2024 Texas Football Coaching and Support Staff Thread

[UncleSonny 6798]

It’s been pretty quiet on the Harbaugh front, guess they are still in celebration mode. 

Would love to add a Michigan opening to the mix (and maybe FSU if Norvell goes to Bama).

Gotta keep the chaos up so I don’t get tempted to do something crazy like get any work done. 

[Dbeasy 15592]

When I think about a top 5 job, it would include these factors:

1. Financial power - this swamps every other factor

2. Brand - viewership, awareness, advertising value, historical relevance, etc

3. Support and Commitment - from fans, administration, state and local government, or other important entity, in an attractive environment  

4. Location - strengthens all other factors  

5. University Attractiveness - as measured by many different things, from vibe to academics to campus to conference, etc  

 

 

 

[Hornlover 8942]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Pretty easily. They've never won anything, of note, in 3 major sports, in almost 100 years. 

I can substitite Vanderbilt and GA Tech into that list, some of the numbers shift, but it would be almost as compelling an argument. 

But if I overaly Michigan State to your graph, it's pretty identical as well. Are they in your top 5? 

 

No serious person actually believes Aggy is a top 5 job. It was more just making a point that taking your qualifications into account, A&M might appear to be a top 5 job, and that's why Aggies think so highly of themselves. They forget that there's a certain je ne sais quoi  that they are bereft of, which relegates them into the afterthought category.

[kevwun 16437]

They pay like a top 5 job, which is very important to some coaches.

[Bodacious Bevo 3691]

Criteria (in order): prestige/history, access to talent (location is biggest but not only factor), NIL capabilities, in-state competition (if access to talent is predicated on that)

Tier 1 (no particular order within tiers): Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, USC

Tier 2: A&M, Notre Dame, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Rutgers, Penn State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn State, Tennessee

Tier 3: Miami, Washington, Clemson, Nebraska, Michigan State

[Redneck Mutha 8176]

A&M could absolutely be a Top 5 job with the location, conference affiliation, and resources, but they're not.  Why?

[Aslan24 470]

"One more year with Coach Sark" seems to indicate Bama hasn't lured him away just yet. Things could still change, of course. But at the moment it would appear that Sark is staying put.
 

 

[MrX 803]

11 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Auburn fucking counts. They've won a recent national title, gone undefeated again, and been fucking relevant. This is a bad fucking take. 

Ok. Tell me about the *real* journalists that are the ones driving the UT program into the dust from 2009 - 2022. We'll all wait. You brought it up as a major contributing factor, so lets fucking have it. 
 

Pretty easily. They've never won anything, of note, in 3 major sports, in almost 100 years. 

I can substitite Vanderbilt and GA Tech into that list, some of the numbers shift, but it would be almost as compelling an argument. 

But if I overaly Michigan State to your graph, it's pretty identical as well. Are they in your top 5? 

Notre Dame isn't completely independant anymore, they're partially in the ACC. And there's usually more than 2 games, dude.  THey played 4 ranked teams (at the time of playing) plus Clemson this year. I don't think kids give a fuck about being independant either way if the program is wininng and competitive in big games. 

Me. Feel free to bring us some super substantive open coaching position news or discussion if you're so inclined. You've got some Sark scoop that isn't just manufactured clickbait bullshit, feel free to fucking share about it. Otherwise, get fucked. 

To me it’s Ohio State, Texas, and Georgia as top dogs in the NIL era moving forward, with Michigan, Florida, USC, Oregon, and Clemson (if they don’t let Dabo run them into the ground) all capable of moving into that top group long term. If Harbaugh stays then I think you’d have to include Michigan in that top tier now. 
 

Then I think Bama is in a tier of its own due to prestige, current state of program infrastructure, etc. It’s hard to predict what will happen to them when all we can say for sure right now is “multiple teams have caught up to them and one for sure has passed them” and they just lost the best college coach of all time. 
 

Then you have ND, LSU, Aggy, Penn State, Washington, Auburn. I may be missing someone. But all of those programs feel like they have certain institutional issues that prevents them from competing at a sustained top 3-5 level year over year moving forward. 

[Hornlover 8942]

4 minutes ago, MrX said:

To me it’s Ohio State, Texas, and Georgia as top dogs in the NIL era moving forward, with Michigan, Florida, USC, Oregon, and Clemson (if they don’t let Dabo run them into the ground) all capable of moving into that top group long term. If Harbaugh stays then I think you’d have to include Michigan in that top tier now. 
 

Then I think Bama is in a tier of its own due to prestige, current state of program infrastructure, etc. It’s hard to predict what will happen to them when all we can say for sure right now is “multiple teams have caught up to them and one for sure has passed them” and they just lost the best college coach of all time. 
 

Then you have ND, LSU, Aggy, Penn State, Washington, Auburn. I may be missing someone. But all of those programs feel like they have certain institutional issues that prevents them from competing at a sustained top 3-5 level year over year moving forward. 

Clemson is Tier3 at best. They had a lucky 5 year run that's not indicative of their place in the world of college football. They're basically at the same level as Auburn. 

[Getafix 29459]

 

Here it is ... the Advantage: Aggy! of coaching scenarios.

 

 

 

[irishtexan 11712]

I see them in tiers:

Tier 1: Ohio State (number 1 overall. they've got everything except market and even still, Columbus isn't a small town), Texas (resources, recruiting, national brand), USC (history and market), Georgia (recent dominance. they might be tier 2 for the next coach though)

Tier 2: Michigan, Alabama

Tier 3: LSU, Florida, OU

Tier 4: Notre Dame

Tier 5: A&M, Tennessee, Penn State, maybe Auburn?

[SimkinsMan 4554]

OR

#3. Sark stays at tu, coaches Quinn to a Heisman, beats the shit out of Aggy, and wins a national championship. 

[MAGS® 400]

Why in the fuck would we ever hire Brett Bielema?   I mean its alwas possible for Sark to leave but we aren't desperate.   And yeah, locking in a now proven coach, isn't exactly a bad thing... Giving a coach a 100 million who had proven himself a dumpster fire, with no out clause...  That would be stupid. 

[Js1 87178]

Just now, SimkinsMan said:

OR

#3. Sark stays at tu, coaches Quinn to a Heisman, beats the shit out of Aggy, and wins 3 national championships in a row with Quinn year 3 and 2 years of Arch

Fify

[MrX 803]

6 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Clemson is Tier3 at best. They had a lucky 5 year run that's not indicative of their place in the world of college football. They're basically at the same level as Auburn. 

It’s why I put the Dabo caveat in there. Personally I think he’s going to drive them into the ground and they’ll quickly fall off because he’s stuck in the past era and won’t adapt. But the pieces are there for them to be a top 5 program moving forward IMO. 

[SydneyCarton 49477]

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

[Hiphopopotamos 21191]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

 

TIL

Edited January 11 by Hiphopopotamos

[Reynolds Woodcock 5096]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

Austin's population is larger than Columbus (both Austin proper and MSA).

[SydneyCarton 49477]

1 minute ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Austin's population is larger than Columbus (both Austin proper and MSA).

Listen dude, you google this shit and it's all over the place depending on the source or the year/census data being used. I'm not researching a disertation here. 

They're comparably sized cities, which was my point. If you want to split some hairs in the other direction, well ok. Enjoy yourself, I guess. They're both citiies of 900k or so, and they're both MSA's of slightly over 2 million. 

[Rimbo 27011]

24 minutes ago, Bodacious Bevo said:

Criteria (in order): prestige/history, access to talent (location is biggest but not only factor), NIL capabilities, in-state competition (if access to talent is predicated on that)

Tier 1 (no particular order within tiers): Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, USC

Tier 2: A&M, Notre Dame, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Rutgers, Penn State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn State, Tennessee

Tier 3: Miami, Washington, Clemson, Nebraska, Michigan State

No. No, no, no. Wherever you put Michigan State, Texas A&M goes there, too. They are nearly identical as programs in so many ways. Tho I don't think Spartans fans have the peculiar cult-like exceptionalism Aggy has.

I don't think there's any one criteria list that works, because what makes the great programs great differs from program to program, just like how the great beauties of all-time look nothing like each other. Audrey Hepburn was a legendary beaut because she looked like Audrey Hepburn; but everyone who tried to look like her just looked like a cheap copy of Audrey Hepburn. Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn looked nothing alike; but both were legendary beauties.

If you try to make a list of criteria, you're gonna fuck up somehow. You're going to make a list based on one particular school, and end up with a list that favors cheap imitators of that school (e.g., everyone who tried to look like Marilyn). Or you're going to try to find the intersection of qualities that great programs share, leaving out criteria that are absolutely critical for why one program is a great program, but doesn't matter for others because they achieved greatness in different ways (e.g., "Marilyn was blonde and had big tits" -- these were critical aspects of Marilyn's beauty, but then Audrey was very much NOT blonde and was an A-cup, and yet as much a legendary beauty as Marilyn).

I mean, circumstances can absolutely lead to a top-tier program dropping out of that tier, or new programs rising up. Once upon a time, places like Georgia Tech and the Ivies were THE top programs; Texas certainly wasn't the destination it is today without what DKR built (DX Bible notwithstanding). My list may be old, but I'm not ready to move Ohio State into that class yet, and I sure as shit -- not right after dropping 6 national titles on CFB's asses -- am not going to remove Alabama from that list any time soon.

[LCHorn 2751]

I think you've got to tier them based on proximity to population centers and overall desirability.  Fundamentally it's all about the reward for the student athlete and that's probably a combination of NIL or whatever form athlete compensation ends up being 5-10 seasons from now, NFL preparation and student quality of life (i.e., facilities, education, not being surrounded by thousands of preposterous entitled fake Army officers).

This is going to mean that UT, Georgia, and USC win out when corporate interests can obtain good value on NIL participation (each is in also in a population centers that has a gravity that's not tied to the university). 

Ohio State could arguably be including but I've been to Cleveland.  Unless Cincinnati is loads better then I think their appeal is ultimately too regional and there's too much competition for the Chicago market for anyone to own it. 

Florida has all the potential to be in the first tier but probably lacks the coach capable of exploiting their advantages off the field. 

LSU, A&M, and OU in particular are hindered when UT is up. 

If schools like Miami, UCLA, UVA, and one of the Arizona schools decided to really prioritize program building they'd have aptitude to move up. 

[Sgt. Slaughter 2898]

I used to enjoy this thread.

[Tex Pete 21486]

20 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Orgeron could pass compliance at Texas. I think it's far-fetched, but like everyone else, I would be highly entertained.

"Ca habura skapappa bringtong shammalakookie. Go Tigahs!"

[South Austin 53222]

7 minutes ago, Sgt. Slaughter said:

I used to enjoy this thread.

You will again when Sark hires Belichick as our DL coach.

[hook me 2163]

1 hour ago, Hornlover said:

Texas A&M (ranked 1-5 , with 5 being best)
fertile recruiting region - 5
how big a city and how many busineses - 2.5
financial wherewithal and number of living alumni - 5
confererence - 5
facilities - 5++
existing brand and history - 3
academic restrictions - 5

Tell me they're not a top 5 job.

What? No.

UT, OSU, USC, UGA, UM, LSU, & UO (While PK is alive)  are all better jobs than a&m and it's not really close.

Then you have the next tier with a lot of teams that are in similar boats as a&m but have actually done something the last 40 years:

OU, ND, UF, FSU, Clemson, Bama, Auburn

Then the tier that I think a&m is closer to in terms of just how good the job is:

UW, PSU, Miami (maybe they belong in the tier above but they've been so bad for so long with no end in sight)

A&M has no history, no brand that the general public cares about, is in an ass of a city, is surrounded by & forced to recruit against UT, OU, & LSU, & is currently employing a glorified G5 coaching staff. Could someone theoretically go there & change things? Sure, but that is not an easy fix & the dumpster fire that Jimbo left in his wake makes it even less appealing. If the SEC ever decides to go to a 9 game schedule & eliminate FCS opponents then a&m is going to fall from their 8-4 standard & have to fight to be 6-6 most years. They'll have surprisingly good years every so often, but the trajectory of that program is decidedly pointing down & I'm not sure where it stops.

[Rickylovesweed 15487]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

A&M is where good coaches' careers go to die. You cannot have sustained success there. There's many reasons for it, but the main reason is "Aggy gonna Aggy." It's not a top 25 program. You can make a lot of money by getting hired there, but if you measure a program by success -- if you want a job where you can compete for titles at least once -- you don't go there.

A&M is always way too high in these "top job" discussions. The only viable argument is they overpay for coaches and give coaches extensions for mediocre results. If it's all about the money, maybe A&M is near the top. 

The issue is that all the arguments center around facilities, recruiting in Texas, budget for assistants, resources, etc. Those are all arguments based on helping a coach win. We have 85 years of proof that all those advantages don't help A&M win. 

And it's not just in football. All the 3 major sports have sucked for 85 years. It's a cultural problem. 

[Hornlover 8942]

45 minutes ago, MrX said:

It’s why I put the Dabo caveat in there. Personally I think he’s going to drive them into the ground and they’ll quickly fall off because he’s stuck in the past era and won’t adapt. But the pieces are there for them to be a top 5 program moving forward IMO. 

 

26 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I think you've got to tier them based on proximity to population centers and overall desirability.  Fundamentally it's all about the reward for the student athlete and that's probably a combination of NIL or whatever form athlete compensation ends up being 5-10 seasons from now, NFL preparation and student quality of life (i.e., facilities, education, not being surrounded by thousands of preposterous entitled fake Army officers).

This is going to mean that UT, Georgia, and USC win out when corporate interests can obtain good value on NIL participation (each is in also in a population centers that has a gravity that's not tied to the university). 

Ohio State could arguably be including but I've been to Cleveland.  Unless Cincinnati is loads better then I think their appeal is ultimately too regional and there's too much competition for the Chicago market for anyone to own it. 

Florida has all the potential to be in the first tier but probably lacks the coach capable of exploiting their advantages off the field. 

LSU, A&M, and OU in particular are hindered when UT is up. 

If schools like Miami, UCLA, UVA, and one of the Arizona schools decided to really prioritize program building they'd have aptitude to move up. 

This goes for both of you...

Whether or not a school currently has a good coach or a shitty coach doesn't make much of a long-term difference to the overall "ranking" of that school. 

[JBJ 3825]

1 minute ago, Hornlover said:

Florida has all the potential to be in the first tier but probably lacks the coach capable of exploiting their advantages off the field. 

I don't know why so many people have this school on any tier list.  They are behind on NIL compared to their in-state competition who have similar historical value and better campus locations.

[Spaceman Spiff 408]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This isn't a very fun internet answer, but I think trying to narrow it down to a top 5 is a fool's errand in the new era of college football and temporarily influenced by recent results.  I think there are legitimately 15 or so schools that can be considered in the top tier and capable of going on a run, and coaching determines who rises to the top and who flounders.

Criteria:

1) Need to be in the new SEC or B1G

2) Need to have access to fertile recruiting base

3) Need to have robust alumni base willing to spend money

4) Helps (but not necessary) to have a history of winning 

5) Not aggy   

So, Nebraska?

They are in the B1G.

Their recruiting base is fertile farmland.

Their fans are quite robust.

They had a history of winning at one point.

And they are not aggy.

[ClubWhatever 12301]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't know why so many people have this school on any tier list.  They are behind on NIL compared to their in-state competition who have similar historical value and better campus locations.

Because multiple coaches have demonstrated that you can win a championship there?  As far a NIL and location, they were recruiting just fine until Napier revealed himself to be a sunbelt coach.

[DixonHur 11959]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

Haven't been to Austin in a while I see.   Austin's population is 13% greater than Columbus...almost 300K more people.

[Tex Pete 21486]

2 hours ago, Hornlover said:

Texas A&M (ranked 1-5 , with 5 being best)
fertile recruiting region - 5
how big a city and how many busineses - 2.5
financial wherewithal and number of living alumni - 5
confererence - 5
facilities - 5++
existing brand and history - 3
academic restrictions - 5

Tell me they're not a top 5 job.

Is a brand new Rolls Royce without an engine a top 5 car? That's sort of what you're dealing with in Texas A&M. They have many things that would make it a top tier job, but they are sorely lacking in areas, too.

 

Or, in the immortal words of Tommy Callahan:

[Keef 888]

1 hour ago, Bodacious Bevo said:

Criteria (in order): prestige/history, access to talent (location is biggest but not only factor), NIL capabilities, in-state competition (if access to talent is predicated on that)

Tier 1 (no particular order within tiers): Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, USC

Tier 2: A&M, Notre Dame, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Rutgers, Penn State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn State, Tennessee

Tier 3: Miami, Washington, Clemson, Nebraska, Michigan State

wtf Rutgers?

[troph 25220]

42 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:

A&M is always way too high in these "top job" discussions. The only viable argument is they overpay for coaches and give coaches extensions for mediocre results. If it's all about the money, maybe A&M is near the top. 

The issue is that all the arguments center around facilities, recruiting in Texas, budget for assistants, resources, etc. Those are all arguments based on helping a coach win. We have 85 years of proof that all those advantages don't help A&M win. 

And it's not just in football. All the 3 major sports have sucked for 85 years. It's a cultural problem. 

I agree with you.

A&M is number one for pay. that buyout clause was fucking amazing. for brand, history A&M is a 1 on a mandatory scale of 1-5. Yes they get talked about a lot but their brand is complete garbage from male cheerleaders, to killing people in the name of spirit, to their ROTC program, to their repressed gay hazing, to LOSING, to all of it. Now, if we are talking notoriety on a mandatory scale of 1-5, they get a 5. don't confuse awareness with brand value.

The only reason A&M is in the conversation is because of their size as the second state school in Texas, how much they pay, and their notoriety.

NONE of that other than pay says top 5. 

Shit, I'm not sure they are top 10. It's a graveyard or retirement job. you can't win, and you tumble down when you don't. but at least you can sit on the beach and earn 20%.

Edited January 11 by troph

[MuellerHorn 4622]

A&M just hired a coach with 25 games of head coaching experience. That tells you all you need to know about how attractive it is as a job.

And before I get the obvious retort: Fisher went there because he imploded his last gig and they gave him a ludicrous contract. 
 
A&M is not, and has never been, a destination job. 
 

[Rimbo 27011]

1 hour ago, Sgt. Slaughter said:

I used to enjoy this thread.

Still do, but you used to, too.

[BurntOrange&White 41848]

6 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

A&M just hired a coach with 25 games of head coaching experience. That tells you all you need to know about how attractive it is as a job.

And before I get the obvious retort: Fisher went there because he imploded his last gig and they gave him a ludicrous contract. 
 
A&M is not, and has never been, a destination job. 
 

Destination jobs are like top 5-7 jobs. They definitely fall in the 10-20 range of college coaching jobs.

[mr. sunshine 2859]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

Counterpoint - Columbus is just another rustbelt shithole

[troph 25220]

Lock thread:

Tier 1:  Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame

Tier 2: OU, LSU, Tennesee, Florida, Oregon, Florida State, Miami

Tier 3: Auburn, A&M, Washington, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Clemson

Tier 4: North Carolina, Colorado, BYU, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Utah, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina, Ole Miss, UCLA, Iowa

Tier 5: Nebraska, Purdue, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech

Tier 6: Kentucky, Vandy, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers, Boston College, Cal, Duke, NC State, Pitt, Stanford, SMU, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest, Oregon State, Washington State, UCF

[BurntOrange&White 41848]

Just now, mr. sunshine said:

Counterpoint - Columbus is just another rustbelt shithole

Counter-Counterpoint - People here still think Austin is what it was when they were there, which it's not. It's just a generic big city now.

[mr. sunshine 2859]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Counter-Counterpoint - People here still think Austin is what it was when they were there, which it's not. It's just a generic big city now.

Yeah I know what you mean. I graduated in '86. Had a summer job driving a Greyhound package delivery van back when they realized they had a shit ton of unused storage space that could accommodate auto parts, semiconductors, etc. and thought they could compete with Fedex and UPS. Learned the back roads and short cuts getting lost too many times to count. That's what I picture when I think of Austin. It's basically Dallas now

[SydneyCarton 49477]

1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

I think you've got to tier them based on proximity to population centers and overall desirability.  Fundamentally it's all about the reward for the student athlete and that's probably a combination of NIL or whatever form athlete compensation ends up being 5-10 seasons from now, NFL preparation and student quality of life (i.e., facilities, education, not being surrounded by thousands of preposterous entitled fake Army officers).

This is going to mean that UT, Georgia, and USC win out when corporate interests can obtain good value on NIL participation (each is in also in a population centers that has a gravity that's not tied to the university). 

Ohio State could arguably be including but I've been to Cleveland.  Unless Cincinnati is loads better then I think their appeal is ultimately too regional and there's too much competition for the Chicago market for anyone to own it. 

Florida has all the potential to be in the first tier but probably lacks the coach capable of exploiting their advantages off the field. 

LSU, A&M, and OU in particular are hindered when UT is up. 

If schools like Miami, UCLA, UVA, and one of the Arizona schools decided to really prioritize program building they'd have aptitude to move up. 

I'm sorry, are you under the impression, despite multiple posts on the topic, that Ohio State is located in the city of Cleveland?

31 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Haven't been to Austin in a while I see.   Austin's population is 13% greater than Columbus...almost 300K more people.

As has been broken down in several subsequent posts from the one you've quoted, they're comparably sized cities and  MSAs and at some point youre being a fucking pedant for the sake of being a fucking pedant. Sources differ. Wiki has a difference of 200k. The real answer is WhoGivesAShit.gif you fucking pedant. It's irrelevant to the initial point.

16 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

A&M just hired a coach with 25 games of head coaching experience. That tells you all you need to know about how attractive it is as a job.

And before I get the obvious retort: Fisher went there because he imploded his last gig and they gave him a ludicrous contract. 
 
A&M is not, and has never been, a destination job. 
 

But it's a destination paycheck. 

[LCHorn 2751]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't know why so many people have this school on any tier list.  They are behind on NIL compared to their in-state competition who have similar historical value and better campus locations.

Bear in mind that NIL at all schools doesn't appear to have matured into something that's independent of a small number of donors.  One of the crucibles that must be contemplated by our donors is that they are getting us over the hump between no-NIL and corporate NIL (which is where this needs to go for it to be sustainable).  And by our donors, I mean the small number that are contributing 90% of the football money. 

Florida is a pretty similar school to UT, albeit lacking a Houston or Dallas sized city to feed grads into (and Austin at this point is capable of standing on it's own feet in the greater competition for graduates).  That said, it's got the Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa triangle and feeds grads into Atlanta and Miami, too.  They have a better academic reputation than Florida State and that matters when it's Meta or Kellog's or someone sponsoring a player and they want to be appealing to the economic class that's the highest earning in the market. 

 

[Vertigo 20492]

1 hour ago, irishtexan said:

I see them in tiers:

Tier 1: Ohio State (number 1 overall. they've got everything except market and even still, Columbus isn't a small town), Texas (resources, recruiting, national brand), USC (history and market), Georgia (recent dominance. they might be tier 2 for the next coach though)

Tier 2: Michigan, Alabama

Tier 3: LSU, Florida, OU

Tier 4: Notre Dame

Tier 5: A&M, Tennessee, Penn State, maybe Auburn?

Georgia's recent success not withstanding, they are pretty far behind a number of other schools historically. I try not to be a prisoner of the moment on these types of things due to so much sustained success being dependent on home run coaching hires. There are very few schools that can weather the storm of prolonged futility and still be considered a top job. Texas, USC, tOSU, Michigan, and Bama would be the schools on that list. Notre Dame, Georgia, LSU, OU, Florida are all top 10-15 jobs historically, but could very well fall way back in the pecking order similar to Tennessee after Fulmer. 

[SydneyCarton 49477]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

No. No, no, no. Wherever you put Michigan State, Texas A&M goes there, too. They are nearly identical as programs in so many ways. Tho I don't think Spartans fans have the peculiar cult-like exceptionalism Aggy has.

I don't think there's any one criteria list that works, because what makes the great programs great differs from program to program, just like how the great beauties of all-time look nothing like each other. Audrey Hepburn was a legendary beaut because she looked like Audrey Hepburn; but everyone who tried to look like her just looked like a cheap copy of Audrey Hepburn. Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn looked nothing alike; but both were legendary beauties.

If you try to make a list of criteria, you're gonna fuck up somehow. You're going to make a list based on one particular school, and end up with a list that favors cheap imitators of that school (e.g., everyone who tried to look like Marilyn). Or you're going to try to find the intersection of qualities that great programs share, leaving out criteria that are absolutely critical for why one program is a great program, but doesn't matter for others because they achieved greatness in different ways (e.g., "Marilyn was blonde and had big tits" -- these were critical aspects of Marilyn's beauty, but then Audrey was very much NOT blonde and was an A-cup, and yet as much a legendary beauty as Marilyn).

I mean, circumstances can absolutely lead to a top-tier program dropping out of that tier, or new programs rising up. Once upon a time, places like Georgia Tech and the Ivies were THE top programs; Texas certainly wasn't the destination it is today without what DKR built (DX Bible notwithstanding). My list may be old, but I'm not ready to move Ohio State into that class yet, and I sure as shit -- not right after dropping 6 national titles on CFB's asses -- am not going to remove Alabama from that list any time soon.

 

1 hour ago, Sgt. Slaughter said:

I used to enjoy this thread.

You know after reading Rimbo's last post, I'm enjoying having set this thread on fire and not resorting to stupid food puns. 

Pray to me, you deluded fools, you “anyone for tennis?” golf-playing, cocktail-quaffing pseudo-pedants, for you do indeed need a heavenly patron.

 

Edited January 11 by SydneyCarton

[LCHorn 2751]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sorry, are you under the impression, despite multiple posts on the topic, that Ohio State is located in the city of Cleveland?

Don't be obtuse--Columbus isn't absorbing 11,000 new grads annually.  Presumably most of them are going to Cleveland, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, etc. 

My point was that schools like USC, Texas, and Georgia, have prestige advantages because LA, Austin, and Atlanta have a prestige advantage (over the rust belt cities mentioned) in drawing corporate NIL as it matures. 

Edited January 11 by LCHorn
spelling

[cafe society 2903]

Washington, Colorado and Georgia Tech have all won or shared a national championship in the last 30 or so years.  They were winning those back in the heyday of Jackie and RC, considered by ags everywhere the glory days.  All three schools are academically superior to the diploma mill to the east.   College Station is a shithole that couldn't even qualify as a boil on the asshole of Seattle, Boulder and Atlanta.  All the money and fervid delusion in the maroon echo chamber can't change any of that.  They aren't in any tier of top 30 programs.  They are UCF in a vastly shittier location.

[SydneyCarton 49477]

5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Don't be obtuse--Columbus isn't absorbing 11,000 new grads annually.  Presumably most of them are going to Cleveland, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, etc. 

My point was that schools like USC, Texas, and Georgia, have a prestige advantages because LA, Austin, and Atlanta have a prestige advantage (over the rust belt schools mentioned) in drawing corporate NIL as it matures. 

I have to ask, why do you think a city of a million people with a college, is sending most of their gradutes, not to Columbus, but to cities with populations of 350k, 300k, 900k and 300k, respectively. Why are "Presumably" most of those grads going to either much, much smaller cities or to a comparably sized city in another state?

And you think a city with a metropolictan area of over 2 million people is going to struggle to absorb 11k people anually...why, exactly? 

And no shit LA and Austin and to a degree Athens (atlanta) have advantages. But the origin of this post, which I'm guessing you don't remember, was another poster suggesting Ohio State falls below MICHIGAN and other schools becuase Columbus as a location was a demerit, as opposed to a positive. I'd argue Columbus is possibly the third most attractice location for a major university after Austin and LA. LA has major sports franchises and is full of transplants from all over the country splitting attention. Columbus and Austin, not so much. 

Edited January 11 by SydneyCarton

[Vertigo 20492]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Columbus, OH, is as big or bigger than Austin, TX, from a population perspective. It's the biggest city in the state by far and fucking dwarfs cities with pro teams like Cincinatti and Cleveland. I'm not super familiar with the kind of business and industry in Columbus, but I'm betting it's fairly decent. 

They have quite a bit of retail, insurance, healthcare, and manufacturing up that way. A way bigger amount of household names in the retail space than you would figure make their HQ's there. For example L Brands (Victoria's secret etc.), Kroger, Big Lots, and others. On the Manufacturing side they have company's like Scott's miracle grow, Worthington, Stanley, Honda, etc. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18963]

@SydneyCarton Not being pedantic and I'm not sure how this is even relevant, but according to the googletrons the Cleveland-Akron-Canton MSA is 3.7 million people. Columbus - Marion - Zainesill is 2.6 million. Cleveland is significantly larger. Both are significantly shitholes.