Michigan Ranked as 2nd Best CFB Coaching Job in B1G
Since we are still in the doldrums of the offseason, I figured this was worth a post.
ESPN posted an article ($) listing the top CFB jobs in the country:
Michigan comes in at #14 (too low IMO).
While that list is Insider Only, there is a separate article on the top jobs in the B1G:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/116166/ranking-the-big-ten-jobs?ex_cid=espnapi_public
On that list, Michigan is #2 behind Ohio.
The B1G list strikes me as pretty accurate, and not just based on recent success (considering that they have Nebraska above MSU). Additionally, I think it's pretty cool that Michigan still gets a ton of respect even though we are not in a recruiting hotbed and don't have good weather (both of which hurt in attracting talent). Nonetheless, we maintain solid position among football's blue bloods.
Any thoughts?
February 25th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^
I know it's paywalled, but what are some teams ranked ahead of Michigan that you thought were wrong?
To me Bama, Notre Dame, Ohio St., USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State, and Oregon would be the ones I'd put ahead of us right now. If Harbaugh wins as expected the only jobs that will be on par with Michigan will be Bama, ND, OSU, USC and Texas.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
Is it against the rules to link to a reddit post that lists it out? If so, mods delete. Link
February 25th, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^
Auburn, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Florida.
essentially they gave the top performers in the SEC over the last 5 years preferrential treatment.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:24 PM ^
Not to make excuses for the coaches, but the bag men/boosters can sometimes operate pretty much with complete independence from the football program. Which probably would prefer not to know about it anyways, but there you go. I don't think every SEC team is as bad as SMU in the Pony Express days.
(obviously not, since the five hookers wouldn't be dead) (allegedly).
February 25th, 2015 at 5:00 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^
Well you only listed 8 teams ahead of Michigan, though I would add LSU, and potentially Georgia, Auburn and Oklahoma currently. Could change in a few years but those are teams that are either the top dog in their talent rich state for recruits or have been very successful over the last decade and proximity to good recruiting areas.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
LSU? Easy to recruit with all the in-state talent. I would have them higher than Oregon for sure.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^
Auburn, Texas A&M, and LSU are the most egregious errors in my opinion.
They are each very, very good programs, but Auburn and Texas A&M both play second fiddle in their own states, and LSU is not as much of a historical power.
Now, this is obviously arguing between fantastic coaching position and fantastic coaching position, but Michigan -- to me -- ranks above them.
As further support, I'd point out that Les apparently was willing to leave LSU for Michigan, and Saban left it for Alabama. Yes, Les is a Michigan alum and Saban left for Ala-freaking-bama, but nobody would leave Michigan for another program like that.
EDIT: See comments above and below-lol.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
He went to Alabama after leaving the Dolphins. I honestly don't think he would've left LSU for Bama, especially since they were down at the time. Also, he was lucky because Rich Rod turned down the Bama job or he might have been forced to stay in the NFL.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^
Yeah, that was a brain fart on my part. But the Les Miles example still stands.
Also, being a historical power doesn't matter if you are no longer relevant, but Michigan remains relevant. Hoke was reeling in Top 10 classes and was on pace for another one before things fell apart this past season.
A lot of these recruits talk about how it is cool that Michigan has the most wins of all-time and Michigan's historical place in the CFB pantheon helps to cement loyalty and support for the program.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^
Are you using Les Miles' apparent willingness to leave LSU as proof that's it's a worse job than Michigan? Does that mean Rutgers and a bevy of schools whose coaches (at the time) turned down Michigan make them better jobs? Each coach makes individual decisions and the Miles decision was that. I'm not sure that LSU is a better job than Michigan, but your Miles argument doesn't mean anything.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^
No.
By my logic, a willingness to leave a program for a new job is (some) evidence that the old job was an inferior position for whatever reason. You are leaving a known quantity for an unknown quantity, moving your family, and the like.
Wanting to stay in a current job is different. You have set up shop, established relationships, and built a foundation. It can make other jobs less attractive.
February 25th, 2015 at 7:00 PM ^
We've likely moved up a lot since then already.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^
Normally I would put PSU at #2 because their coach has an easier job with less academic worries for players. However we as a Michigan fanbase have been down for so long our forced patience does temper expectations for our head football coach.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:45 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^
spot I would think that has something to do with the fact that our last two coaches were fired after 3 and 4 seasons for not winning enough. Athletic Department dysfunction under Martin and he who shall not be named probably also figured in.
I would expect the premier SEC jobs to top the list for the usual reasons. Boosters paying for your house, buying you the best players, loose academic requirements, etc.
Also, Fuck Ohio.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^
Texas A & M is not a better job than Michigan. Not even close.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^
Yeah, that makes no sense. You have great facilities sure, but you're 2nd (3rd? TCU?) banana in your own state and probably even lower in the SEC WEst pecking order.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:03 PM ^
I would assume the rationale (not that I agree that aTm is a better job) is it's better to get second pick of Texas recruits than first pick of Michigan ones.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
I'd agree with that level of recruiting advatage. There are other advantages about Michigan in terms of national appeal (fan and recruiting) etc. that would outweigh that for me, in terms of aTm...not so much in terms of the Longhorns, they are unquestionably a power house. If not for Bama, USC and OSU that might be the best job in the country.
aTm to the SEC confused me. Yes you get the benefits of SEC and get out from under Texas' shadow to some extent...at same time you are in a division where LSU, Auburn, Alabama are already ahead of you. They still have competition in state from Texas obviously, OU and OSU (NTOSU), Baylor, TCU, LSU, and the national programs, etc. I guess the expectations there are probably a bit more sane than somewhere like Texas or Oklahoma though.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
Yea, like I said I don't agree with it, but I assume the recruiting base was the author's main point.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
I don't think it is either, but you can at least make a logical argument for it. I personally have bigger issues with Oklahoma and Oregon.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^
I think Oklahoma deserves to be there. Oregon will cease to be elite when Phil Knight dies. They don't belong there.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
I think Oklahoma is in for steep Tennessee-like decline soon. The recruiting landscape in Texas has changed significantly in the last 5 years. TCU is now in the Big 12 and can recruit at a higher level. Texas A&M's move to the SEC may have hurt Oklahoma more than Texas for recruiting. The rise of Baylor.
Do you really believe it is easier to recruit nationally to Oklahoma than it is to Michigan?
February 25th, 2015 at 3:09 PM ^
I think they're pretty similar in that they are both near fantastic states for recruiting. Close enough to the point that the difference between in-state and not is kind of moot, in my mind. I haven't checked the numbers but I'm sure OU recruits Texas incredibly well.
I also think recent success probably played a lot into this. Stoops has been terrific -- even if he sometimes underachieves -- so that probably puts them ahead in ESPN's mind. I personally believe Michigan's a better job, but I can understand that more than A&M.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:35 PM ^
Oklahoma has been getting hammered in Texas recruiting the last 4 years. Texas produces more talent than Ohio, but there is no other in-state option after OSU. Texas has turned into war zone with Texas A&M moving to the SEC. You have multiple high level in-state options with Texas, A&M, Baylor and TCU. And bordering SEC West schools like LSU and Arkansas now have more exposure with A&M in the SEC.
The one major advantage Oklahoma has over Michigan is junior college transfers.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^
Oklahoma is to Texas what Michigan is to Ohio. Texas being larger with even more talent than Ohio. Why is it that difficult again?
Yes more teams mine Texas but if you grow up in Texas and want to see your kid play on the weekends Oklahoma is a reasonable drive - just like Ohio parents would be fine with their kid in Michigan.
Oklahoma is a national brand under the stewardship of a great coach who their fanbase is getting antsy about just like people got antsy about Carr here - but Stoops has an even higher winning % (significantly) than Carr. They can go into the deep south and pull kids a lot easier than UM, so I dont get your logic base at all.
Per 24/7 their team rank for recruits has generally been 10-15 the past 5 years, not much differnt than UM. LSU is like 9 for example.
People in Oklahoma are probably saying UM is suffering from the dominance of OSU football the past decade and the midwest flight of population.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^
Michigan still has like three times as many residents as Oklahoma. Population flight or no, Michigan is a much larger state. I don't think that's necessarily translating to 3x the number of D1 football players coming from Michgan, but the flight of population argument is absurd when the relative population numbers are still not even close between Ok and MI.
Ok St. and MSU are providing similarly stiff competition to the traditional powers in their respective states, but I think the rise of Baylor, A&M and TCU are what make Oklahoma a less desirable job now than probably ever before. Oklahoma isn't nearly the national brand as Michigan. They can't touch Michigan's appeal with Midwest and East Coast kids and probably not CA kids either. I'm not sure about your deep south assertion either. They have 3 kids in their 24 players class from the "deep south" and one is a JUCO. We have four in our tiny class. Assuming the AD problems are largely behind us (hopefully), I don't think there's any question that Michigan is a better job than Oklahoma. Their success is probably a lot more dependent on their ability to raid Texas than ours is on our ability to raid Ohio because of national appeal.
February 25th, 2015 at 7:10 PM ^
and wrote in another post below that they have similar tradition, history, and recruiting situations. But a major difference is the academic reputation of the schools. Oklahoma, the football team, is a national brand, but the university itself is not. I don't think Oklahoma can recruit nationally like a Michigan or a Notre Dame. If Oklahoma's Texas recruiting takes a dip, their program is going to take a dip. Bob Stoops completely turned that program around after a disastrous 1990s. But even with one of the biggest names in college football like Stoops, but they haven't been able to put together a top 10 recruiting class in over 5 years.
One advantage they do have over Michigan is the ability to recruit junior college players heavily.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:41 PM ^
I'd spend some time researching Oklahoma's history. Switzer had a better winning % than Bo, and Stoops has the same winning % as Bo, in the modern era with scholarship limits. That is about 40 years of football. And they have not been a pile of shit like we have the past 7 years.
February 25th, 2015 at 7:07 PM ^
But so does Nebraska. I just think when we look back on conference realignment, two of the biggest losers are going to be Nebraska and Oklahoma.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:29 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:31 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^
Considering what's happened over the last 7 yearsn being number 14 isn't so bad for now, but wait until we Harbaugh!
February 25th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
But I think Michigan ranks above Oklahoma and Oregon. Oklahoma and Michigan are similar in many respects (history, weak instate recruiting base but neighbors a strong one) but Michigan is by far the better academic reputation which I think would boost it over Oregon
February 25th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
Agree. Oklahoma and Oregon have terrible instate recruits and recruiting at Oregon is still harder than Michigan.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
The only thing would be that our recruiting talent area isn't as good as Texas, LSU, or USC. Everything else is the best of the best though. Facilities, money, fan support, etc.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^
Brady Hoke said it best.. " It's Michigan for God sake" and we can all agree It will always be one of the best places to coach
February 25th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^
...we have Detroit, Chicago, the Ohio cities and Indianapolis within a 3-5 hour drive. That helps a great deal.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:20 PM ^
I think it should be
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Texas
4. Ohio State
5. USC
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Michigan
9. Florida State
10. Texas A&M
11. Auburn
12. Penn State
13. Notre Dame
14. UCLA
15. Oklahoma
16. Tennessee
17. Nebraska
18. Oregon
19. South Carolina
20. Miami (FL)
21. Clemson
22. Arkansas
23. Wisconsin
24. Stanford
25. Missouri
February 25th, 2015 at 3:51 PM ^
Why the heck is LSU #2? Take away the last 15 years and it a ho hum program.
What justification for ND 5 spots behind UM again? And behind PSU?
Again I am boggled by the lack of respect of Oklahoma - its basically Michigan of the central time zone without the academics (which for a football coach could actually be argued as an advantage not a penalty)
And UCLA since the 1980s has been a nothingburger.
Every list should really list Texas and USC as #1 and #2 in some order - they are the kings (in theory) of the most talent rich states in the country. If Florida was not split among FSU, UF, and to a lesser degree Miami it would be the same conversation. Then Ohio State, then Georgia. Looking at reddit the listings make a lot of sense.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:28 PM ^
LSU has a state all to themselves that's rich in recruiting. They have a loud 100K stadium, passionate fans, good football facilities etc. Notre Dame has every thing that Michigan has but a much smaller fanbase and a smaller stadium and not a good base for recruiting. Penn State has the east coast to recruit and a big fanbase. UCLA has unlimited quality recruits in their neighborhood and a beautiful campus which kind of offsets the fact that nobody goes to their games. Oklahoma has less talent than Michigan instate like Nebraska.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
Yeah LSU is about 10-15 spots too high.
February 25th, 2015 at 9:07 PM ^
Notre Dame is not a state of Indiana program, they are a true national program (as much as I despise saying that) and most every Catholic family, unless they attended a Football power, roots for ND and every Catholic school football player, unless their parents went to said Football power, wants to play there. Oklahoma does not really recruit the state much as there is not that much, most all their players come from Texas.
"To Hell with notre Dame", I feel better.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:01 AM ^
LOL, ND has its own frigging tv network to itself.
Smaller fanbase? Wow. We have more alumni I give you that but you go to any state in the country and people associate with Notre Dame. I took a bunch of kids down to Indiana for a tournament in a different sport and all the Catholic parents insisted we stop to see ND campus on the way down there. I mean moms who dont know a ddarn thing about football. I dont think if we were from Indiana and drove to Canton for a tournament there would be demands to stop and see Michigan Stadium. You underestimate that "brand" and the religious affiliations.
We'll agree to disagree. ND 5 spots behind UM is serious maize kool aid.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:27 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
Athalon did this a year ago and had UM #10. It is difficult to argue with the other 9 plus FSU is #11 and A&M is #13. (Oregon is #12). I'd put UM ahead of Oregon due to recruiting base and history but A&M esp in the SEC makes a lot of arguments.
If you are not being a total homer UM in the 12-14 range is very realistic. A not sexy conference, and bad recent football and the politics of the athletic department have hurt it. The normal positives that we all know help it.
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-128-college-footba…
After Texas, Bama, USC, OSU, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, you can pretty much put the next 7-10 teams in the hopper and make arguements one way or the other - ND, LSU, UM, Auburn, TN, A&M, Nebraska, Auburn, Oregon, PSU.
If the past 10 years are an important component in your ranking than TN, UM, PSU, and Nebraska would fall to the bottom of that next tier - 3 of those happen to be in the Big 10. Oregon, Auburn, A&M, LSU would move up in the top of that tier. If the prior 40 years matter more than the past 10 you'd flip all those programs probably.
So I'd say there is a clear tier 1, then a tier 2 where UM is, and then the tier 3 are the South Carolinas, MSUs, Clemsons, Miamis, OK States etc