I just think it's probably more complicated than that. That's not accounting for roster expenses coming through the NIL collective and that sort of thing right?

Damn, and that's factoring in we play in Reed Arena

Charlie Moran said:

---

#2 and 6 are just plain wrong

---

Capacity Ag89 answered why they are not plain wrong in this day and age.

It's all about the money.

rgag12 said:

---

Damn, and that's factoring in we play in Reed Arena

---

It's literally nil and college station isn't a **** hole or completely in the middle of no where. Without nil these rankings are different.

There's a ton of over thinking in this thread.

halfastros81 said:

---

Our job should we choose to accept it is work with Bucky McMillan to make Texas A & M # 1 on these sorts of rankings . I acknowledge that with Kentucky's history it's a tall order to surpass them in national perception.

---

We'd need to make like 20 straight Final Fours but yeah.

BQ_90 said:

---

what are the criteria? Or is this just somebodies rankings they made up

---

Every ranking is made up. There's no way to objectively measure this

It was a poll of the coaches was it not?

The only thing I'm unclear on is whether all 16 are SEC coaches or 16 random coaches from around the country.

It would be funny if it's the 16 SEC coaches because it would mean Calipari ranked Kentucky over the job he has now.

Our basketball tradition would put us below LSU. We didn't get where we are due to history or style points. The A&M job is a great job because we have more money than everyone on the list other than Kentucky and tu.

Which actually makes me happy. We should stay right around where we are or maybe even climb a bit, because Texas A&M has way more money than we have history.

I was in graduate school when Watkins went 0-fer in the big XII. My classmate was in charge of promotions for the games, and he basically let me in and let me sit courtside for the games. I got free sodas, free wings, and one time I got a facefull of buffalo jersey when a player went out of bounds to save a ball and crashed over the table. The announcers even asked if I was OK.

Yeah, I'm a homer.

But we made a final four in the pre-money era with Lon Krueger. We made four final fours and won 2 national championships in the start of the money era with Billy Donovan. Even our crappy coach Mike White made it to the eight as things were changing. Now in the NIL era we won a national championship with Golden last year. This century only Connecticut has more national titles in us. We're tied with Duke and North Carolina.
Kind of hard to fathom how schools never made the final four or another school that's never made a national championship game are ranked above us. But whatever. We'll just keep winning.

Without knowing anything about your money situation, I'd have UF ranked 3rd. But no idea on NIL pool.

Because it's not a ranking of historical success. It's a poll of coaches… but I understand your point. It does seem like a coach's prime goal besides $ would be to coach at a place with demonstrated title success.

I still agree those are all basically the same job. If you switched the coaches around between those schools, I think they'd have basically the same level of success. I'm sure Golden or Donovan wins a ship at Texas, Barnes results at Texas and Tennessee are remarkably similar, etc.

Those four are so tight in the rankings too that it could just come down to personal preferences for the coaches. I could see the appeal for certain types of coaches to be able to blend in with the rich folks of a major city like Austin compared to the 'Villes. You could actually have a semi-private life and go out to eat and that sort of thing without constantly having fans come up and talk to you.

Now some probably prefer it the other way, they want to be the big dog in town, but I could see the appeal for some.

That's probably true as well. Maybe the criteria the coaches were asked to rank by included other factors tho like quality of life in area or something like that? I dunno… just spitballing.

As you pointed out earlier we don't even know what coaches were polled either.

I don't think they were given any parameters at all. I'd imagine the poll was basically "rank these jobs in the order you'd want them."

It's up to each individual person what they value most in a job.

It is weird that all 16 coaches polled picked Kentucky at 1. Does make you wonder who was polled . Maybe it's one of those things where the coach delegates to a GA .

I don't think it's that weird. I also don't know that we know for sure it was all 16 SEC coaches. It could just be 16 random coaches. I would actually think that's the case or I doubt Calipari would have picked his old job over his new one, just for the optics alone, lol.

But other than that, I think it's pretty obvious that Kentucky is a tier above everyone else.

halfastros81 said:

---

It is weird that all 16 coaches polled picked Kentucky at 1.

---

Sometimes the obvious answer is obvious.

PJYoung said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

It is weird that all 16 coaches polled picked Kentucky at 1.

---

Sometimes the obvious answer is obvious.

---

Yeah. Even if UK was no longer the best job for Cal, it is clearly the best job. That slot shouldn't be up for too much argument in this leave.