Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Top 50 Jobs in College Football

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Done by the Auburn Bleacher Report, CU came in at #35.

Beautiful campus. Even better scenery. Excellent fan support. What's wrong with Colorado? Simply, it's coaching. That's why they haven't been winners the past few seasons.

They have a good history, highlighted by a national title in 1990 and the "Miracle at Michigan," a Hail Mary that will forever be remembered by college football fans.

How far you can go: You compete in the Pac-10 with powers like Oregon and USC. It's tough to win at Colorado, but it can be done. You can compete for the conference crown once, say, every three seasons. A national championship is within grasp at CU.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/554716-the-top-50-coaching-jobs-in-college-football
 
I'd say right now its a pretty fair assessment. We are not going to be a Texas or a Tennessee or an Ohio State with 100,000 plus at every game but we do pretty well.

If (or should I say when) Embree starts to win games and get us into bowl games then we go up that scale quite a bit. The past 8 years or so have hurt this program a lot but the damage is repairable.
 
Behind USC, Oregon, Wash, UCLA, Cal

Ahead of Utah, ASU, Arizona, Stanford.

Wazzu & Oregon State didn't even get mentioned.

I liked how Folsom & Dal Ward showed up in the A&M entry.
 
That seems about right. I'd put CU a little higher, but I'm biased. I'm not sure, for instance, that the CU job is worse than the Cal job. From what I've heard, support for athletics at Cal is pretty spotty. In fact, I'd suggest that Stanford is a better job than Cal. Again, I'm slightly biased in this regard as well.
 
Okay, I get that this list is based on a snapshot. It considers history to some degree, but really, coming off of a five year skid doesn't help CU's cause on this list.

Most of us remember when we were pissed if we weren't ranked in the top five, and that sentiment lasted nearly a decade. It wasn't that long ago.

So sure, I'm a little frustrated with CU's ranking, but I get it. We suck.

But there were some real headscratchers on the list; teams that placed above CU, that I don't understand:

--Oklahoma State? Really? Haven't we owned these guys nearly forever? They've been a nobody on the national scene for their entire football existance. Their program exists in a town that sucks donkey balls. How did these guys rank higher? I fully acknowledge that they've played some better than average football down there for the last few years, and that they've recently struck it rich. But come on! This program was wayyyyy over-ranked.

--Iowa. What? A nice town, sure. But isn't this team contractually obligated to finish in the exact middle of their conference every season? don't they lose conference money if they place even one spot higher or lower than dead-center? This team is very average, and it plays football in an unexciting conference. What?!!

--Pitt. Bad conference, uninspired team, with some history. But what have you done for me lately? Too much competition with professional sports. Really all the things you can say about CU, but without the beautfiful scenery.

--South Carolina? Been there for game day. It's the SEC and there's a lot of excitement and a lot of talent. But have the Cocks really made a routine impact on the national scene? They're like the SEC's Iowa. Okay, that's Arkansas, but they're only one notch better than being SEC's Iowa.

--MSU. Look, I went to a Big 10 (yawn) school for a couple of years. Nobody was talking about MSU then, and the only reason anybody discussed them this year was because their record was ten times better than their team. They're a nobody in the world of football. Big picture, little picture, any picture. They're a team that might upset the Big 10's conference title contender while amassing a 6-5 record. Oh, and East Lansing. Tap-dancing Christ!

--UNC. A great school, and it may be a great gig--better than CU? Maybe, but I doubt it. There's not a lot of history in the football program; a lot of bad teams, decent teams and even good teams, but no great teams. It's just a great school (my first choice, by the way, and I still root for them a little), with a great basketball program, but nothing more.





--
 
The Walrus said:
--Oklahoma State? Really? Haven't we owned these guys nearly forever? They've been a nobody on the national scene for their entire football existance. Their program exists in a town that sucks donkey balls. How did these guys rank higher? I fully acknowledge that they've played some better than average football down there for the last few years, and that they've recently struck it rich. But come on! This program was wayyyyy over-ranked.
Click to expand...

Pickens, T Boone
 
RE: Headscratchers. How is South Florida ahead of CU? Pretty much everything from Bleacher Report is stupid.
 
The Walrus said:
Okay, I get that this list is based on a snapshot. It considers history to some degree, but really, coming off of a five year skid doesn't help CU's cause on this list.

Most of us remember when we were pissed if we weren't ranked in the top five, and that sentiment lasted nearly a decade. It wasn't that long ago.

So sure, I'm a little frustrated with CU's ranking, but I get it. We suck.

But there were some real headscratchers on the list; teams that placed above CU, that I don't understand:

--Oklahoma State? Really? Haven't we owned these guys nearly forever? They've been a nobody on the national scene for their entire football existance. Their program exists in a town that sucks donkey balls. How did these guys rank higher? I fully acknowledge that they've played some better than average football down there for the last few years, and that they've recently struck it rich. But come on! This program was wayyyyy over-ranked.

--Iowa. What? A nice town, sure. But isn't this team contractually obligated to finish in the exact middle of their conference every season? don't they lose conference money if they place even one spot higher or lower than dead-center? This team is very average, and it plays football in an unexciting conference. What?!!

--Pitt. Bad conference, uninspired team, with some history. But what have you done for me lately? Too much competition with professional sports. Really all the things you can say about CU, but without the beautfiful scenery.

--South Carolina? Been there for game day. It's the SEC and there's a lot of excitement and a lot of talent. But have the Cocks really made a routine impact on the national scene? They're like the SEC's Iowa. Okay, that's Arkansas, but they're only one notch better than being SEC's Iowa.

--MSU. Look, I went to a Big 10 (yawn) school for a couple of years. Nobody was talking about MSU then, and the only reason anybody discussed them this year was because their record was ten times better than their team. They're a nobody in the world of football. Big picture, little picture, any picture. They're a team that might upset the Big 10's conference title contender while amassing a 6-5 record. Oh, and East Lansing. Tap-dancing Christ!

--UNC. A great school, and it may be a great gig--better than CU? Maybe, but I doubt it. There's not a lot of history in the football program; a lot of bad teams, decent teams and even good teams, but no great teams. It's just a great school (my first choice, by the way, and I still root for them a little), with a great basketball program, but nothing more.


--
Click to expand...

You seem to be evaluating the programs not the job. OSU - better financial support, no one really expects them to win the division, win 8-9 games and go to a bowl an you good to go. Sounds like a good job to me.

Iowa - I agree with you about the program but Ferentz gets paid like $3 million a year to be mediocre. CU you get paid to $900,000 with tons of pressure and expectations to win with a lot less support.


Not going to go on but it is all subjective. Embree will probably be the lowest paid coach in the PAC-12 - that probably says enough about the job.
 
BlackNGold said:
You seem to be evaluating the programs not the job. OSU - better financial support, no one really expects them to win the division, win 8-9 games and go to a bowl an you good to go. Sounds like a good job to me.

Iowa - I agree with you about the program but Ferentz gets paid like $3 million a year to be mediocre. CU you get paid to $900,000 with tons of pressure and expectations to win with a lot less support.


Not going to go on but it is all subjective. Embree will probably be the lowest paid coach in the PAC-12 - that probably says enough about the job.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
The Walrus said:
--UNC. A great school, and it may be a great gig--better than CU? Maybe, but I doubt it. There's not a lot of history in the football program; a lot of bad teams, decent teams and even good teams, but no great teams. It's just a great school (my first choice, by the way, and I still root for them a little), with a great basketball program, but nothing more.
--
Click to expand...

.
They suck so bad Dave Logan turned them down
 
Pitt & USF are definitely NOT better jobs than CU. I would put CU in the same general category as UW, Arkansas, Wisconsin, etc. Right now we're at the bottom end of that group because our program sucks so bad. Win a conf championship or two, raise the pay up to the $2.5MM/Year range, and CU is in the top 15, if not top 10. For now, the list is reasonably accurate, with the obvious exception of USF and Pitt, which shouldn't be anywhere on the list at all. I can see the reasoning behind schools like OSU, MSU and South Carolina being ahead of us. Better pay, better facilities, fewer expectations.
 
Michigan State and UNC stood out to me too - those seemed way too high, otherwise the list is pretty fair.
 
Michigan State didn't necessarily seem too high on the list to me, maybe a few spots too high but that's about it. They have great support despite being the little brother in their own state.

UNC at 25 is comical. Better than jobs like Iowa, South Carolina or Arkansas? Uh, no. The huge problem with that job is the football program will always be a very distant 2nd fiddle to the basketball program. Kentucky's basketball program is every bit as big as UNC's if not bigger and look where that job is ranked, and UK has better football support and is in a better conference than UNC.
 
i like how they mention Kyle Field as a "huge stadium" but show a pic of Mike Sherman with the Dal Ward in the background. nice homework, guys.
 
Sackie -- why are you hatin' on Pitt?

The program has tons of tradition: Ditka; Dorsett; Marino; Hugh Green; Fitzgerald; McCoy; etc. One recent NC and several back in the day.

The team shares a new, state-of-the-art practice facility with the Steelers (good) and they play in Heinz field (not so good for fan support).

The school is better academically than CU -- though they both have good grad programs. The city of Pittsburgh, which got rid of the steel mills that lined the rivers years ago, is darned nice. Great ethic neighborhoods, good restaurants (though Boulder has better ones on average), top cultural attractions (symphony, ballet, museums). Cheap housing by eastern city standards, and definately less expensive than Boulder. Huge circa 1900 houses in beautiful in-city neighborhoods for $500,000 or less. Nice campus, though it definatley is urban.

Wannstadt was paid about the same as The Hawk, I think. Jamie Dixon -- the best young basketball coach in the country -- is darned well paid.

Yes, Big East football is a bit of a debacle. But, Pitt is a great place to live and work, has a strong football tradition, has great football facilities, and the local press actually supports Pitt.

I'm not sayin' Pitt is necessarily a better job than CU, but CU isn't obviously better than Pitt.
 
dcbuffman,

I agree. But you left out the biggest benefit to coaching at Pitt. You can recruit half your roster within a 3 hour drive.
 
interestingly, Charles Klauder is responsible for much of CU's "traditional" Tuscan architectural style...and Klauder also designed the Cathedral of Learning at Pitt.
 
Mick Ronson said:
interestingly, Charles Klauder is responsible for much of CU's "traditional" Tuscan architectural style...and Klauder also designed the Cathedral of Learning at Pitt.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you know what "interestingly" means.
 
Buffnik said:
dcbuffman,

I agree. But you left out the biggest benefit to coaching at Pitt. You can recruit half your roster within a 3 hour drive.
Click to expand...

The only problem is you're competing with the likes of Ohio State and Penn State for those same players. :smile2:
 
CarolinaBuff said:
The only problem is you're competing with the likes of Ohio State and Penn State for those same players. :smile2:
Click to expand...

You are also recruiting against UVA and Virginia Tech who recruit the Pittsburgh area heavily. Also it seems like a lot of the very best athletes from that area tend to end up going south into the SEC schools

The other big problem for Pitt is that Pittsburgh is as much or more a Steelers city than Denver is a Broncos town. As much as CU has to deal with the looming attention paid to the Broncos (the back-up nickel back has toe fungus but is expected to play gets more attention than a Buffs win) Pitt gets it worse with the Steelers and they don't have the geographical separation that CU has being in Boulder.
 
Although Pitt does have to recruit against some powerhouses, it's alot better than CU's situation because there's much more in-state talent. As Wannstadt proved, western PA kids will go to Pitt if the recruiting effort is there. Pitt's problems in recent years have had nothing to do with talent -- they had tons -- it had to do with coaching. Pitt, like Maryland, fails to dominate its league but sends a good number of kids to the NFL.

Pittsburgh is a huge Steelers town. (I lived there in three of the years in which they won Super Bowls.) But, there isn't the ambivilance (antipathy?) from the local press that CU seems to endure. Pittsburgh is also a big hockey town, but Jamie Dixon has proved that the city will support Pitt basketball if they put a winner on the court. Pitt also got it right when they built a high-end basketball facility on campus. If Pitt football ramped it up to 10-win seasons, including some wins against legit competition, I think the locals would rally around them.

In general, though, I think HC at Pitt is a pretty good job. Better in some ways than the CU job, worse in others. In light of yesterdays' events with Pitt's new head coach (jailed over the weekend, pending arraignment, in connection with domestic violence charges), we may get another chance to assess the desireablility of the Pitt job..... Rich Rod? Dabo Sweeney?
 
Last edited:
dcbuffman said:
In general, though, I think HC at Pitt is a pretty good job. Better in some ways than the CU job, worse in others. In light of yesterdays' events with Pitt's new head coach (jailed over the weekend, pending arraignment, in connection with domestic violence charges), we may get another chance to assess the desireablility of the Pitt job..... Rich Rod? Dabo Sweeney?
Click to expand...

The true test is whether or not Dave Logan takes the Pitt job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top