Toughest Power 5 Coaching Jobs

[mktmaker]

College Football Weekly Five: Toughest Power Five coaching jobs

By Tom Fornelli | College Football Writer
February 27, 2015 3:03 pm ET


It's not exactly a secret that if you're a college football coach, some jobs are more appealing than others. While there's definitely a gap between most Power Five schools and jobs from the Group of Five, there's a similar gap among the Power Five itself.
If you're an up-and-coming coach at a mid-major school looking to make the leap to a Power Five gig, and all the money that comes with it (remember, even the coach who finishes last in the SEC West next season will make at least $4 million), there are still some jobs you'll think twice about. Yeah, it's a promotion of sorts, but it's going to be incredibly hard to win there, and it could end up killing your career.
So in this week's Friday Five, I'm going to take a look at what I believe to be the five most difficult jobs in the Power Five conferences. There isn't a specific formula I used to come up with my five schools. There's a whole range of factors: history, recruiting base, competition within your own state and general fan apathy. These are the five schools where being bigger doesn't always mean better.
5. Indiana

4. Vandy

3. Kansas

2. Iowa State

1. Wake Forest

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25083990/the-friday-five-the-toughest-power-five-jobs

 

[C1180]

I am somewhat surprised that UK did not make the honorable mention in this group. UK through out the years has been a difficult place to succeed in football and like Vandy they play in the toughest conference in college football. I suppose that their having a loyal fan base, the standards to enroll not being stringent, and Lexington being in a beautiful area may have excluded them.

 

[KyCatFan]

I didn't read the article, but you figure we have shown promise in winning here with different coaches. Mumme gave us a record setting offense that went to a New Year's Day bowl. In year 2, Guy Morriss took us to a 7-5 record. It would have been 8-4 if not for the Bluegrass Miracle. Then you have Brooks taking us all the way up to a top 10 ranking and 4 straight bowl games winning 3 of them.

So we have shown that this school has the potential to be good at football. While we still have limitations, this isn't the UK of old that was one of the worst programs/jobs in all of college football.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Oak_Hill]

If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.

 

[Comebakatz3]

UK should at least be honorable mention there. I think it is getting better, but we have it pretty hard. We're too far north for the SEC state recruits to really want to come up here. Our state has an extremely poor talent pool (it is improving). Plus, until recently, the Big 10 area kids wanted to stay and play for the Big 10 rather than the SEC. Couple that with the fact that we are in the SEC and you have a pretty tough row to hoe. While someone like Vandy might struggle because of academic requirements, they are also in a very large and talent right city. There are probably more D1 prospects in the Nashville metro area than there are in the entire state of Kentucky. Hell, in 2016 there are already 6 kids from the Nashville area that are 4 star recruits. There was 8 in 2014 and two of them were 5 star recruits. Yea, they have to go against UT for those kids, but it is a nice advantage to be able to be that close to that much talent. I don't know that I would put UK as a harder job than Vandy, but it is up there pretty close to it.

Also, another way to look at it... if you go to the rivals state rankings... there are only about 8-10 listed states that usually have 5 or fewer ranked players. Kentucky, Wisconsin, Oregon, Nebraska, Delaware, West Virginia, Colorado, South Dakota, and Massachusetts. Of those only Kentucky, Oregon, and Colorado have two schools that compete in major conferences. So, the pickings are extremely thin for us in the state and that is a major disadvantage.

 

[CB3UK]

I disagree. We shouldn't be honorable mention because this shouldn't be one of the toughest jobs on America. The only thing that has truly held us back is the past administrative support and focus on football success. Yes, it is certainly easier for schools like Florida, Alabama, Ohio State to have success due to their history and high school programs when compared to ours. But look at Tennessee, West Virginia, hell Oregon even....this states don't produce loads of high school talent but have the history because they focused on football.

I know I'm not bringing anything new or revelatory to the table. UK can win if they do things the right way. It seems like we're finally on track. We've always had fan support. Lexington is a desirable place to be. It just hasn't been a good program because of past mistakes, not because of some underlying unchangeable factors preventing it from being so.

 

[C1180]

I remember back in the fifties that UK was a football program that was competitive with any program in college football but some genius with too much power got this brilliant idea that UK should only recruit kids out of Kentucky high schools. This led to a downward skid of UK football that last to this day. It created the loser image and pretty much made UK a laughing stock in the SEC. They smartened up and this was rescinded but the damage had been done and it has been an uphill task to come back from this stupidity and having a succession of basketball first ADs has been a hindrance.

What a lot of people probably do not realize is that this scenario is the real reason that the Bear left UK He knew he could not be competitive with only the kids out of Kentucky high schools.

 

[law1127]

AMEN!!!⬆⬆ x1000 , so true! Hopefully this sad period is behind us! Just for comparison,68% winning percentage up to Brayants departure, 42% since then,obviously disastrous decision for football at that time!

 

[Comebakatz3]

Originally posted by CB3UK:
I disagree. We shouldn't be honorable mention because this shouldn't be one of the toughest jobs on America. The only thing that has truly held us back is the past administrative support and focus on football success. Yes, it is certainly easier for schools like Florida, Alabama, Ohio State to have success due to their history and high school programs when compared to ours. But look at Tennessee, West Virginia, hell Oregon even....this states don't produce loads of high school talent but have the history because they focused on football.

I know I'm not bringing anything new or revelatory to the table. UK can win if they do things the right way. It seems like we're finally on track. We've always had fan support. Lexington is a desirable place to be. It just hasn't been a good program because of past mistakes, not because of some underlying unchangeable factors preventing it from being so.

There are very very few programs in this country that have a similar instate talent pool as Kentucky and are still highly competitive teams. Oregon is one of them, but it basically took Nike running their school and building all their facilities and making them a trademark before they became a contender. Tennessee runs their entire state and has about 3-4 times more talent than Kentucky. Again, read my post above. West Virginia is one of the very few who are similar to Kentucky, and are probably actually worse off than Kentucky. WVU largely lived off the close proximity of Pennsylvania if I am not mistaken, and they have been successful because of it. It also helped that they played in some lower conferences before finally making the jump into the Power 5. Kansas State is another. They have lived off JUCO talent thanks to an excellent coach. Nebraska and Wisconsin are two that don't have a lot of in state talent, but they really began their programs and became successful before recruiting Texas was as big as it is today.

Yes, we can be successful, but that doesn't mean it isn't harder for our school than most others. There have been a handful of schools come from a similar position and make themselves very competitive, but there are not many of those schools and a lot of them didn't have to face the same type of talented teams week in and week out that we have to face. I think a coach that can recruit well and win here is a very special coach.

 

[hmt5000]

given dukes recent success i'd still put them as a worse gig than UK by a lot and they are working their way into perennial top 25 team. UK at least has fan support. you watch a lot of these teams play and some stadiums are lucky to have 20,000 fans.

northwestern, minnesota, illinois, and cal are all worse jobs than UK and then there are about 30 jobs that are about the same and it really just depends on recent success. if we land a top 20 recruiting class this year and win 8 games (including the bowl) i would think we'd lose a lot of the negative press from the last 5 years. while brooks was here no one would of thought baylor was a better job than UK... but perception can change in a few years.

 

[CB3UK]

Originally posted by Comebakatz3:

Originally posted by CB3UK:
I disagree. We shouldn't be honorable mention because this shouldn't be one of the toughest jobs on America. The only thing that has truly held us back is the past administrative support and focus on football success. Yes, it is certainly easier for schools like Florida, Alabama, Ohio State to have success due to their history and high school programs when compared to ours. But look at Tennessee, West Virginia, hell Oregon even....this states don't produce loads of high school talent but have the history because they focused on football.

I know I'm not bringing anything new or revelatory to the table. UK can win if they do things the right way. It seems like we're finally on track. We've always had fan support. Lexington is a desirable place to be. It just hasn't been a good program because of past mistakes, not because of some underlying unchangeable factors preventing it from being so.

There are very very few programs in this country that have a similar instate talent pool as Kentucky and are still highly competitive teams. Oregon is one of them, but it basically took Nike running their school and building all their facilities and making them a trademark before they became a contender. Tennessee runs their entire state and has about 3-4 times more talent than Kentucky. Again, read my post above. West Virginia is one of the very few who are similar to Kentucky, and are probably actually worse off than Kentucky. WVU largely lived off the close proximity of Pennsylvania if I am not mistaken, and they have been successful because of it. It also helped that they played in some lower conferences before finally making the jump into the Power 5. Kansas State is another. They have lived off JUCO talent thanks to an excellent coach. Nebraska and Wisconsin are two that don't have a lot of in state talent, but they really began their programs and became successful before recruiting Texas was as big as it is today.

Yes, we can be successful, but that doesn't mean it isn't harder for our school than most others. There have been a handful of schools come from a similar position and make themselves very competitive, but there are not many of those schools and a lot of them didn't have to face the same type of talented teams week in and week out that we have to face. I think a coach that can recruit well and win here is a very special coach.

oh, I agree. I'm not saying we should be electing 11 win seasons overnight. But 6-8 wins is certainly doable annually if we elevate our focus, and there will be occasional ebbs and flows as most programs experience. Mizzou has been in the SEC 3 years and been to Atlanta twice. We still have barely sniffed it. They have, of late anyway, been recruiting lower than we have. We can do this thing.

 

[Oak_Hill]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.

Good point I didn't see that. It just seems like every other list that I have seen we are usually mentioned in it. I think Stoops can keep us off those types of list for good!

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Just curious about this, but does the Kentucky HS Association allow spring practice? And what are the limitations on summer workouts for HS teams?

 

[jarheadky]

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:
Just curious about this, but does the Kentucky HS Association allow spring practice? And what are the limitations on summer workouts for HS teams?


Yes we always have spring practice and summer workouts, for spring practice there are ten practices allowed during a 3 week period not sure of the dates if I remember correctly we started last year about the middle of April. After that there can be individual workouts (ie. open weight room) but there can be no mandatory practices ( where a roster is used for accountability), until sometime in June when there is a complete dead period until the middle of July, then there is no contact allowed until after August 1, hope this helps.

 

[jarheadky]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.


Finally someone has agreed with me on this, praise the Lord I think I'm gonna dance!!!! Yep seems some people are finally realizing they are not raising the next Lebron James.

 

[jarheadky]

Originally posted by CB3UK:
I disagree. We shouldn't be honorable mention because this shouldn't be one of the toughest jobs on America. The only thing that has truly held us back is the past administrative support and focus on football success. Yes, it is certainly easier for schools like Florida, Alabama, Ohio State to have success due to their history and high school programs when compared to ours. But look at Tennessee, West Virginia, hell Oregon even....this states don't produce loads of high school talent but have the history because they focused on football.

I know I'm not bringing anything new or revelatory to the table. UK can win if they do things the right way. It seems like we're finally on track. We've always had fan support. Lexington is a desirable place to be. It just hasn't been a good program because of past mistakes, not because of some underlying unchangeable factors preventing it from being so.


Actually Tennessee does produce a lot of in state talent would have to look it up but believe they have five or six 5* players in the 2016 class alone.

 

[jnewc2]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.

The main problem has been the UK administration's historical lack of support of the program to keep it up to snub with the best football programs. The administration has a history of apathy, indifference and doing the bare minimum when it comes to football (coaches, facilities, fundraising, etc). In-state recruiting base--or lack thereof--would be a distant second.

 

[jauk11]

Originally posted by jnewc2:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.

The main problem has been the UK administration's historical lack of support of the program to keep it up to snub with the best football programs. The administration has a history of apathy, indifference and doing the bare minimum when it comes to football (coaches, facilities, fundraising, etc). In-state recruiting base--or lack thereof--would be a distant second.

I have to agree and kind of disagree with your post, no doubt I agree with the first half of your post but in 10 the whole state of Kentucky had ZERO four stars per Rivals, and UK got two of the consensus top three, Patterson (1st I believe) and Simpson with Collinsworth going to ND. Simpson did pretty good, "only" a 5.6, but nothing from the top rated player, although some thought changing the defensive scheme knocked him out.

By the way, that same year IIRC Texas had 44 four stars and three or four five stars.

But UK was in contention for the toughest job during most of Brooks reign, and close for Joker's, Brooks got a ton more out of his GOOD but underrated talent than Joker did. As far as I am concerned the BIG turning point was the fan strike AND the huge influx of money from the new contracts.

AND of course, Stoops, the man with a plan.

This post was edited on 3/3 2:02 AM by jauk11

 

[jarheadky]

Originally posted by jnewc2:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Oak_Hill:
If there would have been a top 10 ranking i'm sure UK would have made it.

Actually no UK didn't make the honorable mention list. I actually think UK can be a good football program. The main problem is lack of a lot of in state recruits and that seems to be improving.

The main problem has been the UK administration's historical lack of support of the program to keep it up to snub with the best football programs. The administration has a history of apathy, indifference and doing the bare minimum when it comes to football (coaches, facilities, fundraising, etc). In-state recruiting base--or lack thereof--would be a distant second.


Agree and disagree look at almost all of your national championship caliber teams and they will all share two things support of the program and a strong in state recruiting base. The reason there has been such a lack of support hasn't been hard to see around the state everybody has been busy trying to raise the next Rex Chapman, Travis Ford, or Darius Miller. We don't have a strong in state recruiting base because up until the last several years no one cared about football. I know several rural areas in our state that don't have any type of football for kids until they start middle school. Like any sport kids have to learn the fundamentals of a sport at a young age to excel at it, trying to start a kid out in middle school learning how to tackle, block, and run simple passing routes puts them way behind the power curve compared to programs that have them running the option before they graduate kindergarten. It's simply easier to get 10 or 11 kids to come here to play basketball where they are treated like movie stars from the time they step on campus, it's different when you are trying to get 80 or 90 kids here that most people won't remember them even signing for a couple years after they get here especially if they are red shirted.

 

[jarheadky]

If I might add I am in no way taking up for UK administrations lack of support for the football team, I still believe after the Vanderbilt game Barnhart should have been fired too. I simply don't see all these other AD's having to have a committee made up to help them find a coach, Cal had to be forced on him and if not for Tim Couch with a few other alums we would prolly have some other reject running the football program.

 

[CB3UK]

Originally posted by jarheadky:

Originally posted by CB3UK:
I disagree. We shouldn't be honorable mention because this shouldn't be one of the toughest jobs on America. The only thing that has truly held us back is the past administrative support and focus on football success. Yes, it is certainly easier for schools like Florida, Alabama, Ohio State to have success due to their history and high school programs when compared to ours. But look at Tennessee, West Virginia, hell Oregon even....this states don't produce loads of high school talent but have the history because they focused on football.

I know I'm not bringing anything new or revelatory to the table. UK can win if they do things the right way. It seems like we're finally on track. We've always had fan support. Lexington is a desirable place to be. It just hasn't been a good program because of past mistakes, not because of some underlying unchangeable factors preventing it from being so.


Actually Tennessee does produce a lot of in state talent would have to look it up but believe they have five or six 5* players in the 2016 class alone.

Well certainly more than us, yes. I suppose what I was getting at is if you look at their extremely rich history, they haven't produced boat loads of talent in state. Some years better than others. Certainly not the amount that Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and even Alabama produces. Yet they are the second must successful SEC program. Point being having in state talent definitely helps, but it certainly isn't the biggest hurdle to winning if you have a coach and program kids want to play for.

This post was edited on 3/3 6:45 AM by CB3UK

 

[C1180]

Historically I do not think that Tennessee produces a lot more football talent than UK and the western part of the state especially the Memphis area loses a lot of talent to the Mississippi schools Alabama, and Arkansas Their success has been built much more on recruiting Nationally than on in state talent. Some have posted that the state of Tennessee has a lot of five stars this year. If this is true it is an anomaly not the norm. Most years Tennessee high school football doesn't produce many more high rated recruits than Kentucky.

 

[jarheadky]

Their 2015 class has two 5* and three 4* recruits all from in state that signed with UT. State wide they have 8 players in the rivals top 250 which is all 4 and 5 star players. Kentucky had one 5* and we were lucky we usually have zero.

 

[jarheadky]

Originally posted by C1180:


Most years Tennessee high school football doesn't produce many more high rated recruits than Kentucky.


Sorry that's simply not the case 2016 the state of Tennessee has 9 players in the rivals top 250, Kentucky has zero and unfortunately it's like this every year.

 

[jarheadky]

https://rivals.yahoo.com/tnvarsity/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3438/0

https://rivals.yahoo.com/kentuckypreps/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3437/0

Says a whole lot!!

 

[jauk11]

I agree that Tennessee has a LOT more football talent than UK-------also that they are usually way behind most of the other SEC states in that department. They have had more than their normal share lately also, it has been reported before. But the main thing is the other things they have, a huge stadium with great facilities, a local fan base that will let thugs commit attempted murder and no one is charged with anything (and no one sued), MUCH better football tradition than UK, etc etc----BUT as noted, with all these advantages they still had THREE times the recruiting budget for football than UK about the time Joker took over-----while the recruiting budget for UK basketball for four or five recruits was more than for 25 in football.

That and our disgrace of a "recruiting room" told most recruits all they needed to know about the administration's support for football.

But that has all taken a tremendous turn for the better, and the future is looking much better for a tremendous fan base. Having over 50,000 for a spring game with our record was the most amazing part to me.

 

[vhcat70]

There are very very few programs in this country that have a similar instate talent pool as Kentucky and are still highly competitive teams. Oregon is one of them, but it basically took Nike running their school and building all their facilities and making them a trademark before they became a contender. Tennessee runs their entire state and has about 3-4 times more talent than Kentucky. Again, read my post above. West Virginia is one of the very few who are similar to Kentucky, and are probably actually worse off than Kentucky. WVU largely lived off the close proximity of Pennsylvania if I am not mistaken, and they have been successful because of it. It also helped that they played in some lower conferences before finally making the jump into the Power 5. Kansas State is another. They have lived off JUCO talent thanks to an excellent coach. Nebraska and Wisconsin are two that don't have a lot of in state talent, but they really began their programs and became successful before recruiting Texas was as big as it is today.

Yes, we can be successful, but that doesn't mean it isn't harder for our school than most others. There have been a handful of schools come from a similar position and make themselves very competitive, but there are not many of those schools and a lot of them didn't have to face the same type of talented teams week in and week out that we have to face. I think a coach that can recruit well and win here is a very special coach.

Oregon, WV, K St, WI & NE are too many to be very few. You also left out Boise State , UT, & Iowa & to some degree, AR. MN is on the rise. That doesn't leave too many programs in low talent states that aren't competitive.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by vhcat70:

There are very very few programs in this country that have a similar instate talent pool as Kentucky and are still highly competitive teams. Oregon is one of them, but it basically took Nike running their school and building all their facilities and making them a trademark before they became a contender. Tennessee runs their entire state and has about 3-4 times more talent than Kentucky. Again, read my post above. West Virginia is one of the very few who are similar to Kentucky, and are probably actually worse off than Kentucky. WVU largely lived off the close proximity of Pennsylvania if I am not mistaken, and they have been successful because of it. It also helped that they played in some lower conferences before finally making the jump into the Power 5. Kansas State is another. They have lived off JUCO talent thanks to an excellent coach. Nebraska and Wisconsin are two that don't have a lot of in state talent, but they really began their programs and became successful before recruiting Texas was as big as it is today.

Yes, we can be successful, but that doesn't mean it isn't harder for our school than most others. There have been a handful of schools come from a similar position and make themselves very competitive, but there are not many of those schools and a lot of them didn't have to face the same type of talented teams week in and week out that we have to face. I think a coach that can recruit well and win here is a very special coach.

Oregon, WV, K St, WI & NE are too many to be very few. You also left out Boise State , UT, & Iowa & to some degree, AR. MN is on the rise. That doesn't leave too many programs in low talent states that aren't competitive.

I suppose one could add UofL in our own state to the list. I hate to do that but it is true. They have beaten Florida and Alabama since the last time UK beat them and presently have a large win streak VS the Cats.

How the Cat do against the Cards has been for years a measurement of how the Cats will do against the rest of their schedule and the truth is we just have not measured up against the Cards the past 4 or 5 years. I hope that ends this coming season but facts are facts. If we can not beat the Cards we will do poorly in the SEC.

 

[jauk11]

'the truth is we just have not measured up against the Cards the past 4 or 5 years"

Nice post, but critical that the 5 years doesn't happen. Both teams have rebounded from fout straight losses to have four straight wins, UL four straight wins, UK four straight wins, UL four straight wins, not 4 or 5. Critical that we start our four straight wins this year, and indeed if we win this year it would probably mean that we are at least bowl eligible and can put UL in our dust. Just getting in a bowl game would be a great jump in both giving our young players more experience and in recruiting.