Pac 12:
Colorado Schools:
I don't really agree with the Pac 12 rankings, and not because we are ranked #8 and #50 nationally. Here is what was wrote about CU:
My main issue is with UW, Cal, ASU, and UA's rankings.
UW:
California:
ASU:
UA:
Biggest issue is with ASU, UW, and Cal though. UW has a very similar tradition to us yet they have a great tradition but we don't? Huh? I just don't see the rationalization for those three based on their comments.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-college-footballs-coaching-jobs-2013
- USC (4)
- Oregon (12)
- UCLA (16)
- Washington (24)
- California (35)
- Arizona State (39)
- Arizona (40)
- Stanford (47)
- Colorado (50)
- Oregon State (57)
- Utah (58)
- Washington State (65)
Colorado Schools:
- Colorado (50)
- Colorado State (85)
- Air Force (86)
I don't really agree with the Pac 12 rankings, and not because we are ranked #8 and #50 nationally. Here is what was wrote about CU:
Pros: Colorado lacks the tradition of some of the Pac-12 powers, but this program has enjoyed strong pockets of success over the past 25 years. The Buffs won three Big Eight championships in a row from 1989-91 (along with a national title in ’90), and they won four Big 12 North titles in the 2000s. With the right coach in place, this is a school that will attract quality players.
Cons: The facilities at Colorado lag behind most BCS conference schools, and the school’s commitment to athletics has been questioned in recent years. The Buffaloes recently announced a $170 million facility upgrade proposal, which is a step in the right direction. Also, the CU fans can be fickle; Folsom Field (53,750) has rarely been filled to capacity over the past few seasons.
Final Analysis: Three different coaches have won 10 games in a season since 1990, so it’s possible to win big at Colorado. But until the school makes a significant commitment to the program — which it claims to be doing now — CU cannot be considered an elite job.
My main issue is with UW, Cal, ASU, and UA's rankings.
UW:
Pros: This is a proud program with great tradition. The Huskies won a national title in 1991 and claimed at least a share of five Pac-10 titles from 1990-2000. UW is in a great city (Seattle) and has an SEC-like following when things are going well.
Cons: The school has addressed the program’s only significant weakness — facilities — with the $250 million renovation to Husky Stadium. Washington’s in-state recruiting base is solid but lags signficantly behind the four California teams in the Pac-12.
Final Verdict: The past decade has proven that it can be difficult to win at Washington. But this is still a very good job. Is it a great job? Not anymore. But it is still a prestigious program that can attract elite talent. You can win at UW.
California:
Pros: Cal is one of the premier public institutions in the nation located in a great area, giving the Bears a recruiting edge against most of the other schools in the Pac-12. The school is also located in the fertile recruiting area of Northern California. And the facilities, long time an issue at the school, have recently received a major upgrade.
Cons: Bears have had trouble winning consistently; they have two Pac-12 titles (none outright) since 1958.
Final Verdict: Cal is an intriguing job. There is a lot to like, but there are certain drawbacks. You can win in Berkeley, but the culture of the university will likely prevent the football program from ever reaching elite status.
ASU:
Pros: The Sun Devils have made a significant investment in their facilities in recent years, with an indoor practice bubble and new weight and locker rooms. And recently, plans were announced to upgrade Sun Devil Stadium. Arizona State has won three Pac-12 titles in its 30-plus years in the league (1986, ’96 and ’07). Oh, we can’t forget about the weather.
Cons: While the school has experienced pockets of success (three league titles), the Devils have strung together back-to-back winning Pac-10 seasons only once since John Cooper bolted in 1987.
Final Verdict: Arizona State offers a pretty good situation for a school without a strong local recruiting base. The weather is great and the tradition is good enough. USC, Oregon and UCLA will always the top jobs in the league, but with the right coach in place, ASU can be a consistent force in the Pac-12.
UA:
Pros: Arizona has never been a Pac-10 power, but the school has more than held its own for much of its 32 years in the league. The Wildcats had 11 winning Pac-10 seasons in a 13-year stretch from 1982-94. Good coaches have shown the ability to attract talent to Tucson.
Cons: Since 1994, Arizona has only had a winning Pac-12 record twice — 1998 and 2009.
Final Verdict: Being a good recruiter is obviously important at every school, but it is of paramount importance at Arizona. The school is without many of the built-in advantages (tradition, top facilities, etc.) that exist at some of the Pac-12 programs, so you have to convince players to come to Arizona for reasons other than the weather.
Biggest issue is with ASU, UW, and Cal though. UW has a very similar tradition to us yet they have a great tradition but we don't? Huh? I just don't see the rationalization for those three based on their comments.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-college-footballs-coaching-jobs-2013