re: Is Michigan a better job than LSU?

quote:

---

Michigan more historically relevant.

---

That's debatable. Sure, they have a lot of wins going back to the 1800s, but until this year they had a total of 1/2 of a national championship since 1948.

quote:

---

Michigan more historically relevant.

---

They have 3 Natty's in school history. LSU has had 3 different coaches do that in the last 20 years. Ok, Michigan has won the most games in college football history, but look at who they get to play and have played over the years.

quote:

---

Michigan is #1 in all-time wins and was the first program to win 1000 games.

---

This is argument makes more sense

Although Michigans eras of dominance were spread out between the early 1900s and then of course the 70s. And then some good seasons sprinkled in.

I do not think that the success of the program in those era = being a better job today.

UM has larger stadium, larger athletic budget, a $17b endowment, larger alumni base, positioned in an area with much higher population base.

I would say it is better than all SEC schools…except Texas. Just needs the right coach.

Clearly you have one of them government jobs.

Line of the day!

quote:

---

Is Michigan a better job than LSU?

---

I guess it depends on perspective and context.

I would suggest (and history seems to validate this) that LSU has better and more consistent access to elite NFL talent. You might have a few holes (traditionally it was QB), that you used to have to address by recruiting nationally... now with the portal that's easier to fix.
Odds are, in any given season with a healthy program, LSU will have better WRs, DBs, LBs than Michigan, with a couple linemen on both sides that will be good enough.

Michigan has to dip into the South to get elite skill position guys most of the time, and that's always worrisome. On the other hand, it's no slouch, and the interest is always there.

I would say the perfect storm hit for Michigan this year: Harbaugh could not handle Urban, but they were able to push past Day at Ohio State. Penn State seems to have settled into 10-2, doesn't challenge anymore.
UGA was the "best" team, but Bama was able to beat them on the "any given day" scenario. But that was an offensively flawed Bama team, with a raw and streaky QB and a center with poor fundamentals. And Bama displayed those flaws, and still the game went to OT.

You get a higher ceiling with LSU. When LSU hits on all cylinders, you don't need a lucky draw in the playoffs, or face an opponent with flaws.

quote:

---

Is Michigan a better job than LSU?
quote:
Is Michigan a better job than LSU?
I guess it depends on perspective and context.

I would suggest (and history seems to validate this) that LSU has better and more consistent access to elite NFL talent. You might have a few holes (traditionally it was QB), that you used to have to address by recruiting nationally... now with the portal that's easier to fix.
Odds are, in any given season with a healthy program, LSU will have better WRs, DBs, LBs than Michigan, with a couple linemen on both sides that will be good enough.

Michigan has to dip into the South to get elite skill position guys most of the time, and that's always worrisome. On the other hand, it's no slouch, and the interest is always there.

I would say the perfect storm hit for Michigan this year: Harbaugh could not handle Urban, but they were able to push past Day at Ohio State. Penn State seems to have settled into 10-2, doesn't challenge anymore.
UGA was the "best" team, but Bama was able to beat them on the "any given day" scenario. But that was an offensively flawed Bama team, with a raw and streaky QB and a center with poor fundamentals. And Bama displayed those flaws, and still the game went to OT.

You get a higher ceiling with LSU. When LSU hits on all cylinders, you don't need a lucky draw in the playoffs, or face an opponent with flaws.

---

solid post with solid arguments