This was the subject of a discussion yesterday afternoon the college sports channel on Sirius/XM. The verdict of the hosts is that it was a tossup. What say you?

Anymore South Carolina is. Still in the SEC, as is Mizzou.

My vote right now would be SC. One, I wouldn't want to deal with the current political culture in Missouri. Two, the weather is better in SC. Three, SC is closer to better recruiting areas. Four, I believe the facilities are better at SC.

Since Missou and SC are in the same division, they both will have this problem: Florida and Tenn are coming back. Past couple of years both teams have benefited from Fla and Ten being down. SC does have one big issue that Missouri doesn't have to deal with. SC's main rival is OOC and is a monster in the form for Clemson. Not only does SC get to navigate through their SEC schedule, but they also have to play an additional juggernaut every year.

SC just because of the current problem Mizzou may have to deal with..

Meh... South Carolina may be slightly ahead due the reasons others have listed, but frankly I don't think there is that vast of a difference between the two jobs. South Carolina has its own weaknesses and Missouri has some strengths as well.

(11-17-2015 08:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  This was the subject of a discussion yesterday afternoon the college sports channel on Sirius/XM. The verdict of the hosts is that it was a tossup. What say you?

Missouri. Pretty simple.

Facilities are roughly the same. This blip on the radar protest will be forgotten in a few weeks.

Missouri has a better returning roster.
Missouri doesn't have to compete within their own state, in games or recruits, or visibility (Clemson in SC)
Missouri has a better winning tradition in the past 20 years.

South Carolina
Nicer facilities, better culture in SEC, great fan base, close to beach, close to recruits in SEC

South Carolina....it is Toxic in Missouri and I am talking about the entire state right now.

Whichever pays better.

If pay was equal, I would say Mizzou. Yeah, they've got the issues on campus right now, but a coach can pitch it as a way to make a difference and help the new campus leadership build a healthier environment. Also, since they're still new relatively new to the SEC, they can pitch themselves as having the opportunity to recruit up and make a splash.

South Carolina has a more entrenched tradition of not being able to make it out of the SEC East (it's been 10+ years), and is overshadowed by annual opponent Clemson in their own home state. I see less risk and less reward.

(11-17-2015 09:41 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 08:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  This was the subject of a discussion yesterday afternoon the college sports channel on Sirius/XM. The verdict of the hosts is that it was a tossup. What say you?

Missouri. Pretty simple.

Facilities are roughly the same. This blip on the radar protest will be forgotten in a few weeks.

Missouri has a better returning roster.
Missouri doesn't have to compete within their own state, in games or recruits, or visibility (Clemson in SC)
Missouri has a better winning tradition in the past 20 years.

Not even close.

South Carolina has the better recruiting grounds as well.

(11-17-2015 10:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 09:41 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 08:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  This was the subject of a discussion yesterday afternoon the college sports channel on Sirius/XM. The verdict of the hosts is that it was a tossup. What say you?

Missouri. Pretty simple.

Facilities are roughly the same. This blip on the radar protest will be forgotten in a few weeks.

Missouri has a better returning roster.
Missouri doesn't have to compete within their own state, in games or recruits, or visibility (Clemson in SC)
Missouri has a better winning tradition in the past 20 years.

Not even close.

South Carolina has the better recruiting grounds as well.

I've been to both. Unless there are portions that blow away competition, facilities aren't really that much different. Like Alabama, they have superior facilities. But SC does not.

South Carolina isn't even the best program in their own state. That is the biggest difference.

Success over past 20 years:
Missouri
Facilities:
SC, if I'm being nice.
Competition:
Missouri, hands down, by far.
Recruiting:
Missouri. More 3/4/5 star recruits per FBS school in state.

Probably a slight nod to South Carolina purely on the fact that it can recruit a top-level team strictly or almost strictly out of its own backyard. (backyard meaning NC, SC & GA)

(11-17-2015 09:13 AM)TheNealT Wrote:  SC just because of the current problem Mizzou may have to deal with..

U. of S. Carolina is dealing with similar problems:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6993

Mizzou should be a better job. It's the only FBS program in a mid-sized state and doesn't face as much local recruiting competition as South Carolina. But it's probably a toss-up in the long term. Assuming decent coaching in both places, Mizzou should win a few more in the next couple of years, largely because their schedule is slightly easier.

(11-17-2015 11:23 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Probably a slight nod to South Carolina purely on the fact that it can recruit a top-level team strictly or almost strictly out of its own backyard. (backyard meaning NC, SC & GA)

I think South Carolina has an easier time of recruiting from due to its geographic proximity to Virginia, North Carolina and other east coast states not in the SEC (see here: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...recruits), but also because Columbia, SC is significantly closer to the other cities housing SEC East teams than is Columbia, MO.

While the Gamecocks are never going to regularly out recruit Georgia or Florida for in-state talent, the pools in those states are huge and the ease of travel for parents and families is much greater. Conversely, because the SEC wouldn't split Bama and Auburn into different divsiions and/or move Vandy to the West, Mizzou is stuck on island and pretty far disconnected from its "East" division mates. They are also stuck playing Arkansas as their only permanent cross-over opponent each year, meaning they aren't guaranteed to play against A&M or LSU each year, which also are fertile recruiting grounds.

By my count Mizzou currently has 23 of of the 124 players on its roster (source: http://www.mutigers.com/roster.aspx?path=football) from state's within its division in the SEC. South Carolina has, by my count, 45 of 111 from its SEC division-mates states.

Missouri--Avg. miles: 577.5
Athens—604
Columbia—714
Gainesville—858
Knoxville—504
Lexington—427
Nashville—358

South Carolina--Avg. miles: 375.2
Athens—134
CoMo—715
Gainesville—311
Knoxville—212
Lexington—340
Nashville—359

(11-17-2015 12:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Mizzou should be a better job. It's the only FBS program in a mid-sized state and doesn't face as much local recruiting competition as South Carolina. But it's probably a toss-up in the long term. Assuming decent coaching in both places, Mizzou should win a few more in the next couple of years, largely because their schedule is slightly easier.

I would've said the same thing, about the recruiting in Missouri.

Thing is, I do think they face at least some recruiting competition. Kansas, K State, Iowa, Iowa St, Illinois, perhaps even Arkansas, OU and OK St.

Missouri borders a lot of states.


But that still may not flip the advantage completely. I mean, even friggin' Minnesota pulls recruits from GA.

I'd give the nod to South Carolina, but not by an overwhelming margin. I just think they have better nearby recruiting - not including South Carolina. It's tough to beat Georgia, Florida, North Carolina as your secondary recruiting grounds.

Miami is a better job than both Mizzou and South Carolina.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

I'd have to say Mizzou. Mizzou has historically been a more successful program.

Mizzou

Mizzou is the better job IMO