Question for the board while the wool is thick...

[TR.sixpack]

[No message]

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

That's the difference. I dont' think he should be on the hotseat in 2009 under those circumstances. I think he should be without a seat.

 

[DowntownDawg]

the next two seasons.

 

[SheltonChoked]

12-12 is not good enough.

How long do you accept mediocrity?

 

[Goat Holder]

nm

 

[DowntownDawg]

..with an occasional sub .500 season and an occasional great year in which we make a run at the division. 6-6 is a bowl team most years (especially with the advent of the SEC playing in Birmingham), and while that is on the lower end of what I'd consider "success," there's no way he gets fired for that. He could go 6-6 for 4-5 years in a row and probably still be safe.

 

[muddawgs33]

No excuse for not building on success. I'll allow a losing season this year, but he damn well better make up for it the next.

Why? I won't. If he has a losing season this year with all the players we have returning, then it's not going to get better next year. We have a hell of alot easier schedule this year with Vandy, Kentucky, and Arkansas at home along with La. tech, SE louisiana, and Middle Tenn on the schedule. If we don't have a .500 or winning season this year, then I will just about guarantee that we won't in 2009 with a harder schedule and losing most of our starters. I don't see why Croom should get a pass this year, just because he had a winning season last year. He will have his most talented team, along with an easier schedule. There is no reason he should get a pat on the back and told "it's alright, because you won last year." Now 2009, with the turnover we will have as far as starters goes and a harder schedule, I won't be as critical of Croom if we only win 5 games, but his *** better win this year.

 

[DerHntr]

based on a losing season in 08 I would say put him on the hot seat in 2009. it is too many losing seasons for me regardless of the situation.

but I don't really care about the ranking for total offense as much as you. i realize that anyone can see that we have a solid defense that is hindered by a less than mediocre offense. in theory, if we were to increase offensive productivity AND continue to do well defensively then we should have better seasons. the problem with your scenario is that the defense could very well be worse next year, the offense better, and we still get a 5-7 season. so for me, i would say put him on the hot seat regardless of the rankings of our Defense or Offense. Of course I see where you are coming from though.

more to back up my argument:

Teams that were ranked in the top 50 in Total Offense last year and had losing seasons: 12 (this does not include teams that went 6-6 and lost their bowl game)
Team.....Ranking.....Season Record
Nebraska...#7...5-7
Toledo...#17...5-7
Washington State...#21...5-7
New Mexico State...#26...4-9
UTEP...#27...4-8
SMU...#29...1-11
K State...#33...5-7
Marshall...#39...3-9
N. Texas...#41...2-10
Minnesota...#43...1-11
U. Lousiana Laf....#45...3-9
Rice...#47...3-9
http://robots.cnnsi.com/football/ncaa/stats/2007/divia/team/total_offense_byTOT_YDS_PER_GAME.html

The reason this happens in my opinion is because we are comparing apples to oranges when looking at rankings of offense based on Total Offense if we don't consider the rankings of Total Defense of the teams that each team plays during the year. For example, with SMU, Rice, and Marshall all ranking in the top 50 in total offense but have losing seasons makes you wonder what the rankings for Total Defense were in C-USA.

We played 6 teams this season that were ranked in the top 50 in Total Defense. (#'s 3, 4, 11, 34, 36, and 50 (tie at 50))

SMU on the other hand played 4 teams this season that were ranked in the to 50 in Total Defense (#'s 21, 47, 49, and 50). So I would say that their Total Offense numbers are inflated. Is there offense probably better than ours...Yes. Is it over 70 teams better...probably not.

I have to add that I would really like to see us in the top 100 in total offense with the defense sustaining its success but I don't really care if we are dead last as long as we are continuing to win.</p>

 

[SheltonChoked]

I do not think we would be able to fire Croom The SEC COY from the year before that brought us back from the dead without getting murdered by the press. So, that's the reason for the "pass" in 2008.

And don't give me the ******** excuse of "look at the players we are losing" It's his damn job to make sure he does not lose all of his talent in one year. He should have gotten of his walrus *** and recruited. (and judging by what's committed this year, he is now)

2007 told me we were recovered from what Jackie left... now it's time to play with the big kids. No excuses. You get a few "bad breaks" one year, you better bust *** to make them"good breaks" next year.

 

[ArrowDawg]

......for another 3 years as others have suggested. So to answer your question, I don't think he'll have to have a winning season in '09 to keep his job if he has a losing season this year. That's MSU, the only SEC program outside of Vandy where one winning season every 10 years will buy you job security for another 10.

 

[patdog]

Croom should be told that McCorvey is gone and Croom can decide if he wants to fire him or be fired with him. Just for the record for the sheep, just because I said it's possible we could go 5-7 doesn't mean I'm prediciting it. My prediction is holding steady at 6-6, and I think our offense may even finish in the 90s.
</p>
Edited to add that yes, if Croom goes 5-7 in 2008, he needs to win at least 6 games in 2009 to keep his job.