Better Job: South Carolina or Miami?

[TD_6082]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

 

[phxpanther]

The biggest thing a coach wants is talent. Miami almost always has more talent than the teams in their division.

SC will rarely have more talent than UF, UF, UGA, or UT in their own division

 

[thebadby2]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

Depends on what you're looking for in a HC job. If the goal is upward mobility i.e., the next job, then Miami would be the choice. Weaker league, easier to win, make a name for yourself, and be in the playoff conversation every year. Of course, you would need the support of the university administration and AD to give you what you need to build a winner. South Carolina has never been a good job, IMO. For starters, they play in a league that they have never come close to winning--they have losing records against every SEC team but UK, Vandy and MissSU. The one time they won their division in the SEC in 2010, they were absolutely annihilated by Auburn in the SEC champ game. They may pay well, but they don;t have much else to offer IMO. Bottom line is it's easier to win at Miami. Weakest division in the Power 5, just take care of your non-con games, get to the champ game and beat FSU or Clemson and you're in the playoff. All they need down there is the right coach and appropriate support for football from the admin. The same dynamic applies to Pitt. After the defections, the BE was easily the easiest road to a BCS bowl game in any of the major conferences. The Coastal of the ACC is as easy a road as there is in the P5 to a conference championship game. No heavyweight roadblock in the division. Hell, we might even play in the ACC champ game this year.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

If I'm up and coming, Miami. Best stepping stone job in the country.

If I'm established, have my legacy, and am looking to boost my retirement fund I go with South Carolina.

Basically, if Mack Brown comes back to coach, I'd imagine he goes to South Carolina. If it's a guy like Tom Herman, he's probably going to Miami.

 

[JSSTartan]

Each position offers something unique. Carolina has a rabid fan base that has tasted some success and wants more. Competing in the SEC is not easy. Miami has its own issues but still has some of that historical swagger--they need someone that can tap into the football program alumni base. Miami will never have an enormous hometown following, but it can have the following of all of South Beach...with famous people and all (like Southern Cal).

USC has the money to pay and has great facilities. I actually could picture someone like Tommy Tubberville would head there.

Miami has that swagger about them and I'm not sure that will ever leave. Unlike some folks, I do not necessarily believe that you need to "know" the south Florida area to be successful there. Like many have already commented on elsewhere, Miami still practically sells itself. Yes, facilities are a concern. But, the Hurricanes do need someone that can lead them out of this mediocre cycle. Hard to believe they've NEVER played for an ACC title.

I think both of these programs go after proven head coaches and not coordinators.

 

[pantherzooh2p]

If Nebraska comes open this year, I may worry. Narduzzi seems like the exact type of coach that would succeed there

 

[thebadby2]

If Nebraska comes open this year, I may worry. Narduzzi seems like the exact type of coach that would succeed there

It's Mike Riley;s first year there.

 

[pittpitt]

Miami is in the easier league and has a better history, but pure insanity surrounds that program and location (Luther Campbell & Edgerrin James discussing who should be the next coach, ridiculous nightlife and hangers-on everywhere). I don't know if a football coach there can ever feel they have a true handle on the team, which can obviously come out in the W-L column. A coach should be able to win there based on a) recruiting hotbed, b) school history and swagger, c) they're in the ACC Coastal.

SC is in the SEC East, which has 4 teams that can't maintain success (UK, Missouri, Vandy, Tennessee w/o Fulmer), 1 team that is dangerous but usually under-performs (Georgia), and Florida which can be amazing with a great coach (Spurrier & Meyer) but often all over the place otherwise. SEC = tons of mystery boosters & cash for the coach, for the staff, and for "recruiting." A coach will have more resources than at Miami, is still in a great recruiting area, and has less outside distractions, plus it's not like expectations are out of control based on SC's history as one of the SEC's second-tier teams.

Like others said, Miami at this point is more of a stepping stone job and could be a great one, but the inability to rein in the craziness there could actually ruin a coach's reputation. SC is the better opportunity to develop a sustained culture of winning and being ranked.

 

[pantherzooh2p]

It's Mike Riley;s first year there.

and if you believe the rumblings, it's quite possibly his last!

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Good question. The individual makes this question applicable. Columbia is a fairly small and rural college town. Miami is a large city and very urban. I am not a big fan of Miami in general so I would chose Columbia.

 

[The Loaded Italian]

I think if you are James Franklin, Miami would be the better job by FAR. The talent is there, he could get the local girls to show recruits around and they would pay well

 

[TD_6082]

I think if you are James Franklin, Miami would be the better job by FAR. The talent is there, he could get the local girls to show recruits around and they would pay well

Haha. I don't know if they would pay as much as PSU, but I would absolutely love to see James Franklin at Miami.

 

[The Loaded Italian]

Well, I know they have some big buck donors that want the U back to prominence.

The bad news for them, all their famous ex NFL guys are bankrupt, or spend their cash on blow and women. Looking at you Kosar, Irvin, Sapp and James.

 

[TD_6082]

pittpitt, While I don't think Tennessee can have sustained success because of its geographic location, I think they can be fairly successful. Fulmer is main reason the Vols fell into the abyss. He is a perfect example of the peter principle. He dominated recruiting in the southeast by cherry picking states where the programs were down (Louisana, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Oklahoma) When the big state schools in those locations got their act together, his recruiting pretty much sucked. He would sign one Top 10 class every 3 or 4 years and then sign 2 or 3 that wouldn't even be ranked. The sucky recruiting continued with Dooley. Butch Davis seems to be getting things back on track.

Also, Fulmer couldn't hire a staff. Cutliffe left him twice and both times Tennessee's offense went in the crapper. Fulmer couldn't run a practice.

But you are correct. I think the SEC East is pretty lame.

FWIW, I think the Canes should have Stoops on their radar. There is only so much you can do at UK.

 

[TD_6082]

Well, I know they have some big buck donors that want the U back to prominence.

The bad news for them, all their famous ex NFL guys are bankrupt, or spend their cash on blow and women. Looking at you Kosar, Irvin, Sapp and James.

Maybe they can squeeze a little Hollywood money out of The Rock.

 

[raleighpanther]

If I'm up and coming, Miami. Best stepping stone job in the country.

If I'm established, have my legacy, and am looking to boost my retirement fund I go with South Carolina.

Basically, if Mack Brown comes back to coach, I'd imagine he goes to South Carolina. If it's a guy like Tom Herman, he's probably going to Miami.

Wow, for you guys who think that Miami is a great stepping stone job, you might want to talk to guys like Randy Shannahan and their other recent coaches, whose names I can't remember because they've disappeared.
And Golden was a hot young coach a few years back, and his rep has been damaged by his Miami coaching stint. Sure, hiring folks will consider the circumstances there, but they'll also hold it against him that he failed so miserably with high end talent, and was not able to overcome the obstacles, because all places have their own obstacles.

 

[genooo]

Spurrier won 1 division title at USCe and it was in an awful year for that division. You can win a championship at Miami. Money aside, it is really a no brainer.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Wow, for you guys who think that Miami is a great stepping stone job, you might want to talk to guys like Randy Shannahan and their other recent coaches, whose names I can't remember because they've disappeared.
And Golden was a hot young coach a few years back, and his rep has been damaged by his Miami coaching stint. Sure, hiring folks will consider the circumstances there, but they'll also hold it against him that he failed so miserably with high end talent, and was not able to overcome the obstacles, because all places have their own obstacles.

I think it cuts both ways. Shannon and Golden have seen their images severely damaged, sure, but it's because it IS so difficult to fail there. You get fantastic talent coming through those doors on a yearly basis just because of the name of the school. It's no different than a guy like Matt Doherty in college basketball who failed at UNC, or a guy like Kevin O'Neill who failed at Arizona.

If I'm a coach who is young, has yet to fail, and is supremely confident in my abilities, I'm going to Miami, planning on winning big for a few years, and then leaving for a job like Alabama or Georgia or Texas A&M when it comes open.

 

[Burgh15]

If you are talking about a big stadium filled with rabid fans, then USC is your deal. You are going to have a decent amount of success there, but will have a tough time ever reaching an elite level with so much competition in the SEC.

Miami isnt the better job today, but the talent pool is in your backyard. It is a boom or bust job. If you succeed, you are going to compete for a title, but if you fail, you are going down hard. Miami needs a special personality to succeed and that will keep a number of quality candidates away.

 

[pbrad]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

You can get big time recruits and win a title at the U. You can win 9 games and get crushed in the championship game at SC. Take your pick. SC was only good because of Spurrier, not many Spurriers out there.

 

[raleighpanther]

The record shows that its actually quite easy to fail at Miami.

One of the big problems at Miami is that its easy to get good talent, but the environment is really detrimental to building a winning program. So, coaches struggle to win in that environment, and get slammed because the expectation is so high given the talent.

 

[dithridge78]

South Carolina. Miami living in the past, like lots of Pitt folks were in the mid 90's..

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

IMO S.C. is the better job. (now) Like Miami they are in a good recruiting area. But what they have that Miami doesn't have is a good foundation.

At Miami you have to build from the ground up. At S.C. that not the case.

 

[paulbl99]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

Jmo but it is SC and it's not even close.....

When da U was winning the place was a cesspool....clean that out and they suck

The Big State Universities are just boat racing places like Miami in terms of fans, facilities and all the goodies of big-time CFB , with few exceptions..

Thought here is Miami is a mess and going to struggle
Which hopefully is wrong because watching Miami whack teams used to be fun.

 

[thebadby2]

Good question. The individual makes this question applicable. Columbia is a fairly small and rural college town. Miami is a large city and very urban. I am not a big fan of Miami in general so I would chose Columbia.

I wouldn't call it small and rural. Largest city in SC, and has a fairly large metroplex. It's nothing like Miami, though, for sure.

Wow, for you guys who think that Miami is a great stepping stone job, you might want to talk to guys like Randy Shannahan and their other recent coaches, whose names I can't remember because they've disappeared.
And Golden was a hot young coach a few years back, and his rep has been damaged by his Miami coaching stint. Sure, hiring folks will consider the circumstances there, but they'll also hold it against him that he failed so miserably with high end talent, and was not able to overcome the obstacles, because all places have their own obstacles.

You ever consider the fact that those guys just weren't very good coaches?

Kind of like our last several. I know it's not popular on the Lair but the only decent coach in the bunch is our boy Toddy. His problem was just that he's a POS.

 

[Panther Holla]

Good points for both sides of this issue. I'd go with South Carolina. The "U" era is as dead and buried as the Paterno era at Penn State. Miami had a remarkable run, but across the timeline of college football it was more meteoric than the sustained excellence across many decades that the Nebraskas and Okalhomas and Notre Dames enjoyed. Kids have more options, and if they want to play they can go elsewhere in the ACC, and the other Florida programs will siphon some kids, too. In Miami's glory era, the FIUs and USFs weren't even a minor factor. Don't the U's facilities lag behind other schools as well? Their famous football alums can rant all they want, but let's see them pass the hat and play brick-and-mortar catchup with everybody else.

South Carolina is traditionally an also-ran, but they have the facilities and fan base. I think Gamecock fans are like Pitt's in a way -- burned way too often by unrealized expectations.

 

[thebadby2]

Good points for both sides of this issue. I'd go with South Carolina. The "U" era is as dead and buried as the Paterno era at Penn State. Miami had a remarkable run, but across the timeline of college football it was more meteoric than the sustained excellence across many decades that the Nebraskas and Okalhomas and Notre Dames enjoyed. Kids have more options, and if they want to play they can go elsewhere in the ACC, and the other Florida programs will siphon some kids, too. In Miami's glory era, the FIUs and USFs weren't even a minor factor. Don't the U's facilities lag behind other schools as well? Their famous football alums can rant all they want, but let's see them pass the hat and play brick-and-mortar catchup with everybody else.

South Carolina is traditionally an also-ran, but they have the facilities and fan base. I think Gamecock fans are like Pitt's in a way -- burned way too often by unrealized expectations.

At least Miami had a run. That has never happened for SC, and it never will. If Spurrier couldn't do it there, who could? He was the only thing keeping that program from being Kentucky. They can't out recruit any of the SEC heavies who take whatever they want from USC's backyard, not to mention Clemson.

Total dead end of a program.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

At least Miami had a run. That has never happened for SC, and it never will. If Spurrier couldn't do it there, who could? He was the only thing keeping that program from being Kentucky. They can't out recruit any of the SEC heavies who take whatever they want from USC's backyard, not to mention Clemson.

Total dead end of a program.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

The correct answer is Miami and it's not even close.

Look, the best predictor of future success is past performance. Look at Miami's history and look at South Carolina's history and you tell me who comes out on top? Now, tell me what has changed structurally that has so wildly changed that dynamic? South Carolina built an indoor practice facility? Miami isn't drawing fans to ProPlayer Stadium instead of failing to draw fans at the Orange Bowl?

This is crazy talk. If Miami hires the right coach they immediately become the Coastal favorites every single year. If they hire a VERY GOOD coach, they immediately become the ACC co-favorites (with FSU) every single year.

This isn't even close.

 

[oldpantherfan]

Easily Miami. SC was not a big job until Spurrier arrived and was successful. So unless another big time coach takes it or whoever the coach is it will not be comparable to Miami. No matter how long ago it was Miami can always tout it's very successful coaches (who also went on to success in the pros), numerous national titles, and always a big one for recruits consistently putting players in the pros no matter what their record. Oh and for the record can we please stop believing that PR hype of the SEC " best conference football". it's not.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"oldpantherfan, post: 460310, member: 4960"]Easily Miami. SC was not a big job until Spurrier arrived and was successful.
Yep, and Clemson is the better Program in the State today!

So unless another big time coach takes it or whoever the coach is it will not be comparable to Miami. No matter how long ago it was Miami can always tout it's very successful coaches (who also went on to success in the pros), numerous national titles, and always a big one for recruits consistently putting players in the pros no matter what their record.
Ditto!

Oh and for the record can we please stop believing that PR hype of the SEC " best conference football". it's not.
I see it differently, but you are not wrong either, I think SEC are because they have built in advantages like no Freshmen Eligibility Rules, Affirmative Action Consent Decrees on Admissions, and with more Programs of larger Rosters so they can add more Walk-Ons as back-ups!

Conferences are Cyclical & Based On The Ratio Of Public-Private Membership By Programs In Universities As One Factor:
This year Best conferences so far & can change:
1. SEC,
2. B-10,
2. B-12
4. ACC
5. PAC-12

 

[drunkinoakland]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

THe U and it isn't even close. To win at USCe, it took Steve Spurrier, one of the best coaches ever. It is not an easy place to win and the SEC is brutal.

 

[Pittx9]

I think Miami is down and still a much better job than South Carolina. Yeah it's great to be in the SEC, but if you're not one of the top dogs, you're just in a really tough position to win a lot of games. I don't think Miami is really that great of a job right now though, except I think there is one guy out there who is a match made in heaven for them right now... Rich Rod.

Winning isn't enough to bring fans to Miami. You need to win with style there. Rich Rod's offense would really energize the program similar to what Narduzzi's energy on the sidelines is doing here. I'd put Rodriguez at the top of my list if I'm Miami.

 

[WoadBlue]

Which job would be more attractive?

The big thing is South Carolina can probably pay $1 to $2 million more than Miami and also pay more for staff. So if its strictly a money thing, SC is easily the better job.

The surrounding talent pool and the weakness of the ACC would lead you to think Miami is a place where you can win a lot more and a lot sooner. (worth noting that the SEC EAST is horrible right now too) Obviously, Miami has a much higher ceiling than SC.

However, I think the big kicker is timing. Wouldn't it be a lot less pressure following a failed regime like at the U instead of a legend like Spurrier? Granted, the Gamecocks are going to be in rebuild mode, but he won a lot of games in Columbia the last few years and is easily their most successful coach in school history. Following a legend is never easy. Just my opinion, but I think that is a tough place to win.

For an up and comer like a Justin Fuente or Tom Herman, perhaps the difference in salary is the main issue. But if career longevity is the thing, I think Miami would be a better choice. When that thing starts to get turned around, other offers should pour around that will be much more attractive than South Carolina.

I guess it depends on what the individual coach prizes most. SoCar is historically a LOSER. Clemson absolutely owns the series. UNC holds a nearly 2-1 advantage over SoCar - in football.

What SoCar has is a large fan base and an ability to pay more than Miami can.

Miami has: much more football history, much greater access to deep talent, and much more appeal to national TV.

 

[thebadby2]

"oldpantherfan, post: 460310, member: 4960"]Easily Miami. SC was not a big job until Spurrier arrived and was successful.
Yep, and Clemson is the better Program in the State today!

So unless another big time coach takes it or whoever the coach is it will not be comparable to Miami. No matter how long ago it was Miami can always tout it's very successful coaches (who also went on to success in the pros), numerous national titles, and always a big one for recruits consistently putting players in the pros no matter what their record.
Ditto!

Oh and for the record can we please stop believing that PR hype of the SEC " best conference football". it's not.
I see it differently, but you are not wrong either, I think SEC are because they have built in advantages like no Freshmen Eligibility Rules, Affirmative Action Consent Decrees on Admissions, and with more Programs of larger Rosters so they can add more Walk-Ons as back-ups!

Conferences are Cyclical & Based On The Ratio Of Public-Private Membership By Programs In Universities As One Factor:
This year Best conferences so far & can change:
1. SEC,
2. B-10,
2. B-12
4. ACC
5. PAC-12

Historically, Clemson has always been the better program to S. Carolina.