College football job tiers

[05_never_again]

Had another offseason (and no sports period) thread idea. There has been a lot of discussion over the years about "tiers" of programs and college football head coaching jobs. I think you can get really granular with this, but I'm looking for something more simple. I think you can put every FBS-level program into 3 tiers:

Tier 1: Programs that expect to play for and win championships (conference and national). Some programs will give coaches very little time to do this and others will give more time (and you could probably split this tier into multiple tiers on that basis), but combining them into one here. Simply put, if a coach does not win championships within some period of time, they will be fired. Schools in this tier read like a who's who of college football - Alabama, Ohio St, Oklahoma, and USC, although more recent powers like Clemson and Oregon belong here as well. Dormant powers like Tennessee, Nebraska, and Michigan are here too.

Tier 2: Programs that expect you to win the games you're "supposed to" and are OK with losing the games you're "supposed to." Achievement beyond this expectation is of course welcomed and greatly enhances your job security, but isn't required. Coaches have good job security at these schools as long as they don't rack up too many embarrassing upset losses. Schools in this tier include Iowa, South Carolina, Arkansas, Michigan St, and Kansas St.

Tier 3: Programs where it is OK to be non-competitive for extended periods of time. However, having said that, a coach does need to give the fans/admin something to be happy about from time to time, whether it be making a bowl game or a big upset win. These don't have to happen consistently, but if you go an extended period of time without one your job is at risk. Schools in this tier include Vanderbilt and Duke.

Some schools that came to my mind that don't fit nice and neat into a tier include Wisconsin (could argue 1 or 2), Miami (could argue 1 or 2), the Mississippi schools (could argue 2 or 3), Kentucky (could argue 2 or 3). I'm sure there are others.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

What about Stanford? They’ve been to some big time bowls and have produced some huge talent like McCaffery and Luck and had some very good coaches in Shaw and Harbaugh, yet no one really cares if they’re good or not. Their band is more famous than their football team and they’ve had 2 of the great QB talents of all time.
They definitely don’t fit in tier 1, but do they really fit in tier 2? I feel like they’re tier 2.5 because they’ve experienced all 3 tiers, but I feel like no one would really care at Stanford if they fell off again for an extended period of time.

 

[05_never_again]

What about Stanford? They’ve been to some big time bowls and have produced some huge talent like McCaffery and Luck and had some very good coaches in Shaw and Harbaugh, yet no one really cares if they’re good or not. Their band is more famous than their football team and they’ve had 2 of the great QB talents of all time.
They definitely don’t fit in tier 1, but do they really fit in tier 2? I feel like they’re tier 2.5 because they’ve experienced all 3 tiers, but I feel like no one would really care at Stanford if they fell off again for an extended period of time.

A great question. At this point, I say they are in tier 2 but Shaw has way more job security than your typical tier 2 coach. They stunk last year, but he has a ton of equity built up from being able to continue what Harbaugh started for several more years. Plus they are so academically-focus and aren't completely nuts about football like SEC schools are.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

A great question. At this point, I say they are in tier 2 but Shaw has way more job security than your typical tier 2 coach. They stunk last year, but he has a ton of equity built up from being able to continue what Harbaugh started for several more years. Plus they are so academically-focus and aren't completely nuts about football like SEC schools are.

I agree. Shaw has a ton of built up equity and if they continue to fall off I think there would be a lot of reluctance to fire him, for a variety of reasons.

 

[BUBear]

With an endowment of $27.7 billion Stanford doesn't care if their athletic teams win or lose. They have found the way to milk the federal government of money:

Stanford releases annual financial results for investment return, endowment | Stanford News

Bill Walton loves to call the Pac12 the conference of champions...he just excludes the fact they are champions of sports that Americans don't care about.

Pete Carrol is gone and ain't walking through that door again. It's a shell game the PAC is playing and they are almost as good as the Ivy League!

 

[SalVolinus]

I tend to agree but think there need to be 4-5 tiers, just because what defines the ceiling of a program is a little more complex than "what have you done".
Geography
Recruiting ability
Fanbase size
Market size
Conference

For instance you listed Kansas St. and Arkansas in the same tier, and I agree they're similar in expectations. But no one is putting the Kstate program or job status in the same realm of Arkansas imo. For the reasons I listed above.

 

[05_never_again]

I tend to agree but think there need to be 4-5 tiers, just because what defines the ceiling of a program is a little more complex than "what have you done".
Geography
Recruiting ability
Fanbase size
Market size
Conference

For instance you listed Kansas St. and Arkansas in the same tier, and I agree they're similar in expectations. But no one is putting the Kstate program or job status in the same realm of Arkansas imo. For the reasons I listed above.

Agreed - I set up these tiers based more around what the expectations of the job are more than the prestige or status of the program.

 

[05_never_again]

With an endowment of $27.7 billion Stanford doesn't care if their athletic teams win or lose. They have found the way to milk the federal government of money:

Stanford releases annual financial results for investment return, endowment | Stanford News

Bill Walton loves to call the Pac12 the conference of champions...he just excludes the fact they are champions of sports that Americans don't care about.

Pete Carrol is gone and ain't walking through that door again. It's a shell game the PAC is playing and they are almost as good as the Ivy League!

Not only that, but it also isn't part of the culture of the school/alumni base to care a lot about sports. Very similar to Vandy and Georgia Tech. I think those schools see athletics as an investment that is risky and might not be worth it, and if they throw a lot of money towards it and it doesn't work (or even if it does work) they will take a lot of heat from the academic community at the school.

Not sure what you mean about Stanford's endowment coming form milking the federal government though - their endowment comes from donations to the school.

 

[SalVolinus]

Agreed - I set up these tiers based more around what the expectations of the job are more than the prestige or status of the program.

Nice, my bad if I misinterpreted.

 

[05_never_again]

Nice, my bad if I misinterpreted.

To your point though, because it was a good one, the tiers could definitely be split up in a more granular way and jobs with different levels of prestige can be in the same tier. For example I think Oregon and Alabama are both Tier 1 but Alabama is obviously the more prestigious job.

Tier 1 could be split up into at least 2 tiers. You'd put Alabama in Tier 1A, let's call it, and Oregon in Tier 1B. Both have expectations of winning hardware, but at Alabama they will at least start talking about running a coach off if he goes just a couple years without winning anything. At Oregon they'll give a coach more leeway, especially if he's had past success either there or somewhere else.

You could probably split up Tier 2 along the same lines - neither Arkansas or Kansas St, for example, have championship expectations but Kansas St might allow a coach to get embarrassed a little more often than Arkansas would.

 

[dobre_shunka]

Not only that, but it also isn't part of the culture of the school/alumni base to care a lot about sports. Very similar to Vandy and Georgia Tech. I think those schools see athletics as an investment that is risky and might not be worth it, and if they throw a lot of money towards it and it doesn't work (or even if it does work) they will take a lot of heat from the academic community at the school.

Not sure what you mean about Stanford's endowment coming form milking the federal government though - their endowment comes from donations to the school.

I think you're giving Vandy too much credit there. I think their issues athletically are more incompetence and apathy.

 

[TNfan#2]

Not only that, but it also isn't part of the culture of the school/alumni base to care a lot about sports. Very similar to Vandy and Georgia Tech. I think those schools see athletics as an investment that is risky and might not be worth it, and if they throw a lot of money towards it and it doesn't work (or even if it does work) they will take a lot of heat from the academic community at the school.

Not sure what you mean about Stanford's endowment coming form milking the federal government though - their endowment comes from donations to the school.

Even that doesn't break down right.

Vandy has had a few good seasons, but they've never won more then 9 games, never played in major bowls, and their football program has no claims to conference or national championships.

Georgia Tech, OTOH, has claim to numerous division, conference, and national titles, has gone undefeated before, and has won or played in numerous major bowl games, most recently the Orange Bowl in 2014.

 

[05_never_again]

Even that doesn't break down right.

Vandy has had a few good seasons, but they've never won more then 9 games, never played in major bowls, and their football program has no claims to conference or national championships.

Georgia Tech, OTOH, has claim to numerous division, conference, and national titles, has gone undefeated before, and has won or played in numerous major bowl games, most recently the Orange Bowl in 2014.

Georgia Tech is Vanderbilt but located in the single best area for college football recruiting in the entire country, thus they have been better historically. If by "numerous" titles you mean 2, and both of those being split national titles, then yes they've won numerous titles. That's also the same number of outright conference titles they've won since the 50s.

They aren't all that different - Tech hasn't had a run of consistent success at the highest level since Bobby Dodd was there in the 1950s. The biggest thing Vandy and Tech have in common is that they aren't even really trying to be good. Think about it - as I said earlier Tech is located right in the middle of the single-best metro area for college football recruiting, but they had a coach that ran the triple option for a decade. They make intentional decisions as an institution to not dedicate too many resources to athletics.

 

[05_never_again]

I think you're giving Vandy too much credit there. I think their issues athletically are more incompetence and apathy.

Incompetence perhaps, not sure about apathy. I don't think any college administrator could be described as apathetic about finding ways to bring in more revenue to the school and raise its profile.

One obvious way to do that is to have good athletics programs, but the only ones that truly move the needle are football and basketball. So it basically comes down to having either a good football or basketball team. You've got to spend money to make money of course, and at a place like Vanderbilt which also has a strong academic reputation to uphold, I think they probably just get nervous about dedicating a bunch of money that could have otherwise gone to academics to athletic endeavors that might or might not pan out.

I still don't think there's any great reason why Vanderbilt couldn't have a good basketball program. The financial rewards are less than if the football team is great, but it doesn't take anywhere near the level of investment that football does either.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Incompetence perhaps, not sure about apathy. I don't think any college administrator could be described as apathetic about finding ways to bring in more revenue to the school and raise its profile.

One obvious way to do that is to have good athletics programs, but the only ones that truly move the needle are football and basketball. So it basically comes down to having either a good football or basketball team. You've got to spend money to make money of course, and at a place like Vanderbilt which also has a strong academic reputation to uphold, I think they probably just get nervous about dedicating a bunch of money that could have otherwise gone to academics to athletic endeavors that might or might not pan out.

I still don't think there's any great reason why Vanderbilt couldn't have a good basketball program. The financial rewards are less than if the football team is great, but it doesn't take anywhere near the level of investment that football does either.

I really don’t know much about Stackhouse as a coach, but you would think he could pull some talent there by his name alone. Vandy should be more competitive than what they are. Even with that weird ass gym they play in.

 

[atilla]

The tier 1 programs, period, are Alabama, Clemson, and OSU.

 

[tpsdave]

Had another offseason (and no sports period) thread idea. There has been a lot of discussion over the years about "tiers" of programs and college football head coaching jobs. I think you can get really granular with this, but I'm looking for something more simple. I think you can put every FBS-level program into 3 tiers:

Tier 1: Programs that expect to play for and win championships (conference and national). Some programs will give coaches very little time to do this and others will give more time (and you could probably split this tier into multiple tiers on that basis), but combining them into one here. Simply put, if a coach does not win championships within some period of time, they will be fired. Schools in this tier read like a who's who of college football - Alabama, Ohio St, Oklahoma, and USC, although more recent powers like Clemson and Oregon belong here as well. Dormant powers like Tennessee, Nebraska, and Michigan are here too.

Tier 2: Programs that expect you to win the games you're "supposed to" and are OK with losing the games you're "supposed to." Achievement beyond this expectation is of course welcomed and greatly enhances your job security, but isn't required. Coaches have good job security at these schools as long as they don't rack up too many embarrassing upset losses. Schools in this tier include Iowa, South Carolina, Arkansas, Michigan St, and Kansas St.

Tier 3: Programs where it is OK to be non-competitive for extended periods of time. However, having said that, a coach does need to give the fans/admin something to be happy about from time to time, whether it be making a bowl game or a big upset win. These don't have to happen consistently, but if you go an extended period of time without one your job is at risk. Schools in this tier include Vanderbilt and Duke.

Some schools that came to my mind that don't fit nice and neat into a tier include Wisconsin (could argue 1 or 2), Miami (could argue 1 or 2), the Mississippi schools (could argue 2 or 3), Kentucky (could argue 2 or 3). I'm sure there are others.

I don't think Oregon is a tier 1 job. Say for example, an Oregon head coach has a chance to become head coach at Alabama, Ohio State, or Clemson; he'd be gone is a heart beat.

 

[chattaboogie]

The tier 1 programs, period, are Alabama, Clemson, and OSU.

Just right this moment they are the top three but not alone in tier one status.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Just right this moment they are the top three but not alone in tier one status.

The more I think about it, I think LSU has to be a Tier 1 program. They’ve won 3 titles with 3 different head coaches in the last 17 years. They also had one of the greatest all time teams that never won National title in 2011.

 

[05_never_again]

I don't think Oregon is a tier 1 job. Say for example, an Oregon head coach has a chance to become head coach at Alabama, Ohio State, or Clemson; he'd be gone is a heart beat.

I think they'd eventually run a coach off if they didn't eventually win titles, but they'd definitely give said coach more slack than Alabama or Ohio St would. At this stage in their program, I don't think they're satisfied with a coach who only wins the games they're supposed to, especially given the current strength of the Pac-12.

Cristobal currently has a ton of job security given that he won a Pac-12 title and Rose Bowl in just his second season. He's still really safe even if he doesn't have a season like that again for several years.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I think they'd eventually run a coach off if they didn't eventually win titles, but they'd definitely give said coach more slack than Alabama or Ohio St would. At this stage in their program, I don't think they're satisfied with a coach who only wins the games they're supposed to, especially given the current strength of the Pac-12.

Cristobal currently has a ton of job security given that he won a Pac-12 title and Rose Bowl in just his second season. He's still really safe even if he doesn't have a season like that again for several years.

I think his M.O. is trying to turn Oregon into an SEC style PAC-12 team from a physicality standpoint. If they can establish that sort of culture where they are more physical and build his team from the inside out then I think they will be a regular CFP contender. The PAC-12 is so bad and USC was recruiting so poorly it should be theirs for the taking the next few years. I’m a bit surprised how high they are rated in some of these preseason rankings though with losing Herbert.