Talent Wins: The formula for winning championships isn’t complicated

[PurpleThrobber]

So why was Richt mediocre and Kirby wins back to back natties?

How does Jimbo just have one ring with all the talent he has had at two schools

Its not one or the other. Its both

James was pretty good with third pick after USC and UCLA

He was great with the super recruiting that built the 90-92 teams

Yes, this is what I posted to haie. Both. Not one, or [/i]the other. At least that's what I've been made to believe around here for years. And the TV doesn't lie either.

And in the case of Bama, I really think that if there's a lean one way or the other, it's the talent disparity. Saban runs a great program, obviously, which includes recruiting but also discipline, etc. But I don't think he's some kind of quantum leap-forward genius. Talk about brand, he walked into one of the, if not the, biggest brand in cfb which sits in the middle of the most fertile recruiting region in the country. Not easy, but not uphill either. He's the one who uses the boxing division analogy btw.

Richt was 11-7 in bowls and he was a 10+ win season guy 10 out of 18 seasons as a head coach, with a better winning % than the three guys before him at Georgia, which includes Dooley. I'd give him a mediocre++, or good, but not great, HC, because that win rate gets you lifetime employment at a lot of programs. Georgia fans expected to win titles (at the time on the basis of having done it once in the color TV era) and saw that he wasn't an "over the hump" guy. Two conference titles in 15 years at GA didn't get it done.

The ten seasons before Saban arrived at Bama

View attachment 55104

More loosing seasons than 10 win seasons.

Maybe the dudes before Saban were all just shitty recruiters who couldn't capitalize on the brand but that's hard to reconcile with Saban's 12-2 record in year two and 14-0 in year three.

The easier conclusion is that Nick is a far superior coach.

Mike Price’s Destiny record of 0-0 isn’t listed.

Anyone know how to edit Wikipedia?

 

[Fishpo31]

I think it is a combo of scheme (on both sides of the ball), recruiting, and leadership, with a healthy dose of resources (facilities, coaching $$ pool...etc), and AD support. That gives you the blueprint for the process, and the process is what wins.

Scheme and recruiting, w/o leadership (Sark) gets you average/good..."best play caller in America"...7(lol)-8 wins per season
Recruiting and leadership w/o scheme (Pete) gets you good...9-11 wins per season
Scheme and leadership without recruiting (Chip won't recruit, he just won't)...9-11. wins per

The elites know their weaknesses and hire accordingly. They are terrified of static, always looking for ways to improve, to shore up weakness, and that translates to their players, subordinates, and to their bosses, who accommodate them.

We saw this year that "good" can get you into a NCG (hi, Sonny!), and even that you can even win one (Ed O, Jimbo), but to sustain it, the machine must be in place, and a guy in charge that can drive it (Saban, Kirby, Urbs, Dabo)...

Most if not all P5 coaches have 2 of the 3, but the one missing factor, along with the sub-optimal resources piece, prevents them from getting over the top...How many times have "we" lamented that, "If we just had X's defense/offense paired with our offense/defense"?...

My 2 cents...

 

[creepycoug]

There’s like half the schools in the SEC a coach of Saban or Smart’s stature could go into and make a juggernaut in the SEC. LSU, Bama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, auburn and a&m. They have talent close by and think & care. It’s amazing how bad the AD can mess it up though.

Growing up for me LSU was always a shitty program until Saban was there. They now have 3 coaches that have won natties since I was 21. Tennessee was in the top 10 a lot when I was growing up, they have been an under achieving enigma since the early 2000’s until this year.

TLDR

Certain schools have high levels of potential, only top tier coaches bring it out (and that one time Larry Coker, Ogeron and chizik won it) though.

I agree with all that. Shitty coaches will give you shitty to middling results at schools even if they enjoy natural advantages. But there's also a limit to what you can do w/o the top flight raw material.