Athlon ranks the coaches

[MtnBuff]

Looking at hugegrooves post about the PAC12 stadiums ran into another link where they rank all 125 coaches.

Lots of respect for M2, placing him at 44 even though he has an overall record of 16-21 and did his coaching prior to CU at a school in a weak conference.

This puts him ahead of a number of other PAC coaches including Sarkasian at Washington (45) Mora at UCLA (54) Dykes at Cal (56) Kiffen at $C (57) Helfrich (73) but hard to rate since this is his first HC job. Also notable are Calhoun from AFA (58) Christiensen at Wyo (82) and MacElwain at CSU (90).

http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-125-college-football-head-coaches-2013

They are a bit hazy about their methodology and criteria but it is an intersting discussion although I see a lot to disagree with. For example they have Riley at Oregon State (21) behind Shaw at Stanford (20). Considering the challenges of each job I though Shaw let that program slip some while what Riley had done in a job that has been a coach killer is amazing.

 

[Duff Man]

Shaw let the program slip? By winning the conference?

 

[MtnBuff]

Shaw let the program slip? By winning the conference?

I thought Stanford did slip a little last year even though they had a solid record. Of course you can blame some of that on losing Luck but I got the impression that Shaw was mostly riding the momentum and talent that he inherited. Still it's hard to argue against what Riley has done at Oregon State. It isn't quite a match for what Snyder did at KjSU but it's comparable.

As I said it's an interesting conversation but very subjective since you have to consider the situation that each coach came into. How do you look at a guy like Stoops who has won every year but is terrible in bowls, or a guy like Brian Kelly who has won a lot of games but at Cinncinnati in a questionable conference at at ND against a hand picked schedule and at a place that recruiting should be easy at.

Can't argue against Saban, he just wins and wins but where do you put Peterson who took over a program that was already winning big and who only plays 2-3 games a year against anyone who is any good. Is Peterson really four steps ahead of Gary Patterson who did a lot of building the program and in recent years has had much tougher schedules.

What do you do with RichRod who has had very good stretches and some that are not so much? How about Calhoun who is never going to win a major bowl but has a program that in many ways could be like Army and be roadkill. He beats a lot of teams he shouldn't.

You could put Shaw much higher or a little lower based on judgement, same with a lot of guys on the list.

 

[sackman]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how Shaw has let that program slip. If anything, they look stronger to me now. They lose Andrew Luck and win the conference? What the hell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Quattro]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how Shaw has let that program slip. If anything, they look stronger to me now. They lose Andrew Luck and win the conference? What the hell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

And they go on the road and beat a national title contending team in Oregon...
Then they go on to win the Rose Bowl...
And they finish in the top 10...

 

[BlackNGold]

These Rankings get way too subjective...I am amazed at the lack of love that Mora gets...he won the South in the Pac 12 in his first year and really killed it in recruiting (20 recruits that were 4 or 5 star players). I think some of it ends up being a beauty contest - Putting Tommy Tuberville behind Pinkel is a joke. I also think they way over rate Mike Leach...good coach in his system but has never really broken out.

If I was doing it I would try to break it down into areas - In game coaching, Overall coaching, and Recruiting. Someone like Les Miles would score high in Overall coaching (his teams are fundamentally sound) and recruiting and much lower in the area of in game coaching. Maybe bonus points for doing more with less (Iowa State) or winning in tough circumstances (Northwestern).

At the end of the day it is pretty subjective and after the top few falls apart pretty quickly (Les Miles would be in my top 10)

 

[MtnBuff]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how Shaw has let that program slip. If anything, they look stronger to me now. They lose Andrew Luck and win the conference? What the hell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I could be completely wrong on this one and have said as much but it looks to me like Shaw is riding the momentum from his predicessor. Their record has been excellent but my perception is that the program is slipping a little but they were awfully high so had some room to slip. Let's see where they are in 3-4 years when the entire program is Shaw's.

Also didn't intend my comment to be a swipe at Shaw as much as a statement that Riley deserves more respect. Shaw took over a winning and is winning, Riley took over a historically bad program and has it ranked. Both are good, the second more impressive to me.

 

[Quattro]

I could be completely wrong on this one and have said as much but it looks to me like Shaw is riding the momentum from his predicessor. Their record has been excellent but my perception is that the program is slipping a little but they were awfully high so had some room to slip. Let's see where they are in 3-4 years when the entire program is Shaw's.

Also didn't intend my comment to be a swipe at Shaw as much as a statement that Riley deserves more respect. Shaw took over a winning and is winning, Riley took over a historically bad program and has it ranked. Both are good, the second more impressive to me.

In what ways is Stanford slipping under Shaw at this point in time?

 

[BlackNGold]

I could be completely wrong on this one and have said as much but it looks to me like Shaw is riding the momentum from his predicessor. Their record has been excellent but my perception is that the program is slipping a little but they were awfully high so had some room to slip. Let's see where they are in 3-4 years when the entire program is Shaw's.

Also didn't intend my comment to be a swipe at Shaw as much as a statement that Riley deserves more respect. Shaw took over a winning and is winning, Riley took over a historically bad program and has it ranked. Both are good, the second more impressive to me.

Shaw lost his starting QB who most thought was the best player in the nation and then went half the season trying to find a starter and still won the conference. Riley is a good coach at a tough place to win but he does have the 3 and 5 win seasons along with the 9 win seasons. Riley is only a so-so recruiter.

 

[Buffnik]

No way is Shaw over-rated.

I also think Mora is under-rated on that list. How is he behind other Pac-12 coaches when he won a division title (these other coaches haven't) and he has out-recruited them after Rick left UCLA in a recruiting mess.

 

[Liver]

there are a lot of very good coaches in the p12. mora hit the ground running for sure. shaw did a great job with stanford. riley is a fantastic coach who always has to do more with less. kiffin sucks. the jury is out to an extent on sark, but i actually think he's got potential to move into the elite ranks. mm did a great job at sjsu, but we'll see how he does in the p12. helfrich has been often referred to as an up and comer-- well, now he has a chance to show it. rich rod and the pirate have both had great success in other places and i think both guys have shown they can really coach. graham--the guy at asu, i'm not much enamored with him. sonny dykes is a good coach but i'm not sure how he fits at cal-- that one is an experiment that could go either way. whittingham has also had some success and proven he can beat better teams sometimes, but we'll see how the fulltime p12 conf slate treats them.

all in all, i think the p12 has a great list of coaches.

 

[Buffnik]

All I know is that CU closed the gap with Oregon in a significant way this offseason.

MacIntyre vs. Helfrich inspires much more hope than Embree vs. Kelly.

 

[Liver]

so, i guess i'll take a shot at an actual ranking of p12 coaches based upon my editorial above:

1. riley
2. mora
3. shaw
4. the pirate
5. rich rod
6. sark
7. mm
8. helfrich
9. dykes
10. whittingham
11. graham
12. kiffin

it is very subjective.

 

[MtnBuff]

so, i guess i'll take a shot at an actual ranking of p12 coaches based upon my editorial above:

1. riley
2. mora
3. shaw
4. the pirate
5. rich rod
6. sark
7. mm
8. helfrich
9. dykes
10. whittingham
11. graham
12. kiffin

it is very subjective.

Might be but wouldn't take you a lot of beers to convince me you are spot on. It will be interesting to see if Leach can do to the PAC what he did to the Big Can't count. I think it will be a lot harder for him not being in the middle of that Texas talent pool he used at Tech. Wouldn't be shocked to see him fail but also wouldn't be shocked to see he win.

 

[SINKRATZ]

No way is Shaw over-rated.

I also think Mora is under-rated on that list. How is he behind other Pac-12 coaches when he won a division title (these other coaches haven't) and he has out-recruited them after Rick left UCLA in a recruiting mess.

Well to be fair, didn't Neuheisel win the South also the year he got fired? When USC is on probation, the South was pretty week. Still I agree Mora is under rated.

Also, I'm a little surprised at where they put Helfrich, dead last in the conference?? I know he's an unknown, but last time Oregon made an inside coaching hire it turned out pretty good. Can he really be worse than Kiffin?

 

[MtnBuff]

Well to be fair, didn't Neuheisel win the South also the year he got fired? When USC is on probation, the South was pretty week. Still I agree Mora is under rated.

Also, I'm a little surprised at where they put Helfrich, dead last in the conference?? I know he's an unknown, but last time Oregon made an inside coaching hire it turned out pretty good. Can he really be worse than Kiffin?

Especially considering that they gave a degree of respect to some other first time coaches on the list. Oregon is the kind of program that could have very easily gotten an experienced winning from elsewhere. They have talent, resources, and a lot of wins. If they had any reason to believe Helfrich couldn't do the job they could have easily gone to someone outside the program.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

And they go on the road and beat a national title contending team in Oregon...
Then they go on to win the Rose Bowl...
And they finish in the top 10...

Lord, hear my prayer. Let CU football 'slip' to the level of Stanford football. Please do not smite me lord for uttering eords unthinkable 20 years ago.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CVilleBuff]

Having thought Shaw would oversee a decline, I can chime in and say that he deserves every bit of that ranking. Remarkable job thus far. Looks like he's not Larry Coker.

 

[EddieCrowder]

I have to say that putting the Angry Pirate in the top 1/2 of any list is not really looking at his record and what he really did at TT. 1) He consistently loaded 4 wins on by playing teams equal to or weaker then The Helen Keller University of the Deaf and Blind. In some years the Techies made the Huskers schedule look tough. 2) who did he ever really beat ? 1 win over a Texas team that was loaded on a miracle play by Crabtree and that's it. Leach won 7 to 8 games (3 to 4 gimme's ) every year and beat the rest of the Big XII trash. resulting in a fine trip to the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl, or in a Banner year the Alamo Bowl. For Christ sake Embry beat him ! Leach is a fraud, you want to win 7 every year ? then why did we fire Barnett ?