re: College Football Coach Rankings: Greg McElroy releases Top 25 head coaches

quote:

---

It's nothing but a bullshite hype trophy.

---

I'm gonna have to agree with this nowadays. Unless a Texas guy wins it of course.

quote:

---

I'm gonna have to agree with this nowadays. Unless a Texas guy wins it of course.

---

I'm happy for the Alabama players when they win it, but I'll always call it the hypesman.

quote:

---

I'm gen X. We don't get triggered, we do the triggering.

---

Keep reminding yourself that next time you get upset.

quote:

---

Did you miss the part where the list I made is the order in which I would want to hire them to coach at Alabama?

---

So you made a list that has nothing to do with the OP. Way to keep the conversation moving forward.

quote:

---

Clemson does not have the resources to compete with NIL. If he came to Alabama, he would obviously have the resources needed to bring in better classes/recruits as he did when he was having success.

---

That has little to do with the transfer portal. He was just not using it. He philosophically hated it. They also have a better NIL program than most P4 schools.

quote:

---

Lanning is still a newer coach. Sark is not. Sark's scheme generates too many negative plays that kills drives and relies heavily on explosive plays. It's bad in the redzone and I just think he's not a great coach in general. I've been watching him since he was 7 win Sark at Washington.

---

So you're relying on potential rather than results. Seems pretty dumb. As far as "negative plays", Texas average more YPG than Oregon while also not playing any FCS opponents. When you look at their 2 systems last year they were pretty similar, get the ball out quickly to your play makers. Quick routes and screen passes (difference being that Oregon wasn't dealing with running back injuries).

quote:

---

He took over the team that made Saban retire. Saban looked at the team, the incoming class and where things were and was like - frick this, I'm out.

---

:lol:

quote:

---

I think we saw why. With good QB play, probably a 1 loss team at most.

---

It should have been a 1 loss team at most anyways. It was the most talented team in the country. Saban took a less experience Milroe and made the 4 team playoffs. Deboer took a more experience Milroe and missed the 12 team playoffs. If you go look at his time at UW, you'll see that he lives in close games. He finds it hard to put a team away, and that caught up to him this year. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Saban was going to lose to Vandy

quote:

---

Claiming a trap game win is like 5-0 in big games is what's dumb

---

You were using head 2 head record to justify 1 coach being better than the other. I just showed you how silly that was. Marcus Freeman is 1-0 against Kirby... That obviously means he's a better coach.

quote:

---

Oregon vs Washington is a big time rivalry in case you weren't aware. And I'm sure you know where the Sark losses come from.

---

It's a rivalry... It's not exactly "big time". If you ask a Oregon fan what game matters most to them , they'd say UW. If you asked a UW fan, they'd say the Apple Cup.

As far as Sark's losses... 1 was the Alamo bowl where Bijan sat out due to being a projected first round pick. It really shouldn't have been that close. The other was just a tremendous game by a 6th year QB. He was placing balls where only his recievers could make a play. That had little to do with Deboer. Deboer actually almost coached himself out of the game. Texas shouldn't have gotten the ball back for the final drive. He did a terrible job managing the clock.

quote:

---

He would have been fired if not for the DEI playoffs.Any other year, it's a bowl game and he is fired. He also lost to the same 7-5 Michigan team you cited against DeBoer, for the 4th year in a row. In fact, Michigan wouldn't have been bowl eligible otherwise, Ohio St was their 6th win and Alabama was the 7th. Considering what he was given, he shouldn't have had more than 1 loss - if that.

And since national championships are easier to win now, I'm not given it as much credit. Again, dude would have been fired otherwise.

---

... Yet he made the playoffs ( and won a national championship) while Deboer missed them all together....

quote:

---

Considering what he was given, he shouldn't have had more than 1 loss - if that.

---

Weird that you're using this logic on Day but not Deboer.

As far as a national championship being easier to win now, thats even dumber than your list. The 2 championship teams wouldn't have made a 4 team playoff.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think I understand why Kelly is above some of the others he's ahead of. Ditto for james "beat the scrubs in my conference and lose to the top 2 teams yearly but still finish in the top 10" franklin.

I DO absolutley agree with dabo tumbling down these lists as he's one of the biggest frauds on these lists annually. Hard to argue with the top 3, although i'd be inclined to put sark at 2.

---

We will wait and see how the first game go for LSU against Clemson this coming season.

---

That's a pretty dumb thing to say, honestly

They have Kelly ranked #9, Dabo at #7. Clemson was a playoff team last year, not LSU. Clemson returns Klubnik, one of the 2 QBs recently listed above LSU's Nussmeier. The game is at Clemson.

Everything points to Clemson winning, why drop Kelly for that?

quote:

---

Previously, in order to win a national championship you had to have an incredible season and then finish it out.

---

Ahh yes, the BCS when ND wouldn't play anybody but would get into the national championship was obviously much harder... Or the 4 team playoff when Cincinnati gets in only to be a cakewalk for whoever plays them.

Yes, the 12 team playoff is harder. Now teams actually have to play at least 1 legit competitor before getting into the title game.

quote:

---

Now, you can just get hot at the right time as we saw with Ohio St this year. Any other year, they don't even get the chance.

---

Maybe the other teams should have played like a national championship team and Ohio State wouldn't have won.

quote:

---

Ahh yes, the BCS when ND wouldn't play anybody but would get into the national championship was obviously much harder... Or the 4 team playoff when Cincinnati gets in only to be a cakewalk for whoever plays them.

Yes, the 12 team playoff is harder. Now teams actually have to play at least 1 legit competitor before getting into the title game.

---

If you want to argue people put too much on record and not enough on SoS, you'll be singing to the choir.

But your claim that shite changed is laughable because it sure as hell hasn't.

Texas made the playoffs this year without beating a single top25 team. So did multiple other teams. And then they played each other, giving teams their first and only top25 win of the year.

quote:

---

Maybe the other teams should have played like a national championship team and Ohio State wouldn't have won.

---

Michigan did in the final game before the playoffs. Michigan turned around and beat Alabama as well. Maybe we just need a 64 team playoff so teams like Michigan get their chance. Apparently, they were hot at the right time and that's all that matters.

List is shite. No Mike Elko.

quote:

---

your claim that shite changed is laughable because it sure as hell hasn't.

Texas made the playoffs this year without beating a single top25 team. So did multiple other teams. And then they played each other, giving teams their first and only top25 win of the year.

---

... And they ran into a buzz saw by playing Ohio State (the best team in the country). The points mute. Had they won the national championship, you point made have carried a little weight.

Ohio State had to beat Tennessee, Oregon and Texas to just get into the National championship. Only an idiot looks at that and says "it's easier to win a championship now than it was in previous years".

quote:

---

Michigan did in the final game before the playoffs. Michigan turned around and beat Alabama as well. Maybe we just need a 64 team playoff so teams like Michigan get their chance. Apparently, they were hot at the right time and that's all that matters.

---

I never once said it's strictly about getting hot at the right time. It's a balance of regular season performance (2 losses at most) and playing your best football at the right time. They were the best team in football at the end of the season, and a top 5 team for most of the season.

quote:

---

Once the playoffs start, the SoS argument is gone and done. The SoS argument should be to decide who gets there to start with. So I'm not sure in what way it would matter if you win a National Championship. It's not the poll era.

---

The SOS argument is a factor as to what teams make it in. As far as beating Tenn, Oregon and Texas in one postseason run, that's the definition of a tough post season run (much harder than any 4 team playoff).

quote:

---

If having a great regular season is so easy, why does Ohio St struggle to do it so often?

---

Is there another Ohio State that I don't know about? Because the one in Columbus routinely has a great regular season...

quote:

---

It's obviously not an easy thing to do, and it never was. Alabama in 2013 for example, loses to Auburn on the kick six, last second of the game - national championship gone. In 2010, Alabama lost 3 regular season games, a good bit due to injury. Gets healthy for bowl season, probably could have beat anyone.

The teams you play in the regular season are often times teams that have been recruited and things specifically to play against these teams. That's how conferences have "styles" about them.

Now you can lose a few of those games and it doesn't matter. And you're telling me that it's harder for teams as a result?

---

Yes its harder as a result. Great teams like you pointed out, now make it. It's now harder to win a National Championship. It's not longer just 2 teams (one of which never really belonged there in the first place half the time).

quote:

---

Clemson had 3 losses, so it's not 2 at most.

---

2 regular season losses. Georgia still would have been in if they lost in the SEC championship as well. That can change yearly depending on the field. Some times a 3 loss regular season team could sneak in.

quote:

---

Losses aren't actually involved at all really, since you just have to win a conference.

---

They still are. For the most part, no P4 conference has teams playing each other for a championship with more than 3 losses. Even so, to get to the championship game you still have to play a team with a pulse.

quote:

---

And you certainly don't need to be top5 for most of the season.

---

Correct. That's part of the game. As the season goes on teams should get better. Championship teams play their best football at the end of the season. I think the championship should go to the best team. This format makes sure that happens. It's not based on computer ranking bs or 4 teams where 1 or 2 really have no shot. It's an actually field with more contenders than pretenders.

quote:

---

The only thing that matters is you make it in and get hot. Just like every other tournament in history. Ohio St literally lost to a 5 win team the game before the playoffs started. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that is true of any other national champion in history.

---

So your argument is Ohio State (clearly the best team in college football) should for some reason have been left out of the playoffs (even though they were the best team) and another obviously worse team should have won. That makes 0 sense and doesn't make winning a championship any tougher nor meaningful.

quote:

---

Sorry, it was harder before to win a national championship. In the end, only 1 team can win it so that part doesn't change. But now it's easier because you can screw up a lot more and still win it.

---

Now it's a more true test.

quote:

---

15. Eli Drinkwitz Missouri

---

quote:

---

9. Brian Kelly – LSU

---

Well, this is awkward…

All I keep hearing from you and your alter baws is how much BK sucks and how awesome drunktits is.