TSN ranking of 66 BCS coaches

I don't want to quote all the info from that folo, but jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. I mean, that's a tough list to compile, but some of that is ridiculous.

I don't agree with him saying Fulmer is the 31st-best coach in the country, but I don't think it's a ridiculous thought. What is ridiculous is him leaving Fulmer off the top five recruiters in the country list. Look at his roster, and find a big-time program more consistently spread out geographically. He takes guys from coast to coast against their home state schools all the time, and he has to do that to stay competitive because his own state doesn't produce as many prep stars as the other top SEC programs.

You can argue that the man's not a good gameday coach, and I would actually agree with you that he's not the best there ... at least not without Cutcliffe ... but the man is a recruiting machine. And as far as overrated ... well ... you have an argument there. His winning percentage is pretty fucking good, but his teams in the 90s had so much NFL talent that two SEC titles wasn't enough, and his 2001 team absolutely gagged in the SEC title game.

If you're going to call a coach with two SEC titles and one national title in 15 years the 31st-best coach in America, how can you then call him overrated? His winning percentage is .770, which is still the best in I-A for coaches of 10-plus years experience ... and he's overrated? Six top 10 national finishes in 15 years ... and he's overrated? He's one of the only SEC coaches who will play anyone out of conference, and he does it consistently. Miami, Cal, Notre Dame, Syracuse. They open next season at Cal, and the one after that at UCLA. They play Oklahoma in a few years. They've done that since he's been there, and he's still won 77% of his games.

Also...

What makes a coach top five in intimidation? With Mike Stoops on that list, obviously it's not winning ... and there is no coach in America more capable and crazy enough to rip a man's head off, and that's Orgeron.

Spurrier not on the X's and O's list? You give me one game in the college game I have to win, with all things (including talent) being equal, I would want Spurrier. Unless it was 30 days to prepare for a bowl game ... then I would want JoePa.

As for Grobe No. 4 overall ... well, the man's a good coach, but that's pretty ridiculous.

He has Richt and Tubberville way underrated. I could go on ... but I'll stop.

 

How is Willingham underrated? What has he done? Made Stanford respectable-ish? Been mediocre at ND and Washington?

 

How about Chris Petersen with Boise State? All he did is go 13-0 in his first season, lead a team no one thought should be in a BCS game to a win over Oklahoma -- a game in which he outcoached Bob Stoops (ranked No. 5 on this list).

Perhaps Boise State doesn't count since technically they're not a BCS team -- until they win enough games to get in. Still, to not even be mentioned on the list while there are guys who haven't even been head coaches (has Randy Shannon been a head coach before Miami?) is pretty ridiculous.

 

Boise State is not in a BCS conference -- the list in question was a ranking of all the coaches of the teams in a BCS conference.

 

Not at all. Here's what I'm saying: If someone's going to rank, and we're going to debate, every single BCS coach, there should be a uniform standard. What makes one a god in one place - 7-4 - makes the natives restless in Columbus, Ann Arbor, Austin and other places.

That's not to say there's no discounting turning around a moribund program - something I admit that I probably undervalued. It must count for something.

But I'm thinking there must be some sort of balance between that and, say, a 10-win season. Parcells was right in that you are what your record says you are; someone that turns a two-win-per-year program into a 6-5 team deserves credit, but in the end, it's still a 6-5 team.

 

i could give two shits about one season at OSU. he turned OSU into a winner during his tenure in corvallis, something no other coach ever has been able to accomplish in two of my lifetimes.

but, i freakin' hate the guy and won't waste another ounce of energy discussing it.

 

Parcells is an idiot on this point. In pro football, every team draws from the same talent pool and has the same chance to get people, in an orderly fashion, where teams who are down generally get an earlier shot at players who can boost them back up. In college ball, programs like Missouri, Indiana, Northwestern, Duke, Baylor...let alone teams in non-BCS conferences...do not have a sniff at the same talent pool that does not have to consider schools beyond the Florida schools/Texas/Ohio State/Michigan/USC types. Apples and oranges.

 

What Dooley said ...

I get what you are saying Hustle and agree to a point, but the inequities in the college game between the haves and have-nots (which is where Erickson has spent most of his time) is so staggering that you simply cannot be that black and white, IMO. The NFL is set up to allow the have-nots to become the haves. The college game is set up so those at the top of the food chain stay there and only through dumb luck or pure magic -- Boise State, Rutgers -- do any of the little guys ever rise above. And even when they do the system does everything it can to keep them down through a bowl system that doesn't care nearly as much about on-field achievement as butts in the seats.

 

Dave Wannstedt should be in the top five because he's helped transform West Virginia and Rutgers into powerhouses......

 

Now that's funny.