What's the toughest HC job in I-A Football?

[MylesKnight]

Maybe not necessarily a specific school, but maybe a "type" of job instead.


- The Temple/Buffalo/EMU/FAU/FIU etc. type? (Building from near absolute scratch, and trying to get this program to a respectable level, i.e., a current day TCU, down the road.)

- The Texas/Ohio State/Miami (Fla)/Florida State/Nebraska etc. type? (Keeping a program at the top, or getting it back to that area as is the case with a few of these now. And the alumni/boosters expect results NOW.)

- The Clemson/Arkansas/Michigan State/Texas A&M etc. type? (A place where 9-10 wins in a season really is fantastic, but with somewhat unrealistic expectations of fans based on championship success long ago, making things awfully tough for a coach to stick around long.)

- The Duke/Vandy/Stanford/Army/Navy/etc. type? (Schools that aren't even able to attempt to compete for a lot of top HS athletes on the recruiting trail due to these schools higher academic standards. A handicap that never can be removed, so to speak.)

- Another "type" that has not been mentioned?


Thoughts? Reasons?

[bosshogg23]

I think the Temple HC job is the toughest. A school that has no tradition and little desire to have a quality program. Add into it that no one in Philadelphia cares about college football(except people who werent born in the area, like myself).

Doesn't help that they were KICKED out of a conference and joined 1 that has no teams close to them.

[ice4277]

I think you could make a legitimate argument for any of these scenarios. A situation like that faced by Temple is very tough from a purely football standpoint, but I don't think that the pressure is as strong from the administration or fan base.

If I had to pick one, I guess it would be the mid-tier program with unrealistic expectations. A coach in this situation is always on the hot seat, and the only thing a solid 10-win season would bring is more clamor for the same thing the next year.

[Raiders Army]

Army/Navy/Air Force for sure. In addition to the academic standards, all players must conform to height/weight standards which precludes your 6'6" 300+ lb linemen. Also, players can't go early to the NFL (they incur a five year active duty service commitment which also applies after graduation).

[MacroGuru]

I think some of the religious schools and their programs would be tough as well....but not the toughest...

I think it's the ground floor jobs.

[st.cronin]

Temple, because if you fail, you don't get another D1 job. If Mack Brown ever got fired he'd get another job.

[Young Drachma]

Try getting a recruit to come to Wyoming....

[Logan]

As someone who follows Temple because of its former ties to the Big East, and how it is technically (and embarassingly) still considered Rutgers' rival, I'll stick up for them and detail why it isn't such a hard job (comparitively speaking of course).

1. They play at a beautiful new stadium, with great facilities. Major selling point.
2. There is a ton of talent nearby in PA/MD/South Jersey that Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, etc will overlook. Usually these are the guys who don't "project" to the college level, mostly due to their size or lack of competition. But if they get the opportunity that comes with the increased playing time, there's a good chance that a few of them will prove the bigger schools wrong. I can only speak for Rutgers, and I know Schiano has done a very nice job of finding these players, and figuring out the right role for them. Temple should be able to do the same.
3. Their new HC, Al Golden, is basically copying Schiano's blueprint of how to build a program from the ground up. He's a high-energy guy who is perfect for that kind of project. I think he will get the program in good enough shape where within 5 years (if no other changes to the league structure are made), Temple will be invited back to the Big East, mainly due to:
4. The Philadelphia market.

So after all that, I'll say that the service academies have the hardest job.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Army/Navy/Air Force for sure. In addition to the academic standards, all players must conform to height/weight standards which precludes your 6'6" 300+ lb linemen. Also, players can't go early to the NFL (they incur a five year active duty service commitment which also applies after graduation).

Is this still the case? Looking at Navy/Army's current rosters they have each have at least 3 guys over 300lbs, quite a few guys 280+ and numerous guys 6'5 and over.

If that is true and I'm missing something, then they definitely get my vote.

[sterlingice]

I think the toughest job to walk into is one of those non-academic schools who always stinks and is in a major conference. Almost impossible to get players to your school, I would think.

SI

[Grammaticus]

Vandy,

You have to meet the academic standards, its a private school and you are competing in the SEC. You have no chance in most peoples eyes. You cannot get the good recruits no matter how hard you try.

[Kodos]

Indiana University. Just look at how many people choose them in TCY.

[timmynausea]

I think the best coaches can be successful anywhere but the true bottom feeders like Temple. I look at Saban's time at Michigan State, Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech, Rich Rodriguez at WVU and Kirk Ferentz at Iowa as some examples of excellent coaches that have found success at places where most would fail. (Really Saban put LSU's program back among the top tier as well.) I'm not sure any of those guys could have built a successful program at Temple.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Indiana University. Just look at how many people choose them in TCY.

I think big hoops schools in big time conferences like Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas are really tough. Not as much support from the administration but still crazy level competition.

SI

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I think the best coaches can be successful anywhere but the true bottom feeders like Temple. I look at Saban's time at Michigan State, Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech, Rich Rodriguez at WVU and Kirk Ferentz at Iowa as some examples of excellent coaches that have found success at places where most would fail. (Really Saban put LSU's program back among the top tier as well.) I'm not sure any of those guys could have built a successful program at Temple.

VT was a bottom feeder for 90 years until Beamer got there. It's never been easy to win in Blacksburg and that's why I think the toughest job in I-A will go to whoever follows Frank as head coach at VT. It will be an impossible task for someone to live up to what he's done.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by VPI97

VT was a bottom feeder for 90 years until Beamer got there. It's never been easy to win in Blacksburg and that's why I think the toughest job in I-A will go to whoever follows Frank as head coach at VT. It will be an impossible task for someone to live up to what he's done.

See: State, Kansas

SI

[duckman]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Is this still the case? Looking at Navy/Army's current rosters they have each have at least 3 guys over 300lbs, quite a few guys 280+ and numerous guys 6'5 and over.

If that is true and I'm missing something, then they definitely get my vote.

After the season is over, they have to get down to an acceptable weight and put the weight back on just before the season starts again. 6'6" is the tallest (unless it has changed recently) a person can be because they don't make unifroms that fit people over that height.

[Ksyrup]

I have to go with FSU, just because Bobby's making it look so damn difficult...

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by VPI97

VT was a bottom feeder for 90 years until Beamer got there. It's never been easy to win in Blacksburg and that's why I think the toughest job in I-A will go to whoever follows Frank as head coach at VT. It will be an impossible task for someone to live up to what he's done.

WTF? I think you need to go back and look at our school's football history before you call them 90-year bottom-feeders. I'm not saying they're Notre Dame or anything, but there were some stretches where VPI had a solid program.

And you call yourself a Hokie....

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

WTF?

Hyperbole

[Ben E Lou]

Clemson. They bought a national title in '81, and 25 years later, their fanbase still thinks they ought to be a Top 10 team year-in and year-out. Yeah, there's good in-state talent, but neither Athens, Columbia, nor Atlanta is far away, so even the Dist* kind of players have viable nearby options, two in a better conference, and the other in a city that is TONS more attractive to the average 18-year-old kid.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Clemson. They bought a national title in '81, and 25 years later, their fanbase still thinks they ought to be a Top 10 team year-in and year-out. Yeah, there's good in-state talent, but neither Athens, Columbia, nor Atlanta is far away, so even the Dist* kind of players have viable nearby options, two in a better conference, and the other in a city that is TONS more attractive to the average 18-year-old kid.

That's the key, I think. Fans expecting a team to be a national title contender based on a previous championship, when the team is really just a solid "make it to a bowl most years" kind of program.

I see the same thing out this way with NC State in Basketball. They won it all in spectacular fashion in '83, and their fans have been expecting the same thing ever since, and NC State is just not quite up to that level.

Making matter worse, of course, is that you have two of the top three basketball programs in the country within a short drive of NC State's campus.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That's the key, I think. Fans expecting a team to be a national title contender based on a previous championship, when the team is really just a solid "make it to a bowl most years" kind of program.

I see the same thing out this way with NC State in Basketball. They won it all in spectacular fashion in '83, and their fans have been expecting the same thing ever since, and NC State is just not quite up to that level.

Making matter worse, of course, is that you have two of the top three basketball programs in the country within a short drive of NC State's campus.

It's not just 1983. It's 1974. It's David Thompson who was Jordan before Jordan. It's Everett Case winning caseloads of ACC championships and the godfather of ACC basketball. At least, that would be the "tradition" argument that's presented. It's a raging debate whether that tradition really carries any weight anymore after we were so successful in destroying it during the 1990s because of all the self-imposed penalties from the end of Valvano's tenure. Just about all of us agree that we have tradition. The disagreement lies in how much of it is real (a lot) and how much is embellished (some) and, more importantly, whether it is possible to live up to that "tradition" in the modern age where Duke's rise to power coincided with ESPN's rise to prominence in the sports world, thus sucking all the oxygen out of the room for any other rivalry in the ACC (or even the country) other than Duke and Carolina. In short, can there be room for three (or even four, if you throw in Wake) major programs in such proximity to one another in the current athletic and media climate?

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by bosshogg23

Add into it that no one in Philadelphia cares about college football(except people who werent born in the area, like myself).

As a total threadjack, just found this interesting. All my Philly friends are big football fans in a general sense (and massive Eagles fans) but on Saturdays they just sort of play this support role for the rest of us, with no real vested interest in what's going on. Always found it strange, fascinating to see it's not unique to them.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Just to add to the Wolfpack basketball comments, enjoy Monte Towe as your new associate head coach. I'm really sorry that he left UNO because he made something out of nothing down there.

[Bee]

I would think the toughest jobs would be at schools with high academic standards that also have rich winning traditions. I can think of 3 or 4 schools that in my mind fit into this category.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by duckman

After the season is over, they have to get down to an acceptable weight and put the weight back on just before the season starts again. 6'6" is the tallest (unless it has changed recently) a person can be because they don't make unifroms that fit people over that height.

Oh, really? Then how did Navy manage to find a uniform that fit 7'0" David Robinson.

I'll let you figure out what the regulations really are.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

Oh, really? Then how did Navy manage to find a uniform that fit 7'0" David Robinson.

I'll let you figure out what the regulations really are.

He grew quite a bit after he enlisted IIRC.

[QuikSand]

While several idea already are good cases, I also wonder if it might be expecially tough to take the reins at any school where the status level of the "program" is far greater than that of the current "team." Alabama is one of the top ten most storied programs in college football, but right now they are probably just another SEC team for purposes of recruiting and so forth. Coaching there has to have a lot of downside with alumni and supporter expectations. I'm sure there are other parallel cases.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by stevew

He grew quite a bit after he enlisted IIRC.

Yes, but they oft-quoted entry height was 6'7".

[duckman]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

Oh, really? Then how did Navy manage to find a uniform that fit 7'0" David Robinson.

I'll let you figure out what the regulations really are.

As someone mentioned earlier, he wasn't 7 foot tall when he entered. I know for a fact that the USAF's standard is 6'6" because BDU's are not made to fit someone taller.

[Klinglerware]

I would agree that it is difficult to recruit for the service academies. But, they are helped out a little by the lack of scholarship limits. They can sign huge classes, hide most of them in prep school for the first year, and see who sticks. Again, it's tough to establish a winning program at a service academy (academic, height/weight restrictions, attractiveness to recruits, etc), but they are not without a couple of competitive advantages.

[st.cronin]

I'm pretty sure that the service academies did away with height/weight restrictions, or at least allowed a waiver of some kind for athletic recruits.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Yes, but they oft-quoted entry height was 6'7".

Which is 6'5" or 6'6" at the most in "real people height."

[Butter]

Duke / Vandy / Stanford

They've rarely been any good, they don't have much hope of being any good, and their hopes of attracting the top flight athlete are greatly diminished by their academic standards.

I think Vanderbilt is probably the hardest of the 3, followed by Duke and then Stanford, where it has been proven that winning is possible.

[Vegas Vic]

Alabama.

[Daimyo]

Northwestern fares pretty well given the same academic standards and toughness of conference (at least over the last 10 years).

[Daimyo]

Hardest school to win at and hardest to coach at are pretty different I think.

I think the hardest school to win at is Indiana. They play in an extremely tough conference, have no tradition to fall back on, and have a horrible recruiting base produced by the combination of weak instate high school football and Notre Dame and Purdue (as well Ohio St and Michigan next door). On top of it all its a basketball school in a rabid basketball state so no one really cares about the program.

Hardest to coach at would probably be one of the tier 1 schools where you're expected to win the championship every year.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Northwestern fares pretty well given the same academic standards and toughness of conference (at least over the last 10 years).

Northwestern is in Chicago, and Stanford is in California, 2 very fertile high school recruiting areas. Duke and Vanderbilt have no such luck.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Clemson. They bought a national title in '81, and 25 years later, their fanbase still thinks they ought to be a Top 10 team year-in and year-out. Yeah, there's good in-state talent, but neither Athens, Columbia, nor Atlanta is far away, so even the Dist* kind of players have viable nearby options, two in a better conference, and the other in a city that is TONS more attractive to the average 18-year-old kid.

Huh, Clemson has been to something like 5 bowls each decade since 1981? They have a fairly successful winning program.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

It's not just 1983. It's 1974. It's David Thompson who was Jordan before Jordan. It's Everett Case winning caseloads of ACC championships and the godfather of ACC basketball. At least, that would be the "tradition" argument that's presented. It's a raging debate whether that tradition really carries any weight anymore after we were so successful in destroying it during the 1990s because of all the self-imposed penalties from the end of Valvano's tenure. Just about all of us agree that we have tradition. The disagreement lies in how much of it is real (a lot) and how much is embellished (some) and, more importantly, whether it is possible to live up to that "tradition" in the modern age where Duke's rise to power coincided with ESPN's rise to prominence in the sports world, thus sucking all the oxygen out of the room for any other rivalry in the ACC (or even the country) other than Duke and Carolina. In short, can there be room for three (or even four, if you throw in Wake) major programs in such proximity to one another in the current athletic and media climate?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a UNC fan, but I came to the rivalry late. I, of course, hate Duke, but I would hate Duke whether I liked UNC or not. They are just hateable. I have no such feelings about NC St. though. Not having grown up with this, I don't have the hatred of all things not Tarheel in my blood.

And I'll grant you that NC St.'s basketball tradition goes beyond '83. Currently, though, it is tough in both football and men's basketball for State, IMO. In both instances, there seems to be an expectation of being one of the top teams in the conference, and they seem to be just below that level most seasons.

It is easier for Duke and UNC to just not give a shit about football. And for Miami, Fla. St., etc. to not give a shit about basketball.

State does not seem to have that luxury.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a UNC fan, but I came to the rivalry late. I, of course, hate Duke, but I would hate Duke whether I liked UNC or not. They are just hateable. I have no such feelings about NC St. though. Not having grown up with this, I don't have the hatred of all things not Tarheel in my blood.

And I'll grant you that NC St.'s basketball tradition goes beyond '83. Currently, though, it is tough in both football and men's basketball for State, IMO. In both instances, there seems to be an expectation of being one of the top teams in the conference, and they seem to be just below that level most seasons.

It is easier for Duke and UNC to just not give a shit about football. And for Miami, Fla. St., etc. to not give a shit about basketball.

State does not seem to have that luxury.

I think your feelings about Duke and State reflect the rise of Duke and the fall of State at the same time. Trust me, if you were around in the 1970s and early 1980s, you'd have hated State. Other than a few good years under Vic Bubas in the 1960s and then some success under Bill Foster in the late 1970s, Duke was clearly the third wheel in Triangle hoops until Coach K finally got his machine going in the late 1980s.

As for the football/basketball thing, well, State fans still tend to treat basketball as a much more serious thing. Witness the bile towards Sendek over the past several years as State coach. When State crashed and burned in 2000 when they looked like a sure NCAA team at midseason and then followed it up with a <.500 season in 2001, the heat was immediate and intense and almost unrelenting on Sendek until he left after last year. Amato's been middling for a few years now, but only now is the heat really being applied. Still, I do think State fans care more about football than any other D-I school in the state save perhaps ECU, but even Pirate fans have been almost non-existent since Steve Logan left.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by stevew

He grew quite a bit after he enlisted IIRC.

Exactly so. I was making fun of Duckman's ludicrous statement that they don't make uniforms that fit men over 6'6".

[MylesKnight]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Huh, Clemson has been to something like 5 bowls each decade since 1981? They have a fairly successful winning program.

The thing with Clemson is the fan expectations make it a VERY tough gig. It seems as if Tiger Fans expect a Top 10 Program year in and year out, in what is an extremely competitive area of the country recruiting wise.

In my initial post, when I mentioned this (below), the Clemson Tigers were the first program that crossed my mind.

- The Clemson/Arkansas/Michigan State/Texas A&M etc. type? (A place where 9-10 wins in a season really is fantastic, but with somewhat unrealistic expectations of fans based on championship success long ago, making things awfully tough for a coach to stick around long.)

[ageofquarrel]

how did that linebacker from Air Force transfer to Ohio State if there is a five year commitment?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ageofquarrel

how did that linebacker from Air Force transfer to Ohio State if there is a five year commitment?

It's possible to leave the service academies, you just have to pay back the tuition.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's possible to leave the service academies, you just have to pay back the tuition.

During the first two years, you can leave without penalty. Once you begin your third year, you have to repay tuition. I learned this reading that book about the Army-Navy rivalry

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's possible to leave the service academies, you just have to pay back the tuition.

This is true. Back in the 70's (I think it was that decade) a cadet at West Point wanted out and they would not let him. He comitted suicide and as a result the armed forces instituted the payback option.