Started By
Message
re: 247 List of Top Jobs in College FB
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:56 am to StopRobot
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:56 am to StopRobot
quote:
100% Alleva. I mean LSU wasnt landing Saban or Meyer but he damn sure could have done better than Coach O.
There seemed to be a good bit of LA pressure to get Coach O and Alleva caved when he struck out elsewhere.
LSU should be right outside "elite" (top 5). With the human handicap Alleva at the helm, they are on par with Auburn at best
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 8:58 am
0
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:04 am to Sandwich
quote:
but South Carolina is not a recruiting hot bed and the campus/school is very average.
They've invested millions in facility upgrades...their new football facility will be one of the best in the country. SC may not be a hot bed but neither is Oklahoma
SC.They also are right on the boarder with Ga and also go down the Florida for recruits.
They also have an "all in" administration that'll do pretty much do anything takes to be successful.
Definitely a top 10 job.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:06 am to Sandwich
quote:
the campus/school is very average.
This can't be stated enough. I personally think the phrase "auburn with a lake" is disrespectful to Auburn. Clemson's downtown is hideous.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:16 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Alabama produces about a third of the talent that Texas, Florida, and California do, while also sharing the state with Auburn. That makes it a bit more difficult.
Its not all about in state talent.Please,if that was the case the UGA job would be top 3 hands down. Ga has surpassed Ohio by a wide margin in talent and will produce more P5 signess than California within 5 years.
In state talent helps but its far from a determining factor in success.You have to have a "committed" administration and an AD that will do and spend whatever in takes to win
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:20 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:20 am to Triple Daves
quote:
I think Florida State is a pretty plum job. It has its downsides (less money mainly), but they are the elite program in that league historically, have pipelines throughout Florida, are still "cool", and at this point have been an elite program for 30 years.
TripleDaves
You haven't said anything that can't be said of most the programs ranked below them or anything that isn't already recognized. The deficiencies I outlined above are real and also have to be considered. Compared to other programs ranked below them that also have the upsides you described, those deficiencies are significant, and most of them have more money, more fan support, more booster support, are better schools, have better facilities, have better stadiums, better overall athletic departments and better AD's.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:23 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:24 am to OilfieldLSUFan
Auburn not in the top-15 after playing for two titles in 7 years? I wouldn't call AU a top-10, but it's definitely up the list, especially if you're going to put Clemson at 3.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:26 am to Iron Lion
quote:
How are Clemson and Oklahoma better jobs than LSU?
More money, facilities, and a history of stability for coaches...
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:32 am to Phat Phil
quote:
Clemson was barely a top 30 job 5 years ago. Now they're #3 all of a sudden ahead of friggin USC, Texas, and Florida LOLOL
Now see, this is where you aren't thinking. Southern Cal, Texas, Florida. Places where the fanbase is never, ever happy. Ever.
That's not the gig you want. You want the stable gig where you can win games, live a good life, make 4, instead of 6 million a year. And win a national championship in ten years maybe. The kids are happy, wifey is happy. You are happy.
No emo, no drama. No Auburn boosters. No crazy Gumps.
So from this list, these are my picks if I was the flavor of the month coaching candidate:
Clemson
Michigan
UCLA
Penn State* (The Paterno stain is not gone yet though. Have to disqualify them.)
Michigan State
TCU
Washington
Stanford
Oregon
Virginia Tech
Arkansas* (Maybe I sense disturbances in the booster force. Still they do seem to show patience.)
Miami (Fla.)
You are looking for sane fans, boosters that aren't Bobby Lowder flying in Petrinos on a plane. A place where if you do a great job and eventually win something big, people LOVE-LOVE-LOVE you.
Not a place like Auburn where you play for a national championship, then they are ready to burn you in effigy 2 years later.
And another thing. You guys, or a lot of you apparently don't know what's what.
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.
We do pretty well per capita at landing players in the NFL. You see some variance in this, but we consistently do pretty good. Only Louisiana and Mississippi consistently beat us at this. As I said you see a lot of these analyses if you read them as they come over the years. But we definitely do not lag Florida, Texas, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, California, North Carolina, etc in any given year. Actually I'd wager we finish ahead of those states more often than not. If you figure on a PER CAPITA basis.
So, what's Georgia's populatiion? Florida's? Maybe you wipes would be sucking our schlongs if we had the same population.
That is all.
*Oh yeah, wanted to add something. Definitely not a Clemson fan, but while Georgia hasn't been as fruitful for Clemson as it has for Auburn, they are about the same distance from Atlanta. They are well situated to recruit that and North Georgia. Couple that with the fact they play 4 NC teams a year, and they have quite a good recruiting footprint.
Hasn't always turned out that way, but if you think about it, it really is a better setup than Auburn has. Or lots of schools. Off the top of my head only A&M, LSU, Florida, and Georgia have better ones from a mechanical standpoint from the SEC (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.)
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:40 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:38 am to Sunbeam
quote:
Now see, this is where you aren't thinking. Southern Cal, Texas, Florida. Places where the fanbase is never, ever happy. Ever.
That's not the gig you want. You want the stable gig where you can win games, live a good life, make 4, instead of 6 million a year. And win a national championship in ten years maybe. The kids are happy, wifey is happy. You are happy.
While this is true, every coach is eventually a victim of their own success. I agree though that some of those schools outside the first tier are going to give their coach much more time after a great season and it is easier to build up some equity.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:41 am to Boomer00
quote:You think you have more money and better facilities than LSU athletics?
More money, facilities
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:46 am to lsupride87
Not quite sure why UCLA is so high.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:49 am to Triple Daves
quote:
Oregon was solid under Brooks and Belloti aND Kelly's wizardry made them a national player, but they are not a traditional power and live and die with perfectly recruiting to a system.
Also have to realize how tough it is to get recruits that's not from the west coast. Say a highly touted recruit from Dallas was visiting. He would have to get a direct flight to Portland, then drive basically 2 hours to get to Eugene.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:50 am to Sunbeam
quote:
So, what's Georgia's populatiion? Florida's? Maybe you wipes would be sucking our schlongs if we had the same population.
Nope not at all Not close you still rank 16th
Per participant is still a much better way to judge as opposed to per capita.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:52 am to OilfieldLSUFan
I get why clemson should be high but FSU should be higher. I don't get MSU being in there. OM for instance has better football budget and better recruiting territory.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:53 am to OilfieldLSUFan
This list is obviously a current assessment with less weight on a historic context. Clemson is doing well now because they are able to recruit well outside of South Carolina. That has not always been the case. Florida is down now but if they get another coach who can recruit the state of Florida like they should, they will be a national power again. Georgia is probably ranked correctly due to the wealth of recruiting in the state of Georgia alone.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:56 am to GenesChin
Not quite sure why UCLA is so high.
Lot of angles to this.
A lot of people (not me, but a lot of people dig them some California). Nice climate (though I actually prefer Northern California and the Pacific Northwest).
Too many SJW's for me, but for some people living in Westwood, Rodeo Drive, and MAYBE getting to press flesh with some of the beautiful people is a draw.
Plus it is a high money area. And when you tend to business in a high money area, it just seems like things with ... high money come along. In a way they never will at Kansas State. I mean if you get a gig like Brad Scott pitching ketchup (remember that Gamecock fans?), it is just going to be so much more lucrative.
There is a hidden factor though. I'm not so sure California is exactly a recruiting hotbed anymore. Great place to get offensive linemen and qb's. But since we are in a period akin to the "Great Migration," blacks are steadily decreasing in California.
Yep, they are losing that SEC speed. Increased number of polynesians are becoming a factor in producing linemen, but is isn't the same as it was from the 50's to the 90's.
What's interesting is that most of the PAC schools seem to get about 50% of their rosters from California. My take is the PAC schools aren't what they once were, including Southern Cal.
The same factors that finished Minnesota as a blue blood school (look it up, they were as dominant as anyone ever has been through 1940) are finishing them.
Lot of angles to this.
A lot of people (not me, but a lot of people dig them some California). Nice climate (though I actually prefer Northern California and the Pacific Northwest).
Too many SJW's for me, but for some people living in Westwood, Rodeo Drive, and MAYBE getting to press flesh with some of the beautiful people is a draw.
Plus it is a high money area. And when you tend to business in a high money area, it just seems like things with ... high money come along. In a way they never will at Kansas State. I mean if you get a gig like Brad Scott pitching ketchup (remember that Gamecock fans?), it is just going to be so much more lucrative.
There is a hidden factor though. I'm not so sure California is exactly a recruiting hotbed anymore. Great place to get offensive linemen and qb's. But since we are in a period akin to the "Great Migration," blacks are steadily decreasing in California.
Yep, they are losing that SEC speed. Increased number of polynesians are becoming a factor in producing linemen, but is isn't the same as it was from the 50's to the 90's.
What's interesting is that most of the PAC schools seem to get about 50% of their rosters from California. My take is the PAC schools aren't what they once were, including Southern Cal.
The same factors that finished Minnesota as a blue blood school (look it up, they were as dominant as anyone ever has been through 1940) are finishing them.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:59 am to RD Dawg
quote:
Its not all about in state talent.
No one said it was. But it is a factor. Go study Nebraska football and come back and let me know why its no longer a top job.
quote:
In state talent helps but its far from a determining factor in success.
Okay so it does help. Which is what I said. And it IS a determining factor in success. Again, go study Nebraska football.
There is a reason that of all the historical elite programs, some of gone in different directions over the past 15-20 years. Take a look at those 10 historical elite programs. This is how they rank in AP Poll Points since 2000:
#1 Ohio State
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Alabama
#4 USC
#7 Texas
--------------
#14 Michigan
#22 Penn State
#23 Notre Dame
#31 Tennessee
#32 Nebraska
So 5 of those programs are right where they should be... in the Top 10 since 2000... the other 5 are relatively "down" compared to where they stood heading into the new century.
Those first 5 (OSU, OU, AL, USC, TX) hail from states that produced on average 100 players each on 2016 NFL rosters. The bottom five (MI, PSU, ND, TN, NE) hail from states that that produced on average 35 players each on 2016 NFL rosters.
quote:
You have to have a "committed" administration and an AD that will do and spend whatever in takes to win
Certainly that too is a factor. That's why Oregon ranks #6 in the AP since 2000. They have a very committed booster who has pumped hundreds of millions of $$$ to get Oregon up to where its been as of late.
There are many factors that go into this, but as far as a program maintaining success over long periods of time, the #1 factor is proximity to top talent.
Head coaches and AD's come and go and so do the whims of boosters wanting to spend big bucks on a football program, but having top tier talent right at your doorstep is for the most part constant. Those that have it have a constant advantage over those that don't.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:01 am to RD Dawg
quote:
Nope not at all Not close you still rank 16th
Per participant is still a much better way to judge as opposed to per capita.
Now see at the end of the day you still have to send guys to the NFL as a kind of Exit Exam.
And we do pretty well at that.
Hmmm, can you say "overrated?" It might be hard for you, with no teeth and all (Or is that Tennessee? Can't keep it straight.)
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:02 am to AUbagman
quote:
Auburn not in the top-15 after playing for two titles in 7 years? I wouldn't call AU a top-10, but it's definitely up the list, especially if you're going to put Clemson at 3.
The #1 knock against Auburn is having to share a state with Alabama while Nick Saban is head coach. That's going to be a major turnoff to a lot of coaches.
That being said, as chaotic as Auburn's ups and downs have been over the past 10 years (actually forever), they probably don't get enough credit for making it to not one but two title games all while Nick Saban was coaching Bama right up the road.
If Saban retires and Bama experiences a decade of 8/9 win seasons, then I would think the Auburn job would move up that list. But I don't see it moving up much in this current climate.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:05 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Those first 5 (OSU, OU, AL, USC, TX) hail from states that produced on average 100 players each on 2016 NFL rosters. The bottom five (MI, PSU, ND, TN, NE) hail from states that that produced on average 35 players each on 2016 NFL rosters.
Tennessee is really trending up in producing players. Not sure what is different from 2000 or so, but it is a real thing.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News