by himself. Maybe he can't. Change usually begins from an outside source.

Stock is not going to change his strategy, his style...he has been a head coach for a decade.

He has been a head coach for 9 years, and I have been a teacher for over twice as long. I was pretty set in my ways until a couple of years ago when the state standards changed. I had to adapt, or I risked eventually losing my job. He can change by simply playing more of a supporting role, just as a head coach should. When a head coach is helping to call plays, there is something wrong. When players are showing signs of apathy, there is something wrong. It could all start being fixed in one day. Let the OC run the offense, and have automatic consequences for players that either screw up, or are not giving their all. Stock seems to be too complacent. Trust me, that can be fixed by Massaro.

 

[mtutmut]

Originally posted by MidTnBlues:
What style and methods/strategy/styles are you all referring to?

Is this a sarcastic rhetorical question, or have you not watched MT football very much over the last 9 seasons?

 

[MidTnBlues]

Where are people getting that CRS is calling the plays? I just can't see any college level coach calling offensive plays. Maybe wanting to keep it on the ground or something to burn clock or game management. Either way, not going to debate that he does or not since I see so many false statements on these boards from people. I honestly don't see any signs of player apathy and players will make mistakes. They all do at some point. I don't think automatic consequences for a mistake is something I would encourage. At least that philosophy is not one that the coaches I have worked with have. But everyone will view that one way or the other and I can agree to disagree on that philosophy.

If you want to be critical on coaching, then I think you should be critical of the fundamentals that we failed at. For starters I have heard CRS state that he has to coach them better in reference to fumbles during a press conference - but turnovers cost us the FIU game so they really need to work on not carrying the football like a loaf of bread.I didn't watch the UTEP game so I can't speak as to what went wrong with that game. As well, we tend to struggle against press defenses - Marshall really gave our offense a fit. Considering the youth on our offense, I would expect that honestly. press man requires everyone to do their part on the offensive side of the ball. On the defensive side of the ball I would be critical of missed tackles, not wrapping up, and our front seven not getting penetration on blitzes. I could had prepared a three course dinner in the amount of time it took for some of our guys to hurry a QB.

 

[MidTnBlues]

No, it was not sarcastic, and I was not trying to being disrespectful.

 

[MidTnBlues]

And I will agree that we should be critical of our coaching staff. I'm sure Massaro is discussing the two losses that shouldn't.

 

[mtutmut]

Originally posted by MidTnBlues:
No, it was not sarcastic, and I was not trying to being disrespectful.

In that case, here you go. Stockstill's style is WAAAAAAAYYYY too conservative. For example, he will just sit on the ball with a couple of minutes left before half-time.....even when he is behind. No amount of booing from the crowd has swayed him on that topic in 9 years. He is stubborn.(What coach isn't?) He will often stick with a failed game plan WAAAAAAYYYY too long before making any adjustments. His game plan is predictable by the end of the first few drives. One game is a bubble-screen palooza. The next one has no deep passes. The next on is WAAAAAAYY too many long passes when our receiver is never open. (Long pass being used to describe the attempt to go long with a weak quarterback.) Another game is run, run, run. The next is short pass, short pass, short pass. Stockstill obviously does not like the quick slant, or crossing patterns. He also rarely ever uses his tight end. In short, he is predictable, and play calling comes in surges. He needs to mix things up, and balance our attack more when our offense is not rolling. Now, sometimes a team can not stop our run, and it makes sense to run over and over again. Sometimes, they can not cover our receivers, so it pays to pass, pass, pass. The problem is when teams stop our run, or cover our receivers. Our offense is SLOW to make adjustments.....if at all. To answer your question about him calling the plays. He admitted to playing a part in the play calling at a coach's show a few years ago. Also, an astute observer can easily notice different styles of play calling. You can also see Stockstill talking into his microphone between most plays of most series. Don'T even get me started on the defense.

This post was edited on 12/11 9:36 AM by mtutmut

 

[RaiderDoug]

My big issue with the playcalling is we seem to completely abandon certain parts of the offense at times.

The much maligned defense actually got much better towards the end of the year, if you go by the #'s. I've posted in another thread that I believe that the reason for the stumbles at the end of the season was the fact that we stopped throwing the ball except for obvious passing downs. We didn't even attempt to threaten teams downfield.

We won games in the first part of the season by outscoring teams. We stopped trying to do that for some reason.

In past years, we've been an Air Raid throw, throw, throw team with very little run game.

I give Stock some credit for tailoring teams to the personnell.

But if you make yourself one dimensional, you've done the defense's job for it, and you're not going to win too many games that way.