How would you rank the coaching jobs in the ACC?

[saturdaysarebet]

Whenever there are head coach openings in the Big Ten and SEC you always hear about what a great coaching job that is and it's yada yada number best coaching job in the country.

How would you rank the coaching jobs in the ACC? Which is the most desirable? The least desirable?

 

[Elefantman]

Notre Dame has to be the best. You play against crappy ACC teams and are practically guaranteed a playoff spot just because you are ND .

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Like Elefantman, I consider ND an ACC member. I think FSU is the #1 job and Cal the worst job.

 

[DrollTide]

Yes, they are rank.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Florida State, Clemson, and Miami are decent jobs. FSU and Clemson do have strong fan bases, and probably enough rich boosters to stay competitive on the NIL market. Miami has plenty of money, but a weak fan base and no on campus stadium. I'd rank them below FSU and Clemson.

UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and NC State all have potential. Populus states, access to a strong high school talent pool, and likely some $$$ in the booster pool. Especially UNC and Virginia. But a lot of that is probably getting directed to basketball. Don't know. But I'd rank that bunch a rung below the top 3.

Places like Louisville, Georgia Tech have some potential but will never break through to the upper level. Although I'd bet Georgia Tech has a ton of untapped funds if they want to spend them.

SMU is a wildcard. Small fan base, but extremely deep pockets. They have literally bought their way into the ACC and could continue buying their way top the top of the league while barely averaging 30k fans a game.

The rest of the league that resides east of the Mississippi is too weak to consider. And Cal and Stanford do not fit, being all the way across the country, and already in a bad spot with horrible administrations that don't value football in any meaningful sense. I do not understand why the ACC thought they would add value apart from giving the league games in the late night TV window, but who watches those games?

Notre Dame would be an obvious #1 if they were a full fledged member. When you break all of this down, it becomes obvious how weak the ACC is. In fact, I'd rank Auburn squarely in the upper tier of jobs in this league were they an ACC member.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Florida State, Clemson, and Miami are decent jobs. FSU and Clemson do have strong fan bases, and probably enough rich boosters to stay competitive on the NIL market. Miami has plenty of money, but a weak fan base and no on campus stadium. I'd rank them below FSU and Clemson.

UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and NC State all have potential. Populus states, access to a strong high school talent pool, and likely some $$$ in the booster pool. Especially UNC and Virginia. But a lot of that is probably getting directed to basketball. Don't know. But I'd rank that bunch a rung below the top 3.

Places like Louisville, Georgia Tech have some potential but will never break through to the upper level. Although I'd bet Georgia Tech has a ton of untapped funds if they want to spend them.

SMU is a wildcard. Small fan base, but extremely deep pockets. They have literally bought their way into the ACC and could continue buying their way top the top of the league while barely averaging 30k fans a game.

The rest of the league that resides east of the Mississippi is too weak to consider. And Cal and Stanford do not fit, being all the way across the country, and already in a bad spot with horrible administrations that don't value football in any meaningful sense. I do not understand why the ACC thought they would add value apart from giving the league games in the late night TV window, but who watches those games?

Notre Dame would be an obvious #1 if they were a full fledged member. When you break all of this down, it becomes obvious how weak the ACC is. In fact, I'd rank Auburn squarely in the upper tier of jobs in this league were they an ACC member.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

I think Cal and Stanford were added in the feeding frenzy of league expansion, when the threat of Clemson and FSU jumping ship was a rumored strong possibility. There was also talk of NC and Va leaving for the SEC or the B1G. In hindsight (as well as foresight) it doesn't look like a wise decision, unless the addition of two Power 5's was the goal.

 

[jashleyren2]

I think the ACC is having a prolonged "identity crisis". Having teams that are spending so much effort just to travel as far as they do for the majority of their road games seems set up to fail. I think of the old WAC: at least most of them were across the Continental Divide together. The ACC is much worse.

More, cultural fit, priority of the schools toward athletics, dependance on boosters to elevate the program, and so many other factors, just make the conference seem like a mish-mash of programs that don't fit together. In any sport.

And then there's Notre Dame, which is by far the most prestigious, deepest pocket job, with greatest chance of on-field success, in the league. Yet, they won't fully commit. They're the bad-boyfriend who looks good in person, checks all the boxes, but won't offer a ring.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I think Cal and Stanford were added in the feeding frenzy of league expansion, when the threat of Clemson and FSU jumping ship was a rumored strong possibility. There was also talk of NC and Va leaving for the SEC or the B1G. In hindsight (as well as foresight) it doesn't look like a wise decision, unless the addition of two Power 5's was the goal.

It was a desperate move.