https://www.espn.com/college-football/i ... ve-group-5




ESPN+ article so if you don’t get it:


TIER 1: Boise State, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF

TIER 2: BYU, Memphis, Navy, San Diego State, SMU, South Florida, Temple Most likely to move up: Memphis

TIER 3: Air Force, Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Central Michigan, Colorado State, East Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Fresno State, Georgia Southern, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, Marshall, Miami (Ohio), Northern Illinois, North Texas, Ohio, Southern Miss, Toledo, Western Michigan, Wyoming Most likely to move up: Colorado State

TIER 4: Army, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Charlotte, Florida International, Georgia State, Hawaii, Liberty, Middle Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, Old Dominion, Troy, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, UConn, Utah State, Western Kentucky Most likely to move up: Troy, Tulane

TIER 5: Akron, Ball State, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Louisiana-Monroe, New Mexico State, Rice, San Jose State, South Alabama, Texas State, UMass, UTEP, UTSA Most likely to move up: Texas State, UTSA


Coaching aside, give me a new G5 where they (whoever they are) lop all the Tier 4 & 5 schools and banish them to FCS.

Is this based on pay or on performance, or both? Troy had a down year, but to see them in tier 4 is surprising.

Am I justified to feel slapped in the face? Maybe I'm not understanding the methodology...

Clearly budget was a big factor... HC pay facilities oh then on the field performance. How about a ratings article on those that do the most with less. Yea not as sexy I guess. There’s a lot of waste out there.Bouse, UCF, Cincy, Houston, all have unique situations. All that aside, I’d play any of them tomorrow.

They explain the methodology in the article. I don't want to steal the whole thing, but it's about what you'd expect - a mix of coach salaries, facilities, recruiting ground, fan support, history of success, etc.

The blurb on App is pretty spot-on I thought. Basically said our on-field performance would rank us higher, but we lack the finances of the top two tiers. Can't really argue that.

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:46 pm

They explain the methodology in the article. I don't want to steal the whole thing, but it's about what you'd expect - a mix of coach salaries, facilities, recruiting ground, fan support, history of success, etc.

The blurb on App is pretty spot-on I thought. Basically said our on-field performance would rank us higher, but we lack the finances of the top two tiers. Can't really argue that.

I think our ranking is appropriate. Is App a good coaching job? For sure. But we can’t pay as much as the top level G5’s and don’t play in either of the premier G5 conferences. Doesn’t mean we can’t keep improving.

ArmantiWaterSafety wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:22 pm

Is this based on pay or on performance, or both? Troy had a down year, but to see them in tier 4 is surprising.

Both are part of it but don't think of it as an evaluation of the team's performance but rather the desirability of the job. Things that make a job desirable are 1. location since that'll influence recruiting and fan/TV market conditions, 2. good facilities because it makes it easier to recruit and train the team as well as make it more attractive for fans to attend games 3. Salary for both the HC and his assistants because that makes it easier to put together a good staff. 4. Support from an administration and booster base committed to football 5. Past/recent success to a degree because that helps sell the vision to fans and recruits alike.

That's why some solid historic programs are in Tier 3 or lower. They may be lacking in some of these. And while it's definitely a testament to the program when they can do more with less, I don't know if I would objectively call that a good thing in terms of trying to attract a candidate to a job. It's good to see it can be done but I don't think most really want to sign up to operate on Oakland A's level budget and facilities while some of your peers are the Yankees and Red Sox.

Think about it like this: If a coach with no previous ties to either school were offered the job at both school A and school B, which would he likely take? Every school in the top two tiers can basically pay 3x what we can; that alone is usually going to be too much to overcome.

I could argue with a couple of the Tier 2 choices. Temple has a pretty low ceiling and not much success before the past few years. Navy is fine if it's your last stop, but recruiting limitations are such that you basically have to run the triple option, which makes it a tougher stepping stone to a P5 job than others on the list.