re: How would you rank the SEC head coaching jobs?

Good list. I'd swap UGA & Bama, but agree with the rest for the most part.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes. Total number of recruits isn't the only relevant variable.

---

That's why I listed blue chips only Einstein.Tell me the other "relevant variables"

---

Competition for those recruits.

If Louisiana has 16 blue chips, LSU gets 11-13 of them, and Alabama gets 2 or 3 (due to Saban's inroads and being THE dominant program in the nation). A&M occasionally might get 1. Also occasionally, someone national might get 1, but not regularly.

With Georgia, you have: UGA, Auburn, Clemson and to a lesser degree GT, and then SC, Alabama, Fla, and some other ACC teams all setting up tentpoles there.

With Fla, it's even more competitive: Fla, fighting with Fla State and Miami instate; LSU hitting the panhandle; UGA and Auburn coming down across the border; UCF and similar trying to sweep up enough of the 2nd tier to field a strong G5 team. Plus, every national program wants a player or 2 from there- that means Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.

LSU is the better job, because like I said, you get almost all the instate talent, you have a STRONG foothold in the I-10 corridor from Houston to past Destin.

A#1 - Clemson and thats why we have Dabo the GOAT

quote:

---

We've got over 120 years worth of CFB data and somehow LSU is the top job in the conference? And Georgia is second? I'd say those administrations have been incompetent at best for century if that's the case, and downright negligent at worst

---

Yes. LSU hired Mike Archer, Curley Hallman, and Gerry DiNardo in succession. Also we kept Less Miles for 11.5 seasons. Bama fanbase is more rabid and demanding than ours (usually a good thing, but can be bad). I'm not as familiar with UGA's history, but they kept Richt around for much longer than Bama would have

quote:

---

Mithridates6

---

Decent post. Can't disagree with any of it.

quote:

---

1) LSU- small state, but produces a ton of talent per capita, next door to TX, no instate competition and few competitors in immediate vicinity.

---

People don't understand how important this is. Georgia has more talent, but we get raided by Auburn, Clemson, Florida, FSU, South Carolina, Tennessee....they all have varying degrees of success in Georgia. Louisiana has much less talent, but it is very good talent and LSU has it locked down as a whole. IF LSU wants a Louisiana kid they typically get him. yes, there are exceptions....but in general.

quote:

---

LSU and Oklahoma do well recruiting in Texas

---

True. When you add that to the Louisiana talent it adds up to 2019.

(Although Joe Burrow helped a tiny little bit)

quote:

---

Competition for those recruits

---

That has nothing to do with what I stated.I was referring to raw numbers.

quote:

---

Louisiana has 16 blue chips, LSU gets 11-13 of them, and Alabama gets 2 or 3

---

Here is the data:9/15 (2015) 13/19 (2016) 3/10 (2017)9/13 (2018) 8/14 (2019) 3/16 2020

And it's still 16 blue chips.Sorry,I'd rather have access 40+ and put up with the competition.BTW,no doubt your state puts out exceptional talent but the pool isn't growing with the population in decline.Bama, Florida and Georgia are all trending up with population growth and with their talent base.Looks like LSU is going to recruit on more of a national footprint going forward.


[quote]LSU is the better job, because like I said, you get almost all the instate talent, you have a STRONG foothold in the I-10 corridor from Houston to past Destin.
[/quote]

It's a better recruiting situation than Bama but doesn't make it a better job.

BTW,UF should be killing it with Miami and FSU in decline.UCF and FAU aren't pulling any recruits away from them.

IRL jobs are ranked by pay.