(09-26-2016 09:24 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 08:37 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You must be insane. California is arguably the best recruiting ground in the country and USC has more national championships than just about everyone except Alabama and ND.

You guys have three, not even in the same league.

Don't get offended. I just meant that the SEC is a harder conference than the PAC. My post was about current football. As far as recruiting goes, since it was brought up, going back to 2012 (which would be the oldest recruiting year for current players) LSU had a better class than USC in 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2016.

That's because Les and his staff were excellent recruiters while USC has been going through constant turnover since Carroll left.

If they are recruiting to their potential, though, USC should have a recruiting edge because California is one of the best recruiting pools and USC should get a larger share of the top players there. Now if USC keeps lurching from a Sark to a Helton and firing guys by phone or at the airport at 3 am, then they won't get as many elite recruits as they did when Carroll was there.

I have lived in Baton Rouge for 33 years and even though I was taught to dislike Southern Cal from birth, I would have to pick Southern Cal over the LSU job if I were Tom Herman.

There are only 9 or 10 programs that can pretty much have their pick of coaches when a job becomes available. LSU is one of them. So is USC. If Helton doesn't turn things around quickly, he could be gone. Where it gets interesting is if jobs open at two of the other marquee programs, Notre Dame and Oklahoma. Barring a complete collapse, it seems like Brian Kelly is okay, but folks are awfully anxious in Norman.

If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

And now Houston's season becomes irrelevant.

No matter what the Cougars do, every question to be asked in every Herman press conference will be related to the LSU job.

(09-26-2016 10:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

Agreed. FSU to LSU is a slight upgrade, but very slight, so why leave? Fisher won't leave. And if Herman has his choice of USC or LSU, it's USC.

But if I were Petrino, I'd go to LSU.

(09-26-2016 10:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I have lived in Baton Rouge for 33 years and even though I was taught to dislike Southern Cal from birth, I would have to pick Southern Cal over the LSU job if I were Tom Herman.

Yes. LSU is a top 10 or top 12 job, but USC is a top 5 job, up there with the ultra elite (Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State). Those are the 5 best jobs in college football. And I admit that even though I 'hate' four of those teams, LOL.

(09-25-2016 08:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  Here is the link:

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...tom-herman

just a dumb article....while both Herman and Fisher are good, they both seem extremely loyal to their schools and are in great position to say "NO"

why not look at Lane Kiffan or Steve Sarkisian?

if Herman doesn't come, what about Major Applewhite, the O. Coordinator for Houston?? where was he born again??

There are PLENTY of good coaches abound...LSU doesn't have to break the bank, they just have to be smart. Saban wasn't a household name when LSU hired him....

It certainly doesn't have to be Herman, Fisher or BUST...that's incredibly stupid

(09-26-2016 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 10:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

Agreed. FSU to LSU is a slight upgrade, but very slight, so why leave? Fisher won't leave. And if Herman has his choice of USC or LSU, it's USC.

But if I were Petrino, I'd go to LSU.

Petrino already did that once though....I tend to think he'll be happy just having a job, and stick it out in Louisville.

(09-26-2016 10:34 AM)geef Wrote:  There are only 9 or 10 programs that can pretty much have their pick of coaches when a job becomes available. LSU is one of them. So is USC. If Helton doesn't turn things around quickly, he could be gone. Where it gets interesting is if jobs open at two of the other marquee programs, Notre Dame and Oklahoma. Barring a complete collapse, it seems like Brian Kelly is okay, but folks are awfully anxious in Norman.

I don't think LSU IS one of them....maybe they think they are....not sure

it's so easy for college programs to get big heads and think they can cherry pick top names....it results in failure more often than not though, just ask Michigan, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Texas, etc.

Alabama struggled with coaches before landing Saban...USC has flopped with coaches big time.

(09-26-2016 11:41 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 10:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

Agreed. FSU to LSU is a slight upgrade, but very slight, so why leave? Fisher won't leave. And if Herman has his choice of USC or LSU, it's USC.

But if I were Petrino, I'd go to LSU.

Petrino already did that once though....I tend to think he'll be happy just having a job, and stick it out in Louisville.

I tend to agree with this.

I don't think Petrino is going anywhere.

He has already tried to move on and is just lucky to be back where he was.

"i like tu repoirt on da sports nues and stuff. It really intresting I think LSU downd tu two (2?) chooses. It such a hard chooce" -- Pete Thamel, Sports Illustrated

The more I read this article, the more it sounds like a real quality piece of journalism and NOT...clearly NOT...a knee-jerk reaction Monday piece

I LUVS YOU PETEY THAMEL

(09-26-2016 11:46 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 10:34 AM)geef Wrote:  There are only 9 or 10 programs that can pretty much have their pick of coaches when a job becomes available. LSU is one of them. So is USC. If Helton doesn't turn things around quickly, he could be gone. Where it gets interesting is if jobs open at two of the other marquee programs, Notre Dame and Oklahoma. Barring a complete collapse, it seems like Brian Kelly is okay, but folks are awfully anxious in Norman.

I don't think LSU IS one of them....maybe they think they are....not sure

it's so easy for college programs to get big heads and think they can cherry pick top names....it results in failure more often than not though, just ask Michigan, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Texas, etc.

Alabama struggled with coaches before landing Saban...USC has flopped with coaches big time.

Good point. LSU should be one of them, but it's close. It's probably more accurate to say that there are 4 or 5 truly marquee programs, followed by a list of 10 or so. I'd put LSU in that second tier.......

I'm pretty sure Tom Herman to LSU is almost a lock. Unless Houston gets invited to the Big 12, but Herman is going to get paid, he gets results.

(09-26-2016 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 11:41 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 10:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

Agreed. FSU to LSU is a slight upgrade, but very slight, so why leave? Fisher won't leave. And if Herman has his choice of USC or LSU, it's USC.

But if I were Petrino, I'd go to LSU.

Petrino already did that once though....I tend to think he'll be happy just having a job, and stick it out in Louisville.

I tend to agree with this.

I don't think Petrino is going anywhere.

He has already tried to move on and is just lucky to be back where he was.

Patrino was asked about LSU at his weekly press conference today & basically said this same thing. For what it's worth he said he's not interested.

(09-26-2016 01:18 PM)Realignment Wrote:  I'm pretty sure Tom Herman to LSU is almost a lock. Unless Houston gets invited to the Big 12, but Herman is going to get paid, he gets results.

I think UH has a great shot at the B12, and some Houston guys posted that his contract calls for a $5M bonus if they make the B12. And that decision should be made before the season is done.

Not saying that keeps Herman at Houston, but it might not be a slam dunk. Also, I think Herman's dream job is Texas, which could come open at the end of this season, as well.

I do think Fisher turns it down. He just got a divorce, and has a son with cancer in Tallahassee.

(09-26-2016 09:44 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 09:24 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 08:37 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You must be insane. California is arguably the best recruiting ground in the country and USC has more national championships than just about everyone except Alabama and ND.

You guys have three, not even in the same league.

Don't get offended. I just meant that the SEC is a harder conference than the PAC. My post was about current football. As far as recruiting goes, since it was brought up, going back to 2012 (which would be the oldest recruiting year for current players) LSU had a better class than USC in 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2016.

LA vs. Baton Rouge. If the pay is equal, unless your are from the deep south or have LSU connections, most people would take the USC job. Easier to win, nicer area (although USC isn't in the greatest neighborhood), better schools for the family, and probably more national exposure if you win big. USC is one of the blue bloods of college football. LSU is in the next tier.

Pre-21st Century I agree... Until recently, the talk was always about LSU and Alabama. Now it's just about who can beat Alabama. Definitely easier to win in the PAC, as I was saying. LSU has the most NFL players on current rosters also, so national exposure isn't a problem either. Remind me again, when was the last time USC did something?

2006 they did good, but not good enough to play in the BCSNC, that was Florida.
2007 they did good, but not good enough to play in the BCSNC, that was LSU.
2008 they did good, but not good enough to play in the BCSNC, that was Alabama.
2009 they ended up 9-4 and played BC in the Emerald Bowl.
2010 they ended up 8-5 and no bowl due to sanctions.
2011 they ended up 10-2 and #10 and had a common opponent with LSU, Oregon. LSU beat Oregon 40 - 27, USC beat Oregon 38 - 35.
2012 they ended up 7-6 and played GT in the Sun Bowl.
2013 they went 10-4 and played Fresno in the Las Vegas Bowl.
2014 they went 9-4 and played Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl.
2015 they went 8-6 and played Wisconsin in the Holiday Bowl.

LSU has done better than that in a tougher conference and still got rid of their coach for under-performing. So no, LSU isn't next tier to USC. LSU also had better recruiting classes in all but 3 of those years.

(09-26-2016 10:01 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 09:24 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 08:37 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You must be insane. California is arguably the best recruiting ground in the country and USC has more national championships than just about everyone except Alabama and ND.

You guys have three, not even in the same league.

Don't get offended. I just meant that the SEC is a harder conference than the PAC. My post was about current football. As far as recruiting goes, since it was brought up, going back to 2012 (which would be the oldest recruiting year for current players) LSU had a better class than USC in 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2016.

I'm not offended lol, I was just pointing out that you need to remove the homer shades. Even if the SEC is a better conference that has no relevance in your statement. The SEC may be a tougher conference but every power conference is tough.

And dude, you guys had a better class those years because with have been on sanctions if you haven't been under rock. And your statement still is not true.

Per rivals

2012-USC
2013-LSU (We only signed 12 players and LSU signed 26)
2014-LSU (We signed 20 and LSU signed 25)
2015-USC We signed the first full class in years and were ranked as having the top recruiting class in the country.
2016-LSU (Again because you guys signed more players than us)

I'm also one of the few Bama fans who has actually attended the school. And watch SEC football and can with a straight face tell you LSU is not a top 5 program like UA, ND, USC, Ohio State, and OU.

I guess it depends on who you use. I used Scout and they have USC ranked #20 in recruiting for 2012, LSU at #6.

I assume you're talking about prestige in those top 5 schools, because you're not talking about top 5 in power, not in this century, not with USC and ND. USC's boat sailed with Pete Carroll as Alabama's had come in with Saban, before then, UA was just another check mark. ND, well, they've had 3 decent and 1 good seasons since 2000 and never won a single major bowl game.

(09-26-2016 10:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 09:24 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 08:37 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You must be insane. California is arguably the best recruiting ground in the country and USC has more national championships than just about everyone except Alabama and ND.

You guys have three, not even in the same league.

Don't get offended. I just meant that the SEC is a harder conference than the PAC. My post was about current football. As far as recruiting goes, since it was brought up, going back to 2012 (which would be the oldest recruiting year for current players) LSU had a better class than USC in 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2016.

That's because Les and his staff were excellent recruiters while USC has been going through constant turnover since Carroll left.

If they are recruiting to their potential, though, USC should have a recruiting edge because California is one of the best recruiting pools and USC should get a larger share of the top players there. Now if USC keeps lurching from a Sark to a Helton and firing guys by phone or at the airport at 3 am, then they won't get as many elite recruits as they did when Carroll was there.

Well, even at that, the only other time a California school ranked higher in recruiting, was UCLA in 2013. Orgeron was also hired because of his recruiting skills so we'll see if that paid off.

(09-26-2016 10:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If winning national championships, SEC titles, a ton of games & consistent top 10 recruiting classes isn't enough to keep a job at LSU then why would any coach go there? The SEC ran off better coaches than they brought in last year. If I'm Fisher I stay at FSU & if I were Herman I would choose USC over LSU.

That's not the problem. The problem is having classes like that, and losing 5 in a row to Alabama, 3 in a row to Arkansas when they're riding the bottom of the West, and losing 2 in a row to Ole Miss. Tack on the first opening season loss since 2002 and yet another bad clock management that costs you the game and it'll clear things up more. Fans were happy prior to 2012 but it's been downhill in a bad way ever since.