I think what happened here when they created the list was they disqualified any coach who's ethical conduct was questionable. That would explain why Paterno and Switzer didn't make the list. They decided that the Sandusky scandal at PSU and the cheating scandal during the Switzer years at OU were disqualifiers. Probably the Zach Smith issue at OSU will keep Meyer from ever making the list. Not that those on the list are totally clean but they are probably more clean than the ones I mention. Objectively they could all make the list but in today's politically correct society SI probably doesn't have the courage to do it.
TBH with you, I wondered that in the back of my mind, but it's a dumb argument on their part to do so.
Are we going to say Barry Bonds wasn't one of the ten greatest players ever because he juiced? Lots of guys juiced, but they didn't all hit 762 home runs, either. (And doesn't the fact that he was facing juiced pitchers offset that argument at least a little bit?).
But then, well, we've got some problems here.
Bryant admitted to paying players at Texas A/M. He admitted this more than once in SI, and even said he'd been approached by folks about paying players at UA.
But nobody else was winning 323 games and six national titles and owning the SEC, either.
And Tom Osborne coached Lawrence Phillipps, for Pete's sake. I realize that's not the long-term problem of Switzer at OU, but we're not selecting saints for canonization, we're asking who was the best.
I think this notion of us as moral arbiters imposing society on sports needs to cease. The Jerry Sandusky case is the most wretched horror that has come along in the last.....forever maybe? I so enjoyed watching Penn State's defense dismantle Miami in 1987. What a game! But I cannot even watch it on You Tube without a horrible feeling of revulsion at what was going on behind closed doors.
The problem, however, is simple: Joe Paterno won those games. Period. No amount of "we don't recognize that" or "let's punish that school" or anything else changes that.
What I've begun to muse, however, is whether we don't focus too much attention on the wrong things in our assessment of greatness.
Maybe some coaches like Pat Dye, Lou Holtz, Don James, Frank Kush, Ara Parseghian.......maybe some of those guys (or some other names) should be ranked over some of the other guys who had more wins and titles but had a leg up in the first place. Nick Saban's record commends him as (probably) the greatest CFB coach of all-time, but does anyone actually think he would have won 5 or 6 national titles at Michigan State? Saban himself said he couldn't win one in Lansing, so who thinks he could have won five or six?
Maybe Bill Snyder's accomplishments at disadvantaged K-State are better IN CONTEXT than Osborne's as Nebraska.
Or maybe Bill McCartney winning one national title (and losing the other in the final game) at CU is >>>>> Osborne's or Devaney's Nebraska advantages.
I'm just saying that while winning and championships are important, I question the degree to which we arbitrarily rank or dismiss guys based solely on, "Coached for a team with huge advantages over other coaches." It's not much different from the Heisman Trophy. If Kyler Murray had the exact same stats on Iowa State last year (with their record), he's not even invited to NY. But he plays for Oklahoma, so, here's your Heisman. (And before any OU fans think I'm bashing OU or Murray, the same argument can be applied to Tua to some degree).