So now the debate begins. College Hall of Fame has a threshold for coaches. Winning % of .600. He has 158 wins in 265 games. That's .596.
I know you were told there would be no math, but do 159 wins.
The bigger question, to me, is whether he deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame regardless of the narrowness of the threshold.
Pros:
>Resurrected some moribund programs, took them places they weren't accustomed to being
>Did some quirky, innovative things on offense
>Was a good interview. Never knew what he was going to say or do
Cons:
>Winning percentage over his career got worse and worse. Good at Texas Tech, not as good at WSU and barely treading water at MSU (19-17). Joe Moorhead was 14-12 and got run slap out of town
> Consistency. Could almost always count on at least one WTF? win and at least one WTF? loss with his teams. This season alone, destroy Arkansas and A&M and then flop against Kentucky.
I think he was a good guy and fun to watch his teams. But if I look at it dispassionately I don't see a Hall of Fame resume.
>Never won his conference. Tied for first in the division once, at Texas Tech, didn't make the championship game. Tied for first in the division once at WSU, didn't qualify for the championship game. You know about State.
> Only six of his teams finished in the final Top 25. Only one was in the Top 10.
If Mike had retired today instead of *the other* I don't think there would be any conversation about Hall of Fame. Nice guy, decent coach but outside the margin.
Maybe I'm wrong.