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"?...
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.
Comments
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...