Who would you hire?

[Van]

It is one of the top 3 destination jobs.

Michigan? Now? Or in 2008, when DickRod got the job?

No, it isn't. Being the all time winningest program doesn't make it a top three destination gig, not anymore. Princeton is high on that list of all time wins, too.

Michigan is certainly a top ten destination job in college football, but it's not top three.

Off the top of my head, these are more coveted destination jobs....

Texas
Oklahoma
USC
Ohio St
Notre Dame


The Bama and Florida gigs are also on par with Michigan, and maybe LSU is too, with Bama probably being the highest of the group.

Other than having a soft spot for a given program, like Les Miles has for Michigan, there are any number of reasons why Michigan isn't quite the destination gig that some of these other places are.

-Money: Michigan doesn't pay its coach like Bob Stoops, Nick Saban or Pete Carroll get paid, especially when the total compensation packages are included.

-Weather: Self-explanatory.

-Chance to win, and win big. Michigan hasn't, for awhile, nor are they likely to, not as long as that Scarlet & Gray monolith still resides to the south.

-Recent success, at the highest level. Michigan has enjoyed very little. They have only one BCS bowl game win, and none this century.

Notre Dame is similar to Michigan, in most respects, except for the money issue. Charlie's total compensation package is off the charts. The money issue aside, Notre Dame is still more of a destination job, however. It's simply a higher profile, more coveted job, because ND remains a higher profile program than Michigan.

[Van]

You only mean they got their asses kicked right from the very beginning, but at least mentally they were still Ohio St; i.e., ready to fight, and expecting to win?

[indyfrisco]

When you say "Now?" I would reply with "Well not today." They've had 1 bad season (3-9) with a new coach and the season before was a dissapointing 9-4 campaign. They will be good, if not great, very soon I have no doubt. Bama was shit 2 years ago going 6-7 and then 7-6. Even at that time, after a couple bad seasons, it was considered a destination job. Hence, Saban bolting the pros for the job.

In any case, it is my opinion that Michigan is still a top 3 destination job if you look at their whole body of work. They are down right now, but they will be back and soon. You say Florida is on top of Michigan? They weren't shit until Spurrier got there and then when he left they weren't shit until Meyer got there. Zook could go back to Florida tomorrow and they would underachieve again and you'd change your mind on it being a destination job or where it is ranked.

And if what I have as a 3 and you may have as a 5 or 6, does it really matter? It is my opinion. Not sure why you are so obsessed with making sure everyone agrees with you to the point you write diatribe after diatribe, mostly saying the same thing over and over with different words, until the other person just quits posting because it becomes so tedious.

[Van]

Indy, it's a fucking message board, you idiot.
What else would you have us do, especially during the offseason?

Michigan's only had one train wreck season, but they also haven't done anything major in a decade.

Did you miss the part about no BCS bowl wins this century? Did you miss the part about their being second fiddle, at best, in their own conference?

Body of work? Again: Princeton. Michigan's body of work isn't good enough in recent years (not just last year) for that gig to still be a top three destination gig.

Nobody else has brought these things up, so no, I'm not just saying the same things over and over.

In the meantime, maybe we should just let you do all the posting here? Maybe you can have some scintillating, erudite chats with Jon.

[King Crimson]

We saw the same thing happen when Bill Callahan brought Nebraska into the Coliseum. He turtled, completely. He was so afraid of getting blown out, he never even gave his team a chance to compete.
.

he did the same thing in Norman in 04. Callahan ran the ball in to the LOS to shorten the game and kicked a FG to avoid the shutout late in the 4th Q for the 30-3 final score. pathetic. at least OU's shit teams would *try* and win when Osborne put 50 on us.

Michigan is a destination job. top 10. i think DickRod will succeed there....but may take a couple years. like Sam says above, they haven't been down *that* long. they were in the (somewhat overrated) #1 vs. #2 matchup with tOSU the year the Buckeyes lost to UF.

[Van]

Sam, all those things are why I'd still rate Michigan as being solidly in the top ten.

Just not top three.

[Killian]

Destination jobs should be defined by this: If Coach X wins a national championship, what will be the reaction? Let's use Brian Kelly as an example. Let's say he does well again this year and stays at the top of the list as far as up and coming coaches goes. There are two positions open for him: Clemson and Michigan.

He takes the Clemson job and by year three, he wins a National Title. Hasn't been done at Clemson in about 237 years, if ever. He'll get some coach of the year trophies, and people will still talk about him for other jobs. And some will still wonder if he can handle the big time.

If he takes the UofM job and does the same thing, they'll write books about him and he has almost assured himself a place in the College Football Hall of Fame.

Miami isn't a destination job and it fell apart after Davis left. They've done more recently than Michigan, would you put them higher? Fuck, in the last 20 years they've won 3 NC's. That doesn't mean they are a better job than UofM.

[Van]

No, but then Miami doesn't have The Swamp, and they don't pay like Florida pays. They don't have Florida's facilities. They don't have Florida's outlook for the near future. They're not in the SEC.

I wouldn't rate Miami above Michigan either. I might rate Florida above Michigan, at this point. It'd be close, as it would be with Bama and LSU.

I'd certainly rate Texas, OU, Ohio St, USC and ND above Michigan, for a variety of reasons.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Notre Dame is similar to Michigan, in most respects, except for the money issue. Charlie's total compensation package is off the charts.

Not really. Until about 1-2 years ago, ND actually was paying Ty more not to coach the team than they were paying Charlie to coach it. The buyout admittedly is huge, but only because Charlie remains under contract for six more years in the absence of a buyout.

I don't remember the exact details of his contract, but I think he's somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million per year. That's not enough even to be the highest-paid employee of ND (even after they were done with the Willingham buyout), let alone anywhere near the highest-paid coaches in college football. He's not exactly starving, of course (double entendre intended), but neither is his salary comparable to Stoops, Meyer, Saban, Petey, et al.

He takes the Clemson job and by year three, he wins a National Title. Hasn't been done at Clemson in about 237 years, if ever.

Clemson did win a national title in 1981 under Danny Ford. I feel really, really old reading this board sometimes.

[TheJON]

I'd like to just make a quick note........

When you're trying to argue college football with Vag, understand this....

He hasn't watched very many games and his troll is quite obviously m2.

Just thought I'd give everyone the heads up so you can not waste your time trying to argue anything football related with him.

[SunCoastSooner]

One may jump up and suprise us (ala Rich Rodriguez) or one of the guys talked about for years may decide to finally bolt (the Jeff Tedford's and Kirk Ferentz's of the world).

Tedford wouldn't leave Cal for ANY job in the country. And why should he with the money he's making and the new facilities that are being built that will rival or even pass Oregon's as the best in the country. Fuskie and Duck fans have been saying since Tedford arrived at Cal that he would leave for one of their schools.

His wife absolutely LOVES the Bay Area... and would probably divorce him if he ever even entertained the idea.

Dude you are dumber than a box of rocks aren't you?

Tedford is barely in the top 30 in the college football pay scale for HCs. He doesn't even make 1/3 of what Bob Stoops does in base salary of even half of what Nice Saben, Pete Carrol, Les Miles, or Charlie Weis (Charlie FREAKIN' Weis), and not even 1/4 in incentives of any of them to live in a town that is exponentially more expensive to reside in than Norman or South Bend.

[TheJON]

Don't worry, Tedford isn't leaving Cal. No one would want him. No BCS Bowls, no conference titles, no Top 10 finishes, all kinds of NFL busts, etc..... He's at Cal for good because Cal can't do better and neither can Tedford.

It's a bad job and they've got an equally shitty coach.



Tedford is all yours, m2twat. We don't want him.

Sincerely,

The rest of the country.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Van...I sat right by the tunnel where the players came out...OSU was beaten before even taking the field...watching USC warm up - loose, etc...watching OSU warm up...tight, uptight...except Beanie...who didn't play

Sometimes taking the persona of your coach is ok in certain situations...but I think OSU took the midgets persona a little too much lately with this all uptight, stuffy, business attitude...if they played the big OOC games and Bowl Games like they do with Michigan and how they played Texas last year...fast, aggressive, not to lose...then they would be one potent mother fucker...

[Van]

Mace, Ferentz has taken the program no higher than Fry ever did, and with the inconsistency Iowa's shown under Ferentz it sure seems like Iowa was more consistently a factor in the Big 10, during Fry's salad days there.

Compare what Ferentz has done at Iowa to people like Carroll, Stoops, Mack Brown, Jim Tressell, Urban Meyer, Nick Saban and even a Houston Nutt, all of whom took what they found and immediately elevated to a place that was better than it had been; both in the immediate past, and even the more distant past.

I'm talking in relative terms, too. No, I don't expect Iowa's coach to bring them national titles. Obviously, that's not happening. I'm merely talking equal relative improvement.

Carroll took a team that was in the shitter, relatively speaking, and he immediately transformed them.

Stoops, the same.

Mack Brown, ditto.

Nick Saban...like Fubu...twice.

Urban Meyer? C'mon.

Ferentz has done nothing of the sort. Year to year, Iowa's in no real better shape now than they were under Fry, and Fry at least got them to the Rose Bowl a few times, which Ferentz has been unable to do even once.

I don't see Ferentz as a bad coach, not at all, but I don't see him as any sort of an upper-tier coach, either. He just hasn't done anything significant to merit all this talk (not from you) of his excellence as a program builder, a highly in-demand coaching commodity or a developer of talent.

He's certainly overpaid, for the results he's produced.

Yeah, he's put some people into the NFL. So has nearly every other coach in the BCS, if they've been around as long as Ferentz has.

Well, okay, maybe not Karl Duhrell.

[TheJON]

Ferentz has taken the program no higher than Fry ever did

WRONG!

Carroll took a team that was in the shitter, relatively speaking, and he immediately transformed them.

Stoops, the same.

Mack Brown, ditto.

Nick Saban...like Fubu...twice.

Urban Meyer? C'mon.

Way to list a bunch of coaches that had easy turnarounds. Gee, how on earth does anyone win at schools like USC, Florida, and Texas?? What a tough job those are! That list includes coaches that took over programs that are easy to win at if you don't completely suck ass like the previous coach at that school. The fact of the matter is Carroll, Stoops, Brown, Saban, and Meyer all took over for some of the worst coaches in the history of college football. And all of them were left a cupboard full of 4 and 5 stars. Those aren't impressive turnarounds. Those programs didn't start winning because those coaches took over the program. They started winning because they got rid of the retard who was running it before.

Ferentz, on the other hand, inherited a roster full of garbage. And impressive turnaround job is what Ferentz, Fry, Barry Alvarez, Bill Snyder, Mike Gundy, even to an extent Gary Barnett at Northwestern.

He's certainly overpaid, for the results he's produced.

How is he overpaid? Do you know a damn thing about Iowa's increased revenues since Ferentz took over? He's paid that much because of what he's made the university and because if we don't pay him that much he'll be gone to the NFL in a heartbeat. We have to overpay coaches because there's better jobs out there. He's a hot commodity in the NFL. It's our only way to keep him.

I don't see Ferentz as a bad coach, not at all, but I don't see him as any sort of an upper-tier coach, either. He just hasn't done anything significant to merit all this talk (not from you) of his excellence as a program builder, a highly in-demand coaching commodity or a developer of talent.

So it's all just a made up story about all those 2 and 3 star recruits turned all-big-10, all-american, and NFL draft picks?? He hasn't done anything to merit all this talk about being a top-tier coach? Oh really? So winning National Coach of the Year, Big-10 Coach of the Year Twice, winning 2 Big-10 titles, and leading Iowa to 3 straight Top 10 finishes (something that's never been done in school history), is nothing of merit?

As for the player development.........

Bob Sanders, Robert Gallery, Eric Steinbach, Dallas Clark, Brad Banks, Fred Russell, Clinton Solomon, Matt Roth, Jonathan Babineaux, Charles Godfrey, Sean Considine, Chad Greenway, Abdul Hodge, Shonn Greene, Scott Chandler, Ed Hinkel, Aaron Kampman, Ladell Betts etc. all think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yeah, he's put some people into the NFL. So has nearly every other coach in the BCS, if they've been around as long as Ferentz has.

Some? Some? He's a got a fucking roster each year mostly full of 2 and 3 star recruits and he puts more players in the NFL than most schools loaded with 4 stars. Not only that but his guys go on to have very good NFL careers.

1,000 yard rusher.........Ladell Betts
NFL Defensive POY........Bob Sanders
NFL Sack Leader.........Aaron Kampman
#2 Pick in the Draft.......Robert Gallery
Top 15 Pick and rising star.........Chad Greenway
Highest salary for guard in the NFL.........Eric Steinbach
Top 10 Tight End..........Dallas Clark
Quality interior D-line......Jonathan Babineaux
Quality pass rusher.........Matt Roth
Top 10 kicker........Nate Kaeding
Quality punter.......Jason Baker
Rising star at safety/corner.......Charles Godfrey
Quality safety.......Sean Considine
Quality offensive tackle........Marshal Yanda

There's currently 28 players in the NFL that played for Ferentz in his first 9 years (I am not including the 2009 Draft Class since none of them have ever officially made a roster). And probably another 10-12 that have, at some point, played in the league. Of those 28 guys, probably 25 of them were 3 stars or less- and some walk-ons.

If you wanna question Kirk's game management or the fact that he's too loyal to players and coaches at times......go right ahead. But he is without any doubt the absolute BEST player developer in the college game right now and unless someone can top what I have stated above with proof (ie lists of players) then I will just go ahead and chalk this up to me being right. And don't bother with lists of 4 and 5 star guys. Any idiot can send 5 stars onto the NFL........

[TheJON]

But he is without any doubt the absolute BEST player developer in the college game right now and unless someone can top what I have stated above with proof (ie lists of players) then I will just go ahead and chalk this up to me being right. And don't bother with lists of 4 and 5 star guys. Any idiot can send 5 stars onto the NFL........

You're resting your argument on the judgement of the idiots from Rivals.com who rate high school players? You could also make a long list of those "can't miss" 4 and 5 star guys who bombed in college and never made the traveling squad.

Furthermore, every school has had walk ons who become all-conference/all-american players. Hell, Nebraska built some NC teams with those kind of players. I'm not knocking Ferentz in any way by saying that, but he's not the only coach in the country who turns lightly recruited players into studs. Saying he's "the best" at doing so is nothing short of idiotic. Yeah, go figure.

You think it's a god damn coincidence that the teams competing for national titles EVERY year are loaded with 4 and 5 star players?????????????????????????

[King Crimson]

the phrase "4 and 5 star" players is a funny one. how many 5 star players do you think OU has in any one recruiting class? usually, it's 1-2 maybe which means roughly less than 10% of the roster at any time *might* be 5 star players at any time....but people (I thought it was just CU net fans and now Iowa fan) throw around the phrase around like OU or Texas or tOSU have rosters composed of 40-50% "5 star players". Granted, USC has changed the rules on nabbing "5 star players", but that's only recently and not anywhere near the popular, hyperbolic use of the phrase in question. Colorado has had a 5 star player in each of it's last 3 recruiting classes, which is maybe one less than OU over the same time period...but, it's OU that has a roster full of "5 star players"?

also, Jon, and whoever else wants to perpetuate the popular myth, John Blake's recruiting classes were generally regarded in the 15-30 range (still obscenely underachieving)....and i'd bet there were none to maybe 1-2 5 star players on his final roster (Demond Parker and Brandon Daniels, maybe)....and whoever they were, they were out of shape and playing the wrong position. people talk like Blake was pulling in top 5 classes and all Stoops had to do was teach them a new snap count. it's become a kind of durable ideology but it's simply not true to say he inherited a "roster full of 4 and 5 star players".

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Wasn't Jake Christiansen an elite 11 qb? What happened to Ferentz's sweet developmental skillz on that one?

All in all, yeah, Ferentz is a solid player developer, but let's stop acting like this guy is transforming Slippery Rock recruits into NFL HOFers. He's at a major (relatively speaking) Big Ten program and he's bringing in some actual football talent from those obscure parts of the midwest, even if Rivals and Scout aren't slapping 4 and 5 star tags on em because USC and Florida had no interest. It all starts with the offensive and defensive linemen, and Ferentz has got a neverending supply of really good ones in his own backyard. If we want to shoot our wads over player development, how about Navy's program? I know Paul Johnson has since left, but those were teams that were able to compete with and beat a lot of BCS schools, including ND, which theoretically shouldn't really be happening.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Hmmm let's see

AJ Hawk - 3 Star Linebacker - 1st round pick
James Laurenitis - 3 Star Linebacker - 2nd round pick and 3 time AA at OSU
Malcolm Jenkins - 3 Star DB - 1st round pick and AA at OSU
Chris Gamble - 3 Star WR - 1st round pick and Pro Bowler with the Panthers I believe
Nick Mangold - 3 Star OL I believe - now the starting center and Pro Bowler with the Jets
Anthony Gonzalez - 2 Star WR I believe out of St. Ignatius (in fact not many big programs wanted him) 2nd round pick of the Colts and started his rookie season

You want me to go on?

[SunCoastSooner]

the phrase "4 and 5 star" players is a funny one. how many 5 star players do you think OU has in any one recruiting class? usually, it's 1-2 maybe which means roughly less than 10% of the roster at any time *might* be 5 star players at any time....but people (I thought it was just CU net fans and now Iowa fan) throw around the phrase around like OU or Texas or tOSU have rosters composed of 40-50% "5 star players". Granted, USC has changed the rules on nabbing "5 star players", but that's only recently and not anywhere near the popular, hyperbolic use of the phrase in question. Colorado has had a 5 star player in each of it's last 3 recruiting classes, which is maybe one less than OU over the same time period...but, it's OU that has a roster full of "5 star players"?

also, Jon, and whoever else wants to perpetuate the popular myth, John Blake's recruiting classes were generally regarded in the 15-30 range (still obscenely underachieving)....and i'd bet there were none to maybe 1-2 5 star players on his final roster (Demond Parker and Brandon Daniels, maybe)....and whoever they were, they were out of shape and playing the wrong position. people talk like Blake was pulling in top 5 classes and all Stoops had to do was teach them a new snap count. it's become a kind of durable ideology but it's simply not true to say he inherited a "roster full of 4 and 5 star players".

Demond Parker was a 4 star. Brandon Daniels was a 5 star, playing completely out of position though.

[King Crimson]

Demond Parker was a 4 star. Brandon Daniels was a 5 star, playing completely out of position though.

Daniels played out of position at more than one position.

[TheJON]

I'm going to Rivals.com and looking at the committment lists. It only goes back to 2002. So I will take 2002-2007 recruits.

Here are the programs I'm going to search....

Florida, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Indiana (I wanted to get a few of the top programs, a 2nd-tier program and a couple really bad programs)

I'm counting 4-stars and 5-star recruits. Then I'm going to post their records from 2002-2008.

First one.......Florida (67-24, 2 national titles, 3 years coached by Ron Zook)

5-stars: 14
4-stars: 68
Total: 82

Next........Iowa (59-29, 2 Big-10 titles, 1 BCS Bowl)

5-stars: 2
4-stars: 20
Total: 22

Next......Texas (76-13, 1 national title, 3 BCS Bowl wins)

5-Stars: 12
4-stars: 58
Total: 70

Next......Oklahoma (78-17, 6 BCS Bowls, 3 title game appearances, 5 Big-12 titles)

5-stars: 10
4-stars: 69
Total: 79

Next......Iowa State (32-54, 3 minor bowl games)

5-stars: 0
4-stars: 9
Total: 9

Last........Indiana (27-56, 1 minor bowl game)

5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
Total: 0

Those numbers are very telling. I suppose this is all just a coincidence, right? Imagine that.......the teams with the most 4 and 5 stars are the ones having the most success. Man, those coaches at those big-time programs sure must be amazing coaches!!

AJ Hawk - 3 Star Linebacker - 1st round pick
James Laurenitis - 3 Star Linebacker - 2nd round pick and 3 time AA at OSU
Malcolm Jenkins - 3 Star DB - 1st round pick and AA at OSU
Chris Gamble - 3 Star WR - 1st round pick and Pro Bowler with the Panthers I believe
Nick Mangold - 3 Star OL I believe - now the starting center and Pro Bowler with the Jets
Anthony Gonzalez - 2 Star WR I believe out of St. Ignatius (in fact not many big programs wanted him) 2nd round pick of the Colts and started his rookie season

You want me to go on?

I will go on for you......

Since 2002, the only other players that really did much at tOSU or made the NFL from what I checked that were 3-stars or below were Hartline, Robiskie, and Holmes. Other than that and the list above, every tOSU player that became a very good player was a 4 or 5 star. That is still a pretty solid list though. About 10 2-3 stars turned into very good college players. But again, this is still way below Ferentz' list.

[King Crimson]

congrats Jon, you've answered the question... who recruits better: good teams or mediocre teams or bad teams?

if yer Ferentz little engine that could thesis is making you all fuzzy then by all means stick with it. you'd think with those consecutive top 10 finishes and new year's day bowls you'd like to talk about, a superior coach would have been able to build off that.

and: you do realize that in order to win anything worthwhile, those coaches with all the "4 and 5 star recruits" have to beat other teams with "4 and 5 star recruits"? no? you can take a shot at OU's bowl record if you want but beating Texas or even teams like Oregon or Miami are different than going .500 against rockin' Joe Tiller.

[TheJON]

congrats Jon, you've answered the question... who recruits better: good teams or mediocre teams or bad teams?

if yer Ferentz little engine that could thesis is making you all fuzzy then by all means stick with it. you'd think with those consecutive top 10 finishes and new year's day bowls you'd like to talk about, a superior coach would have been able to build off that.

Are you kidding me? There isn't a god damned coach that could consistently bring 4 and 5 star players to Iowa. Stoops wouldn't have been able to do it, I can assure you of that. We have virtually no talent in this entire state and we don't have the tradition of some of these other schools.

and: you do realize that in order to win anything worthwhile, those coaches with all the "4 and 5 star recruits" have to beat other teams with "4 and 5 star recruits"? no?

They do? Oh really? Of the 12-13 games these programs play, how many do you think are against other teams loaded with 4 and 5 stars? 1? 2? 3? You can go 10-2 easily like that. 80% of your games are against teams filled with 3-stars or less.

I would venture to guess that since 2002, OU hasn't beaten more than 4 or 5 teams that have recruited even close to the level of OU. And nobody ever beats more than a few good teams in a year because of how big of sissies these college football programs are.

Take Florida for example........

Last year they played 14 games, won a national title. How many wins over good teams did they have? 3. And then a few semi-quality wins like LSU, South Carolina, and FSU. Same thing when they won it all in 2006.

I could go on and on and on bringing up examples showing the correlation between programs with 4 and 5 star recruits and their success vs those that don't recruit 4 and 5 stars. Then I could show you how very few times a year you any team that goes to a BCS Bowl or wins a national title actually beats a very good opponent. But you'd still try and argue with me. I mean, how much more evidence to prove my point do you need? It's all right here for you. I've got the proof. Teams that recruit well win unless they have a god awful coach. Teams that don't get the big time recruits usually don't win unless they've got someone like a Paul Johnson, Kirk Ferentz or Houston Nutt coaching them and even then it's virtually impossible to win on a consistent basis or win a national title. And the ONLY programs (save for Illinois because obviously Zook is cheating) that consistently recruit with the best of 'em are the traditional national powers.

What more evidence are you looking for, Crimson? What more proof do you need? I've shown you all kinds of facts and you try and discredit them because you just have to be right.

[King Crimson]

again, you've proven that good teams recruit well.

my point is that even the very best programs have rosters with less than 10% of mythic "5 star players"; yet, fans of second-tier programs act and talk like every dude that plays for Texas or Florida is a 5 star guy. it's a term that is used sloppily and with great hyperbole. your own stats bear out what i've said about OU (a consistent top 10 recruiter in the Stoops era) and 5 star players. Colorado has one less 5 star player in the last 3 recruiting classes and they haven't had a winning season over those 3. looking at Rivals, you'll see that 4 of OU's last 5 commits are 3 star guys.

you said Stoops inherited a roster "full of 5 star and 4 star guys", that's untrue. it's hyperbole and inaccurate.

you are trying to shoehorn a few other points here, like the weak OOC's teams play.

[TheJON]

my point is that even the very best programs have rosters with less than 10% of mythic "5 star players"; yet, fans of second-tier programs act and talk like every dude that plays for Texas or Florida is a 5 star guy.

Where did I say that? I listed 5 AND 4 stars.

Again, I showed you the numbers and you absolutely refuse to see the obvious correlation between wins and 4-5 star recruits. It's right there for you to see, Crimson, it's pretty simple.

again, you've proven that good teams recruit well.

Or maybe good teams have it easy in recruiting? Is there really such a thing as recruiting well at Florida, Texas and USC? Recruits come to you.

you are trying to shoehorn a few other points here, like the weak OOC's teams play.

So I'm just making that stuff up and these teams top teams play 90% of their games against other great teams? I suppose when I Google "college football historical results" I'm taken to a website with false historical results, right? Send me the link where it shows Florida has beaten 7 Top 10 teams in their national title runs. Do that and I'll drop the argument.

[King Crimson]

you are trying to shoehorn a few other points here, like the weak OOC's teams play.

So I'm just making that stuff up and these teams top teams play 90% of their games against other great teams? I suppose when I Google "college football historical results" I'm taken to a website with false historical results, right? Send me the link where it shows Florida has beaten 7 Top 10 teams in their national title runs. Do that and I'll drop the argument.

i'm not saying you are wrong about that (fuck, look at UT's OOC over the last 10 years* minus the Ohio State series...they never play anyone except Arkansas and rarely leave the state of Texas), i just think it's a qualitatively different point altogether.

*a mild pass for their SWC cupcake OOC days since the OU-UT game was OOC, then. but they had seasons where they never played a game outside the state of Texas. tell me that a roadie at TCU or Houston was a hostile environment in cities full of UT grads.

[TheJON]

Oh, I see how ya are......

Just wanted to get me to the point where you could take some jabs at Tejas! Nice play! :D

[Killian]

Back to the question at hand:

I wanted to see the if there was a consensus among most fans and it appears that there is and BCS to BCS would be the preferred choice, but also the hardest to pull off. Obviously Pete Carroll isn't going to take another job, but you damn sure bet Pat Fitzgerald would take the USC job if offered. So it obviously depends on the coach.

In their last eight hires, ND has gone the NFL route twice (Devine, who had extensive college experience and Weis), Assistant once (Bob Davie), BCS to BCS 4 times (Willingham, O'Leary, Holtz and Parseghian) and one "What the fuck?" in HS coach Gerry Faust.

If it were up to me, I would rule out assistants all together. The ND job has proven it is not a place to learn on the job as a HC.

In an ideal world, BCS to BCS would be my #1 choice. But, it would have to be the right person. I highly doubt the next HC at ND will be Urban Meyer, Nick Saban or Bob Stoops. But it could be someone like Butch Davis or Mark Richt. Or after a few years, a guy like Mark Dantonio.

I'm conflicted on the mid major to BCS route. It could pay huge dividends, but it's a huge risk and ND cannot take huge risks. NFL guys would be completely ruled out unless it was Jon Gruden. I would take him before a mid major guy. Brian Kelly appears to be a great coach who is ready to make that next step. Some have even said he turned down the UW and Tennessee jobs because he is waiting to see what happens with Weis. His assistant coaches and recruiting accumen are his biggest hurdle in my mind.

[Blueblood]

Where did I say that? I listed 5 AND 4 stars.

Again, I showed you the numbers and you absolutely refuse to see the obvious correlation between wins and 4-5 star recruits. It's right there for you to see, Crimson, it's pretty simple.

Well, then Cal should be a MONSTER in College Football, if not this year(a very good team this year), then certainly in the near future.

Let's take your logic that the best teams get all the 4 and 5 stars.


I did a break down of recruiting in the PAC 10 for this upcoming year, and using your star system I came up with the teams and their "average star count."

Let's take a look at the math shall we...


Per Rivals:

Teams... number of recruits ... average star ranking
1.CAL 9 3.66
2.U$C 10 3.60
3.Washington 13 3.25
4.Oregon 5 3.20
5.Arizona State 7 3.16
6.UCLA 7 3.14
7.Stanfurd 22 3.08
8.Oregon State 5 2.80
9.Arizona 7 2.66
10.Washington State 7 " 2.50


I didn't include one star recruits in the averages..

This doesn't include 3 silent commits from 4 and 5 stars.

Hmmm... Cal has a "higher" star ranking than mighty U$C


So which is it ???


Is Cal a great team or not as good as an average BIG 10 team (Iowa) ?

You can't have it both ways... but, in your 8 year old mind maybe you can.

[TheJON]

Well then what's that say for Tedford if he can't even come close to having the success of Ferentz with far more big recruits???? Time to grow up m2. Act your age dude. And stop calling other people 8 year olds when you make tards like Screw and Vag seem mature. Grow up or go away.

[King Crimson]

Hmmm... Cal has a "higher" star ranking than mighty U$C

next to meaningless in July. historically, USC has a lot of commits from the big time blue chips late in the process.