Worst College Football Coaching Job

[albionmoonlight]

We may have had this thread already. But I could not find it based on a quick search.

What do you think is the worst college football coaching job to get in the country?

"Worst" can, of course, mean a lot of things. In this case, I mean the job with the worst combination of unrealistic fan expectations, natural recruiting and/or scheduling disadvantages that make success harder than average, a historic lack of resources and/or support from the school, a history of chewing up and spitting out coaches, general quality of life issues in the area, and things along those lines.1

Basically, the school that if your brother was an up-and-coming coaching prospect and he got an offer from them, you might call him up and point out how he might want to consider other options.

1 For example, in another thread, one could pick a service academy or an Ivy and say that that is the "worst" job because of the admissions limits placed on recruiting. But that isn't what I mean. You would never win it all at a school like that, but a winning record over the long term and smattering of bowl games or conferenece titles would probably keep the fans happy enough.

[Young Drachma]

Sun Belt. Does anyone from that conference actually move up? I don't think so. Seems like jobs in that conference are "Well, at least you're in D-1A. Sorta."

[cuervo72]

My first thought was Temple but I don't think they have any fans, let alone unrealistic expectations.

[Atocep]

Notre Dame

[gstelmack]

Clemson? They seem to have unrealistic expectations.

I was just thinking the other day that South Carolina appears to have been a nice resting place for Steve Spurrier. He has them competitive, and that seems to be enough for folks (or at least there is no national outcry).

Any high-profile program sucks, because it only takes a season or two for fans to turn on you, and with limited scholarships it's much more difficult to hit a BCS Bowl every year.

[dawgfan]

On the high-profile side, I'd say schools like Clemson, Auburn and Arkansas are candidates.

On the lower profile "good luck with that" side, I'd say schools like Idaho, Temple, SMU, Eastern Michigan...

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

On the high-profile side, I'd say schools like Clemson, Auburn and Arkansas are candidates.

On the lower profile "good luck with that" side, I'd say schools like Idaho, Temple, SMU, Eastern Michigan...

Ding.

[RedKingGold]

Southern Methodist University in 1987 and/or 1988.

[lungs]

Not sure if this university exists, but theoretically, what about a college with high academic standards without the reputation of a Stanford and a poor football tradition?

[MJ4H]

Vanderbilt and Duke. Just what I was thinking.

Mississippi State is a pretty bad job. I don't agree that Auburn and Clemson are bad jobs (and obv not Arkansas, but duh), though. Auburn is a tough job now because of Saban, though (oh and obv dumbass administration).

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by lungs

Not sure if this university exists, but theoretically, what about a college with high academic standards without the reputation of a Stanford and a poor football tradition?

It does. It's called Division 3.



Imagine being the coach at a school with a massive endowment that has no interest in playing anything other than a mediocre D3 school schedule, not being able to award scholarships and having the hardest time recruiting athletes, half of whom will quit before they ever take a down because they wanna study or something.

Hehe...

[JHandley]

Nebraska belongs on this list somewhere.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Clemson? They seem to have unrealistic expectations.

I was just thinking the other day that South Carolina appears to have been a nice resting place for Steve Spurrier. He has them competitive, and that seems to be enough for folks (or at least there is no national outcry).

Originally Posted by dawgfan

On the high-profile side, I'd say schools like Clemson, Auburn and Arkansas are candidates.

The USCjr fans are calling for Spurrier's head on a stick.
Personally I think SC has to be the worst job in the country, they are on living legend #2 right now and neither has delivered. They have great fan support, hell 80,000 show up even when they are 0-11 at least for the first half.


As for the thought of Clemson I have to ask why?
They play in the ACC which has been winable for a decade if not down right a laughing stock. They have facilities and support (both in butts in the seat and $$$$ contributed) on par with any SEC school, they are in a recruiting hot bed in SC and have a short drive to grab recruits in Fl and GA.

Obviously I am a homer, I just can't see where they would rank in the top 20 of worst jobs....

[albionmoonlight]

Eastern Michigan would be pretty bad. You would be recruiting against a fair number of better schools in an area without the talent pipeline of a CA or a FL.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I don't agree that Auburn and Clemson are bad jobs (and obv not Arkansas, but duh), though. Auburn is a tough job now because of Saban, though (oh and obv dumbass administration).

If you're a coach, would you want to deal with the blockheaded administration and boosters at Auburn right now? Tuberville is as successful a guy as Auburn has ever had, but they ran him out of town.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

As for the thought of Clemson I have to ask why?
They play in the ACC which has been winable for a decade if not down right a laughing stock. They have facilities and support (both in butts in the seat and $$$$ contributed) on par with any SEC school, they are in a recruiting hot bed in SC and have a short drive to grab recruits in Fl and GA.

Obviously I am a homer, I just can't see where they would rank in the top 20 of worst jobs....

Fair enough...

[Tigercat]

Auburn is one of the worst jobs in the nation because:

1) All of those with power and influence over athletics are complete idiots
2) Alabama has better resources, yet AU supporters insist you be just as good

[Raiders Army]

My alma mater...Army.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If you're a coach, would you want to deal with the blockheaded administration and boosters at Auburn right now? Tuberville is as successful a guy as Auburn has ever had, but they ran him out of town.

Oh I totally agree that right now it sucks. Only because of current circumstances, though.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

As for the thought of Clemson I have to ask why?
They play in the ACC which has been winable for a decade if not down right a laughing stock. They have facilities and support (both in butts in the seat and $$$$ contributed) on par with any SEC school, they are in a recruiting hot bed in SC and have a short drive to grab recruits in Fl and GA.

Obviously I am a homer, I just can't see where they would rank in the top 20 of worst jobs....

All those reasons are valid, and may actually be what would drive people to think of the school in that way (myself included). If all those things are true, and they STILL can't win, there must be *something* wrong.

[MJ4H]

His name was Tommy Bowden.

[Pumpy Tudors]

CONCORD UNIVERSITY IN ATHENS, WEST VIRGINIA. DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME ON THIS.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I-AA or not, I'll throw the UTC job into consideration. Pay is poor, budget to pay assistant's borders on non-existent, the fan base is on par with the coaching budget, and you're stuck in a conference where the best you can realistically hope for is probably 4th place (Ga Southern, Furman, and Appy State). And there's not much reason I can see to expect any of that to change.

Speaking of which, in case anyone might be interested ...
UTC Human Resources | Staff Job Openings
Assistant Football Coach, Athletics
Assists with aspects of coaching NCAA Division I football team. Duties include but are not limited to: recruiting; scouting; academics; equipment inventory; assisting with the organization and direction of practice and individual workouts; planning and arranging team travel as well as film exchange; and supervising the work of student managers. Salary is commensurate with qualifications and experience. QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelors degree; experience with a college coaching staff; and working knowledge of NCAA rules and regulations, and Southern Conference. Experience with recruiting and film editing systems. Send cover letter, application, resume, transcript of last degree awarded along with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three professional references to: UTC Office of Human Resources; 615 McCallie Ave, Department 3603; Chattanooga, TN 37403. To obtain application click here: http://www.utc.edu/Administration/Hu...cation_000.pdf (Posted 2/20/08)

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

CONCORD UNIVERSITY IN ATHENS, WEST VIRGINIA. DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME ON THIS.

Concord is a sleeping giant. All it needs to do is lockdown the Beckley and Whitesville areas and it'll be a WVIAC powerhouse.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Concord is a sleeping giant. All it needs to do is lockdown the Beckley and Whitesville areas and it'll be a WVIAC powerhouse.

It'll be a success in Athens if the Mountain Lions win a single conference game next year.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

His name was Tommy Bowden.

Sadly, I am afraid he is correct.
Tommy and Linda are good people, hell better people than I can ever hope to be but he didnt get it done.

[DeToxRox]

Iowa State. You have to compete with Iowa for in state kids, plus Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc. for the elite level kids in state. With the B12 North as terrible as it has been as of late, they still cannot win games. Seems impossible.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

My alma mater...Army.

I would think that that would be a great and rewarding job if they didn't actually have expectations for W/L.

[Noop]

Buffalo that place is a dead zone, the fact Turner Gill was able to win there tells you something about him.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

My alma mater...Army.

I wonder what it could be that's made Army less successful in football relative to Navy and Air Force.

The service academies do have a couple of advantages over their 1A counterparts (as meager as they are): no scholarship limits and liberal use of service academy prep schools to stash (and get rid of) players who aren't ready (or capable of playing at the 1A level).

Navy in particular has used this to their advantage in recent years: recruit a ridiculous number of guys, hide most of them in Naval Academy Prep, and see what sticks.

I assume that Army does the same thing. I'm guessing that the recruiting universe is still pretty limited--so is it the case that Army is a third choice after Navy and AFA for recruits who are considering all three?

I also remember that Army did attempt to run a pro-set offense at times since the 90s. The consensus seems that a service academy does not have the personnel to compete against BCS competition with a conventional offense. Perhaps that's a cause for Army's performance too...

[RainMaker]

Any middle of the pack SEC school. You have high expectations to make a BCS bowl every year yet play in the toughest conference in the country. You can't recruit like they do at Florida or LSU either. Basically a .500 season means you're out the door.

There are others listing jobs, but not many have high expectations. If you play .500 in the Sun Belt, no one cares. Every loss isn't scrutinized by the local media and there aren't boosters calling for your head.

I will give a shout out to high academic schools in major conferences. Stanford, Vandy, and Northwestern. They'll never be able to get the top recruits so you're at a disadvantage every year.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I wonder what it could be that's made Army less successful in football relative to Navy and Air Force.

The service academies do have a couple of advantages over their 1A counterparts (as meager as they are): no scholarship limits and liberal use of service academy prep schools to stash (and get rid of) players who aren't ready (or capable of playing at the 1A level).

Navy in particular has used this to their advantage in recent years: recruit a ridiculous number of guys, hide most of them in Naval Academy Prep, and see what sticks.

I assume that Army does the same thing. I'm guessing that the recruiting universe is still pretty limited--so is it the case that Army is a third choice after Navy and AFA for recruits who are considering all three?

I also remember that Army did attempt to run a pro-set offense at times since the 90s. The consensus seems that a service academy does not have the personnel to compete against BCS competition with a conventional offense. Perhaps that's a cause for Army's performance too...

Having spent a good few years watching Air Force play Wyoming, I can tell you that their success comes largely from highly disciplined players, who play within the system they've set for themselves (in basketball and football) I think that when you have knowledge of who you are -- and play in a conference against pretty good competition -- it makes it easier to recruit, as well as compete.

I imagine it's just harder to recruit at Army than it is the other two and that mirrors real life issues too. The Army always has the hardest recruiting of the four major uniformed services and so, it's no surprise to see that played out at the athletic level too.

They didn't do themselves any favors recently with what happened to the guy that got drafted by the Lions who was called back to West Point to be a coach, after reversing a policy that would've let him and a few others try out for the pros.

Word is, the Navy pushed to get it squashed, as they feared it'd hurt their recruiting advantage, but...I'm not buying that and figure it was some hard ass general who thought it looked bad and sent the wrong message during a time of war.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Any middle of the pack SEC school. You have high expectations to make a BCS bowl every year yet play in the toughest conference in the country. You can't recruit like they do at Florida or LSU either. Basically a .500 season means you're out the door.

This is really not true at all. The only schools expecting to make a BCS bowl every year are the Floridas and LSUs. We certainly don't expect that at Arkansas. .500 seasons are far from meaning you are out the door, too. The Auburn case was a bizarre one and far from the norm, I'd say. I think a lot of it was spurred from the firing of the OC mid-season, which was really not Tubb's fault. Not excusing it, just saying it's an outlier rather than the norm.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Iowa State. You have to compete with Iowa for in state kids, plus Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc. for the elite level kids in state. With the B12 North as terrible as it has been as of late, they still cannot win games. Seems impossible.

I was going to suggest this one as well, until I saw one of the criteria was "bad place to live". Ames, IA is actually a GREAT town to live in, especially for the coach and his family (20-yr-olds obsessed with bright lights, big city, clubs, and all-night parties might not think so; it ain't NYC, it's Iowa).

But as far as football goes, it's a no-winner. As was said, Iowa State is the little brother to the Hawkeyes, trying to lap up the recruiting scraps that fall of big brother's table. Plus, they struggle just as the Hawks do with landing players from the athlete-rich recruiting classes in Florida, Texas, etc. When the recruits are used to living in sunny Miami -- what the heck would convince them to matriculate in a town of 70,000 in...Iowa? Both Iowa schools struggle with landing top athletes -heck, they DON'T land top athletes - and are always trying to make do with over-achievers.

So ISU is recruiting the scraps that fell off the kids' table that was stocked with scraps that fell off the grown-ups' table. Now, go compete with that in the Big 12. Good luck.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by revrew

I was going to suggest this one as well, until I saw one of the criteria was "bad place to live". Ames, IA is actually a GREAT town to live in, especially for the coach and his family (20-yr-olds obsessed with bright lights, big city, clubs, and all-night parties might not think so; it ain't NYC, it's Iowa).

But as far as football goes, it's a no-winner. As was said, Iowa State is the little brother to the Hawkeyes, trying to lap up the recruiting scraps that fall of big brother's table. Plus, they struggle just as the Hawks do with landing players from the athlete-rich recruiting classes in Florida, Texas, etc. When the recruits are used to living in sunny Miami -- what the heck would convince them to matriculate in a town of 70,000 in...Iowa? Both Iowa schools struggle with landing top athletes -heck, they DON'T land top athletes - and are always trying to make do with over-achievers.

So ISU is recruiting the scraps that fell off the kids' table that was stocked with scraps that fell off the grown-ups' table. Now, go compete with that in the Big 12. Good luck.

You both make good points. I'm not sure how much the fans expect there, but I really don't see how you can sustain any level of success either in conference or against your rival.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Concord is a sleeping giant. All it needs to do is lockdown the Beckley and Whitesville areas and it'll be a WVIAC powerhouse.

I think I just orgasmed a bit with this post. I loves me some WVIAC!

[Mustang]

Any team in the Solecismic 8.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Any team in the Solecismic 8.

Not if the school has a high "academics" rating.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by molson

I would think that that would be a great and rewarding job if they didn't actually have expectations for W/L.

In addition to DC bringing up what happened with Caleb Campbell (the safety who was drafted and then told on the eve of training camp he couldn't play) which affects recruiting, there are numerous other things working against Army.

The alumni and most of the fans are at least prior military. We went to games from 2004-2006 and it was dead in the stadium. Most of the instructors/faculty were there not because they wanted to be there, but because they had to be there politically. It's a shame that false enthusiasm couldn't go a little further to actually yell for your team.

With losing so much, the Corps of Cadets has almost no interest in the games. It's sort of like on Sunday when the Patriots went up on the Raiders by 14 points in less than 7 minutes. I wanted to turn the channel since I knew they wouldn't win.

At least nobody boos, but there is a general apathy towards the team.

Say what you want, but it's much harder to play at Army than it is at the other service academies. It's much harder militarily (I'd give the edge in academics to Air Force and maybe Navy). I believe height/weight standards are more enforced at West Point than the other two service academies. Additionally, this year they ended "Corps Squad" tables and the football players got the same amount of food as everyone else.

Brock was the wrong choice to succeed Bobby Ross. Bob Sutton did a great job with the option, but when Ross brought in a pro-style offense, our players couldn't compete. Brock brought some continuity, but that's not what the team needed, much less some of the things he said.

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I wonder what it could be that's made Army less successful in football relative to Navy and Air Force.

The service academies do have a couple of advantages over their 1A counterparts (as meager as they are): no scholarship limits and liberal use of service academy prep schools to stash (and get rid of) players who aren't ready (or capable of playing at the 1A level).

Navy in particular has used this to their advantage in recent years: recruit a ridiculous number of guys, hide most of them in Naval Academy Prep, and see what sticks.

I assume that Army does the same thing. I'm guessing that the recruiting universe is still pretty limited--so is it the case that Army is a third choice after Navy and AFA for recruits who are considering all three?

I also remember that Army did attempt to run a pro-set offense at times since the 90s. The consensus seems that a service academy does not have the personnel to compete against BCS competition with a conventional offense. Perhaps that's a cause for Army's performance too...

There used to be a time when the service academies had some of the top rushing teams in the NCAA. Running the ball controlled the clock and made them competitive. It's too bad Army went away from the option.

[Crim]

Yup, I remember when Sports Illustrated had that gusher piece about how Bobby Ross was taking Army in a new direction, and it was all so exciting, bringing the Black Knights into to the new millenium, and they were going to score score score, and the alums were psyched, etc.

I was thinking as I read all this, "He's going to try to run a pro set with those players? Seriously?"

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I will give a shout out to high academic schools in major conferences. Stanford, Vandy, and Northwestern. They'll never be able to get the top recruits so you're at a disadvantage every year.

It's a very different recruiting game for these schools. But that doesn't mean they don't and can't pull in some top players.

I know in the case of Stanford that while their pool of possible recruits is smaller than other Pac-10 schools because of their admissions standards, they also hit on a much higher percentage of their targets. Generally speaking, if a recruit qualifies for Stanford, there's a good chance that kid also highly values a Stanford education and is likely to go there. The problem though is that with a more limited scope of kids to pull from, they're more susceptible to up and down cycles - maybe for a couple of years they have a hard time finding really good linemen that want to go there, or they can't land many really good DB's.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I think I just orgasmed a bit with this post. I loves me some WVIAC!

I love the WVIAC, too. The best part is how a lot of people can't handle the fact that the WVIAC was represented in the playoffs by a Pennsylvania school this year. Boohoohoo for them.