Trojan Talk

Honestly, while The Pirate would be must see TV for many reasons ... I can envision scary USC teams with him at the helm.

If they let Leach be Leach

whatshouldicareabout said:

Baseman said:

dongman said:

At this point USC is step back in programs. He’d be going from suck to shit. Dipshit ADs, hiring dipshit after dipshit, soft players, dipshit boosters, all bundled into a cement packaged aids pit. Colorado is a much better option. Or OC at Alabama.

HC @ USC is, and always has been, the best CFB job west of the Mississippi.

Why not Texas?

With USC attendance plummetting this year you can easily make the case.

whatshouldicareabout said:

Baseman said:

dongman said:

At this point USC is step back in programs. He’d be going from suck to shit. Dipshit ADs, hiring dipshit after dipshit, soft players, dipshit boosters, all bundled into a cement packaged aids pit. Colorado is a much better option. Or OC at Alabama.

HC @ USC is, and always has been, the best CFB job west of the Mississippi.

Why not Texas?

Because Oklahoma.

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Baseman said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

Baseman said:

dongman said:

At this point USC is step back in programs. He’d be going from suck to shit. Dipshit ADs, hiring dipshit after dipshit, soft players, dipshit boosters, all bundled into a cement packaged aids pit. Colorado is a much better option. Or OC at Alabama.

HC @ USC is, and always has been, the best CFB job west of the Mississippi.

Why not Texas?

Excluding a near monopoly on CA’s HS talent, perfect weather, opportunity, a strong national recruiting pull, the entertainment industry, and LA, I can’t think of any reasons why a coach, given the option, would pick USC over Texas

I'd argue that UT has all of those things you mentioned outside of perfect weather and the entertainment industry. Plus, Austin > LA, and it's not even close. The gulf is even larger when you factor in the shithole of a neighborhood that USC is located in. It might be the most charmless college setting in America. Texas certainly has it's own baggage to deal with when it comes to obnoxious boosters that stick their nose in everything, so that's a major ding against them. But they can also certainly afford to pay more than USC, and I think a lot of coaches would put a lot of stock in coaching in front of a sold-out crowd at DKR over a half-full crowd in the crumbling Coliseum.

Both schools have plenty of unique reasons for coaches NOT wanting to go there, but at the end of the day I don't see how anyone could argue that Texas isn't a "better" job than USC. They've got them beat in just about every objective measure.

I think you can make an argument for Texas but I think SC is a better job by a significant margin. Most importantly is Texas isn't even the undisputed best job in it's own conference. Oklahoma has been running circles around them for the better part of 20 years now and it's not like Oklahoma is historically inept. USC doesn't have the specter of being little brother to anybody, which is why I think it >>>> Texas when it comes to CFB jobs.

HillsboroDuck said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Baseman said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

Baseman said:

dongman said:

At this point USC is step back in programs. He’d be going from suck to shit. Dipshit ADs, hiring dipshit after dipshit, soft players, dipshit boosters, all bundled into a cement packaged aids pit. Colorado is a much better option. Or OC at Alabama.

HC @ USC is, and always has been, the best CFB job west of the Mississippi.

Why not Texas?

Excluding a near monopoly on CA’s HS talent, perfect weather, opportunity, a strong national recruiting pull, the entertainment industry, and LA, I can’t think of any reasons why a coach, given the option, would pick USC over Texas

I'd argue that UT has all of those things you mentioned outside of perfect weather and the entertainment industry. Plus, Austin > LA, and it's not even close. The gulf is even larger when you factor in the shithole of a neighborhood that USC is located in. It might be the most charmless college setting in America. Texas certainly has it's own baggage to deal with when it comes to obnoxious boosters that stick their nose in everything, so that's a major ding against them. But they can also certainly afford to pay more than USC, and I think a lot of coaches would put a lot of stock in coaching in front of a sold-out crowd at DKR over a half-full crowd in the crumbling Coliseum.

Both schools have plenty of unique reasons for coaches NOT wanting to go there, but at the end of the day I don't see how anyone could argue that Texas isn't a "better" job than USC. They've got them beat in just about every objective measure.

I think you can make an argument for Texas but I think SC is a better job by a significant margin. Most importantly is Texas isn't even the undisputed best job in it's own conference. Oklahoma has been running circles around them for the better part of 20 years now and it's not like Oklahoma is historically inept. USC doesn't have the specter of being little brother to anybody, which is why I think it >>>> Texas when it comes to CFB jobs.

That's...a really bizarre argument. I don't see how Oklahoma at all diminishes Texas's prestige, or the attractiveness of that job. If anything, I would say it enhances it. It's not like Michigan is any less of a job because Ohio State is there, and the recent success of the Sooners relative to the Longhorns doesn't even touch the level of dominance that OSU has had over UM. This argument might have merit if we're talking about Auburn, UCLA, or Michigan State, but nobody in their right mind would ever call Texas the "little brother" in its rivalry to Oklahoma. They're pretty well-matched as blue bloods, even though Texas still owns the all-time series pretty handily and has far and away the superior financial resources.

But speaking of your arbitrary 20 year timeline in which Oklahoma has "ran circles" around Texas - that's really not the case. Oklahoma is 12-8 against Texas in that span, and that includes one of the most historically inept stretches Texas has ever had. Oklahoma meanwhile has seen some of its most historically successful seasons come during that same time frame. So again, I don't see how any perceived inferiority to Oklahoma, which I would argue doesn't even exists outside of fringe opinion-holders (of which there will always be for any topic), would even factor into a coach's decision to take the Texas job. Factors like an overzealous administration/booster network, an unrelenting fanbase that will try to wring your neck after any loss, and obnoxious media requirements for the Longhorn Network would all be legitimate gripes with taking the job. But the rivlary with Oklahoma is nowhere close to being on that list. If anything, I would imagine the Texas AD sells the prestige and history of the RRR in every meeting with a prospective Texas head coach.