I'm not bagging on the Gators, but what is the case for Florida being in the top tier? I would also ask Athlon: What is the case for Florida at #5?
From Athlon:
Florida has won 3 NCs. That's good, but it's not top-5 good. The two previous coaches went a collective 52-36, and both got fired. The coach before them won 2 of those NCs and then left after a mediocre season, due to burn-out or brain tumors or some other problem. Florida hasn't won a conference championship since then. If there is no excuse not to be good at Florida, why wasn't Ron Zook any good? And why did Will Muschamp and Jim McElwain not do better than they did?
Florida strikes me as a top-20 program, rather than top-5 or top-10. Billingsley's all-time computer rankings have Florida at #20, Auburn at #15, LSU at #13, and Georgia at #11.
In fairness, the AP all-time program rankings have Florida at #10, ahead of all other SEC teams except for Bama.
This isn't necessarily about all-time program...it's to coach the program in 2019. I had Florida in the 1st tier, then moved them down, the moved them back up. One thing you shared as a point against Florida is actually a mark in its favor, imo - the last 2 coaches going 52-36 and getting fired...that's not good enough.
The reason any random-ass HC can't just come into Gainesville and be great is because of in-state competition. That's why I previously posted that I was jealous of the OSUs and LSUs of the word - those with zero in-state competition. But why should the Gators be Tier 1 or top 5? UF has everything one would need - it checks every box. Recruiting, success, Heismans, climate, recruiting, facilities (finally), recruiting, etc.
I had ND and UM in Tier 1, with Florida and FSU in Tier 2...but the recent success just isn't there for the top 2 all-time winningest programs. The few times ND has been in the NC conversation late in the year in my lifetime, they've been destroyed facing an elite team (aside from '88). UM has...'06 as an 'almost' year, '97 of course, and...what else in the past 60 years? The 70s? Cool. Those 2 programs should probably list "fight song" before "success" in their resumes.
Now, back to coaches failing and the program's response to it: an elite program will not put up with being out of the NC conversation for more than a few years. UM got rid of Hoke despite his .608 win%. That's the sign of an elite program. But before him, RichRod went .405. THAT would be the example that would make me question how could anyone have a sub-.500 record at a Tier 1 program?!? Even with individual, fall-off-a-cliff seasons, Muschamp (.571) and McElwain (.647) weren't as bad. Zook was run out of Gville at (.622). I'm not going to do the research right now, but can you think of anyone else with 2 HCs over .800 win% of their past 5 hires, besides OSU? Spurrier and Meyer did it at Florida.
That's the one big unknown about FSU and PSU for me - Bowden and Paterno were there so long, I'm not sure what those programs really are. Fisher won a NC, but he inherited the program directly from Bowden. 4-5 coaches from now, what will FSU and Penn St even be?
Tier 1, for me, are the programs that are more likely than not to be successful programs after a lot of turnover. Once the big, legendary coach leaves, then what's the program still got in it? Is it still legit and strong, or was all the air let out? No one questions if Ohio St or Texas or USC will be good 4 coaches from now. I say that, but any of them could be in a swoon in exactly 20 years, but we'd label it as a swoon and not the new normal. Either their coach 20 years from now wins and makes the program relevant again, or he's gone. Texas had a mid-90s swoon, with OU, I believe. But they both came back strong. USC hasn't had a prolonged swoon maybe ever....but it's because they've run their .650 win% coaches out of town. Either .650 is good enough at your program, and it's Tier 3 or .650 gets you fired. In which case, your program has a chance at Tier 1, depending on luck, really.
