re: Better Job Texas or LSU

quote:

---

The academic reputation is on a different planet.

---

Totally irrelavent. The coach doesn't care about this.

quote:

---

The school is located in a state without state income tax.

---

This is huge. 5% on 6 million bucks is $300,000. This is countered by the property tax he'll have to pay; probably $75k. So LSU has to pay $240,000 more to be equal.

You're spot on about everything else. But while the recruiting grounds are just as good as LSU's, there's way more competition. So LSU is probably a little easier to recruit to.

Maybe if you could spell irrelevant you'd understand why academic reputation is more important to players and families

This is a subjective topic over objective. Folks who are saying LSU in this thread are pointing pure FOOTBALL reasons. LSU is in better conference. The whole philosophy if you want to be the best you must play vs. the best. UTa plays in a weaker conference so there is the easier path of resistance argument. However, SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to one losses vs anyone else when it comes to playoffs and bowl selections due to strength of conference. And since the start of the decade LSU has been the stronger program. Between 2000-2009 it is almost a push with LSU with an edge in NCS won, 2 to 1. Pre 2000 Texas had a better track record and history.

Recruiting numbers wise it is all Texas, perhaps the state with arguably the best talent in PURE NUMBERS. Louisiana is top 2 in per capita or number 1 in any given year. LSU's recruiting base is just smaller in number than Texas. But LSU can always dip into Houston/E. Texas when it needs to. Recruiting advantages on both sides with a slight edge to Texas BASED ON PURE QUANTITY more so than quality of athletes.

The NON FOOTBALL reasons favor Texas and those calling that out are mostly correct. Let's face it Texas is a great school and along with Michigan and California-Berkeley arguably in top 3 among all state schools. The overall economy is much better in Texas. Texas as a state has one of the best economies in this nation and has so for years (even with downturn in energy business due to it's economic diversification). Austin is a great city. Baton Rouge has it's moments and there are good areas of all cities. But BR has more bad areas than Austin. Nonetheless, coaches and their families are insulated from those sections. Austin is a great place to family. BR is about where you live but is not in the same league as far as raising a family in a MIDDLE CLASS ENVIRONMENT. Football coaches make six to seven figures and are above middle class. With that type of money most anywhere can be a good place to raise a family. So this argument cuts both ways. Weather favors Austin due to threat of hurricanes and flooding in S. La.

Both administrations of each school have issues. UTa is run by liberal schmucks who are at war with boosters who care about winning. They are confused and divisive over how to build back their program and are an unstable program. LSU had stability under Miles and Saban. There are many who think Alleva and F. Scott are incompetent brain dead a holes. I am not necessarily in that camp. I think LSU can do better. But I don't think either AD or President are complete idiots. UTa's aren't either. Both institutions have made mistakes with running their respected programs. Texas politics can be every much as dysfunctional and borderline criminal as Louisiana's. Overall on administrative competency and nasty politics it is essentially a wash between the two.

So, there are pros and cons both ways. If a prospective coach is looking at pure football reasons to go to either school IMHO the choice should be LSU. If other things are considered it is not as clear cut. Either school could be grand choice if the coach is a good fit and can learn to adapt to their surroundings.

Texas...not even close.