24th Best Collegiate Head Coach

[acco40]

FWIW, Eli Drinkwitz was ranked #24.

[edwin drood]

FWIW, Eli Drinkwitz was ranked #24.

Please post a link so we can see which writers are being paid by which schools/coaches.

[winonsports]

FWIW, Eli Drinkwitz was ranked #24.

Please post a link so we can see which writers are being paid by which schools/coaches.

I'm with you on this one Doodie. Drink has to be top 10-15.

Which schools do you think have paid writers to bump Drink down into the 20's?

[acco40]

FWIW, Eli Drinkwitz was ranked #24.

Please post a link so we can see which writers are being paid by which schools/coaches.

If I must (O ye of little faith).

24. Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri)

Drinkwitz made winning 21 games the past two seasons look much easier than it’s historically been for Missouri. His best move was surrendering play-calling before the 2023 season so he could focus more on being the program’s CEO. The offense improved, and Drinkwitz became a better coach. Missouri packs a punch in the portal sweepstakes, giving the Tigers staying power.

In the latest 2025 head coach rankings from USA Today, Drinkwitz was rated as the 24th-best head coach in the country, and the seventh-best in the Southeastern Conference.

"Drinkwitz made winning 21 games the past two seasons look much easier than it’s historically been for Missouri," Blake Toppmeyer writes in the SEC rankings. "His best move was surrendering play-calling before the 2023 season so he could focus more on being the program’s CEO."

The positive impact Drinkwitz's decision to give up playcalling duties has been significant. It's allowed him to focus more on recruiting, and furthering individual relationships with players and assistant coaches.

"I needed to step back and say, the job as a head coach is to build this team, empower other people to do their jobs, and really build connections amongst our players from player-to player, coach-to player, and from our team to our university and community," Drinkwitz said in a press conference ahead of the team's Cotton Bowl win in the 2023 season.

Of course, one is free to criticize this selection - after all, USA Today (specifically Blake Toppmeyer, Paul Myerberg and Jordan Mendoza) ranked eight B1G coaches and only seven SEC coaches in their Top 25 list so questioning their list is de rigueur.

[NL Fan]

Drink is elite level when it comes to recruiting and getting program buy-in, culture, all that stuff.

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

That sounds like a criticism, but it's a pretty mild one. Mizzou has NEVER been a competitive recruting school.* I'm pretty happy with what we got.

You know, the worst on-the-field coaching I've seen was Barry Odom, but I guess he's good now? Other bad coaches at Mizzou were mostly bad because they had not-good teams and they were fine on the field. But Odom started with Pinkel's team.

* They were kind of good at it when the bb team were violating NCAA rules in Detroit, but I'm not sure that counts.

[winonsports]

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

If 11-1 in one score games is average at best, then we need to know what is above average and exceptional.

[Luke77]

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

If 11-1 in one score games is average at best, then we need to know what is above average and exceptional.

Stop changing peoples quotes.

Moderator, ban this troll.

[winonsports]

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

If 11-1 in one score games is average at best, then we need to know what is above average and exceptional.

Stop changing peoples quotes.

Moderator, ban this troll.

That statistic hits Luke like Holy Water hits the Devil.

[rezero]

Drink is elite level when it comes to recruiting and getting program buy-in, culture, all that stuff.

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

That sounds like a criticism, but it's a pretty mild one. Mizzou has NEVER been a competitive recruting school.* I'm pretty happy with what we got.

You know, the worst on-the-field coaching I've seen was Barry Odom, but I guess he's good now? Other bad coaches at Mizzou were mostly bad because they had not-good teams and they were fine on the field. But Odom started with Pinkel's team.

* They were kind of good at it when the bb team were violating NCAA rules in Detroit, but I'm not sure that counts.

He has never been a good game time coach, but he has started to compensate for that with handing over the offensive play calling. He now just needs a coaching guru to whisper in his ear what to do in crunch time. I agree that his recruiting and motivation is a big plus as the in game coaching can be fixed.

[dhsux]

Drink is elite level when it comes to recruiting and getting program buy-in, culture, all that stuff.

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

That sounds like a criticism, but it's a pretty mild one. Mizzou has NEVER been a competitive recruting school.* I'm pretty happy with what we got.

You know, the worst on-the-field coaching I've seen was Barry Odom, but I guess he's good now? Other bad coaches at Mizzou were mostly bad because they had not-good teams and they were fine on the field. But Odom started with Pinkel's team.

* They were kind of good at it when the bb team were violating NCAA rules in Detroit, but I'm not sure that counts.

He has never been a good game time coach, but he has started to compensate for that with handing over the offensive play calling. He now just needs a coaching guru to whisper in his ear what to do in crunch time. I agree that his recruiting and motivation is a big plus as the in game coaching can be fixed.

He's at the very least "good". One can debate "great".

Also, I think as he matures in this job his in game coaching will improve. I thought I saw some of that in this past year.

[rezero]

Drink is elite level when it comes to recruiting and getting program buy-in, culture, all that stuff.

He's probably below average on the field. Average at best, bad at worst.

That sounds like a criticism, but it's a pretty mild one. Mizzou has NEVER been a competitive recruting school.* I'm pretty happy with what we got.

You know, the worst on-the-field coaching I've seen was Barry Odom, but I guess he's good now? Other bad coaches at Mizzou were mostly bad because they had not-good teams and they were fine on the field. But Odom started with Pinkel's team.

* They were kind of good at it when the bb team were violating NCAA rules in Detroit, but I'm not sure that counts.

He has never been a good game time coach, but he has started to compensate for that with handing over the offensive play calling. He now just needs a coaching guru to whisper in his ear what to do in crunch time. I agree that his recruiting and motivation is a big plus as the in game coaching can be fixed.

He's at the very least "good". One can debate "great".

Also, I think as he matures in this job his in game coaching will improve. I thought I saw some of that in this past year.

He is not a "good" in game coach even with rose colored glasses. If you stack up all the SEC coaches on their in-game decisions he would be in the bottom half for sure. Still, I think he can improve dramatically in that area with just hiring someone to whisper in his ear at times, like when he calls the team over for a pep talk with the clock winding down on a last second FG attempt from 56 yds out.....

[winonsports]

If you stack up all the SEC coaches on their in-game decisions he would be in the bottom half for sure.

Since the in-game decisions ultimately decide wins and losses, then we need to know the 7-8 SEC coaches in the top half who have 21 wins and are 11-1 in one-score games over the previous two seasons.