Ranked #24

[1979jacket]

People that don't like Dabo are in my humble opinion jealous. Before he arrived they had money, backing from donors. He has accomplished more than ANY of his predecessors. He's a good man. Community consciousness. He owns us. I have to admit, if hadn't met him on multiple occasions, I might still be jealous of his success to. Sign of a good HC is when the best assit coaches are calling you to work. That is happening at CU.

I think dabo is a great coach - own us "no". Dabo is 5-5 against GT - that ain't owning us.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Florida was top 5 with an 8-4 record? All 5 of the top 5 were in the SEC? Some things never change.

I think the comment was Top 5 in SEC that year, not Nation.

 

[northgajacket]

I think the comment was Top 5 in SEC that year, not Nation.

Exactly

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Exactly

Oh gotcha, thanks for the correction. Although I will point out that once again you ruined my biased trolling (inadvertent this time) with facts and data. Shame on you.

 

[Sideways]

Imagine if UNC look to Clemson/Dabo as the blueprint decided they wanted a legit defense

Given the recruiting done by UNC and their resources that would be scary.

 

[Sideways]

S&#@, TEN? I didn't realize that. I might have to update my pre-season predictions from 7-5 to 8-4. At some point no matter how awful a coach you are, guys of that level can find ways to not constantly lose.

Yes, TEN according to what I read which my "Sometimers" afflicted brain can't remember where exactly I read that. Seems like it was on SI.com so consider the source. 10 seems like a lot but they have been getting top 10 classes all the way back to 2010 or so. Stands to reason UGA has probably been getting at least a couple of 5 stars in each class so its not our of the realm of possibility that they do have that many on their current roster. Sickening is what it is.

 

[Jacket4Life9]

You're making my point.
1) It's been widely reported that cpj was not able to hire the DC he wanted because of budget. It's possible that similar constraints affected hiring position coaches.

2) When CPJ was at GS, he often had a top D as well as O, iirc. Iow, it's not like he can't have a good D. He's discussed that in terms of not having a talent issue. Which raises the second point: having better talent doesn't make you a better coach, imo.

I'm reacting against the analysis that suggests all variables are equal except HC. I think you also have to consider context.

Imo, when ranking HCs, you should be able to answer the question, "what is their genius?" If the top two answers are hiring coaches and recruiting players, then you're talking about responsibilities that are not inherent in the word coach.

A head football coach is much more than being a "football genius." You see brilliant offensive and defensive coordinators fail drastically in good and even great situations (ala Will Muschamp at Florida). A great head coach can be a football genius all he wants, but if he can't run the program and bring in sufficient talent AND hire competent assistants--he will never be an elite head coach--no matter his ability to instruct or knowledge of the game. Mark Richt is a prime example. He was in an ideal situation and could attract top talent, but let Mike Bobo and morons like Todd Grantham control sides of the ball. Non-coaching decisions like taking Brice Ramsey and deciding not pursue Deshaun Watson and offering Cam Netwon as a Tight End are part of the reason Richt is not on the level of a Dabo or an Urban. CFB players spend the vast majority of their time at practice and in the meeting rooms with their position coaches. The head coach relies heavily on his assistants to instruct the kids and in many instances to call plays and come up with the game plan. Yes, the head man assists in most all of the processes, but his main task is bringing the right kids and putting competent people in place to teach them and get them to execute on Saturdays.

In response to #1) I understand budget constraints, but there is no excuse for not being able to field a genuinely "good" defense in 9 years. Many schools are in similar or worse situations when it comes to budget. It can be done. We don't have to be Bama on D, but we should be much better. #2) I respect CPJ's GS accomplishments, but not many people are going to care too much about what he did in 1AA when ranking him as a D1 college football coach.

 

[Jacket4Life9]

I agree. Some like to scoff at the skill of hiring good assistants, yet our head coach, who I love, has had a turnstile at DC. Hiring the right people is one of the primary functions of a head coach.

Exactly. There is no excuse for the play that we've seen on defense over the last 9 years. We have not had a full season of even what most would consider "good" defense since CPJ has been at Tech.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Exactly. There is no excuse for the play that we've seen on defense over the last 9 years. We have not had a full season of even what most would consider "good" defense since CPJ has been at Tech.

That's not the point I was making at all.

 

[Longestday]

Exactly. There is no excuse for the play that we've seen on defense over the last 9 years. We have not had a full season of even what most would consider "good" defense since CPJ has been at Tech.

Yes, CPJ had all the money and support needed to hire the defensive coach he wanted and has to own his decisions. Oh wait, he did not have support and money. Hmmm, I wonder who he would have hired with Dabo's support and money?

Good coaches make the best of thier environment and resources. Keep in mind who CPJ was dealing with as AD.

 

[Sideways]

Yes, CPJ had all the money and support needed to hire the defensive coach he wanted and has to own his decisions. Oh wait, he did not have support and money. Hmmm, I wonder who he would have hired with Dabo's support and money?

Good coaches make the best of thier environment and resources. Keep in mind who CPJ was dealing with as AD.

Now you have done it. Just ruined the rest of my day bringing up the um impediments that Coach Johnson has had to deal with during his tenure. It's bad enough that our football program has to overcome outrageous interference from the Tobacco Road mafia, academic restrictions, perceived indifference from the Hill, lack of money, and resources all of which has in past years been practically made worse by athletic directors seeming indifference to the wants and desires of the fan base as well as the needs of our football program. The wonder of it all is that we have not fallen to the level of Rice, Tulane, SMU, Temple, among others who are now an afterthought. It only takes a couple of bad years, poor recruiting classes or dumb decisions by an AD to descend to that level of mediocrity or worse. It is hard to believe now but in Dodd's time, within living memory as it were both Tulane and Rice were highly regarded solid and successful football programs.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Rankings like this are kinda pointless and stupid. Classifying coaches as great, good, average, poor, or terrible makes a lot more since imo. As others have said the apples and oranges of variables affecting each coach make accurate rankings like this an excersise in opinionated speculation only.

 

[GTpdm]

Rankings like this are kinda pointless and stupid. Classifying coaches as great, good, average, poor, terrible, or Kirby Smart makes a lot more since imo. As others have said the apples and oranges of variables affecting each coach make accurate rankings like this an excersise in opinionated speculation only.

FTFY...

 

[Sideways]

Rankings like this are kinda pointless and stupid. Classifying coaches as great, good, average, poor, or terrible makes a lot more since imo. As others have said the apples and oranges of variables affecting each coach make accurate rankings like this an excersise in opinionated speculation only.

Well, its the off season and they gotta write about something. Besides it was, as I understand it, a group effort. Bear Bryant was at Kentucky only a couple of years before he realized that the Baron, Coach Rupp that is, was not going to tolerate anyone being a threat to Kentucky basketball. Since he could not bend the entire university to his will in creating a football powerhouse, Bear left for greener pastures to be found at Texas A&M. Point being, some places are never going to be football factories no matter who the coach is.

 

[ibeattetris]

I disagree. By your reasoning, working for a school with a larger budget to hire a better staff makes you a better coach. That's crazy, imo.

Yup.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant
When sorted by the asst pay total it should be pretty clear why Clemson is having the recent success it is having. Dabo is fine, but is has 2.3 million more to work with in assistant coaches budget alone. This does not include staff for recruiting either, which only exacerbates the issues.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yup.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant
When sorted by the asst pay total it should be pretty clear why Clemson is having the recent success it is having. Dabo is fine, but is has 2.3 million more to work with in assistant coaches budget alone. This does not include staff for recruiting either, which only exacerbates the issues.

If you go back and watch the White Out game last year and look at the opposing side line during the kickoff, and hit pause a few times and count the khaki pants, you'll count nearly 50 people on staff. And obviously tons of interns and marketing, social media people, and administrative folks don't stand on the sidelines. So if you had to guess, you'd have to say roughly 70+ people are on Clemson's football staff.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If you go back and watch the White Out game last year and look at the opposing side line during the kickoff, and hit pause a few times and count the khaki pants, you'll count nearly 50 people on staff. And obviously tons of interns and marketing, social media people, and administrative folks don't stand on the sidelines. So if you had to guess, you'd have to say roughly 70+ people are on Clemson's football staff.

Pro leagues have salary caps to help foster parity because it makes a more entertaining product. College football should take a cue from this and institute caps in expenditures. I know creative sorts will find work arounds, but that's not a good reason to not try and we'd still get a little bit closer to a level playing field.

I know it means a lot more to beat the odds and win when the deck is stacked against you. I just tired of it and think something should and can be done to let all teams play from the same deck.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Pro leagues have salary caps to help foster parity because it makes a more entertaining product. College football should take a cue from this and institute caps in expenditures. I know creative sorts will find work arounds, but that's not a good reason to not try and we'd still get a little bit closer to a level playing field.

I know it means a lot more to beat the odds and win when the deck is stacked against you. I just tired of it and think something should and can be done to let all teams play from the same deck.

I agree. If you take away all the excuses and still don't win a lot, then you've got 'splaining to do. I prefer a middle ground - put rules in place so there is at least a semi-level playing field. If Clemson can get 20% of its alumni to give money, they should be able to get advantages from that...but only to a point. Its college after all, and we shouldn't turn into the NFL. Likewise, if we can't get our Administration and Alumni behind our sports as much as we would like, we shouldn't be put on a completely level playing field. But somewhere in the same galaxy would be fine. After all, we're actually still trying to primarily run a school here, unlike many others.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree. If you take away all the excuses and still don't win a lot, then you've got 'splaining to do. I prefer a middle ground - put rules in place so there is at least a semi-level playing field. If Clemson can get 20% of its alumni to give money, they should be able to get advantages from that...but only to a point. Its college after all, and we shouldn't turn into the NFL. Likewise, if we can't get our Administration and Alumni behind our sports as much as we would like, we shouldn't be put on a completely level playing field. But somewhere in the same galaxy would be fine. After all, we're actually still trying to primarily run a school here, unlike many others.

your last sentence hits the nail on the head. This is where the rules committee should focus their attention on making the game fair by making schools be schools.

Also, I find it ironic that you say we should not become a pro league, yet the teams that are the most successful have already done that.

 

[Sideways]

If you go back and watch the White Out game last year and look at the opposing side line during the kickoff, and hit pause a few times and count the khaki pants, you'll count nearly 50 people on staff. And obviously tons of interns and marketing, social media people, and administrative folks don't stand on the sidelines. So if you had to guess, you'd have to say roughly 70+ people are on Clemson's football staff.

70? Is that all? Dabo must be under some kind of financial restraint. Of course, you can have money for shiny things like that when you are not paying Charlie Weis a cool $19 million to not coach at Notre Dame. Eventually, that was in addition to millions more from Kansas. Charlie went from his much touted "schematic advantage" to a "contractual advantage" according to some wisenheimer on Stingtalk.