Started By
Message
re: 247 List of Top Jobs in College FB
Posted on 2/21/17 at 11:15 am to BHMKyle
Posted on 2/21/17 at 11:15 am to BHMKyle
quote:
If you go back to 2010 and look at the Top 10 kids from the state of Alabama in each of the 8 classes, here is where they signed:
51% signed with Alabama
31% signed with Auburn
18% signed somewhere out of state
Obviously Bama is winning more often than not, but they still are sharing a state with a school that is getting 30+% of the top kids from the state.
Now go back and see how many of those top 10 kids each year had an offer to both Bama and AU. See how many with an offer to both chose to stay in state. How many with an offer to both chose Bama? #s are skewed b/c not all top 10 players during that 8 year stretch had an offer to both.
Bama may share a state with AU, but with the TOP talent in this state - those that end up in NFL - Bama wins more than 51% of that talent.
Also, Bama shares a state with AU, but neither are dependent on Alabama talent. Both pull from border states and beyond.
1
Posted on 2/21/17 at 11:50 am to AUCE05
Dabo says "Right on."
Clemson is in pretty good shape right now; kids are watching Dabo dancing with the team, bunch of characters in the locker room, the brand new facilities, playing for two straight championships, DW going to New York two straight years, recruiting on a pretty high level, etc. They pay the coaches well, and there is plenty of support from the admin and the fans.
It's not that hard to understand why it's a good job.
For those arguing schools like Georgia, LSU and Texas, I don't think you're factoring in the pressure in those places. This guy didn't say those are bad jobs, but that right now, there are some better.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:13 pm to lsupride87
quote:
You think you have more money and better facilities than LSU athletics?
Yep, more yearly revenue and a 370 mil football renovation that will be done in august..you do realize OU takes zero state funding right? also OU pays coaches more. This is without even factoring in the difference in winning.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:20 pm to Boomer00
quote:
and a 370 mil football renovation that will be done in august
Wasn't that originally $450 million that was supposed to start 2 years ago?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:21 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
No it was always 350 as far as I know.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:24 pm to Solo Cam
quote:
Why? Oregon has wayyyyy better facilities and have been to multiple national title games in the past decade. Washington was literally good for 1 year.
how old are you? Washington won a national title in the 90s and have won 16 conference titles
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:26 pm to OilfieldLSUFan
This list is dumb. The hottest jobs in college FB should be based on money and recruiting. With money, you can have nice facilities and bring in top assistants. With recruiting (and money), you can bring in top talent. Clemson had a good few years, but they still don't have the revenue and fertile recruiting grounds of teams ranked lower, like UT. UT should be like top 2 or 3.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:30 pm to Boomer00
You've gone full retard. OU does not pay better. Recruiting in LA is better. LSU is one of the highest revenue generating schools and it is one of the 6 or 7 that make profits.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:37 pm to Guidge
Wrong, OU pays more Bob makes over 6 mil, OU makes more...also as of right now OU has better facilities.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:40 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
South Carolina had 4.8 million people as of 2014. Obviously we are behind a number of southern states, but have more than states like Alabama (think we passed them), Mississippi, maybe Louisiana, certainly Arkansas.
Alabama - 4.85 million
South Carolina - 4.83 million
(
quote:
yeah I left Alabama off that list Gumps; Saban goes and you better hire a heck of a recruiter if you want to keep it up. Your base is not as good as some other schools.)
Yes, because Alabama didn't win before Saban.
A recruiting base isn't confined to state borders.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:41 pm to Boomer00
quote:
OU pays more
What about assistants?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:43 pm to Solo Cam
quote:
Florida and Texas are top 5 jobs
Texas is well on it's way to becoming Georgia Tech athletically.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:46 pm to OilfieldLSUFan
List is shite.
It appears they didn't consider Coaching salaries, recruiting territory, or propensity of schools to make coaching changes.
Texas A&M is a nest on the ground. You have to really, really, screw up to get fired.
It appears they didn't consider Coaching salaries, recruiting territory, or propensity of schools to make coaching changes.
Texas A&M is a nest on the ground. You have to really, really, screw up to get fired.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:47 pm to Guidge
LSU job >>> OU job.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:51 pm to IStillMissDanny
I agree that Clemson is a very good job. Ow thanks to Dabo elevating the performance on the field and raising the bar for resources off the field. SEC-caliber fanbase/program. Proximity to recruits. An in-state rival that isn't exactly a juggernaut. Yet there isn't the pressure like you'd see at schools like Alabama, OSU, etc.
5 years ago, I'd say Florida was the best job but the state of Florida, like Texas, is full of competition. Texas is an overrated job.
Also, while I think Alabama is a Top 5 job, I think it might be the toughest job in the country.
5 years ago, I'd say Florida was the best job but the state of Florida, like Texas, is full of competition. Texas is an overrated job.
Also, while I think Alabama is a Top 5 job, I think it might be the toughest job in the country.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 12:57 pm to Boomer00
quote:LSU had the highest paid coaching staff in the country last year......
OU pays more Bob makes over 6 mil, OU makes more...also as of right now OU has better facilities.
LSU also does not receive state funding.
LSUs facilities are better
LSU makes more money
You are wrong with everything you say
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:00 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Yes, because Alabama didn't win before Saban.
A recruiting base isn't confined to state borders.
That's certainly true.
But be realistic. Do you think that the recruiting situation for Alabama, based is as good as LSU, A&M, Georgia, and Florida from just built in advantages?
If you have an average kind of recruiter you can have a bum at LSU and have an uphill struggle getting kids out of that state. Lots of people recruit the Memphis area, guess you could go to Nashville. Nowhere near as hard to get kids out of Georgia, but it is still a fight going against the Dogs for a kid they want.
And Auburn will sign a few kids, including some Alabama does want every year. Maybe not as many, but they will get some.
Meanwhile LSU has an entire state to themselves, and have a heck of an easier time recruiting E. Texas. And they can go into Mississippi just as well as Alabama can.
Texas... well it is big. Lots of players there. And I think everyone knows the story with Georgia and Florida.
You really think that with recruiters at any of those schools, with equal recruiting chops, and working just as hard, Alabama does as well? I mean signing the classes they do?
Not the case right now, but it could be. And one day Saban will retire. Then they most likely go back to a "normal" level of recruiting. Still very good, but will it be as good as what you can do at Georgia and the like?
A recruiting base isn't confined to state borders.
That's certainly true.
But be realistic. Do you think that the recruiting situation for Alabama, based is as good as LSU, A&M, Georgia, and Florida from just built in advantages?
If you have an average kind of recruiter you can have a bum at LSU and have an uphill struggle getting kids out of that state. Lots of people recruit the Memphis area, guess you could go to Nashville. Nowhere near as hard to get kids out of Georgia, but it is still a fight going against the Dogs for a kid they want.
And Auburn will sign a few kids, including some Alabama does want every year. Maybe not as many, but they will get some.
Meanwhile LSU has an entire state to themselves, and have a heck of an easier time recruiting E. Texas. And they can go into Mississippi just as well as Alabama can.
Texas... well it is big. Lots of players there. And I think everyone knows the story with Georgia and Florida.
You really think that with recruiters at any of those schools, with equal recruiting chops, and working just as hard, Alabama does as well? I mean signing the classes they do?
Not the case right now, but it could be. And one day Saban will retire. Then they most likely go back to a "normal" level of recruiting. Still very good, but will it be as good as what you can do at Georgia and the like?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:12 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Only Florida,Texas,California and Georgia have
100+ players in NFL. Oklahoma?Ohio?Alabama?Even with
you averaging out the number (which makes absolutely no sense)your numbers don't come close to adding up.
Players on NFL rosters (by birthplace):
California- 187
Texas- 160
Ohio- 80
Alabama- 60
Oklahoma- 16
Average for those 5 = 100.6
Here are the other five:
Pennsylvania- 66
Michigan- 46
Tennessee- 34
Indiana- 16
Nebraska- 14
Average for those 5 = 35.2
quote:
your numbers don't come close to adding up.
Actually they do. As you can see the math for yourself.
Obviously Oklahoma is the anomaly, but they are close to Texas which produces the third most NFL talent of any state, so that helps explain them. Pennsylvania is somewhat of an anomaly for the five programs who have been "down", but their turmoil over the Joe Pa stuff can explain that.
With the exception of a couple outliers (which will always be present when dealing with statistics), the more talent inside the state, the better the elite program has performed over the past 17 seasons.
There is a reason why Notre Dame, Tennessee, and Nebraska have struggled the most of all the historical elite programs since 2000. Those three come from the three states that produce the least amount of NFL talent out of those 10. I don't think that is a coincidence.
quote:
When they started getting their asses kicked in the late 80's and early 90's in bowl games they had to open up the flood gates and go after out of state boarderline criminals and thugs to win big.
Why is that? Oh I see, no talent in their state. Gotcha.
quote:
LSU and GEORGIA also have far "greater" access to talent than Bama,OSU. and Oklahoma and its really not close especially if you look at other in state P5 schools they compete with in recruiting.
Exactly. And since 2000, LSU ranks #5 in AP Poll points while Georgia ranks #9. These rankings are higher than our historical AP Poll Points ranking (LSU #11 all-time; UGA #13 all-time). Why? Because of the explosive growth in the Southeast over the last 3 decades and the proximity to top tier recruits.
Alabama, as discussed, is currently at their program high point, winning 4 National Titles in the past 8 years... so they have "access to talent" wherever in the US they want right now. That same access does not exist if they were going 8-4 every season.
Ohio State has some of the best access to talent in the country. The state of Ohio has produced the 5th most NFL players (current rosters). Ohio has 80 kids in the NFL. The state of Georgia has 97. When you factor in that there are fewer big name programs within striking distance of Ohio (compared to Georgia with Alabama, Auburn, FSU, UF, Clemson, etc. all right next door), then you could probably say that Ohio State has better access to talent than Georgia does.... certainly they have more than LSU does.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:14 pm to Sunbeam
And yet, all of those things have been a reality for at least a few decades.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:17 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
When you factor in that there are fewer big name programs within striking distance of Ohio (compared to Georgia with Alabama, Auburn, FSU, UF, Clemson, etc. all right next door), then you could probably say that Ohio State has better access to talent than Georgia does.... certainly they have more than LSU does.
Maybe. But my impression is that the rest of the Big 10 recruits Ohio harder than your neighbors recruit Georgia. Plus the nationally recruiting schools hit Ohio hard too (I think it is easier to get a kid from Ohio to truck across the country than a kid from Georgia).
You also have to consider that Pitt, and even Kentucky now go to Ohio hard too. Think there are more schools recruiting that pie as a mainstay than the other hotbeds.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News