2015 College Football Thread is now closed

Predict The 2015 Heisman Winner

  • Trevone Boykin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cardale Jones

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • JT Barret

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Connor Cook

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nick Chubb

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ezekiel Elliott

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cody Kessler

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leonard Fournette

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dak Prescott

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jeremy Johnson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Deshaun Watson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Derrick Henry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Seth Russell

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Scooby Wright

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Adoree' Jackson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
OU still had alot talent under Gary Gibbs and John Blake
I don't think OU's a bad job. I think it's a top 10 job like I said. I just dont know if between Gibbs and Stoops it was a job every coach wanted like it may be now.

Back in the day sustained program success was determined by tradition, money, and exposure. Then of course the abiliy to get/keep a coach who knew what he was doing. Now with TV money split evenly, you don't have to go to a Nebraska or Michigan. You can get those facilities, TV exposure, and recruits at Baylor and Clemson too. It closed the gap.

So that considered, what aside from pointing to the 90s makes Nebraska any more attractive than an Oregon or LSU?
 
Last edited:
Nebraska and Michigan aren't on the same playing field. Saying that Baylor/Clemson caught up to Nebraska is one thing, but I do not believe that they've caught up to Michigan.
 
Def top 25. Arguably top 15. They have the facilities, they recruit the west coast well now without even trying, and the Pac12 is a stronger conference than the B1G and BigXII.

I don't know how well the job pays, but I don't know that you can name 25 better jobs in the country?

:lol:

All kinds of wrong.
 
Nebraska and Michigan aren't on the same playing field. Saying that Baylor/Clemson caught up to Nebraska is one thing, but I do not believe that they've caught up to Michigan.
Ain't nobody said they didddddddd!
 
Back in the day sustained program success was determined by tradition, money, and exposure. Then of course the abiliy to get/keep a coach who knew what he was doing. Now with TV money split evenly, you don't have to go to a Nebraska or Michigan. You can get those facilities, TV exposure, and recruits at Baylor and Clemson too. It closed the gap.
If every school is splitting that money evenly, it's not a situation where the CFB royalty can afford fancy training facilities and the other schools just got to make do. Everybody is splitting bread now. Baylor just built a new stadium.

Money isn't that huge a deciding factor anymore. Sure some schools can open up their wallets more, but the disparity is not like it used to be.
 
 
Def top 25. Arguably top 15. They have the facilities, they recruit the west coast well now without even trying, and the Pac12 is a stronger conference than the B1G and BigXII.

I don't know how well the job pays, but I don't know that you can name 25 better jobs in the country?
laugh.gif


All kinds of wrong.
Name 25 better jobs man.
 
OU still had alot talent under Gary Gibbs and John Blake


I don't think OU's a bad job. I think it's a top 10 job like I said. I just dont know if between Gibbs and Stoops it was a job every coach wanted like it may be now.

Back in the day sustained program success was determined by tradition, money, and exposure. Then of course the abiliy to get/keep a coach who knew what he was doing. Now with TV money split evenly, you don't have to go to a Nebraska or Michigan. You can get those facilities, TV exposure, and recruits at Baylor and Clemson too. It closed the gap.

So that considered, what aside from pointing to the 90s makes Nebraska any more attractive than an Oregon or LSU?

Yeah I agree with most of your statement

Years ago program success was mostly determined by tradition, money and exposure but now with more networks showing NCAA Football, most winning programs get exposure now

I disagree about Michigan not being a desirable location. They have a strong recruiting base which Nebraska does not have anymore


Also theres more information available to recruits now vs the information available to a recruit in the 90s
 
Last edited:
All I said was that Michigan isn't oneof the TOP TEN jobs. i didn't say it wasn't a desirable location.

You guys are jumping to extremes. Look at my list. You think Michigan today is a better job than any of those 10? Who? Georgia? LSU?
Stanford isn't a top 25 job . Harbaugh and shaw have just been phenomenal
I'm not riding for Stanford or anything 
laugh.gif
I'll concede that I'm wrong if that's the case. Shrug.

I still want @ooIRON MANoo to list 25 better jobs though.
 
Last edited:
Michigan may be a better job than Georgia because you may have a easier path to a National Championship

Also Stanford isnt a top 25 destination because of high academic standards will limit your recruiting
 
A lot Black recruits are hesitant to go a All- White campus where they are made to feel like an outcast

Some dudes want to go a place where they can enjoy Black culture
 
Ann Arbor and ****, the entire state of Michigan however are bleeding Nike green tonight.
 
As fun as Rich Rodriguez winning the Pac-12 while UM searches for a new coach sounds....
Real talk, most people from here are happy for RR. 

His success just might be enough to kill the "Michigan Man" and "Michigan Football" memes.  
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom