I'd rather coach in a college environment where the fans were well versed in football. That means Texas. Plus, no state income tax!
You've got to do your own growing, no matter how tall your grandfather was. - Irish proverb
Cant beat the beach. Although I dislike LA, I think USC is a great place. Kids want to come play there, they just dont want to play for Kiffin. If you were a respected coach, itd be easy to consistently draw the best players and put together a top team every year. USC should win the Pac-12 south every year, even with UCLA's recent success. I'd like to coach at Texas too, but that heat is just brutal and I wouldnt want to have to start using 'Y'all' exclusively.
USC may be a great place but it is in Compton. I went to a game there once. The campus is like an Oasis in an urban jungle. At least the stadium is on campus (or adjacent) vs. UCLA which is in Brentwood but the Rose Bowl is 20 mins away.
I picked USC just because the competition for talent is so much greater in Texas. They have neighbors like LSU, Bama, FSU, TAMU, TCU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Tennessee etc.
USC competes against UCLA, Arizona, AZSU, etc.
USC, because they have the hottest cheerleaders.
Actually chose Texas. If you were even a half way decent coach, it would be easy to dominate that league.
Depending on how dirty of a coach you are, one plus for USC is the fact that it's a private institution. Hence public records requests do not apply.
I'd run a tight ship, but that's a very good point, Jason. USC it is!
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Ed "Straight Arrow" Gennaro ran a program clean as a whistle at Texas State so it can be done. Southwestern schools have really cleaned up their act.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest Civil War analogy EVER.
Reason #1 of why Cajun wouldn't make it as USC head coach. Meet my recruiter....
Texas - (a) all that stockpiled talent (b) you're the biggest dog in the hunt - and (c) you follow Mack Brown (okay anything would be an improvement over Kiffin)
Don't forget how filthy rich Texas is. Not that I'd do it for the guap 0_o
Question is: could either of these coax Urban Meyer away from the Scarlett & Gray?
UFM's ambition is very high. I would expect TX to drop a dump truck of cash on him.
As for USC, see Mrs. Meyer's comments about the weather, in her recent 11W interview.
Nothing's tearing Urban away until he gets an NC or three (or four or five).
“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody
I hope you're right
Weren't the only places Urban said he would go if he left Florida were Ohio State, TTUN or Notre Dame? Texas and USC weren't on his list.
Urban ain't leaving OSU for quite a while, if ever. He just got here, bro!
I can't see Urban leaving to coach another college.
He was offered the Notre dame job but went to Florida, so I'm doubting he would go there
Between being a traditional power and SoCal I always wondered how USC fell to just a soso program before Pete Carroll. Recruiting ought tofairly easy. UT always seem to have 12 recruits committed before anyone else even has 3.......USC just needs to get clear of the scholly restrictions, but they are both destination jobs.
Bobby Petrino to Texas, and Steve Sarkisian to USC.......
I think USC was on probation or something for much of the 90's. Much like Miami in the 90's, non-factors. The 90's were headlined by teams like OSU, UM, Fl. ST., Nebraska, Penn St.
Life's daily struggle is choosing between saying F--ck-it, or soldiering on with your responsibilities.
Wow, this is a tough one. Both have huge stockpiles of talent, but I feel as if UT has more competition for that talent. Yes, UCLA is trending up but USC is still the dominant brand in LA (or at least it still seems like that).
"Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you."
Texas has every advantage known to man:
This seems like a way too easy choice.
I tend to agree with you for all of your listed points. For the sake of argument and without posting pictures that would get Steensen riled up (BTW we need a NSFS -Not Safe for Steensen - tag) I would say that USC has the following:
- Traditional football powerhouse (arguably more so than Texas, but we might be biased as their frequent Rose Bowl counterpart)
- Easy to dominate conference (but getting tougher with Oregon, Stanford, et al.)
- Huge stockpiles of money (not as much as Texas, but still plenty)
- A fertile recruiting ground (not as good as Texas, I'll admit, but Cali and the West Coast have their powerhouse high school programs)
- Private university (as Jason noted above)
- Playing in the Rose Bowl several times a year
- Beautiful beach front location (Austin is no slum either, but it's no Pasadena)
- Lots of celebrities (Snoop and Will Ferrell over McConaughey all day)
Your list is right on, and I am picturing the prohibited pictures in my mind's eye... I think Texas has most of the things on your list, just a little more so.
I would have argued that Texas was a bigger traditional football powerhouse, but after going to Winsipedia and doing a little comparison, USC definitely has the edge on the field.
Yeah, my point being that USC hangs with Texas on most of your points, but I'd agree Texas has the edge in almost all of them, but it's all really minor advantages. I mean when we are talking tens of millions, a couple million suddenly isn't very important.
However the one point that is really insurmountable for USC is the Longhorn Network. That's a huge advantage for Texas.
Agreed and agreed.
Andyvance! that Winsipedia is sweet! thanks for that. btw (and maybe Bamamike can help me with this one) what the hell happened to 'bama in 1955?!! LOL
Playing in the Rose Bowl several times a year
I thought USC played their home games at the LA Coliseum? And UCLA plays at the Rose Bowl, no?
My understanding is they generally follow that but USC plays a few special games in the Rose Bowl and also when they play UCLA there they trade off who is the home team often getting permission for both teams to wear home jerseys.
You are incorrect. They do both wear home jerseys but they alternate fields. This year is at the Coliseum and USC does not play any homes games at the Rose Bowl other than - The Rose Bowl Game.
Andyvance - I have to disagree.1
1) Both are powerhouses and an argument can be made USC is a bigger power-house
2) USC has no shortage of football funds, just built a new football facility and they now own the colesium
3) CA is also a rich recruiting ground and I would argue better because those you compete with for talent are not nearly as tough as the folks UT is competing with. (Bama, LSU, Tamu, Oklahoma, FSU etc)
4) The longhorn Network isn't gaining a lot of traction and is a time commitment for the coach. Last I heard it wasn't even available in the football offices of UT.
5) I totally agree on the taxes
6) Why would you want to play in Jerry world? Playing in Austin or the Colesium as a home game is better IMO
If I'm honest I would add that I would much rather live in Austin than LA.
Everything is bigger in Texas right?
Including the salaries?
Plus I just can't stand USC, couldn't do it.
I am not very smart, but I recognize that I am not very smart.
If by USC you mean University of South Carolina, that wouldn't be a bad gig. Oh...Southern Cal? Absolutely not. Gotta change my vote.
You must be joking.
'Twas joking. I hate USC but it's so close to the beach and not in 1000 degree Austin. Unlike this past weekend, the Trojans win this one.
I absolutely agree. Living on or near a beach cannot be underestimated.
"The height of human desire is what wins, whether it's on Normandy Beach or in Ohio Stadium." -Wayne Woodrow Hayes
I'd have to pick the lesser of two evils and go with Texas. Too much talent in that state to pass that one up.
Don't give up... Don't ever give up.
Yeah, if Tom Herman is going to be all up in my state stealin' my recruits, I'm going to USC. Which brings me to my next point: Tom Herman to Texas.
I was hoping it was "Don't smoke crack" because you are right, I'm sure a lot of people are thinking it, you just said it.
I don't know you can have an easier coaching job than Texas. You are in the most fertile recruiting ground and guess what, you don't even have to recruit, the recruits come to you. And I mean, who is left in their conference? Oklahoma? Anyone else?
I wasn't born a Buckeye but I became one as fast as I could.
Texas. Mainly for their people and their Barbecue.
"It's just another case of there you are". ~ Doc (1918-2012)
Texas easily. As a coach you'd be getting millions of dollars which means you'd get bent over a barrel in taxes at USC. Also I'd argue Texas is a better state for recruiting, Austin is an awesome city not located in a ghetto. You have your own sports network for crying out loud!
I cannot believe Texas is crushing this vote. I f'ing hate USC, but I not only hate the University of Texas just as much, I hate the entire Texas way of life. After my second trip to South Padre for Spring Break, I vowed that you could not pay me enough money to ever step foot in that wasteland ever again.
And I don't believe for a second that Texas has the better football culture. California's high school football is just as amazing. USC gets its picks of recruits just like any other major program, too, only USC is yanking 5-stars from all over the country just because it's USC. The weather in southern California is gorgeous for about 310 days a year. In Texas, it's so hot your shoes stick to the pavement. Plus, you get to travel to some of the most beautiful parts of this country up and down the West Coast every year. At Texas, you get to travel around...Texas....and Oklahoma. Gross.
And for those of you saying it's an "easier job" in Texas, you're insane. Having the best quarterbacks make your job about 1000X easier, and the best quarterbacks all go to USC...always have, and always will (this season appears to be some sort of anomaly, so before you go off and disagree with me, know something about college football history first).
USC all the way.
Austin isn't that humid or hot compared to southeast Texas.
Who cares where you travel for football games; you fly in, take a walk through, practice, play the game, then fly home
USC hasn't had the best QBs for the past Decade. They historically have had great signal callers, but their past few QBs have not been world beaters. VY, Cam Newton, Tim Tebow, RG3, Luck are all better QBs than any USC has had in the past decade. They had a good run in the early 2000s but that has tailed off after Sanchez
The average summer temperature from June to September for Austin, Texas is 10 degrees hotter than that of Los Angeles (weather.com).
And, I don't even know what to say about your statement regarding VY, Cam Newton, Tim Tebow, RG3, and Andrew Luck. It's not only irrelevant, only 1 of them was a Texas quarterback. Plus, you didn't even mention Colt McCoy, who was probably the best QB that Texas has ever had. You're welcome for the better argument. It still doesn't matter.
USC's QBs within the last decade:
2011-2012 Matt Barkley - Pac-12 All 2nd team, 4th round NFL Draft pick (due to injury).
2008 Mark Sanchez (12-1) - All Pac-10 First Team, Rose Bowl MVP, 1st round NFL Draft pick.
2006-2007 John David Booty (19-3) - All Pac-10 First Team, Rose Bowl MVP, 5th round NFL Draft pick
2005 Matt Cassel - Never started a down for USC, drafted in the 7th round to NE, who later franchise tagged him, in 2010 led the Chiefs to their first division championship in 7 years.
2003-2005 Matt Leinhart (37-2) - Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year; All-Pac-10 First Team; Rose Bowl MVP, Heisman; Consensus All-American; Co-Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year; All-Pac-10 First Team; Walter Camp Award; AP Player of the Year; Manning Award; Orange Bowl MVP, Unitas; All-Pac-10 First Team, first round NFL Draft pick.
This string of great college quarterbacks is not really debatable. Find me another SINGLE SCHOOL that has that number of quarterbacks drafted. If USC was ANYTHING in the 2000's-2010's, it has been a QB factory (and they certainly were a lot more than that). Forget the fact that they may or may not have panned out in the NFL, because that's not what I'm getting at. These guys were AMAZING college quarterbacks, and they were often the top QBs coming out of high school. To suggest that any other school has anything close to this is patently wrong.
Don't forget Carson Palmer!
If you threw Palmer's name out there, it would just get intercepted.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Classic long suffering Bengals fan comment right there! That would have been perfect for a t-shirt a few years ago!
Ha! The reason I stopped at Leinhart was because I think we were only talking the last decade. But yes, Palmer was simply one more insanely accomplished Heisman winning QB at USC.
You named me 1 All-american qb and a bunch of all-conference qbs who got drafted. In the last 10 years OSU has had T. Smith, Krenzel, Pryor all be drafted too...Bama has had 3 drafted in the last 10 years.
You also told me USC has always had and will always have the best QBs, and I named 5 who are arguably better than the best USC has had in the last decade, and absolutely better than the other 4. I'm taking VY and Colt McCoy over any set of 2 qbs from USC now that we are at it.
Texas has produced 25% of the starters in the NFL and 33% of the backup QBs in the NFL. If this is about winning college games and you say it starts with the QB, give me the best QB state, which is Texas
You are right on. What I can't believe is that people are actually picking Austin over Southern California as a place to live.
A couple minor points, your life on spring break at SPI is nothing like Mack Brown's in Austin.
I love the Texas way of life, freedom, guns, southern hospitality etc
The alternative is the LA way of life, traffic, plastic, taxes, smog.
Inceidentally, i voted for USC, just not for the reasons you state.
I agree with ya Bucksfan. USC wold be like shootin fish in a barrel. The place sells itself.
"Say my name."
I agree with quite a bit about what you have pointed out. However, there are other factors:
consider California is the Death Valley of available energy; rolling brown outs, traffic jams that look like the Rose bowl parade only year round. & lets not forget taxes: incredibly high & I just heard last year they passed a retro active income tax!!! People & businesses are leaving CA in droves these days; I think they know what they're doing.
Yeah, I'll be sure to worry about all that when I'm coasting down the PCH in my new Ferrari heading to my beachside house in Malibu, since I'll be getting paid about $4 Million a year to win football games.
Malibu condo sure...single family home on the beach? Out of your income bracket.
USC. Song Girls...Giggity Giggity!
“The minute we stop expecting greatness from our football program, we become Wisconsin.” Craig Krenzel
I'm taking Texas. The conference is set up for Texas to dominate; they even get more $ based on the revenue sharing and have their own network. The pressure to win there seems to be toned down from the other huge programs. Texas is where 7 v. 7 began, and where 25% of NFL starters are from, with another 10 as backups (some stat last year).
I can't really think of one thing that USC really has that Texas doesn't. I guess you are a bigger celebrity at USC, but that isn't what one would necessarily want with Celebs hanging around etc.
Too bad no one carries the damn Long Horn Network. UT has a crop of celebs hanging around too in Matthew McConaughey, Jamie Fox, Brooke Burns, Lance Armstrong; This is just off the top of my head.
And then I told her...i'm no weatherman, but tonight's forecast is calling for several inches!
mcconagahy and foxx would be reason enough NOT to go to texas.
Had to go with USC, location was the deciding factor.
USC so you can option your script to the highest bidder, work on your next movie deal, hang out with the cops in Compton trying your best to alleviate gang violence and getting great pub for it on 60 minutes like Petey Carroll did, take advantage of free botox, receive special dispensation to drive in the HOV lane as a single during all traffic jams, call Will Ferrell in the middle of the night and yell "more meatloaf Mom!"............wait a second, there are just too many damn distractions at USC. I'll go with Texas.
Austin is pretty epic, as slightly larger than Columbus but with 1/3 of our crime. Lots to do, very safe for families. If one can get past the eleclectic 'weird' and ridiculous heat and humidity from mid-April to October, then it should be OK.
L.A. well dirt, crime, smog, more smog, more crime, USC is in south central, more smog and crime speaks for itself. But hey, the weather is mild and in the words of Albert Hammond or Tony! Toni! Tone! (depending on one's generation) or Tyga (if one prefers garbage) It never rains in Southern California.
I voted for USC because I really don't want a shirtless Matthew McConaughey roaming my sidelines. And I'm pretty sure as the HC at USC, you get to take home a few of those Song Girls every night. Also, theChive office is a few miles from Campus. And you get to hang out with Will Ferrell. I could keep going.
I'm all in on Texas. The only thing USC has on Texas is climate. When i think about a job I may or may not take, I'm not thinking about what I am going to have to do. I'm more worried about what environment it puts my family in and if I think it would be a place I would want my kids to grow up or not. I'll take Austin over L.A. every day of the week AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!
I might want to live in California but I'd rather coach football for Texas. Football is basically what they breathe down there.
While there is pressure to win at USC, it's not the insanity that is Texas. Plus California seems to produce incredible players at the skill positions.
I still see Texas as a top 5 job to have in the coaching ranks.
I choose Texas because Austin.
I'm sorry for not being sorry.
Hold the phone....I've discovered the reason behind USC's meltdown this past weekend.
my apologies to USC fans. last week lane kiffin had me coach while he went to find another team to ruin. new #tosh tonight.— daniel tosh (@danieltosh) September 10, 2013
Texas... more money (no state income tax), a nice college town similar to Columbus (where I am from) and you don't have to deal with LA traffic. Both are similar football wise. Both have a built-in top 5 recruiting class due to the local talent.
With that said I am very surprised both programs have put up with the mess both coaches have the programs in... Wouldn't be surprised to see both positions open at the end of the season.
Oh ya I also forgot. I'm a nerd. GOOGLE FIBER. TAKE THAT LOS ANGELES.
Tough question. So close on many levels. Quality/Quantity of recruiting pool. Level of competiton for recruits and in league. Money. Don't forget the co-eds. In the end, I feel Texas fans take their football a lot more seriously, and while that could be taken as a negative, I like the passion they feel and show. I don't know anybody that takes USC football really seriously.
Texas! better fans, lower taxes/TX economy > CA economy
"You win with people." - Woody Hayes
yea, but it's hot as shit down there.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
Texas. That state is the best in the country for recruiting, and let's be honest, they get the first pick when it comes to top talent in that state (or most of the time). USC is in Los Angeles, CA. Los Angeles is a shithole, along with the rest of Southern California. Texas doesn't have a state income tax, California likes to rape and pillage your wallet. Austin is a Hell of a lot better than Los Angeles, and it's not even close. The heat is bad during Texas in the Summer, but I'd take that over the smog, smug, taxes and crime that are associated with that cesspool posing as a city.
In 2012 the NFL had 258 players from California-first in the nation. Texas had 214. Now, I know that isn't the sole metric we should use when discussing which state produces the best recruits but 44 more NFLers would lend some credence to the fact that California is better than Texas in that department.
Also, I would say that when USC is rolling, they have their pick of the litter in the state of CA so that is a positive for them as well.
I've never been to LA or Austin but I will confess LA isn't really high on my bucket list of places to see while Austin occupies the top spot.
Also, I'm sure the head coach of the USC Trojans wouldn't have to live in the heart of LA. I'd be willing to bet he would be able to afford a pretty sizeable estate in a pretty exclusive part of SoCal.
Finally, does the head coach of USC have the same pressure on him as the head coach of Texas? That's got to count for something. Both are major, mega programs but to dismiss one out of hand is a tough task for me.
Just food for thought.
Do I come off as arrogant? Shame on me, I was hoping it would more obvious.
California has 12 million more people than Texas. Texas's production of NFL talent is quite higher than California's, especially when you consider that California has only produced 44 more current NFLers. I actually think Louisiana is 1st in NFL players produced per capita, for what it's worth.
I'd actually argue that neither coach right now faces nearly as much heat as they should be facing, and it seems like Kiffin is facing more than Brown, even though Brown isn't dealing with any scholarship reductions.
And while USC's coach wouldn't live near campus, USC's campus is in Compton..
California also has the 3rd highest tax burden of any state in the U.S.
Well with 12 million more people that would mean the talent pool is that much greater. My point is that in the Great CA v. TX debate, there really isn't a wrong way to go. In either case, you don't need to leave the state to load your roster any given year.
Sorry, but USC is considered South/Central LA, not Compton (near 710/91). With that said it is a very bad area and quite dangerous just a few blocks away from USC. No one that works at USC in a professional role lives near campus. Two words...body armor
High home values make California's tax burden #1 on an adjusted basis
"Have a Coke and a smile!.....along with $150 in UM football tickets"
Went with Texas. Both are big time football programs. I traveled out to Austin when the Bucks beat the Longhorns a few years back. Overall the people of Austin were pretty decent. Yes, there were a few idiots at the game, but you can get that anywhere. So I'd go with Texas just based on my experiences.
USC. Following a douchebag is easier than following a program icon.
USC, because Texas seems dull IMO. Southern California scenery is beautiful. I think the recruiting would be the same.
I think you're view on it is a little broad. By that I mean you are comparing the 2 largest states in general vs. where/how you would actually be living. I think it would be more reasonable to compare Austin with Compton. I think you may change your mind after a one week visit to both.
I say USC. Fight OnTrojans is one of the coolest songs ever. You could play off the "Hall of Fame U" big time and selling the west coast/SC Swagger is pretty darn easy.
"...but then again 'Michigan' and 'huge mistake' are synonymous so that shouldn't have been much of a surprise to anybody." - Mark Titus
This is a topic I could really get in trouble for by violating site policy in terms of politics. So, I'll simply leave it an overwhelming personal vote for USC.
The will to win is not as important as the will to prepare to win. -- Woody Hayes
Please do, I would love to see the fight it would bring about. Now I am insanely intrigued how you would defend California vs Texas from a political view and most especially an economical one. lol Agree to disagree?
USC ... need I say more?