These lists are a circular product of themselves. They cite the same tired, bull**** reasons for defining what constitutes a great job and generate the same answers even though they're outdated. Citing Austin and its "amenities" is completely stupid, first of all. These guys are football coaches, not lawyers or bankers. It's been proven time and time again that the city isn't what attracts elite players-winning does. Kids don't really care and neither do the coaches. In fact, it's less attractive because for assistants it means they have to pay out the ass for a decent place close to work where they are 90 hours a week or travel a long way every day. They aren't cruising fine eateries and boating on Lake Travis. LSU, Georgia, Bama are all better jobs than Texas, and so are we. The local talent pool is better in Ga, La, and the Southeast, and they don't have nearly the in state competition. Texas' talent pool is a myth. The truth is that offensively it's good but defensively its very average at best. The best talent in the country by far is in the Southeast. Facilities, commitment to winning, support, attention (national TV opportunities, etc) and schedule ( conference affiliation) are what matter today. History ( especially old history) matters less and less to these kids today. They don't give a ****. The proof is in the pudding, and the equation isn't the same as it was a decade ago. Who has Texas been able to hire on their staff lately? Anyone elite? No. If they were the best job in America, why the **** are they hiring high school coaches with no college experience? Why are we hiring John Chavis? Again, these lists are a decade behind reality in their reasoning. The shift of conferences has increased their importance, and the consequences are real.