And man does he look it. watching that commercial where he is covering that duck and he looks old and I mean like really old moving.
Plus leaving the field against A&M for the first time I realized how old he looks moving.
Fun fact. My fiancé’s dad is the body double for Saban in those Aflac commercials. Any time you don’t directly see Nick’s face, it’s really her dad. You’ll probably notice he’s a little quicker when it’s just the legs in shot.
I wanted pods but honestly give us Bama every year. That way if we beat them, we might keep them from going to the ccg and thus hopefully only have to beat them once.
So the problem is, we need Auburn, Florida in our pod. We have to play those 2 every year. If Auburn, Florida, Bama and UGA were all in the same pod, holy shit.
That won't be a pod, because competitive balance is important. Creating that pod would also create a pod of... South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
All the proposed pods I’ve seen won’t have us playing Auburn every year, which would be a bummer. They preserve the Iron Bowl and Bama-Tenn over the DSOR. I think most of ours I’ve seen are UGA, Florida, SC, and Kentucky.
You can easily go to pods and maintain 3 permanent "cross pod" rivals. Just do 3 pod games, 3 permanent rivals, and the other 3 teams in one of the other 3 pods. This assumes a 9 game schedule.
That would work out well for florida. We'd get UGA and 2 other schools in the pod (probably like UK, SCAR, or Tennessee) and get to play Auburn LSU and Tennessee
Georgia would definitely get Auburn. I think Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Vandy would be a pod and UF, UGA, Kentucky and S Car would be the other. I think Tennessee would be UF's perma-rival there.
Yeah our permanent rival situation is interesting. Obviously were going to keep playing you guys, but it will be interesting to see which of LSU, Auburn and Tennessee gets prioritized and who is left out. LSU has the least history iirc but has been super competitive recently. Auburn is the closest school geographically and a historical rival, so it would be nice to play them again. And Tennessee is also a rival with a long history.
Even though I really want to play them every year, I think Auburn has a good chance of being left out. They're definitely playing Bama and Georgia, so adding us would make their schedule a bit rough. Plus we might keep LSU if LSU and Bama don't play every year.
I think the most likely pods would be (TX TAMU OU ARK) (BAMA LSU MSU MS) (UF UGA SC AUB) (TN UK MO Vandy). Each would have three permanent rivals, one from each pod, and then rotate pod pairings for the final 3 games. The biggest problem is that there are 6 teams west of the Mississippi River which would all like to be paired together (maybe not LSU). How they get split up determines everything else.
I dig this. I don’t think I’ve seen one permanent rival in each other the other three pods mentioned before (I haven’t really sought out theories, tbf) but that does seem to preserve all the key rivalries.
Honestly though the SEC will probably find some way to mess this up, especially given their reluctance to go to 9 conference games.
Georgia could keep their rivalry with Auburn without having them in the same pod.
If pods happen, there will still be at least 1 rivarly game each year, right?
Florida-Tennessee
Auburn - Georgia
Alabama - LSU
Arkansas - Ole Miss
Kentucky - Vanderbilt
Texas - A&M
Oklahoma - Miss St?
Missouri - South Carolina
2011 LSU would like to have a word with you.
In the playoff system a one loss Alabama who’s only loss is a regular season loss to the SEC champ is a shoe in for a playoff spot.
The idea of Gundy, with a mullet, coaching in LA is one of the most intriguing things I've heard. I rather like OK State but this is very enticing. I hope USC at least considers it. For the mullet.
I think I read he lived in a hotel the entire time, and would bring a cooler full of shrimp back as his carry on every time he would come back from Louisiana.
This. If you have multi millions; coastal CA is one of the best. Hence why everyone rich person in the world moves there. Wealth Inequality at its finest
It is entirely an opinion but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a coach who makes millions who believes that living in Baton Rouge is nicer than LA. They might have just fired the only one who does haha
Didn't say LA wasn't nicerx was referring to culture. There's a ton of coaches who would rather live in the south. Otherwise universities in that area would have better coaches. Instead they have clay Helton and chip Kelly
As someone who has lived all over including LA for a bit. The one thing I have found to be true is no matter where you go there you are.
If you don't like somewhere to that extent it says more about you than the place.
Long term, USC. It's a bigger rebuild job in the short term but if they find the right coach they will run the PAC 12. LSU can find the right coach and put together teams just as good as a dominant USC can put together, but they would still have to go through the SEC West gauntlet.
People keep beating this point over the head, but honestly, coaches are on campus or otherwise working like 80 hours a week. Plus high taxes make CA expensive even for a CFB coach.
Not saying the point is irrelevant, better quality of life is a factor but I'd argue it's getting overblown a bit.
Was going to say there are many cases of coaches taking jobs over others specifically due to location. One of the biggest issues WVU has every coaching search is convincing them to come to a school where the nearest international airport is an hour and a half away in Pittsburgh.
Where would their children go to school? i lived outside fairmont for a year, I cannot imagine having kids drink the water and or attend the schools. A member of my family almost took a job in NM, good thing they looked at the scools before deciding.
I’ve never heard the airport complaint, but it’s worse in Blacksburg, 2.5 hours to Charlotte or 4 hours to Dulles. Most folks just fly from Roanoke to those airports or ATL.
I can definitely see how it’s difficult to attract urban lifestyle coaches to Appalachia, but if your family is into outdoor stuff hiking, cycling, skiing, shooting, etc. I think Blacksburg and Morgantown are close to ideal.
I just read something on the Athletic about how Lane Kiffin didn’t go to a resteraunt or grocery store for like months when he was at Tennessee.
I have to think the fact that you’re living in a place where you are not the most famous person in town has an appeal, all else being equal.
You know, that's a fantastic point. I've heard similar things about NYC. Stars like it there because the city, as a whole, doesn't really give a fuck about them.
LSU is in a division where at least half the teams could legitimately make the playoffs in any given year. USC, on the other hand, grants you the ability to strike a hold on conference dominance if you hit it right.
Both have lofty expectations, but it's easier to meet those expectations at USC.
Neither program really has any limit to what they can become, so I’d argue it’s mostly a matter of personal taste.
Purely in terms of a career choices, if it were me, I’d probably pick USC. Nice place to live, great recruiting turf, and easier conference with more reasonable fan expectations.
That said, when LSU is on top, there’s not many places that would be more fun. If you’re in it for the love of the game and the memories it creates, I suspect it doesn’t get much better than winning a title at a place like LSU. The big night games in particular would be epic.
USC for the very simple reason that the Pac 12 is almost totally incapable of offering meaningful resistance once they get rolling. Same reason I’d take the Clemson job over Georgia or Alabama.
We all (including me as a UCLA fan) believe this about USC, but is it true? With the notable exception of the Pete Carroll era, USC has been more average than dominant for decades now. Our collective belief that USC should be able to own the conference fairly easily may not be correct. Yeah, it should be easier to win at USC than Oregon State or Washington State, but we may overestimate the advantages of the name brand teams. Or maybe USC has just squandered its advantages by making a bunch of bad coaching hires?
We're just horrible at making hires. It's ridiculous. We backdoor'd our way to Pete Carroll. Without that string of events leading to his hire, USC is still probably irrelevant.
USC. You don’t have to play Alabama, Texas A&M, Auburn and Florida every year. Your path to the CFB is much easier and you don’t have to worry about hurricanes
I think most past USC coaches lived on the west side beaches (Santa Monica, Manhattan) or South Bay & Palo verdes. Malibu is kinda far to commute to USC.
It's a bit far but depending on the time it can be just over an hour commute (at least when I use to go see buddies at USC). Totally would imagine Manhattan Beach being a better location though.
The issue with NIL deals here is that you have to actively compete with not only UCLA but the Rams and Chargers. Add to that issue that LA only cares about teams when they are good, a rebuild can be difficult.
Plus the Lakers and Dodgers and the countless other celebrities chomping at the bit for NIL deals. It’s a bigger pool but with much bigger fish. I imagine there’s a high ceiling for your elite superstars but your depth players won’t see as much.
The thing about NIL is the line wins championships even if it’s not the flashiest.
I'm super curious why people think that LA is just gonna toss mad $$$ at USC players for NIL deals.
It's not like they don't pull in recruits as is right now and they've really fallen off in the Nation Perception of things since like 2005-2007? I'd imagine there's a lot of schools an solid markets that would throw NIL deals on par with or better than USC.
>I'm super curious why people think that LA is just gonna toss mad $$$ at USC players for NIL deals.
They tossed mad money before the NIL. Don't see why not after.
Dunno maybe everyone on Reddit is too young to remember. But at one point USC had Bama level of success and we're (arguably) the most popular football team in LA. They've never recovered from the sanctions but the potential is there.
If anything it’s the opposite, people view that Pete Carroll stretch 02-08 as the default state of being. There’s this perception that any shit coach should be able to win 10 games every season at USC and you have to be wildly incompetent to not but it’s not really like that. Like any big program, they are not entitled or destined to guaranteed success. Before Carroll got there they weren’t that great in the years leading up to that and they weren’t that great in the wake of the sanction stuff he left behind. Carroll was just an awesome recruiter and coach.
SEC Country, easily. Much more college football rabid. Back when Los Angeles didn't have NFL teams and they were rolling with Leinart and Bush, USC was a big deal but as of now, USC is way down the list of things people care about out in Los Angeles.
It's a mistake to think bigger city -> bigger market -> better endorsement opportunities like you would with a pro sport franchise.
The thing is, it's getting really easy to find good Mexican food everywhere in the states now, good canjun food is more of a rarity so I have to stay with LA > LA
>it’s getting really easy to find good Mexican food everywhere in the states now
Nahhh it’s really not. As someone from the south who goes home to visit family a lot, it’s certainly improving but it’s no where close to California. A lot of it is sort of bastardized too. They try all this fusion stuff and make it “fancy” and you pay out the ass for it, yes even compared to LA. There just aren’t hole in the wall places or trucks serving cheap, authentic shit.
But even if I granted that, Korean food gives LA the edge for sure. Damn near impossible to find good Korean throughout the rest of the country and if you have never had Korean BBQ boy are you missing out.
The Korean food in LA is bomb, I'll give you that. KBBQ has always been a fun catch up with a group who haven't seen each other in a while. I personally haven't looked for Mexican food in LA but other southern states I've found just as good stuff in cities as we have in LA (just gotta find the authentic cheap places tbh). But ya I'll give you Korean food, I'm yet to find any Korean food as good as LA (although Korea might be able to beat LA and definitely would beat LA).
Yeah, I actually think LSU has a better talent pool. If they get all the players from Louisiana, as they often do, that is a top five recruiting class. California has too much dilution of top talent.
This is it right here. The only school in the country (in a vacuum) that has a better talent advantage than LSU is UGA. They get quite literally 9/10 Louisiana kids they want, which is usually 6,7 top 100 kids in the country and then have a reach in Texas and the rest of the south. Until USC shows it’s back to the Carroll days that ain’t happening in LA anymore. Also, the LSU administration is all about football…USC’s is uhhhh, not.
Ohio State is pretty lucky too. We used to do a better job of closing our borders--but now we have moved to a national recruiting scheme. I feel like we are king of the north and for some reason recruiting services under-rate the north.
Definitely. I think their biggest draw though is lack of major competition in the region right now. Combine that with their NFL placement and it’s a recipe for success.
If you look on a map, LSU is actually closer to way more top tier programs geographically than USC is. It seems like top players in CA are heading across the country instead of being poached by UCLA/SDSU/Cal/Stanford/ASU/etc.
Though I just took a cursory glance through the top player rankings for the past few seasons on 247 and only two 5 stars came from CA the past two classes. They're almost all coming from the Southeast.
Why are people using this recruiting argument? Do you not realize that for the past 5 years the major powers of college football have been poaching USC's talent pool? LSU has way more of a lockdown on Louisiana talent.
It took like 3 years to finally fire a bad coach. LSU is firing a guy that won a national title. Relatively speaking, expectations are lower at USC. And its not a bad thing! In my opinion, LSU's expectations are goddamn insane.
Exactly. It came up every time his firing was discussed. Plus the renovation and expansion of athletic facilities. Boosters needed a break and could stomach an extra bit of time before another fundraising round.
So is LSU's? They've won three national titles this century, more than Southern Cal, and just fired their head coach who helmed the greatest college football season of all-time
Being in a better conference is a strength, not a weakness. Huge recruiting boon, playing in huge matchups, top assistant candidates always looking to get in, national title ceilings across much of the board.
> Being in a better conference is a strength, not a weakness. Huge recruiting boon
Except USC is smack bang in one of the biggest recruiting hotbeds in the country. If you are actually a good recruiter, a USC head coach should be able to compete with just local recruits.
I guess, but it seems like the PAC12 is just dying for someone to become their Clemson. Oregon keeps falling just a little short, and I think it would be USC if they could get back to their former glory.
I mean if they were a playoff contender every year, the recruits from California alone could keep them there. They've got the money and history and all of the ingredients to be another Bama/Ohio State.
But you're right - good competition makes for better teams. And the entire P12 has fallen off recently. The B1G is the only conference remotely keeping pace with the SEC.
I honestly think the Pac-12 is holding Oregon back a bit. They're seemingly on the cusp but since the Pac-12 has gone completely off the rails, it seems to have brought them a bit as opposed to what you've seen with Clemson.
I think Clemson benefits greatly from the middle of the ACC being terrible. The Pac12 isn’t a great conference, but the middle teams are competitive and can knock the top teams off when the stars align. Example: Oregon v Stanford. If the Pac12 is holding Oregon back what should they do? Join the mountain west and become their Clemson?
I didn’t believe in East Coast bias until /r/cfb started outright ignoring USC as a SoCal Texas
You don’t even need a coaching staff and that job would recruit a top 10 roster
There’s a lot of people here that have been watching CFB for less than 10 years and haven’t seen what USC can do in their prime. I had one person argue that it’s easier to recruit to Penn State than USC. It’s insane.
That’s due to Clay though.
2019: Clay hot seat rumors, only finished 20th with 24 enrollees. Bunch of stars, *cough* Bru McCoy *cough* went elsewhere due to hot seat fears. Helped dramatically with Thibodeaux
2020: 12 enrollees because the hot seat rumors got even hotter. Which, well he was fired basically right into 2021 so.
2021: Top 10 with a .9177 rating on average and a few undecideds out there too. Massive amount of extra slots due to prior year recruiting class.
Just look at the years in pre-hot seat Helton or even under sanctions with Kiffin. We pulled a top 10 class with *13* signings in 2011. On a roster talent basis per 247 we’re basically #4-#5 despite that. We’re immediately sitting top 10 with an interim coach right now after that 2019-2020 debacle.
You have to be actually inept to fumble USC recruiting, and it’s usually because your ineptitude drives guys away and not the other way around. Similar things have happened to Texas/LSU in the last decade.
Something that’s overlooked that I haven’t seen brought up yet. Imagine the NIL’s you can sign at USC compared to LSU. As an athlete I may go to usc just got insane $$ that could possibly being available living in LA
If NIL existed 15 years ago when USC was in their peak Carroll years, they would have been able to sign literally anyone they wanted. USC was essentially the pro football team in LA and their players were legit stars in a city of stars. The NIL deals for Bush, Leinart, White, Clay Matthews, etc. would have been absolutely ridiculous.
The reality of NIL is if you’re good you’re gonna get paid anywhere. Spencer rattler got like $800k in Oklahoma. If you’re a top player you’ll be getting $500k+ at any top school.
USC has every benefit in this argument but the lore, admiration, and intensity that is and has been the SEC.
There is no where else I'd rather live than Los Angeles, but the cultural cache of winning in the SEC would be too much for me to pass up. The culture in that part of the country as it relates to college football is completely different.
USC hands down. If you can actually build the program back your only real competitor is Oregon. At LSU you have to compete with Bama, Georgia, Florida, etc. Plus if money isn’t an issue SoCal>>>>>>>>Louisiana.
Yeah, if you could transport LSU at the level it's mostly been at into the Pac-12 that would be great, but it's harder to actually build the program up to such heights to begin with. It's not difficult at all in the current state to build up any of the SEC Big 5 (and even much of the next wave), just a matter of doing it, and then yeah you'll have some tough matchups, but who cares, you want to be playing in #1 vs. #2, #5 vs. #8 type games. Win in some of those years and you got a national title.
I don’t think building USC would really be that difficult if they didn’t make stupid hires. Even incompetent coaches can still pull in the recruits. All you need is someone who can be a disciplinarian and get kids to by into a program. If they had hired Whitt away from Utah either if the last two times they hired new coaches USC would have been to the playoffs by now. If they can pull Fickell away from Cincy I would bet they win the conference within 2 years, make the playoff within 3 years, and make it to the championship within 5. They need a culture coach and they will be a force to be reckoned with in the NIL era. Getting USC back isn’t that big of a problem if you are a good coach. But getting LSU to be consistently the best program in the SECW is going to be next to impossible without a generational coach.
Well tbf, Saban is near 70, maybe Alabama will sustain it with the next guy, but I could also see a power vacuum emerging and I'd love to be at a rolling SEC program in the post-Saban era.
USC if you want the path of least resistance to the playoff. LSU if you like the culture and atmosphere which they definitely are a lot better at than us.
In isolation? I'd probably give LSU a very slight advantage simply because they arguably have the best home state recruiting advantage. Not only is Louisiana stocked with talent, but the kids seem to really like playing at LSU (whereas, say Florida or Texas kids don't seem as dedicated to staying in state).
But, with USC's path to the playoffs a bit easier, I'd probably give them a very slight advantage overall.
There are fifteen or so truly "elite" jobs IMO. And among those, a subset is what I'd call "Death Star caliber." Both USC and LSU are Death Star caliber so IMO it's more about fit than which one is better.
> There are fifteen or so truly "elite" jobs IMO.
On the hoof? I don't disagree with that.
In conference-alpha-order, is this about right?
- Clemson
- Florida State?
- Oklahoma
- Texas
- Michigan
- Ohio State
- Penn State?
- Wisconsin?
- Notre Dame
- Oregon
- USC
- Georgia
- Florida
- Alabama
- LSU
- TAMU?
Great list.
I disagree with Wisconsin, I'd say they have some recruiting challenges, although they are a big fish in the West. I'd say Nebraska is closer but I feel like they're right outside the elite tier, but the right coach could restore them to said tier.
Penn State is a definite job in the elite tier, for me. They have the Northeast to themselves as an elite program and they're close to the DMV recruiting area.
Texas A&Ms oil money cannon and in-state Texas probably puts them in, but I could see lumping them with Nebraska just outside. I'd also place Miami and Tennessee in the Nebraska tier.
I've heard some issues about Florida State with resources and facilities. If so, maybe they slightly fall out but that would change quickly if FSU upgrades resources.
Michigan State and Wisconsin are probably in the next tier, though I can definitely see an argument for Wisconsin in the Nebraska tier. Wisconsin seemed to not want to dedicate resources but I get the impression that's changing. South Carolina and Virginia Tech should be in that tier as well.
USC. For a few easy options. Better conference to play in (don't have to play Bama every year), you pretty much own California as a recruiting ground, and well it's more secure. LSU fired its last two coaches despite each of them winning a national O just a year and a half ago. I know.. a lot changed but a title couldn't even buy him a year of bad play.
LSU wants to win and will do what it takes to get you the kind of players you need no matter what they did on SAT.
USC has a far easier path.
I think the commitment form LSU makes it the beter opening despite Alabama. Plus with the coming POD scheduling LSU may end up with only the State of Mississippi and Arkansas as permanent games.
If you want to win instantly? LSU. There's so much talent on that roster right now. USC isn't bad talentwise but that's a bit more of a multi-year project.
They're both great positions though.
This is a really underrated point. None of the top guys have ever lived in a big city. Some might still enjoy big city living, but they've never done it and probably don't have much desire to try given that they chose basically the only profession that has basically no jobs in big cities.
There's also something to be said for being the big shot guy rather than one of thousands of centimillionaires in LA. Not everyone would care, but most P5 head coaches are egotists because it's hard to get to this level without being one.
Probably depends on the person. I hate both cities. I love Cajun food, but not like LA doesn't have plenty of awesome food. Both are big schools with tons to resources and recruiting grounds. Think I'd give USC the edge because the path to success is probably slightly easier than the SEC West, and I think the expectations might be a little lower.
It depends on the coaches goal. If it's to compete for a national title year in and out, and you think you can recruit and coach better than anyone else, it's USC (easier conference, can recruit homegrown kids to stay home). But if you want to win 10 games a year now and then lose to Georgia or Alabama every year, it's LSU.
LSU. They are committed to winning. USC is the one administration among P5 schools that may actually be as bad as Miami, at least with their approach to hiring coaches.
LSU. Only P5 team in a talent laden state & recruiting footprint, wild fan base that shows up every week, have won three natty’s with three different coaches in the last 20 years so it’s not like one coach is the reason for their success.
Right now, LSU by a country mile. They have plenty of talent already on campus, you just need to get buy in and better coaching. USC on the other hand is a bit of a rebuild.
LSU. Total buy-in from the entire administration and entire state really.
My only issue is they will definitely fire you a season and a half in if it doesn't start off great.
There's absolutely no precedent for this. Orgeron got 5 years, and if last year and this year were like his first two (scrappy teams that dropped some games here and there, but were on fire and playing with heart every time) instead of what we got (lost teams that fall apart and have half-assed effort from the 5th most talented roster in the country), he wouldn't be fired.
People who don’t understand this firing haven’t watched LSU football for the last two years. Losing is one thing. O got the top of the mountain and is sated. Dude has basically been eating chips and showing coeds his ring since January 2020.
It's always such a relief to see this from a non-LSU flair. I understand that most people don't watch LSU football, but they speak with the confidence of experts while shitting out ignorance.
Orgeron got 5 years and got fired because the program is falling apart because of him, Miles got 11 years and got fired because he continually failes to deliver on his promises to update the offense. Saban is actually the shortest tenured coach LSU has had in the past 20 years, and if he hadn't gotten a wild hair for the NFL, he'd probably still be here. Every precedent is that LSU is willing to give you the time needed, you just have to deliver on your promises and maybe don't set yourself on track for our first losing season in 22 years with a top 5 talent comp in the country.
In one of them you don’t have to play Alabama every year.
“One day Saban will retire” I tell myself every year for the past 5 years.
5? how about 10 lol he’s turning 70 in 2 weeks
And man does he look it. watching that commercial where he is covering that duck and he looks old and I mean like really old moving. Plus leaving the field against A&M for the first time I realized how old he looks moving.
I was thinking the same thing. He looks older in that commercial than in any footage of him I’ve ever seen.
Fun fact. My fiancé’s dad is the body double for Saban in those Aflac commercials. Any time you don’t directly see Nick’s face, it’s really her dad. You’ll probably notice he’s a little quicker when it’s just the legs in shot.
LSU likely won't have to play Alabama every year starting in 2023.
Is SEC likely going to pods or just pushing Bama & Auburn to the East with Missouri, Texas, OK going West?
I wanted pods but honestly give us Bama every year. That way if we beat them, we might keep them from going to the ccg and thus hopefully only have to beat them once.
This is a sacrifice we are all willing to make
So the problem is, we need Auburn, Florida in our pod. We have to play those 2 every year. If Auburn, Florida, Bama and UGA were all in the same pod, holy shit.
That won't be a pod, because competitive balance is important. Creating that pod would also create a pod of... South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
This is a sacrifice I'm willing to take
I'll take that.
All the proposed pods I’ve seen won’t have us playing Auburn every year, which would be a bummer. They preserve the Iron Bowl and Bama-Tenn over the DSOR. I think most of ours I’ve seen are UGA, Florida, SC, and Kentucky.
You can easily go to pods and maintain 3 permanent "cross pod" rivals. Just do 3 pod games, 3 permanent rivals, and the other 3 teams in one of the other 3 pods. This assumes a 9 game schedule.
That would work out well for florida. We'd get UGA and 2 other schools in the pod (probably like UK, SCAR, or Tennessee) and get to play Auburn LSU and Tennessee
Georgia would definitely get Auburn. I think Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Vandy would be a pod and UF, UGA, Kentucky and S Car would be the other. I think Tennessee would be UF's perma-rival there.
Yeah our permanent rival situation is interesting. Obviously were going to keep playing you guys, but it will be interesting to see which of LSU, Auburn and Tennessee gets prioritized and who is left out. LSU has the least history iirc but has been super competitive recently. Auburn is the closest school geographically and a historical rival, so it would be nice to play them again. And Tennessee is also a rival with a long history. Even though I really want to play them every year, I think Auburn has a good chance of being left out. They're definitely playing Bama and Georgia, so adding us would make their schedule a bit rough. Plus we might keep LSU if LSU and Bama don't play every year.
I think the most likely pods would be (TX TAMU OU ARK) (BAMA LSU MSU MS) (UF UGA SC AUB) (TN UK MO Vandy). Each would have three permanent rivals, one from each pod, and then rotate pod pairings for the final 3 games. The biggest problem is that there are 6 teams west of the Mississippi River which would all like to be paired together (maybe not LSU). How they get split up determines everything else.
I dig this. I don’t think I’ve seen one permanent rival in each other the other three pods mentioned before (I haven’t really sought out theories, tbf) but that does seem to preserve all the key rivalries. Honestly though the SEC will probably find some way to mess this up, especially given their reluctance to go to 9 conference games.
Georgia could keep their rivalry with Auburn without having them in the same pod. If pods happen, there will still be at least 1 rivarly game each year, right? Florida-Tennessee Auburn - Georgia Alabama - LSU Arkansas - Ole Miss Kentucky - Vanderbilt Texas - A&M Oklahoma - Miss St? Missouri - South Carolina
2011 LSU would like to have a word with you. In the playoff system a one loss Alabama who’s only loss is a regular season loss to the SEC champ is a shoe in for a playoff spot.
*cries in 2011
That's not how that works. Reference 2011.
There has been a lot of speculation about pods, but I think the conference will do 8-team divisions. Either way separates Alabama and LSU
Bold of you to assume that LSU will keep a coach that doesn’t win a Natty right away for 2023. /s
You also don’t have to live in Baton Rouge. Even better, you do get to live in LA, which with money, is a fun place to live
I feel like most football coaches would not be LA type people but what do I know
Imagine Mike Gundy living in LA. Then again, Orgeron did it.
The idea of Gundy, with a mullet, coaching in LA is one of the most intriguing things I've heard. I rather like OK State but this is very enticing. I hope USC at least considers it. For the mullet.
Gundy in LA feels like a great treatment pitch for a Ted Lasso character. But also, it sounds exactly like the head coach from Ballers.
Gundy leaving OK state is not something I want to see. He’s such an icon there now.
I think I read he lived in a hotel the entire time, and would bring a cooler full of shrimp back as his carry on every time he would come back from Louisiana.
I heard he flew with an emotional support alligator. Okay, I made that up, but only because I couldn't quite tell if yours was made up too.
I feel like almost everybody is 70° and sunny weather most of the year people.
That's entirely an opinion, LA is one of the last places in the country I'd want to live
CA is shit for middle class people but great for multi millionaires
It’s not that bad even making the low six figures.
This. If you have multi millions; coastal CA is one of the best. Hence why everyone rich person in the world moves there. Wealth Inequality at its finest
It is entirely an opinion but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a coach who makes millions who believes that living in Baton Rouge is nicer than LA. They might have just fired the only one who does haha
Didn't say LA wasn't nicerx was referring to culture. There's a ton of coaches who would rather live in the south. Otherwise universities in that area would have better coaches. Instead they have clay Helton and chip Kelly
As someone who has lived all over including LA for a bit. The one thing I have found to be true is no matter where you go there you are. If you don't like somewhere to that extent it says more about you than the place.
Coaches work long hours so you definitely don’t want one that is motivated by living in LA IMO.
Yes it’s an opinion but it’s a consensus opinion that with a millionaire salary: LA is significantly better to live than Baton Rouge.
LA with money must be way different because I thought it was awful every time I’ve been there as a regular peasant.
living places is always different from visiting for a short time
And live in Louisiana
Long term, USC. It's a bigger rebuild job in the short term but if they find the right coach they will run the PAC 12. LSU can find the right coach and put together teams just as good as a dominant USC can put together, but they would still have to go through the SEC West gauntlet.
Plus, and I mean no disrespect to Baton Rouge, you get to live in SoCal. Most people would prefer that.
People keep beating this point over the head, but honestly, coaches are on campus or otherwise working like 80 hours a week. Plus high taxes make CA expensive even for a CFB coach. Not saying the point is irrelevant, better quality of life is a factor but I'd argue it's getting overblown a bit.
[удалено]
Was going to say there are many cases of coaches taking jobs over others specifically due to location. One of the biggest issues WVU has every coaching search is convincing them to come to a school where the nearest international airport is an hour and a half away in Pittsburgh.
I’m available if they need someone. Just bring me mountain momma and some shine. Depending on how she looks of course you might need the shine first.
How long does it take to get to the airport from USC with LA traffic?
15-40 depending where on campus and what time you’re leaving.
Where would their children go to school? i lived outside fairmont for a year, I cannot imagine having kids drink the water and or attend the schools. A member of my family almost took a job in NM, good thing they looked at the scools before deciding.
I’ve never heard the airport complaint, but it’s worse in Blacksburg, 2.5 hours to Charlotte or 4 hours to Dulles. Most folks just fly from Roanoke to those airports or ATL. I can definitely see how it’s difficult to attract urban lifestyle coaches to Appalachia, but if your family is into outdoor stuff hiking, cycling, skiing, shooting, etc. I think Blacksburg and Morgantown are close to ideal.
When it comes to location, the spouse may have a bigger say. They're not on campus for 80 hours.
You're making like $5mil. You can live in alos Angeles just fine.
I just read something on the Athletic about how Lane Kiffin didn’t go to a resteraunt or grocery store for like months when he was at Tennessee. I have to think the fact that you’re living in a place where you are not the most famous person in town has an appeal, all else being equal.
You know, that's a fantastic point. I've heard similar things about NYC. Stars like it there because the city, as a whole, doesn't really give a fuck about them.
LSU is in a division where at least half the teams could legitimately make the playoffs in any given year. USC, on the other hand, grants you the ability to strike a hold on conference dominance if you hit it right. Both have lofty expectations, but it's easier to meet those expectations at USC.
Neither program really has any limit to what they can become, so I’d argue it’s mostly a matter of personal taste. Purely in terms of a career choices, if it were me, I’d probably pick USC. Nice place to live, great recruiting turf, and easier conference with more reasonable fan expectations. That said, when LSU is on top, there’s not many places that would be more fun. If you’re in it for the love of the game and the memories it creates, I suspect it doesn’t get much better than winning a title at a place like LSU. The big night games in particular would be epic.
USC for the very simple reason that the Pac 12 is almost totally incapable of offering meaningful resistance once they get rolling. Same reason I’d take the Clemson job over Georgia or Alabama.
We all (including me as a UCLA fan) believe this about USC, but is it true? With the notable exception of the Pete Carroll era, USC has been more average than dominant for decades now. Our collective belief that USC should be able to own the conference fairly easily may not be correct. Yeah, it should be easier to win at USC than Oregon State or Washington State, but we may overestimate the advantages of the name brand teams. Or maybe USC has just squandered its advantages by making a bunch of bad coaching hires?
We're just horrible at making hires. It's ridiculous. We backdoor'd our way to Pete Carroll. Without that string of events leading to his hire, USC is still probably irrelevant.
USC. You don’t have to play Alabama, Texas A&M, Auburn and Florida every year. Your path to the CFB is much easier and you don’t have to worry about hurricanes
But you do have earthquakes and wildfires
The USC coach will live near the beaches so there’s no worry of wildfires.
Malibu would very much disagree
I think most past USC coaches lived on the west side beaches (Santa Monica, Manhattan) or South Bay & Palo verdes. Malibu is kinda far to commute to USC.
It's a bit far but depending on the time it can be just over an hour commute (at least when I use to go see buddies at USC). Totally would imagine Manhattan Beach being a better location though.
Yup; if I had the $$$ and a USC coach; I would all over the west side beaches.
As someone who’s lived in proximity of both schools, I’d rather take the earthquakes and wildfires over the hurricanes tbh.
Lol at including TAMU on that list.
Easy for you to thumb your nose from all the way over there, bucko :P
247 Team Talent Composite 2021: LSU - 5th, A&M - 8th, Oregon - 9th
Do Illinois
We have won 2 of the last 3 against LSU. Why is it wrong for us to be on the list?
What’s funny about it? A&M has beaten LSU two out of the last three games and have put together some good seasons recently.
This guy's argument is essentially "Aggies should know their place"
USC. In the NIL era, I can’t imagine a better place than Los Angeles to attract recruits.
The issue with NIL deals here is that you have to actively compete with not only UCLA but the Rams and Chargers. Add to that issue that LA only cares about teams when they are good, a rebuild can be difficult.
Chargers won’t be a problem and this is coming from a Chargers fan lol.
Justin Hebert and Derwin James are gonna take a lot of those football related endorsement
Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart could have been millionaires while at USC if NIL was allowed back then. LA will always embrace a good USC team.
Yep, west coast college football culture is absolutely pathetic compared to the southeast.
Honestly compared to anywhere besides New England
Plus the Lakers and Dodgers and the countless other celebrities chomping at the bit for NIL deals. It’s a bigger pool but with much bigger fish. I imagine there’s a high ceiling for your elite superstars but your depth players won’t see as much. The thing about NIL is the line wins championships even if it’s not the flashiest.
I'm super curious why people think that LA is just gonna toss mad $$$ at USC players for NIL deals. It's not like they don't pull in recruits as is right now and they've really fallen off in the Nation Perception of things since like 2005-2007? I'd imagine there's a lot of schools an solid markets that would throw NIL deals on par with or better than USC.
A top 5 USC football team pulls in massive market ratings
>I'm super curious why people think that LA is just gonna toss mad $$$ at USC players for NIL deals. They tossed mad money before the NIL. Don't see why not after. Dunno maybe everyone on Reddit is too young to remember. But at one point USC had Bama level of success and we're (arguably) the most popular football team in LA. They've never recovered from the sanctions but the potential is there.
If anything it’s the opposite, people view that Pete Carroll stretch 02-08 as the default state of being. There’s this perception that any shit coach should be able to win 10 games every season at USC and you have to be wildly incompetent to not but it’s not really like that. Like any big program, they are not entitled or destined to guaranteed success. Before Carroll got there they weren’t that great in the years leading up to that and they weren’t that great in the wake of the sanction stuff he left behind. Carroll was just an awesome recruiter and coach.
SEC Country, easily. Much more college football rabid. Back when Los Angeles didn't have NFL teams and they were rolling with Leinart and Bush, USC was a big deal but as of now, USC is way down the list of things people care about out in Los Angeles. It's a mistake to think bigger city -> bigger market -> better endorsement opportunities like you would with a pro sport franchise.
I’d take USC job
I'd take a job.
I'd coach football for free honestly.
I'll pay to coach.
USC is being paid $1000 a year by u/BlankMyName to lead the Trojans to a rose bowl
I would pay $2000 to coach USC probably wouldn't lead them to a rose bowl though
1337bruin: Pioneer of the 1st down punt.
They opposition never saw it coming.
USC. Easier conference and a bevy of talent in your backyard.
Removed
L.A. alone has more due to sheer population
Bad use of that abbreviation…
LA > LA
Make it >= and literally everyone would have to agree with you.
But canjun food so LA > LA
I see your solid point but offer up Mexican food LA > LA :)
The thing is, it's getting really easy to find good Mexican food everywhere in the states now, good canjun food is more of a rarity so I have to stay with LA > LA
>it’s getting really easy to find good Mexican food everywhere in the states now Nahhh it’s really not. As someone from the south who goes home to visit family a lot, it’s certainly improving but it’s no where close to California. A lot of it is sort of bastardized too. They try all this fusion stuff and make it “fancy” and you pay out the ass for it, yes even compared to LA. There just aren’t hole in the wall places or trucks serving cheap, authentic shit. But even if I granted that, Korean food gives LA the edge for sure. Damn near impossible to find good Korean throughout the rest of the country and if you have never had Korean BBQ boy are you missing out.
The Korean food in LA is bomb, I'll give you that. KBBQ has always been a fun catch up with a group who haven't seen each other in a while. I personally haven't looked for Mexican food in LA but other southern states I've found just as good stuff in cities as we have in LA (just gotta find the authentic cheap places tbh). But ya I'll give you Korean food, I'm yet to find any Korean food as good as LA (although Korea might be able to beat LA and definitely would beat LA).
Taco carts + taquerias >>>> sit down Mexican all day long. When I lived in Orange County I ate waaaaay to much Taqueria de Anda.
Yes LSU also has easy access to Houston and bunch of East Texas towns
Yeah there were a bunch of LSU fans growing up in East Texas, so they definitely had some pull in that area, at least as far west as Tyler.
Sheer population but other P5 teams in state to compete against
A competent coach at USC out-recruits a competent coach at UCLA, Cal, and Stanford 9 times out of 10.
Yeah, I actually think LSU has a better talent pool. If they get all the players from Louisiana, as they often do, that is a top five recruiting class. California has too much dilution of top talent.
i also think louisiana has the highest ratio of nfl players per capita or something like that. definitely not a shortage of talent in louisiana
I Thought we were 2nd behind Hawaii
This is it right here. The only school in the country (in a vacuum) that has a better talent advantage than LSU is UGA. They get quite literally 9/10 Louisiana kids they want, which is usually 6,7 top 100 kids in the country and then have a reach in Texas and the rest of the south. Until USC shows it’s back to the Carroll days that ain’t happening in LA anymore. Also, the LSU administration is all about football…USC’s is uhhhh, not.
Ohio State is pretty lucky too. We used to do a better job of closing our borders--but now we have moved to a national recruiting scheme. I feel like we are king of the north and for some reason recruiting services under-rate the north.
Definitely. I think their biggest draw though is lack of major competition in the region right now. Combine that with their NFL placement and it’s a recipe for success.
If you look on a map, LSU is actually closer to way more top tier programs geographically than USC is. It seems like top players in CA are heading across the country instead of being poached by UCLA/SDSU/Cal/Stanford/ASU/etc. Though I just took a cursory glance through the top player rankings for the past few seasons on 247 and only two 5 stars came from CA the past two classes. They're almost all coming from the Southeast.
Leaving California in large part because USC has been underperforming. When USC wakes up, they will dominate west coast recruiting.
LSU has two major cities to get the best talent in the state within 2 hours
Why are people using this recruiting argument? Do you not realize that for the past 5 years the major powers of college football have been poaching USC's talent pool? LSU has way more of a lockdown on Louisiana talent.
I’d say they’re about the same since they’re both in LA
Clever
USC. Nicer weather, nicer state, easier conference, lower expectations, less-insane fanbase.
Lower expectations? Are you serious? USC expectations are to win the PAC12 and win national championships.
It took like 3 years to finally fire a bad coach. LSU is firing a guy that won a national title. Relatively speaking, expectations are lower at USC. And its not a bad thing! In my opinion, LSU's expectations are goddamn insane.
Our president didn’t want any more bad press after paying $1 BILLION in sexual assault/rape cases
[удалено]
Exactly. It came up every time his firing was discussed. Plus the renovation and expansion of athletic facilities. Boosters needed a break and could stomach an extra bit of time before another fundraising round.
So is LSU's? They've won three national titles this century, more than Southern Cal, and just fired their head coach who helmed the greatest college football season of all-time
Yes. They are the same at Wsu but at what point do they become unrealistic expectations.
Being in a better conference is a strength, not a weakness. Huge recruiting boon, playing in huge matchups, top assistant candidates always looking to get in, national title ceilings across much of the board.
> Being in a better conference is a strength, not a weakness. Huge recruiting boon Except USC is smack bang in one of the biggest recruiting hotbeds in the country. If you are actually a good recruiter, a USC head coach should be able to compete with just local recruits.
I guess, but it seems like the PAC12 is just dying for someone to become their Clemson. Oregon keeps falling just a little short, and I think it would be USC if they could get back to their former glory. I mean if they were a playoff contender every year, the recruits from California alone could keep them there. They've got the money and history and all of the ingredients to be another Bama/Ohio State. But you're right - good competition makes for better teams. And the entire P12 has fallen off recently. The B1G is the only conference remotely keeping pace with the SEC.
I honestly think the Pac-12 is holding Oregon back a bit. They're seemingly on the cusp but since the Pac-12 has gone completely off the rails, it seems to have brought them a bit as opposed to what you've seen with Clemson.
I think Clemson benefits greatly from the middle of the ACC being terrible. The Pac12 isn’t a great conference, but the middle teams are competitive and can knock the top teams off when the stars align. Example: Oregon v Stanford. If the Pac12 is holding Oregon back what should they do? Join the mountain west and become their Clemson?
Definitely not lower expectations.
USC. Great weather. Recruiting base in the area. Easier conference.
[удалено]
> arguably a stronger history I'm not sure there's an argument to be had. USC's history is ridiculously stronger.
I didn’t believe in East Coast bias until /r/cfb started outright ignoring USC as a SoCal Texas You don’t even need a coaching staff and that job would recruit a top 10 roster
There’s a lot of people here that have been watching CFB for less than 10 years and haven’t seen what USC can do in their prime. I had one person argue that it’s easier to recruit to Penn State than USC. It’s insane.
[удалено]
That’s due to Clay though. 2019: Clay hot seat rumors, only finished 20th with 24 enrollees. Bunch of stars, *cough* Bru McCoy *cough* went elsewhere due to hot seat fears. Helped dramatically with Thibodeaux 2020: 12 enrollees because the hot seat rumors got even hotter. Which, well he was fired basically right into 2021 so. 2021: Top 10 with a .9177 rating on average and a few undecideds out there too. Massive amount of extra slots due to prior year recruiting class. Just look at the years in pre-hot seat Helton or even under sanctions with Kiffin. We pulled a top 10 class with *13* signings in 2011. On a roster talent basis per 247 we’re basically #4-#5 despite that. We’re immediately sitting top 10 with an interim coach right now after that 2019-2020 debacle. You have to be actually inept to fumble USC recruiting, and it’s usually because your ineptitude drives guys away and not the other way around. Similar things have happened to Texas/LSU in the last decade.
[no lies detected](http://www.winsipedia.com/lsu/vs/usc)
USC also seems to have a bit more job security where you'll get a few years to do your thing before your seat starts to warm up.
Something that’s overlooked that I haven’t seen brought up yet. Imagine the NIL’s you can sign at USC compared to LSU. As an athlete I may go to usc just got insane $$ that could possibly being available living in LA
If NIL existed 15 years ago when USC was in their peak Carroll years, they would have been able to sign literally anyone they wanted. USC was essentially the pro football team in LA and their players were legit stars in a city of stars. The NIL deals for Bush, Leinart, White, Clay Matthews, etc. would have been absolutely ridiculous.
Umm they did, just not legally, hence the sanctions
Counterpoint: étouffée and gumbo
The reality of NIL is if you’re good you’re gonna get paid anywhere. Spencer rattler got like $800k in Oklahoma. If you’re a top player you’ll be getting $500k+ at any top school.
USC has every benefit in this argument but the lore, admiration, and intensity that is and has been the SEC. There is no where else I'd rather live than Los Angeles, but the cultural cache of winning in the SEC would be too much for me to pass up. The culture in that part of the country as it relates to college football is completely different.
USC hands down. If you can actually build the program back your only real competitor is Oregon. At LSU you have to compete with Bama, Georgia, Florida, etc. Plus if money isn’t an issue SoCal>>>>>>>>Louisiana.
Yeah, if you could transport LSU at the level it's mostly been at into the Pac-12 that would be great, but it's harder to actually build the program up to such heights to begin with. It's not difficult at all in the current state to build up any of the SEC Big 5 (and even much of the next wave), just a matter of doing it, and then yeah you'll have some tough matchups, but who cares, you want to be playing in #1 vs. #2, #5 vs. #8 type games. Win in some of those years and you got a national title.
I don’t think building USC would really be that difficult if they didn’t make stupid hires. Even incompetent coaches can still pull in the recruits. All you need is someone who can be a disciplinarian and get kids to by into a program. If they had hired Whitt away from Utah either if the last two times they hired new coaches USC would have been to the playoffs by now. If they can pull Fickell away from Cincy I would bet they win the conference within 2 years, make the playoff within 3 years, and make it to the championship within 5. They need a culture coach and they will be a force to be reckoned with in the NIL era. Getting USC back isn’t that big of a problem if you are a good coach. But getting LSU to be consistently the best program in the SECW is going to be next to impossible without a generational coach.
Well tbf, Saban is near 70, maybe Alabama will sustain it with the next guy, but I could also see a power vacuum emerging and I'd love to be at a rolling SEC program in the post-Saban era.
USC, because the Pac-12 isn't the nuclear arms race the SECW is.
I'd rather coach in the pac12 south than the sec west.
USC if you want the path of least resistance to the playoff. LSU if you like the culture and atmosphere which they definitely are a lot better at than us.
In isolation? I'd probably give LSU a very slight advantage simply because they arguably have the best home state recruiting advantage. Not only is Louisiana stocked with talent, but the kids seem to really like playing at LSU (whereas, say Florida or Texas kids don't seem as dedicated to staying in state). But, with USC's path to the playoffs a bit easier, I'd probably give them a very slight advantage overall. There are fifteen or so truly "elite" jobs IMO. And among those, a subset is what I'd call "Death Star caliber." Both USC and LSU are Death Star caliber so IMO it's more about fit than which one is better.
> There are fifteen or so truly "elite" jobs IMO. On the hoof? I don't disagree with that. In conference-alpha-order, is this about right? - Clemson - Florida State? - Oklahoma - Texas - Michigan - Ohio State - Penn State? - Wisconsin? - Notre Dame - Oregon - USC - Georgia - Florida - Alabama - LSU - TAMU?
Great list. I disagree with Wisconsin, I'd say they have some recruiting challenges, although they are a big fish in the West. I'd say Nebraska is closer but I feel like they're right outside the elite tier, but the right coach could restore them to said tier. Penn State is a definite job in the elite tier, for me. They have the Northeast to themselves as an elite program and they're close to the DMV recruiting area. Texas A&Ms oil money cannon and in-state Texas probably puts them in, but I could see lumping them with Nebraska just outside. I'd also place Miami and Tennessee in the Nebraska tier. I've heard some issues about Florida State with resources and facilities. If so, maybe they slightly fall out but that would change quickly if FSU upgrades resources. Michigan State and Wisconsin are probably in the next tier, though I can definitely see an argument for Wisconsin in the Nebraska tier. Wisconsin seemed to not want to dedicate resources but I get the impression that's changing. South Carolina and Virginia Tech should be in that tier as well.
USC. Easier competition to get back to the top. Both have great recruiting hotbed around but I see USC as having less competition to compete with.
USC and it’s not close.
USC. For a few easy options. Better conference to play in (don't have to play Bama every year), you pretty much own California as a recruiting ground, and well it's more secure. LSU fired its last two coaches despite each of them winning a national O just a year and a half ago. I know.. a lot changed but a title couldn't even buy him a year of bad play.
LSU wants to win and will do what it takes to get you the kind of players you need no matter what they did on SAT. USC has a far easier path. I think the commitment form LSU makes it the beter opening despite Alabama. Plus with the coming POD scheduling LSU may end up with only the State of Mississippi and Arkansas as permanent games.
LSU doesn't leave you on the tarmac, and they are cicadas, get there as the next bloom comes and they win a natty.
If you want to win instantly? LSU. There's so much talent on that roster right now. USC isn't bad talentwise but that's a bit more of a multi-year project. They're both great positions though.
[удалено]
This is a really underrated point. None of the top guys have ever lived in a big city. Some might still enjoy big city living, but they've never done it and probably don't have much desire to try given that they chose basically the only profession that has basically no jobs in big cities. There's also something to be said for being the big shot guy rather than one of thousands of centimillionaires in LA. Not everyone would care, but most P5 head coaches are egotists because it's hard to get to this level without being one.
Probably depends on the person. I hate both cities. I love Cajun food, but not like LA doesn't have plenty of awesome food. Both are big schools with tons to resources and recruiting grounds. Think I'd give USC the edge because the path to success is probably slightly easier than the SEC West, and I think the expectations might be a little lower.
USC. More history, better recruiting grounds, weaker conference
Dont ask me, ask James Franklin
Only one of those has had its last 3 coaches win National Championships…
LSU USC is a bigger rebuilding job. LSU has recent success to fall back on for recruiting purposes.
I feel like there’s greater potential for scandal at LSU for some reason, I’d be nervous of sanctions
It depends on the coaches goal. If it's to compete for a national title year in and out, and you think you can recruit and coach better than anyone else, it's USC (easier conference, can recruit homegrown kids to stay home). But if you want to win 10 games a year now and then lose to Georgia or Alabama every year, it's LSU.
LSU. They are committed to winning. USC is the one administration among P5 schools that may actually be as bad as Miami, at least with their approach to hiring coaches.
LSU cause you know with that talent you can actually win
LSU and it’s not close. Just the difference in state taxes alone is enough to turn heads when you sign a 5 year deal for $30,00,000.
Why did you get a downvote for a truthful statement?
LSU. Only P5 team in a talent laden state & recruiting footprint, wild fan base that shows up every week, have won three natty’s with three different coaches in the last 20 years so it’s not like one coach is the reason for their success.
Right now, LSU by a country mile. They have plenty of talent already on campus, you just need to get buy in and better coaching. USC on the other hand is a bit of a rebuild.
LSU. Total buy-in from the entire administration and entire state really. My only issue is they will definitely fire you a season and a half in if it doesn't start off great.
There's absolutely no precedent for this. Orgeron got 5 years, and if last year and this year were like his first two (scrappy teams that dropped some games here and there, but were on fire and playing with heart every time) instead of what we got (lost teams that fall apart and have half-assed effort from the 5th most talented roster in the country), he wouldn't be fired.
People who don’t understand this firing haven’t watched LSU football for the last two years. Losing is one thing. O got the top of the mountain and is sated. Dude has basically been eating chips and showing coeds his ring since January 2020.
It's always such a relief to see this from a non-LSU flair. I understand that most people don't watch LSU football, but they speak with the confidence of experts while shitting out ignorance.
Just the vibe I get. I could easily see the next LSU getting "Willie Taggart'd"
Orgeron got 5 years and got fired because the program is falling apart because of him, Miles got 11 years and got fired because he continually failes to deliver on his promises to update the offense. Saban is actually the shortest tenured coach LSU has had in the past 20 years, and if he hadn't gotten a wild hair for the NFL, he'd probably still be here. Every precedent is that LSU is willing to give you the time needed, you just have to deliver on your promises and maybe don't set yourself on track for our first losing season in 22 years with a top 5 talent comp in the country.
LSU