prefontaine said:
If you are talking "best" jobs you may need to define that. Because the best job is fairly arbitrary. For instance if all 3 of those jobs were to open tomorrow with all equal pay I'd probably rank them in inverse order that Cowherd does. And I'd say that only UGA is currently a top 10 job. Today.
There are many inherent advantages to all 3. But I wouldn't want to take the Texas job at all and I'd be hesitant to consider USC. But that's because I'm a rational thinker and consider the odds of success. Almost no coach does. They mostly are so arrogant that they assume they will succeed no matter what and look at jobs in a vacuum. It's why a guy like Rich Rodriguez took the Michigan job. Or Howard Schnellenberger took OU. Or why Dan Hawkins took the CU job. Or why Brett Beliema took the Arkansas job.
Those are all good jobs. But the difference between Watson Brown and Mack Brown is little more than which jobs they chose. One brother is going to the hall of fame and one is a laughing stock. Almost every elite coach out there took the right job at the right time in his career path and never once walked into a situation set up for failure. I think Cowherd's top two jobs are set up for failure right now.
Why would the odds of success be greater at Georgia than at Texas or Southern Cal? It's the bolded portion that is the reason I think most people see those two jobs as arguably the two best (and some consider the Texas job #1 in all sports).
Texas and Southern Cal sit in hotbeds of homegrown recruiting talent. Southern Cal has probably the most talent within a 40 mile radius of its camps than any school in the country. And, they both are more than willing to pay whatever it takes to win, which includes facilities and coaching staffs. Their schools value the football program and are willing to invest tons of resources into it.
I hate Southern Cal, but along with Texas, (and sanctions) the only reason for those two schools not to be ranked in the Top 5 or 10 and in contention for the MNC every year is piss poor staff decisions (which encompasses, coaching, development and talent evaluation, along with recruiting).
Answering this is incredibly long and boring. Perception is often more important than reality in such cases. In today's college football environment, coaches are not given 4-5 years to have success. That means they need to have a roster and schedule primed for success now. Neither UT nor USC (I'm honestly not well enough versed in the situation to say but it's my hunch) really does. A coach that goes 6-6 their first year at either place is going to immediately be on the hotseat.
The accelerated recruiting landscape in Texas especially (due in large part to Mack Brown) means fixing issues can take years. I don't know USC's roster well so I'd have to study it but Texas does not have a single QB worth a damn on campus. They have a nice high school prospect committed right now but if he's not ready, not the guy, gets hurt, doesn't turn out for any reason, it's a catastrophe. The talent outside of QB they do have on campus is massively overrated for a variety of reasons (mostly due to lack of development) and frankly their '13 and '14 classes are probably the two worst of the Mack Brown era. No matter how well you recruit after, those are the guys that are going to have to win games for the next coach.
To top it off, they have a serious culture problem. Players aren't working hard and players can have more influence on each other than coaches can. They have no real marquee games to "game change" their trajectory outside of OU. But they have several in-state teams that are considered nobodies but who have excellent coaches (TCU, Baylor, Tech). The UT fanbase does not accept losing to any of those teams but they also give no credit for a win. And no matter how good of a coach you are, you are probably losing some to those the first few years which is going to kill all new hire goodwill.
There's just a lot of work to be done on the 40 Acres. It's not a vacuum. Sure if you can fix it, you have one of the best jobs in America. But I think there are a number of obstacles that could stand in your way and it's going to take more time than you are likely going to get. While the AD may realize all those obstacles, the average fan doesn't. The average fan starts calling for your head and the perception of your program suffers which hurts recruiting which cycles. Everything you say or do is amplified. It's tough to break out of that. IMO, the next guy is far more likely to be fired in 3 years than have success. I'd want to take the job after him (see Hoke, Brady)
I guess it all depends on how you define success.
If Kiffin gets fired, Southern Cal will be coming off the last four seasons in which they went 9-4, 8-5, [a fluky] 10-2, 7-6, and this season, which may hover around .500. In three out of the last four seasons, they will be looking at at least 5 losses in those seasons and at least 4 in five of six.
They have tons of 4-star and 5-star talent in the skill positions and their starters are all high end talents. But, as all know, they lack any depth whatsoever at any position other than QB and RB.
Whoever they hire is going to get a significant honeymoon bump in recruiting and will probably close incredibly well this year and do well next year. A monkey could recruit well there. This is the final year of the recruiting sanctions. The next coach will, after this season, have a full slate of scholarships to offer moving forward and they'll be taking the full 25.
So, at Southern Cal, in the first two to three seasons or so, I can't see the administration or fanbase being terribly upset with 4-5 losses in each season the first couple years assuming they look well-coached and are entertaining. A successful season for the first few seasons would be 4 losses or less with at least a split versus UCLA and Notre Dame.
As for Texas, they seem to be pretty smart fans. I'm not sure how talent could be overrated if its not being developed by the coaching staff. This is an issue I'm intimately familiar with as UCLA, prior to Mora's arrival, was labeled as either lacking talent everywhere or having overrated talent. Suddenly, these guys look really talented when they are getting coaching and development.
In terms of winning, the last three seasons have seen records of 5-7, 8-5, and 9-4. This season doesn't look like it will result in anything less than 4 losses, considering they have been blownout in their last two games.
So, a new coach will be coming in with a highly ranked (if somewhat overrated) talent. Their 2012 class was ranked #1. They are the #2 best recruited team in the country. With a roster of 85, not ALL of them can be busts. I could be wrong, but I don't think it will take more than a couple years to turn Texas around.
And, based on the above records, (four straight seasons of at least 4 losses and probably coming off a horrific 2013), it would really show Texas fans to be pretty irrational if they don't think, in the first couple seasons, at least, records with 4 or less losses, are "a success." After that, then yeah, Texas had better have it turned around in recruiting and winning.
And, like Southern Cal, once they are turned around, they'll be rolling right along.
