Question Of The Day

Comments

1. ccopfan says:

   June 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM

   No way. He’s not good enough. Two of the last three years he lost 2 straight at home in the super regionals to 2 SEC teams with losing conference records ! He gets the talent but clutches on big game days.

   Reply
2. NoleCC says:

   June 8, 2009 at 7:31 PM

   ccop,

   What is your scenario for your kind of team? One that wins a title, has a some up years (no title) and some down? Just curious.

   Reply
3. Anonymous says:

   June 8, 2009 at 9:09 PM

   My scenario would be winning atleast 2 national titles and getting you to the show 50% of the time. With the talent he brings in, and the time he has controlled the program that’s not asking too much. Or is it ?? I may be off base..

   Reply
4. Anonymous says:

   June 8, 2009 at 10:28 PM

   of course, the regular season is just a few games getting you prepared for the post season so why should a bunch a warm up wins count for anything?

   Reply
5. Jordi says:

   June 8, 2009 at 11:05 PM

   30 years and no title? Seriously? How much longer does he get? Isn’t winning the reason coaches have their job? A number 1 pick (Wilson), a number 5 pick (Posey), and countless others. He has had the talent. And its not even like FSU is producing quality major leaguers either (the Drew brothers and?). I really don’t think a new coach would drop off that much off the current climate of underachievement at Dick Howser Stadium.

   Reply
6. TN says:

   June 9, 2009 at 7:35 AM

   Yes. It is about winning. With the recruiting base FSU has there would have been another Mike Martin, only with championships.

   What is your production relative to your resources? For Martin, it must be said that he squanders a ton of talent.

   Reply
7. NoleCC says:

   June 9, 2009 at 9:08 AM

   @5, Oddly enough Jordi, looking at this team at the beginning of the season, I don’t feel like it underachieved at all.

   @6, but they have won a ton of games, just not a championship game.

   One thing about talent, I think the college game is a very level playing field, since baseball has a deep minor league system with all of the “real” talent going to that level. Sure you get the occasional Drew brother or Posey that blossoms at college before heading off to the pros, but many potential superstars never see college ball.

   Reply
8. TN says:

   June 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM

   @7/ @5

   This team probably overachieved.

   Reply
9. Gurney Halleck says:

   June 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

   As someone who was at the games this past weekend sitting through the 30 hour rain delays on Friday and the sauna that was Saturday, I can safely say, “Yes, I would trade all of his 30 years for a couple of national titles (not just 1) and a bunch of mediocrity.” The reason being it would save me the perpetual disappointment of being awesome all season long (not this season obviously) and then laying an egg come tournament time year in and year out. Also, bragging about how many tournament appearances you have is kinda lame. I have this unsinkable feeling that a year or two after good old number 11 rides off into the sunset we win a college world series and then its awkward-city whenever someone talks about Mike Martin’s legacy.

   Reply
10. ccopfan says:

    June 9, 2009 at 10:00 PM

    Though maybe not consensus, it appears the majority agree that the outlook under Martin shows no real change. The talent has been there since Danny Detweiler in the ’60s and will probably continue. The great, and real good ones, got out at the right time, ie. Berkman, Polk, Fraser, etc. Without the tradition, which started before Martin, there is not much in the way of dynamic leadership or just plain good coaching. And the phony comments in the media don’t help either, ie.”It’s unfortunate – - – - – - – that we were unfortunate.”
    By the way, average age in the SEC is middle forties for a head coach. Let the search begin.

    Reply