quote:
Back on topic...determining coaching trees probably needs a different paradigm than it once did. Coaching is a much more volatile profession nowadays, with less job security -- can you imagine Richt being fired with the same success (adjusted for number of games) in prior to the 1990s or so? -- and more lateral and upwards mobility. Add in the greater power of information dissemination and ability for fans/sportswriters to provide feedback, and it's just difficult to really say where a coaching tree really deserves to start branching. Some are, as in the Kirby example mentioned, pretty obvious. Most, however, come down to fairly arbitrary/highly subjective criteria.

Strongly agree here. I think the volatility of the profession came along with the more "concrete" nature of a national champion and/or conference champion. In the early 90s, conference championships largely still determined based on total record and head to head wins, so addition of a conference championship game changed things a bit. Even still, with bowl games and #1 rankings being subjective (lots of split national champions up to that point), the advent of the BCS and a MNC put more pressure on being "the best", as opposed to finishing somewhere in the top 10 and then allowing votes to determine who belonged on the top, leaving a lot of subjective consideration.

The pressure to win and win big is greater now, there is no lack of information, and essentially wherever you are, you can watch any game. This was not the case throughout the 80s and most of the 90s. With only four spots in the CFP, it's still pretty crowded to achieve the level that most programs are looking to attain. It seems like 6 with byes for 1 and 2 would make a bit more sense personally, but ultimately expansion is a slippery slope.