Top 5 Football Jobs

[michigancat]

I wouldn't have put USC in the Top 5 a couple of years ago, but since they built the McKay Center they are certainly Top 5 worthy.

UCLA doesn't even have full length practice fields.   They recruit and prosper just on name and location (I guess on that note, maybe they are Top 5 worthy).  It's scary to think what they might do if they ever emulate the McKay Center (but the old Pac guard is a lot like the old Big 10 guard, slow on the facilities uptake until very recently.   Michigan's player facilities blew until the last few years, they couldn't even get the whole team into their old dressing room).

I would argue the location of UCLA and USC hold them back more than helps them. Look at what a 600 mile radius from Tuscaloosa reaches compared to LA:

http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?clat=33.21111647241685&clng=-87.5665283203125&r=968.5065194468734&lc=FFFFFF&lw=1&fc=00FF00

http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?clat=33.97832831521203&clng=-118.1854248046875&r=971.1262275536017&lc=FFFFFF&lw=1&fc=00FF00

I don't know what the population difference is, but I'm guessing it's huge and outweighs the advantage of climate and urban-ness of LA.

[sonofdaxjones]

That might very well be true cMichiCat, however the density of hardcore football schools is greater in the South, than it is on the West Coast.   In the South of you have the confluence of 2 major conferences, and if you expand the South into Texas, you have 3 major conferences.   

[michigancat]

That might very well be true cMichiCat, however the density of hardcore football schools is greater in the South, than it is on the West Coast.   In the South of you have the confluence of 2 major conferences, and if you expand the South into Texas, you have 3 major conferences.

True, I think it just gives the schools in the south far more possibilities.

[Skipper44]

Texas, Georgia, LSU and OSU have the advantage of being unchallenged flagship schools in states that produce a large number of recruits.  They are also schools that will apply whatever resources needed to win.  The Michigan's and UCLA's of the world cannot say that.

That said, Alabama has outperformed all of them, especially the two they have the most in common with - Georgia and LSU - despite having a smaller home recruiting base/media market just like OU has outperformed Texas despite a similar resource gap.  There is something about places where winning is everything like Norman and Tuscaloosa.

[Cartierfor3]

MIR has some good points re: Texas, yet he hasn't posted his list.

Let's hear it MIR, top 5 coaching jobs, let's say based on which would have the biggest pool of coaches to hire out of.

[michigancat]

"owning a state" is extremely overrated. regions are what matters. Also, Georgia Tech is as much of a contender for dominance as Michigan.

[Boom Roasted]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

OSU
LSU
UT
BAMA
USC

[sonofdaxjones]

Texas, Georgia, LSU and OSU have the advantage of being unchallenged flagship schools in states that produce a large number of recruits.  They are also schools that will apply whatever resources needed to win.  The Michigan's and UCLA's of the world cannot say that.

That said, Alabama has outperformed all of them, especially the two they have the most in common with - Georgia and LSU - despite having a smaller home recruiting base/media market just like OU has outperformed Texas despite a similar resource gap.  There is something about places where winning is everything like Norman and Tuscaloosa.

From a resources perspective, Michigan pretty much doesn't take a back seat to anyone.   Since they woke up one day about 5 or 6 years ago and realized they were behind the curve on facilities, they've spent about $300 million dollars on football facilities.   UCLA, well, not so much.  Very weird situation out there on that in the context of the rest of major college football. 

[michigancat]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

The population is less than half of Michigan's. And Michigan has fewer peers in their region compared to LSU. And like dax said, they pretty much have more money than anyone.

[Dr Rick Daris]

this is more of a personal list.

1. Texas (money, living in Austin, also money)
2. Miami (beach)
3. UCLA (more elite version of USC)
4. Oregon (because Phil)
5. Colorado (mountains)

All of these lists are personal lists, good for you for actually admitting it. For elite college football players living in Tuscaloosa, Alabama or anywhere in SEC country has draws that Austin doesn't. I'm now assuming that these lists are lists of where a white midwesterner would want to coach as opposed to what the best programs are.

wait. so this is a list of what the best programs are? i thought it was a list of top 5 football jobs.

[Mr Bread]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

The population is less than half of Michigan's. And Michigan has fewer peers in their region compared to LSU. And like dax said, they pretty much have more money than anyone.

You know total population isn't the most important factor.  Midwest/northern states don't produce the per capita football talent that southern/southeastern states do generally speaking.  Have a look see:

Meatchicken: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3289: 20 total, 5 four *, rest three *

Weesyana: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3313: 40 total, 3 five *, 12 four *, rest three *

[Boom Roasted]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

The population is less than half of Michigan's. And Michigan has fewer peers in their region compared to LSU. And like dax said, they pretty much have more money than anyone.

You know total population isn't the most important factor.  Midwest/northern states don't produce the per capita football talent that southern/southeastern states do generally speaking.  Have a look see:

Meatchicken: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3289: 20 total, 5 four *, rest three *

Weesyana: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3313: 40 total, 3 five *, 12 four *, rest three *

[eastcat]

What Oregon has done the last the last 7 seasons isn't much different than K-State's 7 year run from 97-03...

Nearly as equally shitty beforehand also.

Phil Knight donates equally huge bucks to Stanford as Oregon. Oregon just begs harder and spends like a drunken sailor.

Flash in the Pan program. I don't see Mark Helfrich sustaining chip kelly's success.

[OregonSmock]

Also, what other jobs were open when the Oregon job was too?

What does this have to do with anything? If it really is a top 5 job like you suggest, then they should be able to go after anybody they want.

They got who they wanted.  Oregon wanted to keep Chip Kelly's system in place and run the same type of offense.  Their new coach is picking right up where Kelly left off, and they're looking like a national title contender again.

Oregon has had the same coaching staff for the last 25 years, that is the only reason for their continued success. If the Job opened today it would be a bad Job to take, you're not in a recruit rich area and will have unreal expectations for winning. 

Texas right now will be the best Job opening in the last 25 years and USC is not far behind. Expectations for those programs in the near future are way down. Alabama is also a crap job, you don't want to follow Sabin.

The Pacific Northwest has some really good football talent, especially in the Seattle metro area.  The state of Oregon has some really good athletes as well, plus Oregon is able to get the best of the best from states like California and Hawaii.  It's a top tier program right now, without a doubt.  The Nike money, combined with the facilities and the playing style, make it an attractive program for just about anyone. 

[michigancat]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

The population is less than half of Michigan's. And Michigan has fewer peers in their region compared to LSU. And like dax said, they pretty much have more money than anyone.

You know total population isn't the most important factor.  Midwest/northern states don't produce the per capita football talent that southern/southeastern states do generally speaking.  Have a look see:

Meatchicken: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3289: 20 total, 5 four *, rest three *

Weesyana: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3313: 40 total, 3 five *, 12 four *, rest three *

True, yet Michigan beat LSU in Rivals recruiting rankings the last two seasons despite having awkward sloppy looking Brady Hoke at the helm.

[Mixed-Nutz]

Also, what other jobs were open when the Oregon job was too?

What does this have to do with anything? If it really is a top 5 job like you suggest, then they should be able to go after anybody they want.

They got who they wanted.  Oregon wanted to keep Chip Kelly's system in place and run the same type of offense.  Their new coach is picking right up where Kelly left off, and they're looking like a national title contender again.

Oregon has had the same coaching staff for the last 25 years, that is the only reason for their continued success. If the Job opened today it would be a bad Job to take, you're not in a recruit rich area and will have unreal expectations for winning. 

Texas right now will be the best Job opening in the last 25 years and USC is not far behind. Expectations for those programs in the near future are way down. Alabama is also a crap job, you don't want to follow Sabin.

The Pacific Northwest has some really good football talent, especially in the Seattle metro area.  The state of Oregon has some really good athletes as well, plus Oregon is able to get the best of the best from states like California and Hawaii.  It's a top tier program right now, without a doubt.  The Nike money, combined with the facilities and the playing style, make it an attractive program for just about anyone.

There is 4 four stars in Oregon and Washington combined......

[OregonSmock]

Also, what other jobs were open when the Oregon job was too?

What does this have to do with anything? If it really is a top 5 job like you suggest, then they should be able to go after anybody they want.

They got who they wanted.  Oregon wanted to keep Chip Kelly's system in place and run the same type of offense.  Their new coach is picking right up where Kelly left off, and they're looking like a national title contender again.

Oregon has had the same coaching staff for the last 25 years, that is the only reason for their continued success. If the Job opened today it would be a bad Job to take, you're not in a recruit rich area and will have unreal expectations for winning. 

Texas right now will be the best Job opening in the last 25 years and USC is not far behind. Expectations for those programs in the near future are way down. Alabama is also a crap job, you don't want to follow Sabin.

The Pacific Northwest has some really good football talent, especially in the Seattle metro area.  The state of Oregon has some really good athletes as well, plus Oregon is able to get the best of the best from states like California and Hawaii.  It's a top tier program right now, without a doubt.  The Nike money, combined with the facilities and the playing style, make it an attractive program for just about anyone.

There is 4 four stars in Oregon and Washington combined......

Oregon's best commitment last year was a 5-star running back out of Beaverton, OR.  This year may be a down year, but on average, there are quite a few good athletes that come out of the Pacific Northwest. 

[michigancat]

The PNW has some decent recruits, but you can't build a program of recruits within driving distance like you can with schools back east, and there are 6 million more people in the LA metro than in Oregon and Washington combined. They aren't a top 10 job, and probably never will be.

[Skipper44]

On the owning a state and being in a great region. See LSU.

They are just as rabid of football fans down at LSU and there is tons of talent coming out of that state. See SAMs.

The population is less than half of Michigan's. And Michigan has fewer peers in their region compared to LSU. And like dax said, they pretty much have more money than anyone.

You know total population isn't the most important factor.  Midwest/northern states don't produce the per capita football talent that southern/southeastern states do generally speaking.  Have a look see:

Meatchicken: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3289: 20 total, 5 four *, rest three *

Weesyana: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3313: 40 total, 3 five *, 12 four *, rest three *

True, yet Michigan beat LSU in Rivals recruiting rankings the last two seasons despite having awkward sloppy looking Brady Hoke at the helm.

Les has already answered the LSU - Michigan debate

[pissclams]

if the southern 3/4 quarters of the united states were to flood, then Oregon immediately becomes a top 5 job and you fools will look like complete idiots. then what? 

[Pete]

if the southern 3/4 quarters of the united states were to flood, then Oregon immediately becomes a top 5 job and you fools will look like complete idiots. then what?

It's true

[michigancat]

Les has already answered the LSU - Michigan debate

UM got Fitz'd

[theKSU]

Oklahoma
Alabama
LSU
Ohio State
Florida
(in no particular order)

The talent is in the South, and being able to own Ohio for OSU is big, as well as all the recent success of these schools put them as the top 5 programs in the Nation. They've also won basically all the National Titles recently. USC would be in the next tier with Michigan, FSU, Texas, Notre Dame.

[eastcat]

Also, what other jobs were open when the Oregon job was too?

What does this have to do with anything? If it really is a top 5 job like you suggest, then they should be able to go after anybody they want.

They got who they wanted.  Oregon wanted to keep Chip Kelly's system in place and run the same type of offense.  Their new coach is picking right up where Kelly left off, and they're looking like a national title contender again.

Oregon has had the same coaching staff for the last 25 years, that is the only reason for their continued success. If the Job opened today it would be a bad Job to take, you're not in a recruit rich area and will have unreal expectations for winning. 

Texas right now will be the best Job opening in the last 25 years and USC is not far behind. Expectations for those programs in the near future are way down. Alabama is also a crap job, you don't want to follow Sabin.

The Pacific Northwest has some really good football talent, especially in the Seattle metro area.  The state of Oregon has some really good athletes as well, plus Oregon is able to get the best of the best from states like California and Hawaii.  It's a top tier program right now, without a doubt.  The Nike money, combined with the facilities and the playing style, make it an attractive program for just about anyone.

There is 4 four stars in Oregon and Washington combined......

Oregon's best commitment last year was a 5-star running back out of Beaverton, OR.  This year may be a down year, but on average, there are quite a few good athletes that come out of the Pacific Northwest.

You have lost your mind. Oregon has some of the worst HS football in the nation, along with Kansas. Only a few east coast states are worse.

[Skipper44]

Les has already answered the LSU - Michigan debate

UM got Fitz'd

shouldn't it be Herbie'd?