Started By
Message
re: SDS: Ranking every SEC coaching job in 2016
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:53 pm to rockiee
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:53 pm to rockiee
Not that I'm criticizing posting this -- the Rant loves arguing bitterly over unprovable claims -- but how many times a month do these site make this list? It seems like the coaching jobs are being ranked every other week by every major website and publication.
1
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:58 pm to randomways
quote:
how many times a month do these site make this list?
This site? Not sure, haven't seen them make one this off season yet
quote:
It seems like the coaching jobs are being ranked every other week by every major website and publication.
No doubt, it is not a fresh topic by any means but was bored this morning. People will occasionally bring some interesting information to the conversation but the majority will turn it into a flame war.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:04 pm to rockiee
quote:
No doubt, it is not a fresh topic by any means but was bored this morning. People will occasionally bring some interesting information to the conversation but the majority will turn it into a flame war.
As I said, I wasn't criticizing, just observing. Since #1 is clearly Bama because of their success and facilities and #14 is (kinda?) clearly us because of the effects of the academic side when it comes to recruiting, picking numbers 2-13 are going to be everyone's favorite sport because they can't be proven wrong and they do so love proving other people wrong even though those other people also can't be proven wrong.
It's the Internet as a Skinner Box.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:06 pm to randomways
quote:
Since #1 is clearly Bama because of their success
There was actually some interesting points as to why Bama shouldn't be number 1, not that I agree with that.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:07 pm to rockiee
quote:
but the majority will turn it into a flame war.
I think this thread has been pretty good so far.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:10 pm to rockiee
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Florida
4. Georgia
5. Auburn
6. A&M
Then it gets tough
7. Tennessee
8. South Carolina, Ole Miss, MSU, Arkansas
12. Missouri
13. Kentucky
14. Vanderbilt
15. SDS
2. LSU
3. Florida
4. Georgia
5. Auburn
6. A&M
Then it gets tough
7. Tennessee
8. South Carolina, Ole Miss, MSU, Arkansas
12. Missouri
13. Kentucky
14. Vanderbilt
15. SDS
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:11 pm to rockiee
quote:
There was actually some interesting points as to why Bama shouldn't be number 1, not that I agree with that.
I would say you're proving my point, but that would be mean.
Seriously, though, in the long run, there are definitely legitimate arguments over #1 because other places have more local talent and theoretically more potential. As a snapshot of how things stand today, however, it's more difficult to argue simply because Bama gets more talent by default since they actually have the top recruiting classes right now, regardless of the talent pool in places like Texas and Florida.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:21 pm to rockiee
quote:
I think they are mainly just looking at the talent that would be in place. The ranking makes more sense when it is looked at that way.
I looked at it this way at first....but if this were the case I think Florida would be lower (For now) and LSU would be higher. Looks like they went by recruiting possibility, history, current talent, etc.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:42 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
10 years with no SEC titles, 8 years with no BCS appearances
But he did win a division title recently.
quote:
We should not be going 30+ year without a title appearance
When yall got your second national title in 1980 yall were in existence for almost 90 years. So it seems something around 45-ish years is your average time between titles. This is what I am talking about when I mention expectations.
quote:
while clemson, bama, auburn, lsu, florida, fsu, oregon, tennessee, virginia tech, etc all have, and many of them multiple times.
That seems to be the bigger problem- that programs around you have had so much success. If the last 15 years of national title games were filled with Yankee or West Coast programs Richt would still have a job. Yall made an emotional decision to fire him because you feel like you weren't keeping up with the neighbors. That shows a lack of leadership at the top that a program like Bama doesn't have (because THEY are setting the standard for everyone else).
quote:
Tell me as an outsider, what exactly should our expectations be?
I am not going to tell you what your expectations SHOULD be, because I hate when people do that for my program.
With that said, given Georgia's history Richt was a little above the average. Now maybe you can argue that a modern UGA shouldn't be judged the same as a historical UGA. And I would get that too, A&M says the same thing about back when we wouldn't let in women. I don't know UGA's whole story, but I know on paper Georgia isn't a program regularly in the national title hunt.
quote:
Well, I wish I had read this sooner because now I realize you're either trolling or you simply don't know what your'e talking about.
I am not trolling, I was being serious. Georgia Tech has more national titles overall, has a more recent national title, and has more conference championships. If there was a program like that in Texas all the LSU fans would call that program our daddy.
quote:
A&M isn't even close to being the program we are historically.
That wasn't the argument I am trying to make. I know UGA is a better program. I was just saying that I get having higher expectations than the history of your program suggests you should have.
And quite frankly the lady doth protest too much. UGA is a much closer program to A&M than say UGA is to Bama.
quote:
We're making a committment to go to the next level.
Lets just say I will believe you when your coach is making more than $4 million a year and you can spell the work "commitment."
quote:
People like you don't make any sense. You're the kind of person who will say "same old underachieving UGA..no one does less with more" then when we actually get down to business and start trying to take our program to a championship level, now we have unrealistic expectations.
You are confusing things.
I am not saying UGA shouldn't expect more, or strive to expect more. That is admirable, even if the transition from being lackadaisical about football to being Bama about football is painful.
I am saying on the metric of what job is better UGA dropped some spots during the transition period. If UGA was the old UGA then it would be a better job, because the expectations would be lower. If UGA finishes climbing the mountain and has the facilities/commitment to match a Bama at the top of the SEC then it become a better job. But yall aren't there yet.
Right now yall are in the middle stage where your expectations have risen, but you don't have Bama facilities or bagment yet. You just can't completely change a program's mentality overnight, it will take years for your fans to learn to tolerate thugs, big contracts, and borderline cheating before yall can compete on the same level a Bama can. Between now and that day your job is harder than it has been due to a mismatch between expectations and slow moving reality.
That is my point.
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 3/14/16 at 2:50 pm to rockiee
The list is pretty good but I'd have LSU above Tennessee.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:03 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
and you can spell the work "commitment."
Things like this always make me laugh. If you're going to make fun of someone spelling something wrong, at least proofread your shite before you submit it. quote:
it will take years for your fans to learn to tolerate thugs
Wait...I thought we were ThUGA, or at least that's what I've been told.
quote:
I don't know UGA's whole story, but I know on paper Georgia isn't a program regularly in the national title hunt.
Then you haven't been paying attention. We haven't been to the title game, but I would argue that more often than not over the last 15 years we've been in the "hunt", and at least was considered a team that had a chance.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:04 pm to RB10
quote:
If I were raking each job on overall attractiveness I would have it:
1. UF
2. UGA
3. Alabama
4. LSU
5. UT
6. aTM
7. Auburn
8. Arkansas
9. OM
10. USCe
11. MSU
12. Missouri
13. UK
14. Vandy
Great List but flip Missouri and MSU.
1. UF - So much talent and close to Georgia.
2. UGA - NFL talent everywhere and only has Tech to compete against.
3. Alabama - Prestige puts Bama over LSU.
4. LSU - Full of in-state Talent.
5. UT - Lack's talent but prestige places UT here with proximity to Georgia
6. aTM - Texas Talent, simple.
7. Auburn - Divides the state with Bama but close to Georgia
8. Arkansas - Only game in state with twice the money and support as Ole Miss.
9. OM - Splits the talent with MSU
10. USCe - Splits the talent with Clemson
11. Missouri - Only game in state with proximity to Illinois (Should move up)
12. MSU - Splits talent with Ole Miss with little resources
13. UK - Worst talent recruiting state in the SEC. (Should recruit Ohio better)
14. Vandy - Private School (Should look at the Stanford model)
If you look at this list in order of BCS Bowls, SEC Championship Games etc. It stacks up pretty nicely almost in order.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:13 pm to FlatwoodsForester
quote:
If you're going to make fun of someone spelling something wrong, at least proofread your shite before you submit it.
Good point.
quote:
Wait...I thought we were ThUGA, or at least that's what I've been told.
The whole "Richt has lost control" meme was completely overdone. For years prior to this year I saw UGA fans defend Richt by saying he was doing things "the right way." It takes decades to go from wanting to do things the right way to being able to kill your mother for an extra football win Bama or Ole Miss style.
quote:
but I would argue that more often than not over the last 15 years we've been in the "hunt",
I just checked- during the BCS era from 1998-2013 yall ended up in the final rankings 9 times.
That isn't what I would call "regularly in the hunt." Hell Georgia Tech has five BCS final rankings.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:14 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
I think this thread has been pretty good so far.
Still early
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:16 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
But he did win a division title recently.
and there's the prime difference in texas a&m and georgia. Yall are still striving to be higher than 3rd in your division, we're trying to win the league. Since our last title in 05 we've won the east twice, once we got blown the frick out in teh title game and once we came up short. 2 East titles in 10 years (when UT and UF have been down) isn't good enough.
quote:
When yall got your second national title in 1980 yall were in existence for almost 90 years.
we've won 5 titles if you count the way others do but that doesn't really matter. The point is, we're a 12-15 program of all time. I think most people would agree with that without much argument. Look at the other teams lumped into that group with us; UT, UF, LSU, Auburn...those teams have had periods of sucking but all of those have played for a title in the last 20 years, some multiple times. It is not unreasonable to think that we should be competing for titles as well. Why is that so off base?
quote:
This is what I am talking about when I mention expectations.
Ok so let's pretend that those should be our "reasonable" expectations. Why should we accept that...isn't that a loser mentality? If we're just counting down 45 year cycles why even try in the interim? Isn't the goal to win it all every season? That won't happen, obviously, but seems like you should at least strive for it. And we weren't doing it with richt.
quote:
That seems to be the bigger problem- that programs around you have had so much success.
It's A problem, yes. Which I've acknowledged.
quote:
If the last 15 years of national title games were filled with Yankee or West Coast programs Richt would still have a job.
That's debatable. It still wouldn't change the fact we haven't won anything of note in a decade. Regardless, those things HAVE happened, so no use wondering what woudl happen if they didn't.
quote:
Yall made an emotional decision to fire him
If richt didn't win at least 9 games in 2011 he was going to be fired and I know that for an absolute fact. This isn't a new thing. 2011/2012 bought him some time, and with reason. In 13 we lost 5 games. In 14 we had a good season on paper but lost to teams we likely shouldn't have. Last year we had a good record but anyone who watched us could see we weren't all that good. We should never go to ovetime with georgia southern. Ever. No excuse whatsoever.
quote:
That shows a lack of leadership at the top
YOu keep flip flopping. You claim we have a lack of leadserhip...yet when our leadership sees we aren't winning titles and makes a move to correct it you say it's the wrong choice. Which is it?
quote:
I know on paper Georgia isn't a program regularly in the national title hunt.
Exactly, and that's what we're trying to fix. We're trying to win national titles. Who isn't?
quote:
I am not trolling, I was being serious
Well you need to do some more research, unles you think Minnesota is a better program than us as well. Would you say they are? Because tech is a program that thrived pre-1960 and hasn't done much else since then. I won't even get into the fact that they average 3 wins per decade against us.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:17 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Missouri (underrated job if somebody can get the talent out of Chicago)
Or how about just St. Louis and Kansas City or the university's location in Columbia? Both basketball and football can't really even do that right now.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:44 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
and there's the prime difference in texas a&m and georgia. Yall are still striving to be higher than 3rd in your division, we're trying to win the league.
Maybe, but that killer instinct is a new thing for yall.
quote:
Why is that so off base?
It isn't really given the talent in the state, but for some reason your program hasn't lived up to the potential of the state's talent for decades (aka longer than Richt).
Why? I don't know why. I do know that underachievement makes the program less desirable as a job than a program like Bama that overachieves given local talent.
quote:
Why should we accept that.
I never said you should. All I was saying is that for some reason for decades you didn't and then Auburn wins a title, Florida St wins a title, and Bama wins a few titles and suddenly yall feel that you MUST catch up to the neighbors.
As far as your program is concerned, I am happy yall decided to stop playing with an arm tied behind your back. Even with a ton of advantages you aren't guaranteed anything in this sport if you don't give it your 100%.
But from a coaching point of view yall raised your expectations without first having that level of success. Yall are basically doing the opposite of LSU, who- once Saban changed the program forever and got them to win a title- decided they were part of college football's elite. Yall want to act like part of the elite without the getting the titles first.
And I completely get that. A&M does the same thing when it comes to expectations. The difference is at A&M we spent a half of a billion dollars to backfill in between reality and what we wanted to be. To make up for our unrealistic expectations we overpaid the frick out of our coach who had to tolerate those expectations.
UGA didn't do that. Yall are barely catching up to other programs in facilities (key word is catching up- not leading) and you pay your coach less than $4 million a year. That means yall put the burden of matching your expectations to your reality completely on the shoulders of whoever your underpaid coach is. That makes the job worse than it has been in decades.
quote:
You claim we have a lack of leadserhip...yet when our leadership sees we aren't winning titles and makes a move to correct it you say it's the wrong choice. Which is it?
Rome isn't built in a day. Your leadership might have decided "gee golly, it would be better to win in football rather than just compete," but that alone doesn't solve the problem. Neither does firing Richt.
When yall have dumped hundreds of millions into facilities, your coach is top ten in pay, your leadership is inventing new positions to hire assistants on the edge of NCAA rules, and you are processing every non-contributing player on your roster ala Nick Saban-THEN you can brag that you have industry leading leadership. Until then there is a gap between expectations and reality.
Basically until yall start acting like son-of-a-bitches I won't believe it. Only assholes win in this sport.
quote:
Well you need to do some more research, unles you think Minnesota is a better program than us as well.
Fine whatever. I will admit I don't know that much about football history in your state. Just going by what the internet tells me.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:48 pm to Chase Daniel
quote:
Or how about just St. Louis and Kansas City or the university's location in Columbia?
There aren't enough five stars in Missouri alone to compete with the best of the SEC. Once you add in Chicago though, yall are set.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 3:49 pm to SunHog
quote:
14. Vandy - Private School (Should look at the Stanford model)
Well, we did hire a Stanford coach and dressed up the anchor to look like an evergreen. What more can you ask?
Posted on 3/14/16 at 4:11 pm to WG_Dawg
UGA fans - where would Richt sit in UGA lore if not for 6 more yards in 2012?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News