Spurrier was notorious for talking about how much more work the NFL was. Of course he had it really good in Florida and has a general reputation for getting in plenty of rounds of golf, etc. In college he can largely recruit based upon his reputation, etc. In the NFL, he said the workload was significantly more.

Recruiting at Florida was done by working with handlers in his own backyard. His NFL career was done in by not knowing a thing about defense and having Patrick Ramsey, Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews as his QB's.

And yet he turned around South Carolina behind a pretty sick defense.

A very good college coach has a life time job.

 

Every NFL coach is one injury away from being on the hot seat.

 

And yet he turned around South Carolina behind a pretty sick defense.

 

It doesnt hurt that he can recruit guys like Clowney out of his backyard, like he did in Florida

And yet he turned around South Carolina behind a pretty sick defense.

Ellis Johnson is a pretty sick defensive coach.

I realize recruiting is a full time job, but I don't think I've heard a college coach whose jumped to the pros say that the NFL gig was less work than college.

 

What does the NFL entail that it's more "work" than college? I'm sure game planning and scouting opponents is tougher with a bigger schedule and no Div 2 teams to play. But you spend zero time recruiting, you have a GM and front office that takes care of a lot of the personnel stuff. Your roster is smaller, no academics to worry about, you probably don't get involved in your player's personal life, like a college coach with an 18-year old. Is it just that detail and game planning are that much more important to win NFL games?

If you think that is how recruiting works you are off base. The way you get good classes is a combination of working your tail off and support from staff and institution. Check out the budget for recruiting, facilities and staff at schools in the conference and you will see heavy correlation towards who gets the best classes. Teams with coaches are arent good at organizing recruiting fall back into the pack very easily. Teams that just "sit back" become irrelevant very quickly.

 

In the NFL you have an even larger budget to scout and keep players for longer periods of time. You are also dealing with professionals instead of families/handlers/rules bulls***.

You know exactly what I'm saying, I don't mean sit back and do absolutely nothing. The name Ohio State does a lot to recruit by itself. 5 stars want to go to Ohio State, and there are enough 4 and 5 stars that want to go there so it makes it way easier to recruit. It doesn't mean they aren't working at it, but it's way easier to recruit at some schools compared to others. You have guys who dream of going to OSU and getting an offer there. The leverage game is much different than recruiting at say, Illinois.

 

There are for sure coaches who work just as hard, if not harder, than Ohio St at recruiting, but can't get the same results because it isn't the destination Ohio St is. THAT'S the advantage I'm talking about.

 

No matter what, you still have more control over your roster. It's the Calipari example. He could stay at Kentucky and have the 5 stars come to him and almost always have more talent than anyone, or he can go to the NBA and be constrained by whatever finds its way onto the roster. He doesn't get the first 5 picks in each NBA draft to give him an advantage.

You know exactly what I'm saying, I don't mean sit back and do absolutely nothing. The name Ohio State does a lot to recruit by itself. 5 stars want to go to Ohio State, and there are enough 4 and 5 stars that want to go there so it makes it way easier to recruit. It doesn't mean they aren't working at it, but it's way easier to recruit at some schools compared to others. You have guys who dream of going to OSU and getting an offer there. The leverage game is much different than recruiting at say, Illinois.

 

There are for sure coaches who work just as hard, if not harder, than Ohio St at recruiting, but can't get the same results because it isn't the destination Ohio St is. THAT'S the advantage I'm talking about.

 

No matter what, you still have more control over your roster. It's the Calipari example. He could stay at Kentucky and have the 5 stars come to him and almost always have more talent than anyone, or he can go to the NBA and be constrained by whatever finds its way onto the roster. He doesn't get the first 5 picks in each NBA draft to give him an advantage.

The only thing the "name" gets you is a better floor. With a different staff and less effort OSU would recruit in the 20's and 30's as far as team rankings. Football is a lot different than bball recruiting.

BTW, here is a good resource in seeing the difference between programs on salaries, spending etc. You can see some correlation

 

https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?appSession=204..._and_bonuses_fo

The only thing the "name" gets you is a better floor. With a different staff and less effort OSU would recruit in the 20's and 30's as far as team rankings. Football is a lot different than bball recruiting.

Even in the 20's and 30's, it's not the 90's.

 

The NFL has no built in floor like that.

Even in the 20's and 30's, it's not the 90's.

 

The NFL has no built in floor like that.

The NFL has people begging to join your roster because space is so limited. Scouting and drafting is extremely important but there is almost zero "selling" of your team to players.

The NFL has people begging to join your roster because space is so limited. Scouting and drafting is extremely important but there is almost zero "selling" of your team to players.

 

If a player is begging to join a roster they are not very good.

 

At free agency signing day, the worthy free agents are not waiting outside a team's headquarters to sign with their dream team. While not the same recruiting, if your front office is not doing their job there is little you can do about that. The NFL also does not have boosters to help make these players see how great their life can be.

 

If a player is begging to join a roster they are not very good.

 

At free agency signing day, the worthy free agents are not waiting outside a team's headquarters to sign with their dream team. While not the same recruiting, if your front office is not doing their job there is little you can do about that. The NFL also does not have boosters to help make these players see how great their life can be.

They just pay them legally, which is easier. Front office scouting is very similar to scouting recruits except with a MUCH smaller pool of talent and much smaller pool of competition.

They just pay them legally, which is easier. Front office scouting is very similar to scouting recruits except with a MUCH smaller pool of talent and much smaller pool of competition.

 

And a much, much thinner margin for error.

And a much, much thinner margin for error.

Thats definitely true, probably why you see so many college coaches crap out early in the NFL without success and then go back.

They just pay them legally, which is easier. Front office scouting is very similar to scouting recruits except with a MUCH smaller pool of talent and much smaller pool of competition.

 

There is a salary cap for them to pay them legally with though. State U has no salary cap, it can throw bags of money (secretly of course) at every one of its recruits if it wants.

There is a salary cap for them to pay them legally with though. State U has no salary cap, it can throw bags of money (secretly of course) at every one of its recruits if it wants.

But there is risk involved there, and it can be crippling...

Thats definitely true, probably why you see so many college coaches crap out early in the NFL without success and then go back.

 

I think that's as big a reason why as any. Plus you have deeper rosters at the NCAA level and the talent dropoff between your starter and your 2nd string isn't nearly as noticeable.

 

It's true that you really have to be successful no matter what, but you are given a little bit more rope in college. Unless it gets totally disfunctional, coaches are usually given 5 years. In the NFL, it's typically 3 years.

I think that's as big a reason why as any. Plus you have deeper rosters at the NCAA level and the talent dropoff between your starter and your 2nd string isn't nearly as noticeable.

 

It's true that you really have to be successful no matter what, but you are given a little bit more rope in college. Unless it gets totally disfunctional, coaches are usually given 5 years. In the NFL, it's typically 3 years.

Definitely also depends on the program. Endless years of 9-3 wouldnt fly at some while others would be ecstatic.

But there is risk involved there, and it can be crippling...

 

That's true, but even with "clean" recruiting, you can take as many top guys as you want and let them sort themselves out. The NFL salary cap doesn't allow for that, not to mention the draft prevents it as well.

That's true, but even with "clean" recruiting, you can take as many top guys as you want and let them sort themselves out. The NFL salary cap doesn't allow for that, not to mention the draft prevents it as well.

Eh, its still restrictive to 85 and all of those guys have to do things like pass class for example, so its not a free for all.

Eh, its still restrictive to 85 and all of those guys have to do things like pass class for example, so its not a free for all.

 

Pass class? Big deal. NFL coaches have to keep their players from beating their wives AND children. Good luck with that.

The thing about football is more than any other sport coaching can make you better. These guys at the big schools also have professionals on their staff and pay very well to retain them.

 

You can get by with some not so talented players in college if your staff can coach them up.

 

In the NFL as pointed out earlier there is less margin for error.

 

I don't recall many big time players becoming academically ineligible.

Edited September 26, 201411 yr by Harry Chappas

Michigan -13 favs. LoLz

Michigan -13 favs. LoLz

 

 

Almost as funny as Wisconsin being a 34 point favorite.