SEC coaches ranked
- Thread starter Bigtimer78
- Start date
Makes sense to flop Leach and Sam Pittman based on track record. If it's on trajectory, I'd say this list is about right.
It looks to me like the author ranked the list based on his expected finish of every team next year. Coach ranking is always subjective, but it's bizarre to see overvaluing of Harsin and Drinkwitz, and undervalue of Heupel, Leach, and even Kiffin. Jimbo is way too high - and last year was the first year they didn't underachieve under him. We all know that Orgeron is too high on that list.
Both Jimbo and O have won natty. I would have to say that it may be fair. Mullen loves this though but they have the
and he doesnt.
You make a valid argument, but the counter to that is that Jimbo left a large crater where the FSU program used to be, and he gets credit for that as much as he gets credit for that natty. Orgeron gets credit for building a great staff and getting out of their way for his natty, but you saw what happened when he lost key people from that staff.
There've been a few coaches who've won a title but aren't great coaches. Chizik immediately comes to mind. Orgeron is another.
^^^^^^^^^
I gave him a click, since I have enjoyed some of their podcasts. The content of the article is dumb, though, and they know it.
I'll play.
- Nick Saban (Alabama).
- Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M). He's well behind Saban, but he didn't walk into a national championship caliber program at FSU and won there, and now he has A&M in good shape.
- Dan Mullen (Florida). Don't think you can hit him too hard for not having a championship when he's been at MSU and then three years at florida when Kirby already had UGA rolling before he got there. Definitely looks like he struggles to win the big game, but he can still turn that around.
- Kirby Smart (Georgia). Only reason he's not above Mullen is that he hasn't proven he can win big with tons of recruiting advantages, and hasn't shown that he can be successful without them.
- Mike Leach (Miss. State). This may be high. Not sure how to compare being relatively successful at disadvantaged schools to being successful at middling to good programs. If he doesn't win 7+ consistently at MSU starting in 2022, then this is too high.
- Ed Orgeron (LSU). Not sure this is fair since he has at least won a championship, but I'm not sure hiring good coordinators and getting out of the way really qualifies you as a top coach. Not sure he can even be successful somewhere other than a blue blood with recruiting and money advantages.
- Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss). This may be too low. He can clearly coach, it's just not clear that he can run a program. He may be better than he showed at USC. His tenure at FLorida atlantic was pretty good. A little up and down but not for Florida atlantic. Just was too short to know if he can really keep a program on the right track.
- Marks Stoops (Kentucky). Tough one to rank. How hard is it really to win at UK when the East is weak? Basically the poor man's Mullen?
- Bryan Harsin (Auburn). Not sure how to rate somebody for maintaining (or almost maintaining) the prior levels of success at Boise State.
- Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri). REally promising start, but too early to put him higher.
- Sam Pittman (Arkansas). Really promising start, but too early to put him higher. He could turn out to be a poor man's version of Orgeron. I am expecting him to be basically like Mark Stoops. Good enough to keep a program respectable, but maybe not break through.
- Josh Heupel (Tennessee). Maybe too low but falling off in the third year after taking over a program in a really good spot is a red flag.
- Beamer/Clark - Unknowns obviously, although really the last six on this list are as pretty much unknown.
Wow Clint, he sure did move a lot from the exact same post you did last 17’n year.
https://forums.sixpackspeak.com/sho...he-SEC-going-in-to-2020&p=1770664#post1770664
Do you have an Outlook calendar set to 5/12 for this **** content or was it a coincidence?
Yes, but that's largely because of the turnover driven by everyone chasing Saban. UT should have a better coach. USCe should have gotten a better coach (it's inexplicable to me that they went with Boomer and now a first time head coach for their last too hires). While he was not elite, Malzahn was a better than average SEC coach. If Leach's system works in the SEC, Kiffin doesn't let his extracurriculars derail OM's program, Pittman and Drinkwitz turn fulfill most of the promise their first year showed, that will look like a solid group of coaches.
ETA: Another way to look at that is that 5 SEC coaches are at schools where they could conceivable win a championship (and three of them already have, granted one was at a different school). Saban, Orgeron, Kirby, Mullen, and Fisher. If you look at it like that, that is a damn impressive list of coaches compared to other conferences.
Last edited:
Any true ranking of coaching ability should take into account recruiting rank
Anyone can win with #1 recruiting rank for 7 years.
Anyone can win with #1 recruiting rank for 7 years.
Recruiting is part of coaching in college more or less. Just have to take into account what advantages the school brings to recruiting.
I will never under any circumstances click a gasnsports link for no other reason than the BS way they try to use this board to get clicks. Wouldnt mind it as much if they were upfront about it but they try to clickbait this board every few months.
Leach is pretty clearly top 5 based on his resume over the last 20 years, and could end up as high as #2 depending on how the next few seasons go.
All he's every done everywhere is win, winning at unprecedented levels at those schools.
All he's every done everywhere is win, winning at unprecedented levels at those schools.
Put another way...if Leach had been hired at Georgia in 2016, would he have had Kirby's level of success? Almost certainly, maybe more.
If Kirby had been hired at Washington State in 2012, would he have had Leach's level of success? Maybe, but I lean toward no.
Recruiting is ALL of coaching, directly and indirectly.
To win, you MUST have great players, at least above the minimum level that your 'coaching' system elevates them to national title contention (or whatever championship you're vying for). Your coaching system also attracts those players. Or your culture, etc. Then obviously the school plays a big part of it.
So to rate any coach, you really should be looking at how much he moved the needle rather than just saying Saban is best because he's at Alabama (though in reality he likely is the best, and paired with the school that recruits best, which ultimately produces a dynasty).
I get your point, but until he's done it, it's hard to really know. Plus, it's a different skillset to build a program from nothing and make them competitive, than it is to take a blue blood job with high expectations. You're dealing with different types of players, fans, alumni, etc.
This is way overstating it. Lots of recruiting is basically done by the school. Our recruiting isn't going to look very different between Mullen, Leach, and Moorhead. That's because most coaches don't move the needle that much on recruiting. Saban and Kirby both move the needle, but if either of them leave tomorrow, Bama and UGA are still going to stay within a few spots of where they are now because the booster system was in place before them and will be in place after them.
On the flip side, you have people like Tim Brewster or Ron Zook who can probably move the needle on recruiting (or at least could at one time) but can't coach well enough for it to matter.
Recruiting is a big part of coaching and you have to at least be able to recruit to your schools pecking order to give yourself a realistic chance. That's basically what Mullen, Leach, and Moorhead did. If you can't recruit to your school's pecking order (or object to the boosters doing it for you) ala David Cutcliffe, you have to be in the right situation for it to not be disastrous for you.
Disagree, you can and have to move the needle a lot. And then obviously be able to coach to go with it.
Mullen is actually a good case study for a guy who can build a program but may not be able to maintain one at the top. He doesn't work well with the Johnny 5 Stars.
And Mullen is a good example of why recruiting isn't the end all be all. He's going to be successful and the best coach they've had other than Spurrier and Meyers and he's going to do it without recruiting as well.