re: Where does LSU rank as a coaching destination?

LSU is top 3 at worst.


1. LSU is in the toughest division in college football

2. Has a state to themselves for recruiting - that knocks off Bama, Michigan, USC, Florida, FSU, Georgia, and Texas

3. That state is 5th in talent after the big 3 and Georgia, and actually has the most talent per capita. Ohio State can't compete with that. Also, if Cincinnati gets invited to the Big 12, they'll have even more competition for those recruits. Bama not only has Auburn to pluck recruits, but their talent in Alabama doesn't compete with Louisiana. You'll see that when Saban leaves.

3. Doesn't have any of the academic requirements like Michigan and ND

4. Top 10 in revenue generating

5. Will pay paid top dollar. Literally the highest or 2nd highest paid coaching staff in college foofball over the past several seasons.

6. Right in the hotbed of southern recruiting.

7. 100k stadium, rabid fanbase, prime facilities that will continue to be upgraded.

LSU has all the things these other schools have, plus our recruiting situation is unique in that it's the only one like it in the FBS.

LSU is top 5.

Honestly, if I were a coach, LSU and UGA would be on the top of my list. SEC schools who have two of the most talent rich states in the country to themselves. LSU also has southern MS right there to pull from.

The fan base at LSU being so volatile is probably the only negative, I would give UGA the edge for that reason.

you are correct, they are always considered 2nd in the sec due to the old days.

they do look better this year but I'm still suspect of their long term prospects to keep up with the rest of the big 6 teams.

they are the only one located in a state devoid of instate talent.

I think UGA is really a top flight job if they are willing to devote everything to it. I see them much like LSU was before Saban reignited the fire. They clearly have money, though they haven't been as willing to spend like we have, they have resources but their facilities lag behind the rest of us. They can correct the resource and facilities issue pretty easy though. They have a great recruiting area and the instate competition is just barely above what LSU deals with.

we also have houston in our recruiting radius, and we have done extremely well poaching talent from the Miami area while the U has been down.

UGA is almost a mirror image of LSU with just slightly less success on the national scene despite their head to head record vs us.

they seem to catch us at good times to beat us

as far as fanbase i don't think that matters to an elite coach, if it did then no way any coach wants any part of Alabama or texas.

You may be right.

But the key difference is that Alabama does not have their state all to themselves, and that state does not produce as much D1 talent as does LSU. I would agree that they might be in the top tier, but I still think objectively, LSU is a better job.

You're beating your chest to me about a game your team won in 2008. Think about that.

they do have to share with auburn and the talent in Alabama isn't as much as LA but they still have a great recruiting radius. I don't think it is as good as ours, so if we take out current state of the program than we probably have the recruiting edge.

however, Bama over takes us slightly on facilities. we do have nice new weight room but Bama has elite facilities as well and probably just edges us on that since our practice field is old.

so slight recruiting advantage to us based on instate which helps make a team easy to turn around. Resources and facilities go to bama. Money i would say is even for all intents and purposes. We know they will pay whatever it takes, and LSU has shown it will as well considering clauses in contracts to make people the highest paid coach and LSU really started all of this crazy coaching salaries with saban and then miles.

I have been making a case that history doesn't really factor in as much, but when you are trying to split hairs in the elite it might come into play. They can use their history to lure recruits because its actually relevant. the fact they win a title every decade is pretty insane.

The bad part is we also go after the same type of coach. I think LSU/Bama is very similar to TOSU/Michigan. Its tough to split the hairs on the programs.

its why tiers work better on this vs just straight trying to rank 1-10.

quote:

---

. That state is 5th in talent after the big 3 and Georgia, and actually has the most talent per capita. Ohio State can't compete with that.

---

Ohio has 694 schools with 43000 playing football 152 recruits per year. Ohio ranks 5th behind 1) Texas 2) Florida 3)California 4)Georgia. Alabama ranks 6th with Louisiana at 7th.

This is a great discussion. I hope I haven't pissed anyone off as we are all going to look at this discussion with glasses that are at least slightly tinted by our school colors.

Plus, as you and the previous poster just did I like to look at facts in a discussion like this rather than blind fan passion.

ND has to recruit nationally and they are losing it. It is part of why they aren't a threat anymore in college football.

The others on the list have plenty of instate talent or talent within a good radius that they can pull. ND relies on national recruiting far too much.

LSU's unique competitive advantage has to be we get LA all to ourselves. we can go national but we don't have a real need. Its nice being able to get your bread and butter instate and then leak out into your radius to get others and then cherry pick a kid nationally. it is a much more sustainable model under any coach.

TOSU/Michigan have the competitive advantage of being a cradle of coaches. Therefore they have lots of ties.

Bama has history being that they win so many damn national titles so they can always present that to recruits.

USC has hollywood as its main selling point and heisman winners. they can make you a star so thats a cool recruiting advantage while also being the big boy in cali.

Texas has instate talent plus I would say the biggest bank in football.