ESPN Insider - Ranking CFB coaching jobs

[HuskerinBig10]

The bottom Power 5 teams

77. Kansas
76. Iowa State
75. Wake Forest

 

[Codaxx]

The bottom Power 5 teams

77. Kansas
76. Iowa State
75. Wake Forest

I am not sure Kansas should be there. There really is no reason for Kansas to be so inept. They did OK with Mangino. It's a better job than KSU.

 

[WestEndVol]

Tenn has the highest recruiting budget in the country. Reason being they do a lot of flying. Don't compare the state of Bama to Tenn. That doesn't tell the story. Bama is surrounded by a lot of talent. Do a 300 mile radius around campuses and you will find Bama's recruiting area is so bad

Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia have a ton of talent, and we get a lot of kids from Florida as well. And I was mainly pointing out that we have similar talent, minus a big instate rival to compete with.

 

[theboardref]

Wisconsin above Arkansas?

I think the Bert change pretty much debunks that. That's about like putting a team ranked higher than another team the week after the play with an otherwise even record etc. It's basically a head to head matchup scenario.

Not sure. I personally feel like Wisconsin is the better program purely from the standpoint that you can make something happen each year. Arky won't win the west for quite some time. Even if they beat LSU every single time they play for the foreseeable future, they still can't beat the other teams consistently. I hear Arkansas I think baseball, definitely not football.

 

[4down20]

Not sure. I personally feel like Wisconsin is the better program purely from the standpoint that you can make something happen each year. Arky won't win the west for quite some time. Even if they beat LSU every single time they play for the foreseeable future, they still can't beat the other teams consistently. I hear Arkansas I think baseball, definitely not football.

Petrino had Arkansas as a top10 team.

 

[theboardref]

Petrino had Arkansas as a top10 team.

Fair enough, but he also once had Louisville as a top 10 team too. It didn't take long for either to deteriorate after his departure.

 

[4down20]

Fair enough, but he also once had Louisville as a top 10 team too. It didn't take long for either to deteriorate after his departure.

Well, Arkansas got John L Smith which was just stupid on their AD's part.

Louisville has been a stepping stone program. Strong had success there, but then moved on to Texas etc.

Wisconsin's biggest asset and Arkansas's biggest draw backs are the conferences they are in. But Arkansas seems to put more effort in their program - it's just tougher for them to have in conference success while Wisconsin goes to conference championship games with 4 losses on their season(something like that, I forget the exact number).

 

[theboardref]

Well, Arkansas got John L Smith which was just stupid on their AD's part.

Louisville has been a stepping stone program. Strong had success there, but then moved on to Texas etc.

Wisconsin's biggest asset and Arkansas's biggest draw backs are the conferences they are in. But Arkansas seems to put more effort in their program - it's just tougher for them to have in conference success while Wisconsin goes to conference championship games with 4 losses on their season(something like that, I forget the exact number).

Well if that is what you are using to quantify Arkansas as a better program, then I do not disagree with you by those guidelines. If you are talking about which team has the more promising upside on a year to year basis, I think Wisconsin has more history and allows you to win NOW and is in a conference where they have good teams, but it is more doable then beating Bama, LSU, Ole Miss, A&M, and Auburn on a yearly basis.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Not sure. I personally feel like Wisconsin is the better program purely from the standpoint that you can make something happen each year. Arky won't win the west for quite some time. Even if they beat LSU every single time they play for the foreseeable future, they still can't beat the other teams consistently. I hear Arkansas I think baseball, definitely not football.

I think this is a big part of it. Both have similar team profiles, with similar amounts of money to throw around and are all around very similar teams. But the B10 did Wisconsin a favor as Nebraska and Iowa are the only teams in their division with a decent shot at winning it consistently. If these divisions hold for a while, I suspect we'll see a lot of Wisconsin in the B10 title game and in some pretty major bowls.

 

[Gohogs14]

Well if that is what you are using to quantify Arkansas as a better program, then I do not disagree with you by those guidelines. If you are talking about which team has the more promising upside on a year to year basis, I think Wisconsin has more history and allows you to win NOW and is in a conference where they have good teams, but it is more doable then beating Bama, LSU, Ole Miss, A&M, and Auburn on a yearly basis.

It's a double edged sword. Bielema has recruited better here than he did at Wisconsin, but he's also playing in a tougher division. Houston Nutt of all people did win the west 2 times but it wasn't quite as tough as it is now.

Hard to compare the history of the two programs since it's big 10 vs. SWC/SEC but it's pretty close. Arkansas has a higher winning percentage and more conference titles (SWC) but Wisconsin has had a few more all-americans and a better bowl record. They have two heisman winners to our zero but we also have a claimed national title.

None of that obviously means anything today though.

 

[Across The Field]

Well, Arkansas got John L Smith which was just stupid on their AD's part.

Louisville has been a stepping stone program. Strong had success there, but then moved on to Texas etc.

Wisconsin's biggest asset and Arkansas's biggest draw backs are the conferences they are in. But Arkansas seems to put more effort in their program - it's just tougher for them to have in conference success while Wisconsin goes to conference championship games with 4 losses on their season(something like that, I forget the exact number).

Wisconsin has only lost 4 games twice in the last 7 years. They're usually a very solid, difficult team to beat.

 

[4down20]

Wisconsin has only lost 4 games twice in the last 7 years. They're usually a very solid, difficult team to beat.

Top25 team is all. Not bad or anything, but a good bit of that is SoS and polls being biased towards record.

 

[theboardref]

It's a double edged sword. Bielema has recruited better here than he did at Wisconsin, but he's also playing in a tougher division. Houston Nutt of all people did win the west 2 times but it wasn't quite as tough as it is now.

Hard to compare the history of the two programs since it's big 10 vs. SWC/SEC but it's pretty close. Arkansas has a higher winning percentage and more conference titles (SWC) but Wisconsin has had a few more all-americans and a better bowl record. They have two heisman winners to our zero but we also have a claimed national title.

None of that obviously means anything today though.

Clearly Bielma left Wisconsin for Arkansas which says how coaches feel about this topic, but it also helps when you have the financial backing. Arkansas is a program in that predicament where even when they do make progress, they still end up back where they started. Especially with Petrino, that was the best the team has done in recent memory and it still wasn't good enough. I feel for Arky fans. To me though I think Wisconsin is a better coaching opportunity because like you said about him receuiting better and still losing, I think you can do more in the Big 10. Also Arkansas doesn't have a significantly better history than Wisky to off-set their potential for growth.

 

[Tin Man]

Michigan not in the top 10?

And, of course, M&B would post this...

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

And, of course, M&B would post this...

I mean, Michigan is my team. Do you think my argument is bad? Do you think Clemson could beat out ND and Michigan for a coach?

 

[7Samurai13]

I mean, Michigan is my team. Do you think my argument is bad? Do you think Clemson could beat out ND and Michigan for a coach?

Well Hoke was your last coach so it seems Michigan has had some issues trying to find quality head coaches

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Well Hoke was your last coach so it seems Michigan has had some issues trying to find quality head coaches

No, that was on purpose. That was a Dave Brandon thing. As we know it now from Bacon's books, Brandon didn't even really try for anyone else. He was obligated to offer Harbaugh at the time but basically went after Hoke to be "his guy" -- AKA his puppet.

The previous two coaching searches were disasters because of our administration, not because we couldn't have gotten someone better.

 

[7Samurai13]

No, that was on purpose. That was a Dave Brandon thing. As we know it now from Bacon's books, Brandon didn't even really try for anyone else. He was obligated to offer Harbaugh at the time but basically went after Hoke to be "his guy" -- AKA his puppet.

The previous two coaching searches were disasters because of our administration, not because we couldn't have gotten someone better.

There's always an excuse for Michigan, right?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

There's always an excuse for Michigan, right?

No. In terms of these coaching searches, it's pretty well documented as to why they went wrong and who is to blame. It's certainly not that Michigan couldn't hire someone better. In 2007 we had Les Miles saying, "I would never turn down Michigan".

 

[7Samurai13]

No. In terms of these coaching searches, it's pretty well documented as to why they went wrong and who is to blame. It's certainly not that Michigan couldn't hire someone better. In 2007 we had Les Miles saying, "I would never turn down Michigan".

Yet in 2008, he did turn down Michigan, and instead they went with Rich Rod.