Michigan checks in at No. 12, between USC and Notre Dame.
OSU at No. 2, Penn State at No. 8, Nebraska at No. 15.
Michigan checks in at No. 12, between USC and Notre Dame.
OSU at No. 2, Penn State at No. 8, Nebraska at No. 15.
I saw this mentioned on the "throwback" jersey thread. I think he has it messed up with USC being 11; each of the schools that has the prestigious name in a fertile recruiting ground should be at the top.
I realize this puts OSU ahead of UM, but whatever. Michigan is a tougher job than OSU and we have better results.
I almost hate justifying the article by responding to it.. but I guess everyone's gotta eat yo, so bring on the flame bate goodness.
Agreed, having USC at 11 is a joke -- and having FSU even farther down is absurd. Watch in 2 years when FSU is back, the same writer will put them in the top 4 (and make it sound like they've always been there).
If you really want to do a good piece on this stuff, why not write an article on the best HC jobs in the last 10-15 years. That's the best way to judge these things, rather than what's hot today.
USC 11?? BROTHER PLEASE.
Sports Illustrated has fallen to 26th, in the Ranking of Best Places to get College Football information.
I think in fairness, M deserves anywhere from 5-7, depending where you would order Oklahoma and Notre Dame. I don't know why some of those teams are supposedly clearly above Michigan.
Again, the reason I'd put PSU and OSU ahead of Michigan is recruiting ease. We have to go into PA or OH to get guys away from their own flagship, neither of those schools greatly depends on talent from MI to survive.
I like this list, though I actually think USC is a "better" job than Florida/FSU/Miami because the fans aren't nearly as crazed and you have far less competition in-state for top recruits. Yeah, Florida might have had a nice run, but at any given time FSU or Miami are sipphoning off recruits and the fans expect miracles every year. With USC, UCLA and Cal are probably the only legitimate threats year-in/year-out (Stanford simply can't compete for recruits consistently), and neither are close to the draw of Miami or FSU. Plus, the fans aren't going to kill you if you lose. They might not show up, but apathy is easier to turn around at times than crazed anger.
You might be right. Honestly any of Texas, USC and whichever of the Florida schools is on top is literally the perfect job, IMO.
Last year, Texas proved me wrong about being able to win 9+ games there with my experience from the NCAA franchise, but I still feel like it's almost hard to lose with the in-state talent out of TX, CA and FL.
I agree with your list....except for Miami!!? You really think that's a top ten job in college football? Maybe about 15 or 20 years ago, but certainly not anymore. Their football teams have been nowhere near "great" in a while and their stadium sucks.
2010: 13th ranked class
2009: 7th ranked class
2008: 1st ranked class
2007: 9th ranked class
2006 (Shannon half class): 17th ranked class.
If Miami had a gameday coach, they would be a national power again instantly. They sit in some of the most fertile recruiting territory in the country and they have the prestige that a lot of these other schools have.
I don't know about FSU, when you really get into the deciding factors for individual coaches, FSU and PSU are probably less desirable than their "measurables" or whatever you want to call it would indicate. No matter how well you do JoePa or Bowden have already been there and done that and nobody wants to be the one who fails to live up to the last guy.
I haven't seen Miami's weightroom; I know their stadium is empty half the time but so is USC's. If NU was good they would have the same issues in down years. Bottom line, I could be completely wrong but I'll stick with Miami over FSU.
They're both very similar. Both have/had HOF coaches that made their mark at those schools.. and probably stayed too long. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always heard PSU as some speudo sleeping dragon, one that's gonna be unreal once Joe finally calls it quits, And for the last few years, I've heard the same thing about FSU too. Judging from Jimbo's latest recruiting class, I'd be shocked if he doesn't do big things there (as much as I hate FSU.. their helmets are kinda sweet).
.. all is a bit moot though. UF has the best facilities of the three. if you haven't seen it, google -- it's like a world class spa. ridic
I'd flip OSU and PSU, but otherwise I think you're spot on.
As for the bottom five - I think that in 2011, Michigan isn't right outside the top five. I think Staples' take was accurate with regards to us. I'd drop us to 10, boot Miami out of there, bump OU and ND down a spot, and have Bama at 6 and put in LSU at 7.
And if FSU or Miami get their legs again, I think Florida falls out of the top five.
You're just seeing my homerism come to light. I doubt there's any actual difference in prestige and ease of job between M/ND/Alabama/Oklahoma but they have to get numbered somehow.
LSU is a bit of an interesting case, IMO, they have the prestige to go on any list, but don't they have to cast a bit wider net recruiting wise (thus making Miles job harder than say, Stoops)? That was always my impression, and they don't have the religion thing going on like ND does to get in the door with some top prospects.
Some guy at SI is just fishing for page hits. Nothing to get worked up about.
i dunno. at this point in time, i really can't argue with that list. given how the past few seasons have gone, and the teeth some of the constitutents of our fanbase have shown, things aren't all gumdrops and roses. its still a very desirable job, but its right about where it should be on that list. though osu is gonna sink like a stone once the ncaa sanctions come out.
Georgia (5), Auburn (9) and Oregon (10) seem a little high to me. Could also argue against Oklahoma (3) given that they are the 2nd most prestigous team in a dying conference, and their coach is rumored to be a candidate for every single big time coaching hire.
out of place team on that list. Yes they have been very good recently, but I definitely think Chip Kelly would jump ship to coach a high-powered SEC or B1G team any day of the week (i.e. Michigan or Tennessee)
Why? Pay, facilities, job security, etc., are as good as he'll get. His name "prestige" could be higher at Alabama or Michigan or wherever, but he has Oregon in position to dominate the Pac-10 for the next few years and potentially play for (and maybe win) multiple national titles. I don't think there's any job he'd leave for.
Well, for starters, Oregon has some NCAA allegations to navigate through. It also has basically zero recruiting base (which may necessitate some rule-bending to compete).
I usually cringe when I see that someone's made a list like this, but that's a good list.
I'd quarrel with a few picks/slots - e.g. USC higher, Auburn lower - but in general that's a very reasonable list.
Oklahoma should probably be a few notches down. They depend on poaching kids from Texas and having a great staff to win--which makes them a lot like Michigan. I think Oregon and OK State are overrated too because their success is largely predicated on the largesse of a single huge donor.
I took a quick look, and he isn't making the list the way almost anyone would. He's just looking at who has a wealthy department, good facilities, easy recruiting. (thus Texas at number one)
Maybe he's not a college football fan at heart. I think most of us here would pick criteria from such things as tradition, victories, championships, etc. By those criteria, Michigan would be awfully high on the list, as would ND, USC, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
His list as it stands is not much more than a snapshot of who's on top in 2011.
He doesn't factor the 'Prestige' rating, to steal at term from NCAA football video games. This would put Michigan solidly in the top 8 or so. Also, he doesn't factor in climate/lifestyle which I guess would not help Michigan, but I think should be a factor in determining the best destinations to coach.
may suck during the winter, but the city of Ann Arbor itself is amazing no matter what season it is. I would say the lifestyle is perfect for a college football coach.
really? georiga and lsu? auburn in there too? i can see fla and alabama.
guys on coke
On Coke? Obviously not or he'd have Miami at #1.
And not pot either... that would be Colorado and it didn't even make the list.
Of course Nebraska did hit #15, but with no Iowa I would say he's not doing Meth either.
Otherwise he'd have Stanford somewhere on that list.
last year's NC are you kidding me? That place is a hole in the middle of a hole that Alabama traditionally dominates.
I agree he's overrating it because of it's "flavor of the month" status, but I think that Auburn is a pretty nice college town. And it does have a ton of tradition and a history of success. But yea they're Alabama's little brother for sure.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to coach MSU either.
Oklahoma, Auburn and Oregon- These schools don't have much national support and will always lag with recruits that consider academics a priority. Their fanbase isn't nearly the size of Michigan's or NDs.
This list doesn't give enough weight to the size of the fan base which ultimately means eyeballs, dollars and better bowls.
Why is PSU above Michigan? I do not get that at all.
Recruiting. It's far easier to get a kid from PA to stay home than it is to get him to come to MI.
The author is assuming that Pennsylvania is a better football state than Michigan and since Penn State is by far the biggest program in the state they are able to mop up all the top recruits with ease.
has had a lot of success in neighboring states of NY, NJ and Maryland in addition to owning talent-rich Pennsylvania.
Ya i guess in most cases. But I know Marlin Jackson would tell you differently. He was all set to sign with PSU and then switched to Michigan just one day after being in Ann Arbor.
Oregon and Auburn need to be lower, USC needs to be higher. In terms of good jobs, Texas, Florida (they have to share but the state is loaded), LSU, USC, maybe OSU/PSU should be at the top due to talent. The next tier would be schools that have to share or are in less talented states; Oklahoma, Michigan, Georgia, Notre Dame, Alabama, FSU, Miami.
Oregon is a big overachiever, and I would not peg it as a top ten job. Auburn is okay but has some issues with all the local competition right now; they are also headed for a nice seasons with 7 or fewer wins...
To some extent, I do think Michigan is tarnished due to its lack of great results lately. But I think he over-rates that factor. I mean, he has Notre Dame 13th, lower than Oregon. Ask 100 coaches which job they’d rather have, and I’ll bet the Irish come out on top.
I disagree with how the article says that Penn State is the last of the "destination jobs" on the list. While the program has declined over the last decade, there's a reason why someone like RichRod would leave his alma mater who was almost in the MNC game to coach at Michigan. UM isn't a leverage job or one that someone would leave to coach somewhere else. It IS the job....
I assume that the list is fluid and the rankings are not set in stone. A 12th ranking is the nadir for Michigan. Assuming a number of happy years of good results (read: better than 8-5), the job becomes more desirable. Recruiting firms up and good bowl games become more common. The alumni then resume holding hands and sing Kumbaya while making large donations. Michigan again becomes a top five job and the circle of life continues.
In their stats on Michigan they used a picture of Michigan Stadium pre-construction. It's amazing at how different it looks after the upgrades.
If Michigan was a better job, we would have been talking about better candidates than Les Miles and a semi-proven Jim Harbaugh, and an elite coach with at least one National Championship on his record would have been hired. All of the elite coaches are being talked about for TSIO, where only those with Michigan connections were seriously talked about for the Michigan job.
For someone with Michigan connections, it is probably the number one job. But for an outsider, it's probably around #24. Splitting the difference at #12 sounds good to me.
with at least one National Championship on his record.
Other than the coaches that have done the college, nfl and back to college route (Saban and Spurrier), what coach has won a NC at a school and then left that school at some point to coach at a different school? I can't think of any.
Rarely, if ever, does a coach leave a 'premier' program on his own to coach at another 'premier' program. If you look at the 'premier' schools that have had openings in the last 5-10 years and see who they've hired, it's either been coordinators at the same school or another school that got hired or a head coach from a non 'premier' school was hired:
Oklahoma - Stoops was DC at Florida when he was hired.
Florida: Urban Meyer left Utah. The new coach was the DC at Texas.
Florida St: Coordinator promoted to head coach.
Notre Dame: Willingham left Stanford. Weiss was pro coordinator. Kelly left Cincinnati.
Auburn: Chizik was the head coach at Iowa St.
Miami, FL: Cooker was coordinator who was promoted. Shannon was a coordinator who was promoted. The new coach left Temple.
LSU: Saban left MSU. Miles left Oklahoma St.
OSU: Tressell moved up from 1-AA.
UM: RR left WVU. Hoke left SDSU.
Saban, Rod and Kelly all had double digit win seasons in BCS conferences before heading to their new jobs. Everyone else was not as distinguished, although Meyer did make the Utes the original BCS buster.
Which is why you need to look individually at those cases. MSU is a tough, tough job; I can't think of too many people who would want to stay at MSU vs. Alabama. Rod had personal issues and apparently irreconcilable differences with the AD staff at his alma mater and jumped ship, and Kelly had already brought UC as far as it will ever go.
Both Gruden and Dungy were talked about for the Michigan job, and both said something to the effect that "It'll be hard to pass up if it is offered" on ESPN. As far as speculation goes, that's just as good as Dantonio, Stoops, or Meyer (who had just retired when the M job cam available so there was no chance he was coming).
The ones that bother me the most are Auburn and Oregon. When the Auburn job opened, were people jumping to go there? Not really. If Kelly left Oregon, would people be clamouring for that job? I don't think so.
It didn't really seem like people were clamouring for the UM job when it was open after Carr left and RR was fired.
years. Michigan is a top destination and we will validate with success on the field.
It seems strange to call OSU the second-best job in America when no OSU coach has avoided getting fired (or pressured to resign, same difference) since the 1940s. It's an intense, charged environment in which to work. If I were a good-but-not-great coach (like, say, Lloyd Carr), I'd definitely prefer to work at Michigan than OSU. Our fans are passionnate, but not insane.
Since when is Michigan a subpar recruiting ground?? Are all sports writers now smoking the cronic?
Just because we're not as rich a recruiting ground as Pennsylvania or Ohio doesn't make us "sub par." Yes, in other states of similar size there's only football - but when we're 2.5 times the population of Oklahoma, and both of us have to compete with a pesky little brother, I think we've got a richer recruiting ground even if a bunch of kids here play hockey and soccer instead. Adding the fact that OU has to compete with A&M and Tech of UT's cast-offs, and we not only recruit Ohio but Penn State territory too (as well as Chicagoland with Notre Dame) and I think we're in a much better recruiting ground than the national media gives us credit for. I'd argue that since Alabama is half the size of Michigan, they're not really in such a rich recruiting ground either - is their reliance on Georgia and Florida somehow superior to our reliance on Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Especially since they overrate linemen from the south, I think that Michigan, and the Big Ten in general, are not as bad a place to recruit from as they make out.
ahead of this
In hindsight - I think them becoming "Team Nike" was a GREAT move for their program. Their cooky uniforms have raised everybody's awareness of their brand - and have (sadly to me) become as much a part of the sport as the iconic looks of Bama, Penn State, and us.
However, I don't think that repeats will work out so well. Arizona State will not be able to do the same thing by imitating Oregon - Oregon is the original, and if anyone else does it, then it's just a passing fad. But if Oregon keeps it up they'll be able keep drawing coverage and recruits.
I'd like to take a second to point out that Andy Staples wrote this article. A guy, who in my opinion, is one of the better national sports writers.
He makes a great point: the Michigan job is no longer in the top tier. After the Freep Jihad, former players pooping on Rich Rod's face, and grumpy, entitled alums ranting with little-to-no grasp of reality, you can't blame a coach for taking a pass until it's clear the ship has been righted.
Hopefully Hoke is the answer (he's off to a fantastic start), and Michigan won't have to worry about going out on the open market for a coach for a long time.
Even if Hoke is the answer and Michigan puts together a good 5-10 year run... I don't know if I'd put them as a top destination for a coach. The prestige and history factor would help, sure. But after the things you mentioned, I think a lot of coaches would be wary to come into Michigan if they weren't already connected to the program. I wouldn't blame them either. All those fans and alumni got what they wanted, a "Michigan man" in charge, but they need to realize the way it appears from the outside, that unless you're already connected to the program we won't give you a chance at all.
After the Freep Jihad, former players pooping on Rich Rod's face, and grumpy, entitled alums ranting with little-to-no grasp of reality, you can't blame a coach for taking a pass until it's clear the ship has been righted.
Whereas fans and ex-players of OSU, Texas, Oklahoma and SEC programs are known for their rationality? Do you seriously think a coach who went 15-22 at any of the 11 schools ahead of us on that list would have been more popular than RR was here? If anything, we are less rabid than most fanbases on this list.
Michigan is the only place in the country where there is a ludicrous idea that the head coach must be a "Michigan Man." You don't hear about other programs in which former players and large segments of the fanbase torpedo their new coach from day one because he's an outsider.
Your argument that we are less rabid seems to run contrary to your general antipathy for supporters of RichRod, which was established well before his dismissal. Are you actually saying that because there are those of us out there who think RR is a good coach, we are a more reasonable fan base?
This is simply untrue. Throughout John Mackovic's tenure at Texas, there were those who didn't accept him because he was a Northerner. John Cooper took flak at OSU because he was from Tennessee and allegedly didn't understand the rivalry. At ND, Tyrone Willingham took some grief for (among other things) not being Catholic. You can find these kinds of ad hominem attacks against coaches by their own fanbase at schools all over the country. The common denominator: none of them won enough games. If you win enough, at any school, you're golden.
And yes, our fanbase is definitely less rabid than those in the SEC, not to mention OSU and the Big 12 South. Football is a statewide obsession in those places in a way that it isn't quite in Michigan - and fans in those places go to extremes that ours don't reach. If Rich Rodriguez sometimes had it difficult at Michigan, that's nothing compared to what he would have gone through at OSU or an SEC school with a 15-22 record. He'd have been getting his home vandalized and threatening phone calls after losses.
But I do think his take on Michigan is accurate - it was in the top 5, folks got scared away because of the divisions with the RR hiring, but now Brady Hoke haseverybody pulling together.
As far as OSU being at #2, we'll see how long that lasts, but I don't think it's so far off right now. Perceptions changed in the last ten years, but once that program cleans up and once Michigan (and MSU) start sucking Ohio dry, I think the OSU job will be where it was under Cooper and Bruce - less desired than Michigan and Penn State.
I think it's strange to put OU at 3 because they can leech off Texas, and putting Oregon at 10 because they can leach of Cali. I'm also not so sure about putting Georgia as high up as they are, and having all the SEC powers ahead of Penn State - despite the population shifts, Pennsylvania is still a football hub, and Penn State pretty much dominates the entire mid-atlantic for recruiting. Yes, they have to fight off Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt - but most of the kids in New York, Maryland, and New Jersey would still rather play at Penn State than in their home state schools. And that is a high population area. The Penn State job should be up there with Florida and Texas in terms of how well you can recruit.
And yes, even with the sanctions, ridiculous that USC is #11.
Having Auburn, Oregon, Oklahoma State St., Arizona, and Arizona on the list at all is a travesty.
The Real Top Ten:
4. Ohio State
5. Notre Dame
10. Florida St.
Interesting media list. With media, it's always "what have you done for me lately."
We all know Michigan is the best job in the world.
Was this list compiled pre-shitstorm?
meh - I have SI down as the 12th best magazine . . .