Honest opinions from the board.....

Could Urban Meyer or Nick Saban(or any other coach you care to throw out as a great coach/recruiter/program builder) win a NC-NOT a consistent 9 win program-at a geographically disadvantaged school for recruiting? Washington State, Iowa,Purdue,Minnesota,Oregon State? I say no.

Coach Meyer went undefeated at Utah. I say yes.

Yes, teams that won NC from geographically disadvantage school for recruiting in the past 40 years:  Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame ;) and BYU.

stxbuck wrote: Honest opinions from the board.....

Could Urban Meyer or Nick Saban(or any other coach you care to throw out as a great coach/recruiter/program builder) win a NC-NOT a consistent 9 win program-at a geographically disadvantaged school for recruiting? Washington State, Iowa,Purdue,Minnesota,Oregon State? I say no.

If they do do it, it will only be one time. Good players make good coaches and great players make great coaches. Urban or Nick will take a mediocre team and make them better, but they can not win NC or conference titles on a consistent basis without talent. Urban would make IU a better team, but he could not win a conference title there in my opinion.

cintibuck wrote: Yes, teams that won NC from geographically disadvantage school for recruiting in the past 40 years:  Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame ;) and BYU.

stxbuck wrote: Honest opinions from the board.....

Could Urban Meyer or Nick Saban(or any other coach you care to throw out as a great coach/recruiter/program builder) win a NC-NOT a consistent 9 win program-at a geographically disadvantaged school for recruiting? Washington State, Iowa,Purdue,Minnesota,Oregon State? I say no.

Washington-Seattle + California is not a bad recruiting base

ND-they are special and everyone knows it-everyone knows Purdue or Wazzu would not be able to recruit nationally like ND does......they are like Stanford-they recruit nationally on their reputation-not just their program...

Colorado-Bill McCartney won a NC there in the early 90s, so I would not say they are disadvantaged. In-state talent flees the state b/c the team stinks so bad.

It depends on if the disadvantaged program is in a major conference or not.

It is unlikely that a Purdue or Indiana will ever be built up into a consistent winner because every year they have to go up against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan etc. Same with teams like Mississippi State.

A team like Utah, Boise TCU can win because they can build momentum off of winning seasons that come with playing only 1 or 2 challenging opponents. They also have some gimmick to the program like a unique geographical location or academic standards that allow jucos, or the schools don't have a long history that kind of pigeonholes them.

Without question Oregon State and Wazzou are no more "geographically disadvantaged" than Oregon who was in the title game just a couple of years ago.

Maybe Hawaii is geographically at a disadvantage as far as titles and recruiting goes but i doubt they care about any of that. they are winning life

Yes.

Some of it depends on the administration at the school - are they willing to pay for a staff, sufficient facilities, travel, etc.

But bottom line, the right HC can get the job done.

OSUVB wrote: Yes.

Some of it depends on the administration at the school - are they willing to pay for a staff, sufficient facilities, travel, etc.

But bottom line, the right HC can get the job done.

This.  All any program needs is an administration willing to financially back a winning program including hiring a staff dedicated to recruiting.

coopercougar, it is all cyclic and it does help if money is spent on facilities and coaches, but that is not the guarantee to conistent success. Alabama has always had support financially and support from the administration and there was a period they were DOWN. Your Longhorns have a lot of financial support and administrative support, but your success (sorry) is not what it was either. The Buckeyes have had some lean years too. Money and support helps, but it is not the end all to success, since success is cyclic.

brutus24 wrote: coopercougar, it is all cyclic and it does help if money is spent on facilities and coaches, but that is not the guarantee to conistent success. Alabama has always had support financially and support from the administration and there was a period they were DOWN. Your Longhorns have a lot of financial support and administrative support, but your success (sorry) is not what it was either. The Buckeyes have had some lean years too. Money and support helps, but it is not the end all to success, since success is cyclic.

Success depends more on the HC than any other single factor. CFB history proves that.

brutus24 wrote: coopercougar, it is all cyclic and it does help if money is spent on facilities and coaches, but that is not the guarantee to conistent success. Alabama has always had support financially and support from the administration and there was a period they were DOWN. Your Longhorns have a lot of financial support and administrative support, but your success (sorry) is not what it was either. The Buckeyes have had some lean years too. Money and support helps, but it is not the end all to success, since success is cyclic.

Nothing is inherently cyclical.  Everything depends on the quality of the staff you bring in and the resources you put behind them.  A quality staff that is well resourced may have a down season here or there but will never have a down cycle.  Conversely, a weak staff that is poorly resourced may have a lucky season on occasion, but will never bring about a winning cycle, no matter how geographically advantaged they may be.

If the OP's question assumed a quality coaching staff, which is always necessary for success, then I would contend such a staff with the proper backing from their administration and a dedication to relentless recruiting, can win at any BCS level program in America.  The only thing keeping Duke from being Bama in football is an administration that wants Bamaesque success and is willing to fund a quality staff that can and will recruit their butts off.  That is my opinion anyway.

coopercougar wrote: Nothing is inherently cyclical.  Everything depends on the quality of the staff you bring in and the resources you put behind them. they may be...

If the OP's question assumed a quality coaching staff, which is always necessary for success, then I would contend such a staff with the proper backing from their administration... The only thing keeping Duke from being Bama in football is an administration that wants Bamaesque success and is willing to fund a quality staff that can and will recruit their butts off...

This. I have said here for years that one reason the traditional powers in CFB are consistent winners over the long haul is because their administrations support that success. Ohio State is a classic example of that, but of course not the only one.

One reason I question whether or not Miami will ever be "the U" again is just that I question whether or not they have the administrational support they need.

And some other schools will probably never be all that successful, largely because they don't have the will to make it happen, or don't think they can pull it off, or, like Duke (& maybe Indiana), are content to be very successful in one sport, and aren't going to try for that success in football as well.

Bill Snyder says a good coach can win anywhere, and win it all with a little advantage.  
He's the best example I can think of, as far as  a coach elevating a program.  With just a little more talent to work with Snyder could have made Kansas State a NC contender for most of his tenure.  One of the best ever.

You have to take a lot of borderline kids academically, and/or get creative with JUCO transfers and kids with some disciplinary issues to win at most of those type of schools. Oregon, once the curtain is pulled back, I believe will be exposed to have attracted many kids through nefarious means. And only a fraction of what they did will be exposed.

Those Colorado teams were filled with a lot of gang kids from South Central L.A, and there was a ton of fallout with legal issues with those squads. When Oregon State had that team that prison raped Notre Dame some years ago under Erickson, it was comprised of a lot of JUCO transfers and guys who were borderline thugs. Could you build a NC team at a school like that? You could, but you'd need a lot of help from admissions and school administrators to turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff that would make most schools uncomfortable. Snyder has done an incredible coaching job at KState in his two stints, and has identified lower rated players with potential, and gotten great JUCO transfers that are character kids and won a lot of games, but he has never quite had the athletes to win it all. Got real close a few times though.

You would have to catch lightening in a bottle to win a NC regardless of who was coaching, and you'd need more than that to do it consistently. A Meyer or a Saban would have a much better chance than anyone else at pulling it off, but it would be hard for even them to do it without piling up a bunch of NCAA violations. It's hard to do it without having some NCAA issues in talent-laden states/regions, all the harder in areas without talent.

brutus24 wrote: coopercougar, it is all cyclic and it does help if money is spent on facilities and coaches, but that is not the guarantee to conistent success. Alabama has always had support financially and support from the administration and there was a period they were DOWN. Your Longhorns have a lot of financial support and administrative support, but your success (sorry) is not what it was either. The Buckeyes have had some lean years too. Money and support helps, but it is not the end all to success, since success is cyclic.

True about Bama, but that was artifically induced by the ncaa (and in a court of law, found out to be untrue)

Except for the fact Logan told everyone he paid for the kid. But hey OJ was innocent too.

---------------------------------------------
--- TideFaninFl wrote:

brutus24 wrote: coopercougar, it is all cyclic and it does help if money is spent on facilities and coaches, but that is not the guarantee to conistent success. Alabama has always had support financially and support from the administration and there was a period they were DOWN. Your Longhorns have a lot of financial support and administrative support, but your success (sorry) is not what it was either. The Buckeyes have had some lean years too. Money and support helps, but it is not the end all to success, since success is cyclic.

True about Bama, but that was artifically induced by the ncaa (and in a court of law, found out to be untrue)




---------------------------------------------

87falcon44 wrote: Except for the fact Logan told everyone he paid for the kid. But hey OJ was innocent too.

LOL.... even during the trial, they never found any evidence of Logan paying for anybody, including his gardener.  You have been reading to much fiction.  The head of the ncaa, Prof. Swank, on the witness stand in anothe trial, said that the ncaa had been lied to, "facts' had been made up, etc...... but that never made it out, because everybody wants to believe Bama is dirty...... sorry, but it is not true

1) Player signs with an agent on a napkin, then lies about doing it (even signing a ncaa paper to that affect).  The Bama coach asks, and the player lies to him. The ncaa comes into the Coaches offices demanding all kinds of special treatment, and is thrown out by the head coach. Accusations about many people on the Alabama campus (coaches and professors) are made by the ncaa, and everybody goes to trial. The ncaa ends up paying alot of money, but never forgets how Bama embarrassed them.  When the truth comes out the player is suspended by Alabama.

2) An Alabama assistant coach ( 1st year Basketball) asks a booster for money to pay a recruit.  The booster turns him in to Alabama, Alabama fires the coach on the spot (only accusation that actually involved paying recruits), and turns all the information into the ncaa the next day. Alabama is praised for being diligent.

3) Alabama boosters are accused of trying to pay for recruits.  In every case, it was found to be untrue.  When the grand jury in Memphis heared the evidence, it was a he-said-she said affair, but Logan was murdered before the appeal.  When Prof. Swank got the full information, and was placed on the witness stand, he said the whole thing about Alabama was a lie.

4) Alabama players were accused of giving textbooks to  help other students (with no money exchanging hands, and that was proven even by the ncaa).  Alabama was really punish for sloppy bookkeeping more than anything else. 

Do I say that Alabama is totally clean?  No school is totally clean, but the way the ncaa conducts business is sometimes beyond belief.

That's not what Logan himself told people.

---------------------------------------------
--- TideFaninFl wrote:

87falcon44 wrote: Except for the fact Logan told everyone he paid for the kid. But hey OJ was innocent too.

LOL.... even during the trial, they never found any evidence of Logan paying for anybody, including his gardener.  You have been reading to much fiction.  The head of the ncaa, Prof. Swank, on the witness stand in anothe trial, said that the ncaa had been lied to, "facts' had been made up, etc...... but that never made it out, because everybody wants to believe Bama is dirty...... sorry, but it is not true

1) Player signs with an agent on a napkin, then lies about doing it (even signing a ncaa paper to that affect).  The Bama coach asks, and the player lies to him. The ncaa comes into the Coaches offices demanding all kinds of special treatment, and is thrown out by the head coach. Accusations about many people on the Alabama campus (coaches and professors) are made by the ncaa, and everybody goes to trial. The ncaa ends up paying alot of money, but never forgets how Bama embarrassed them.  When the truth comes out the player is suspended by Alabama.

2) An Alabama assistant coach ( 1st year Basketball) asks a booster for money to pay a recruit.  The booster turns him in to Alabama, Alabama fires the coach on the spot (only accusation that actually involved paying recruits), and turns all the information into the ncaa the next day. Alabama is praised for being diligent.

3) Alabama boosters are accused of trying to pay for recruits.  In every case, it was found to be untrue.  When the grand jury in Memphis heared the evidence, it was a he-said-she said affair, but Logan was murdered before the appeal.  When Prof. Swank got the full information, and was placed on the witness stand, he said the whole thing about Alabama was a lie.

4) Alabama players were accused of giving textbooks to  help other students (with no money exchanging hands, and that was proven even by the ncaa).  Alabama was really punish for sloppy bookkeeping more than anything else. 

Do I say that Alabama is totally clean?  No school is totally clean, but the way the ncaa conducts business is sometimes beyond belief.





---------------------------------------------