2013 College Football coaching carousel

I made this point earlier in this thread, as it relates to Cal. It's all about how much you stand to gain from winning football games. Alabama's entire identity hinges on being good at football. Texas fancies itself the football king. And they have boosters and fans and TV viewers who will make those $5 million coaching contracts worthwhile, provided their teams win. The Northeast and West Coast generally don't have that kind of payoff for that level of spending, so they avoid it.

 

According to legit media in Fayetteville and Baton Rouge, there's nothing to the rumor. Brooks is just trolling.

 

Me? Probably James Franklin.

 

Kirby Smart.

 

Three million to a guy who has never been a head coach?

 

FSU's defense was ranked No. 108 in the country the year before he took over.

It is ranked No. 2 in the country now.

I think he has had an impact.

And if you watched either of those two games, I'd say his defense wasn't the biggest problem the Seminoles had - in fact his defense was the only reason FSU was even in the game against Florida.

 

And more importantly the idea that Kentucky could "do better" than a coordinator from one of the top programs in the country is laughable.

Who the fuck wants that piece of shit job?

Seriously - you have no prayer of ever winning the SEC East, especially if Tennessee ever decides to stop fucking around and goes out and hires a good coach.

Why?

Because you'd need Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina to ALL be in a down cycle together and that is not going to happen. You may catch one or two of them slumping in a given year, but all four -- in the same year you happen to have a good team -- is just a pipe dream.

Further, the school and state doesn't give a shit about football, so there won't ever be a major commitment made to you - the kind that you need to compete in the SEC.

Your best hope is that you go 7-5 or 8-4 a year or two and then get out of there - the more likely scenario is you hover around 6-6 or 5-7 and eventually get fired because you can't compete in the SEC.

It is a bad job, I would argue, along with Iowa State and Indiana, perhaps even the worst job among the major conferences because you have no prayer of ever being legitimately competitive over a sustained period of time --- and even one year of big success seems far fetched.

 

They're saying the buyout is spread over the life of the contract, so they're not taking a $2 million hit they can't afford.

I know there is some debate about pulling the plug on a coach after just one season, but if you'd seen them play this year, you'd understand why it had to be done. Absolutely the most abysmally-coached team I've ever seen at any level of play.

 

I'm absolutely STUNNED you'd say that!

 

You gotta figure UNC (and former USM) offensive coordinator Blake Anderson is the top candidate, no? They should have hired him last year ...

 

Given what I read about finances and deficits at some state universities, I'm stunned that school presidents sign off on these multi-million dollar buyouts. If there's a lesson, maybe it's either that you stay away from long-term contracts or be willing to ride them out.

Isn't most of the conference TV and bowl money divided equally among all the conference members? If so, what difference would it make if Colorado goes 1-11 or 11-1? They'd simply be taking some other school's bowl spot from the same conference. So, is any new revenue created? As long as it doesn't sink to a level that impacts booster donations --- and that may well have been the case in Boulder --- it sounds more economically viable to be mediocre than it does to pay the price to win on the field.

 

Problem is, once you go 10-2 or 9-3 a couple of times, everyone starts expecting it every year. That includes the local paper, too.