The Nebraska job isn't what it used to be.

 

Doesn't mean it isn't a top 20 job.

---

I think Nebraska is still a top 20 personally. I don't see Washington a better job then Nebraska. They are probably just about right in the list in op

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Thats true.  Although once you make this kind of money, taxes would be more of an annoyance than a deal breaker for me.

 

To add to my list I think Stanford would be a great gig.  Again, no pressure.  Great town.  


 

Also Colorado.  Actually CU would be much higher on my list.  7-8 wins a year and you've guaranteed yourself 10 years.  GREAT city.  You play in the Pac12 so you've got some cool road games.  Recruiting would be tougher.  But you just spend all your recruiting time in California and Texas and pull kids from there.  Boulder isnt that hard of a sell.  The only real downside to CU in my eyes is the trouble your kids could get into.  

 

Stanford would be the perfect fit for me. Still close enough to recruit southern California talent, good reputation. You've got a strong conference that also helps with recruiting.

 

The only concern I would have is the academic requirements. They have always been known as an academic institution and that might make some recruits shy.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Stanford would be the perfect fit for me. Still close enough to recruit southern California talent, good reputation. You've got a strong conference that also helps with recruiting.

 

The only concern I would have is the academic requirements. They have always been known as an academic institution and that might make some recruits shy.

 

It wouldn't just make them shy, they couldn't recruit many based on that alone.  Then again, they get really good athletes based on their academic reputation.  Same with schools like Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt (they don't pull the athletes like Stanford does)

---

It's kind of sad what happened to Colorado football.

 

Bill McCartney had Colorado rolling in the late 80's and into the 90's. He won because he recruited the hell out of Souithern California. He would go into the worst neighborhoods of LA and San Diego and get great talent to Boulder. Now, it's a stronghold of USC, UCLA and Oregon. Not sure they will ever be competitive again.

 

I was actually living in Denver for the end of McCartney's run.  I remember being in the Cherry Creek mall when Kordell Stewart's hail mary was caught.  The place went nuts.  Its definitely not an easy place to consistently be a big time winner.  Just doesnt have the recruiting base.  Everyone there thought there was no reason they couldnt be like Nebraska who also lacks a local recruiting base.  But the Huskers had the advantage all those years because of their option offense which didnt require tons of great athletes.  Plus their walk on program was legendary.  Colorado could never replicate that and needs the right coach who can attract big time players wherever they can get them.  But you're right... getting southern Cali kids will be a lot tougher for them now.

 

The other major downside of Colorado is there just isnt much interest.  Especially not from the school.  I remember one year when Nebraska came to town as a top 5 team and they couldnt sell out little Folsom Field.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

It wouldn't just make them shy, they couldn't recruit many based on that alone.  Then again, they get really good athletes based on their academic reputation.  Same with schools like Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt (they don't pull the athletes like Stanford does)

 

As a Vandy fan this is something my school struggles with.  It works for you and against you.  Every year there seems to be a collection of kids of who are not only really good at football but are also concerned with the academics.  And they seem to get split among the likes of Stanford, Northwestern, us.... etc...  But its not a huge group and there isnt enough of those players to fill all these teams' rosters.  And lately Stanford has been getting more of them.  Our new coach was actually Stanford's D Coordinator the last few years so some of those recruiting battles we've been losing recently actually swung in our favor this last signing period.  

 

While it's difficult being at these academic schools because your pool of talent is a lot smaller.  On the otherhand, I think you've got more to sell.  If you've got a smart kid who is a good football player, I can understand losing kids to the likes of Texas or Florida.  Because while they are football powers, you can also get a solid education there.  However why would any kid choose Oregon St over Stanford?  Or Ole Miss over Vandy?  Your football experience isnt going to be that much better, if at all, and you walk away with a much more valuable education.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

As a Vandy fan this is something my school struggles with.  It works for you and against you.  Every year there seems to be a collection of kids of who are not only really good at football but are also concerned with the academics.  And they seem to get split among the likes of Stanford, Northwestern, us.... etc...  But its not a huge group and there isnt enough of those players to fill all these teams' rosters.  And lately Stanford has been getting more of them.  Our new coach was actually Stanford's D Coordinator the last few years so some of those recruiting battles we've been losing recently actually swung in our favor this last signing period.  

 

While it's difficult being at these academic schools because your pool of talent is a lot smaller.  On the otherhand, I think you've got more to sell.  If you've got a smart kid who is a good football player, I can understand losing kids to the likes of Texas or Florida.  Because while they are football powers, you can also get a solid education there.  However why would any kid choose Oregon St over Stanford?  Or Ole Miss over Vandy?  Your football experience isnt going to be that much better, if at all, and you walk away with a much more valuable education.  

 

If I was a highly touted recruit and Stanford wanted me there, they are my first choice hands down and it ain't even close.

 

Even if I never see the field, I can get a Stanford education for free?!?! Where do I sign and I'll even help sweep up the place after practice.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Did somebody just say that the football experience between Stanford and Oregon St. isn't that big of a difference?

 

I feel like that had to be a typo or I'm reading it wrong.

---

If I was a highly touted recruit and Stanford wanted me there, they are my first choice hands down and it ain't even close.

 

Even if I never see the field, I can get a Stanford education for free?!?! Where do I sign and I'll even help sweep up the place after practice.

That wasn't his question posed.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Did somebody just say that the football experience between Stanford and Oregon St. isn't that big of a difference?

 

I feel like that had to be a typo or I'm reading it wrong.

No, I think they were strictly speaking academics I think. If offered by both, why wouldn't you choose the better education. At least that is what I think they meant

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

That wasn't his question posed.

 

True, but I was just carrying on the conversation about what kind of college life experience a recruit has. Seemed like an organic branch of the OP's topic to me.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Did somebody just say that the football experience between Stanford and Oregon St. isn't that big of a difference?

 

I feel like that had to be a typo or I'm reading it wrong.

 

No it wasnt a typo.  Although maybe the point wasnt well articulated.  The point is Oregon St isnt this historically great football power like a Texas or a Michigan.  And by choosing the academic school, you'd be foregoing all the tradition and big games, etc.... Sure Stanford has been good the last four years, but historically going to Oregon St vs Stanford isnt a huge difference as far as what happens on the football field.  Historically they are both average programs playing in average bowl games who every now and then have brief moments of greatness.  So why would anyone ever choose Oregon St over Stanford?  So elite academic schools in my mind have a big advantage when going after the good but not great high school prospects.  I can understand the great prospects going to Texas or Florida or Michigan.  But why would the good prospect ever go to Oregon St over Stanford.

 

(Stanford may not be a great example for the younger crowd here but historically they've been an average at best program.  We'll see if this recent streak is a blip or the beginning of their rise into an elite program.)

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Yeah, probably a bad example, considering Stanford has been to 4 straight BCS Bowls and is 46-8 in the past 4 seasons.

---

well you probably are too young to remember the Stanford prior to 4 years ago

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

And you're probably too old to recall how good Stanford has been in the past 4 years. Your statement was:

 

"However why would any kid choose Oregon St over Stanford?  Or Ole Miss over Vandy?  Your football experience isnt going to be that much better, if at all, and you walk away with a much more valuable education."

 

 

A player would choose Stanford over Oregon St. because Stanford has gone to 4 straight BCS Bowl games and is 46-8 in the past 4 years. Simple answer. The football experience will me much different at Stanford than Oregon St. Like I said, bad example.

---

Did somebody just say that the football experience between Stanford and Oregon St. isn't that big of a difference?

 

I feel like that had to be a typo or I'm reading it wrong.

 

I don't see either as much different, or why they should be seen as much different.

 

If I were a student(first) athlete, I'd pick Stanford solely because of academics.  As far as football... neither is a traditional powerhouse and aren't likely to have you raise a championship trophy.  If I were an athlete student looking for my best launching pad into the NFL (instead of a student athlete looking for an education in case the NFL career doesn't materialize or pan out,) neither school would be on my short list.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Do you not follow college football? Stanford is 46-8 in the past four seasons and have played in 4 straight BCS games. I don't care if they are a historical powerhouse or not.


The poster said there isn't much difference in terms of football experience. You don't think going to 4 straight BCS games is more appealing to football players than whatever Oregon St. is doing?

---

Do you not follow college football? Stanford is 46-8 in the past four seasons and have played in 4 straight BCS games. I don't care if they are a historical powerhouse or not.


The poster said there isn't much difference in terms of football experience. You don't think going to 4 straight BCS games is more appealing to football players than whatever Oregon St. is doing?

 

Yes they did just go to four straight BCS games but they have lost their Head Coach to the NFL as well as their Offensive Coordinator. As stated above, they may be a flash in the pan. They may regress back to the days when even posting a winning season was seen as a good season. You know, like all the way back to the dim, faraway days of 2009. Then again, they may just keep the streak going but let's sit back and watch for a bit.

 

It's not that they aren't playing well now, but all of Harbaugh's recruits are now gone and let's see how Shaw does with his own players.

 

Gracious man, have just a little bit of perspective here.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Ok? Hypothetical less, please.

 

The fact is that Stanford has gone to 4 straight BCS bowls and is ranked 11th in the 2014 USA Today Coaches Poll. To say they are on the same level as Oregon St. is absurd.

 

 

It's pretty simple, if I'm a football player who wants to compete for the Pac-12 championship and push for BCS bids, I'm picking Stanford over Oregon St.

---

And you're probably too old to recall how good Stanford has been in the past 4 years. Your statement was:

 

"However why would any kid choose Oregon St over Stanford?  Or Ole Miss over Vandy?  Your football experience isnt going to be that much better, if at all, and you walk away with a much more valuable education."

 

 

A player would choose Stanford over Oregon St. because Stanford has gone to 4 straight BCS Bowl games and is 46-8 in the past 4 years. Simple answer. The football experience will me much different at Stanford than Oregon St. Like I said, bad example.

 

He's the one who pointed that fact out, and now he's too old to remember?  He's the one who admitted to it possibly being a bad example too, and you piggy backed on that.

 

Some people here are incredible.

---