Even More Coaching Rankings

[AUChizad]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/auburn_coach_gene_chizik_suffe.html

Auburn coach Gene Chizik suffers the most personal insult of the week
Published: Sunday, May 13, 2012, 5:14 AM
By Kevin Scarbinsky, Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - Jim Delany's got nothing on Matt Hayes and Steve Greenberg.

When it comes to insulting football programs in this state in the last week, the Big Ten commissioner takes a back seat to those writers from The Sporting News.

All Delany did was take a thinly veiled shot at Alabama when he expressed disdain for an unnamed team that doesn't win its division but is given a chance to compete for a national championship.

Hayes and Greenberg got much more personal. They called Gene Chizik one of the worst national championship coaches in the country.

OK, so they didn't say it in so many words. They didn't have to use words to fire an arrow at Chizik's acumen.

They used a number, and the number was 36.

That's where they slotted Chizik in their ranking of the entire roster of Football Bowl Subdivision coaches from best to worst, from No. 1 to No. 124, from Nick Saban to Charley Molnar, the former Notre Dame assistant heading into his first season as a head coach at UMass, which is moving up itself from the Football Championship Subdivision.

Gene Chizik, No. 36.

When you're a year removed from winning a national title and being named national coach of the year, and a respected national publication says there are 35 people in your profession better than you, it's not a compliment.

How do you put that bit of disrespect into sharper perspective? Just ahead of Chizik: Navy's Ken Niumatalolo, who went 5-7 last year, at No. 35. Miami's Al Golden, who went 6-6 a year ago and has a losing career record, at No. 34.

Some other notable names The Sporting News considers better coaches than the Auburn coach: USC's Lane Kiffin (No. 20). Chizik's first Auburn team went to Knoxville and beat Kiffin's one-and-only Tennessee team.

Vanderbilt's James Franklin (No. 25). That's an awful lot of love for a coach who went 2-6 in his first season in the SEC last year with the Commodores.

Clemson's Dabo Swinney (No. 27). Chizik and Swinney are 1-1 head-to-head, with the rubber match coming Sept. 1 in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff in the Georgia Dome. Chizik is 3-0 in bowl games, which includes a national championship game. Swinney lost his last bowl game 70-33.
Kevin Scarbinsky is a columnist for The Birmingham News. His column is published on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

Did we mention that Chizik has won a national championship? The Sporting News did, too, but they chose to give all the credit to Cam Newton, as if the Tigers won it all despite their head coach.

"The Tigers have two 8-5 seasons sandwiched around the Newton Supernova," Hayes and Greenberg wrote. "Other than that, what do you have?"

Other than one losing season, in the SEC and overall, what do you have on Franklin?

There are eight coaches on The Sporting News list that have won national championships. Compare and contrast where they're ranked.

No. 1: Saban.

No. 3: Urban Meyer.

No. 4: Les Miles.

No. 5: Bob Stoops.

No. 8: Steve Spurrier.

No. 16: Mack Brown.

No. 36: Chizik.

No. 78: Larry Coker.

There's no mistaking the meaning of those numbers, and never mind that Chizik is 3-0 against Spurrier, handing him a record SEC Championship Game beatdown in 2010 and keeping him out of the SEC Championship Game in 2011.

Like Coker, who won his title at Miami before losing his job there and then re-emerging in the wilderness at Texas-San Antonio, Chizik is considered a one-hit wonder. The only way for him to change that perception is to win big again, to win without Newton, to win in the face of the best coach, the best division and the best conference in the country.

As insulting as the ranking was, it could've been worse. They could've ranked Chizik behind Tommy Tuberville (No. 50), who's struggled in two years at Texas Tech, and Terry Bowden (No. 76), who's back as an FBS head coach for the first time since walking away from Auburn in the middle of the 1998 season.

Chizik isn't Saban - a lot of Auburn fans will tell you they appreciate that fact - but in their three meetings, Chizik has one close loss, one close win and one lopsided loss.

Bottom line: The Sporting News got it right, and The Sporting News got it wrong. There isn't a better coach in college football than Saban. There aren't 35 coaches in college football better than Chizik.

Not at the moment, but check back in November. Rankings are always subject to change.

[GH2001]

I have a problem with Jeff Lebo being ranked 33.

One day people will wake up to this guy.

[GH2001]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/auburn_coach_gene_chizik_suffe.html

Good read.

And he hits the point that we aren't expecting every objective person to rank him #1 or even top 5 or 10. But 36??? That's our fucking gripe.

[JR4AU]

Good read.

And he hits the point that we aren't expecting every objective person to rank him #1 or even top 5 or 10. But 36??? That's our fucking gripe.

The big thing you hear detractors say is "Larry Coker".  Well there's no fucking comparison. Coker won the NC in year one.  If ever there was a "he did it with the other coach's players" story, it's Coker.  Unlike most new coaches, he took over a program that was on top.  His 2002, the class on the heels of the NC, recruiting class was ranked 8th.  2003 - 5th. 2004 - 6th, 2005 - 7th.  2006 -14th.  Yet, from 2003 on, there was a steady decline from a NC level team, to a .500 team.  He maintained recruiting, but not success on the field.  So, it's a completely different situation with Coker.  Chizik had a good core of players left him, but not completely loaded like Coker was left with.  We all knew the gap in recruiting in 2007/2008 would leave us where we were last year, yet, I believe it was a great coaching job considering the number of Fr. that started or played a lot, and the fact that we didn't have a QB worth a shit.  But, it still gets back to the dumbass fans that always like to claim (about a coach they have chose to dislike, and want to manufacture a way to not give credit where due) that he won a championship with a player that could carry any team to a BCS title with out the aid of any coaches help, and on top of that cheated to get him.  Sadly, some of these dumbasses actually have places in major publications to put their drivel.

[Snaggletiger]

I'll say again, it comes down to a lack of any research and taking a close look at the job Chizik has done.  To the casual fan, 36 is about right.  Let's say this happened at some other school.  Chizik leaves Iowa State and lands at.....Texas A&M.  He goes 8-5 the first year...the second year he wins the MNC with maybe the greatest player to set foot on a college field (But don't forget, it's a given that Corch Chizik bought and paid for said player and championship).  Next year...8-5.  Also remember that he came to A&M off a 5-19 career record.  Now this is what every fan outside the AU family sees...and apparently what they based this poll on.  Would we even remotely question his standing had this happened at A&M?  No way.  But he's here and we follow the program daily.  We know the job he's done.  These schleps did no research and published this.   

[GH2001]

Coker practically had an NFL roster every year and underachieved severly. Chiz has met or surpassed expectations each of his 3 years. That comparison to Coker is garbage.

[AUChizad]

I'll say again, it comes down to a lack of any research and taking a close look at the job Chizik has done.  To the casual fan, 36 is about right.  Let's say this happened at some other school.  Chizik leaves Iowa State and lands at.....Texas A&M.  He goes 8-5 the first year...the second year he wins the MNC with maybe the greatest player to set foot on a college field (But don't forget, it's a given that Corch Chizik bought and paid for said player and championship).  Next year...8-5.  Also remember that he came to A&M off a 5-19 career record.  Now this is what every fan outside the AU family sees...and apparently what they based this poll on.  Would we even remotely question his standing had this happened at A&M?  No way.  But he's here and we follow the program daily.  We know the job he's done.  These schleps did no research and published this.

Even factoring that in, 36 is low.

For starters, the idea that Cam made that much of a difference is pretty absurd. To ignore our veteran O-Line which I would argue was the best in the country at the time, a kicker that practically never missed, a Freshman running back that was MVP of the BCS Championship game, and the beast that was Nick Fairley, is to just be plain ignorant to the facts.

They have Briles at Baylor at 41. Five spots below Chizik.

RGIII really was that team. And even then, they didn't sniff a BCS Championship. They weren't even in contention for a Big XII championship, let alone winning an SEC one. And he was 4-8, 4-8, and 7-6 in every other year he coached there.

[Townhallsavoy]

I'd argue that Briles should be higher than 41.

One player does not a team make.  RGIII was phenomenal, but Baylor has been a doormat for a really long time.  The coach turned that team around starting with recruiting and coaching RGIII.

[Snaggletiger]

Even factoring that in, 36 is low.

For starters, the idea that Cam made that much of a difference is pretty absurd. To ignore our veteran O-Line which I would argue was the best in the country at the time, a kicker that practically never missed, a Freshman running back that was MVP of the BCS Championship game, and the beast that was Nick Fairley, is to just be plain ignorant to the facts.

They have Briles at Baylor at 41. Five spots below Chizik.

RGIII really was that team. And even then, they didn't sniff a BCS Championship. They weren't even in contention for a Big XII championship, let alone winning an SEC one. And he was 4-8, 4-8, and 7-6 in every other year he coached there.

But that's my point.  You're actually using facts....bringing out things you, as an Auburn man, know.  Like the O-line etc.  The writers acted merely as casual fans around the country.  They don't give a shit about an O-line that had about 140 starts collectively under their belts.  A damn fine freshman running back or two veteran receivers make no difference to them.  Nor does a senior dominated defense.

Cam Newton was and is the sole reason for 2010.  Fairley helped but he was a dirty player.  The issue is, would you even think to question the ranking of a coach (He's at Oklahoma State and you haven't researched him or that program) who is 21-29 outside of one mega-season with greatest player ever.....that he bought and paid for?