Hasu Dackds
10-31-2017, 03:31 PM
Coaching (and ultimately money, because it takes money to hire a good coach) also plays a role than cannot be replaced. But you won't win a national title unless you are located in a fertile recruiting area. Not in this day and age.
Blue Blood Programs throughout history, with at least SOME modern success: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Miami, Texas, Florida State, LSU, Penn State, Georgia, Tennessee, Clemson, Florida, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Washington
I'd say those are the big ones, give or take a few, like maybe Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Colorado
Fast Forward to modern day national title winners: Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Texas, USC, Miami
The last time a team that doesn't possess their own fertile recruiting areas in direct proximity to them is Oklahoma in 2000. Tennessee before them in 1998. Nebraska the year before that, and really throughout the 90s. Then you had Georgia Tech, Colorado and Washington splitting titles is 1990.
There are two things to gather from this. One, it seems something changed in the BCS era and has now evolved even more. Teams without direct recruiting areas have been phased out slowly. Two, are these teams also hiring bad coaches? Who knows, but something is happening there.
The only team without a direct recruiting ground that has risen and NEARLY won a title was Oregon and Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma State (2011), and I think most of us can agree on what happened with the HUGE money in those situations. Plus, adding in Tennessee, those programs (excluding Oregon) at least were close to states that had a bunch of recruits, Oklahoma/OSU being Texas and Tennessee being in the South. Nebraska has not, and they've faltered. Oregon rode Nike as far as possible, and they seem to have fallen now that their A+ coaches phased out.
People say the B1G has risen because they've gotten good coaches. Not really. Just Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State. All have good recruiting areas inside their own state borders. You might say Wisconsin is an outlier but are they REALLY a contender?
It's not an exact science but it's pretty close. And beyond that, you better keep your program up to date or you will fall off the map. Oklahoma has done an alright job of this. Nebraska and Tennessee (the other two biggest losers of the new era) have totally disappeared. It's as if their 20 year window to keep their resume polished has vanished. Oregon and Oklahoma State seem to have taken their place, but over time, even they will probably falter.
Many say South Carolina has taken Tennessee's place. That could have some validity due to their recruiting ground. These kids now don't have that in-state loyalty to Tennessee (and that is important), and there's no 'big program' lure either. Memphis just feels like a world away.
All that to say, Mullen ain't going to Tennessee.
Blue Blood Programs throughout history, with at least SOME modern success: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Miami, Texas, Florida State, LSU, Penn State, Georgia, Tennessee, Clemson, Florida, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Washington
I'd say those are the big ones, give or take a few, like maybe Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Colorado
Fast Forward to modern day national title winners: Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Texas, USC, Miami
The last time a team that doesn't possess their own fertile recruiting areas in direct proximity to them is Oklahoma in 2000. Tennessee before them in 1998. Nebraska the year before that, and really throughout the 90s. Then you had Georgia Tech, Colorado and Washington splitting titles is 1990.
There are two things to gather from this. One, it seems something changed in the BCS era and has now evolved even more. Teams without direct recruiting areas have been phased out slowly. Two, are these teams also hiring bad coaches? Who knows, but something is happening there.
The only team without a direct recruiting ground that has risen and NEARLY won a title was Oregon and Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma State (2011), and I think most of us can agree on what happened with the HUGE money in those situations. Plus, adding in Tennessee, those programs (excluding Oregon) at least were close to states that had a bunch of recruits, Oklahoma/OSU being Texas and Tennessee being in the South. Nebraska has not, and they've faltered. Oregon rode Nike as far as possible, and they seem to have fallen now that their A+ coaches phased out.
People say the B1G has risen because they've gotten good coaches. Not really. Just Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State. All have good recruiting areas inside their own state borders. You might say Wisconsin is an outlier but are they REALLY a contender?
It's not an exact science but it's pretty close. And beyond that, you better keep your program up to date or you will fall off the map. Oklahoma has done an alright job of this. Nebraska and Tennessee (the other two biggest losers of the new era) have totally disappeared. It's as if their 20 year window to keep their resume polished has vanished. Oregon and Oklahoma State seem to have taken their place, but over time, even they will probably falter.
Many say South Carolina has taken Tennessee's place. That could have some validity due to their recruiting ground. These kids now don't have that in-state loyalty to Tennessee (and that is important), and there's no 'big program' lure either. Memphis just feels like a world away.
All that to say, Mullen ain't going to Tennessee.