Started By
Message
re: Cocks: Post Spurrier era
Posted on 1/22/15 at 4:36 pm to Cheese Grits
Posted on 1/22/15 at 4:36 pm to Cheese Grits
Holtz went 33-37 at SC and was 10 games under .500 in conference.
2
Posted on 1/22/15 at 4:43 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
Holtz went 33-37 at SC and was 10 games under .500 in conference.
To be fair, he went 0-11 in his first season which many attribute to the previous coach, who had gone 1-10 + a 2013 UF-like number of injuries.
We had some good seasons in 2000-2001 but then it took a dive straight down into mediocrity finishing 5-7, 5-7, 6-5 and a bunch of players getting arrested at the end. Holtz certainly helped, but Spurrier wasn't exactly playing with the best hand. In fact, Spurrier has admitted that he didn't realize exactly how far behind we were in terms of facilities in comparison to the rest of the SEC.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 4:58 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
Holtz went 33-37 at SC and was 10 games under .500 in conference.
99 went 0–11, .... 0–8 6th (East)
00 went 8–4, 5–3 .... 2nd (East) | W Outback Bowl
01 went 9–3, 5–3 .... 3rd (East) | W Outback Bowl
02 went 5–7, 3–5 .... 4th (East)
03 went 5–7, 2–6 .... 4th (East)
04 went 6–5, 4–4 .... 3rd (East)
South Carolina : 33–37, 19–29
Like Charlie Pell, Holtz was the coach that took a bad team to a moderate to good team so Spurrier arrived at both schools with better level of play and players then what either school had historically. Viewed another way, if neither Pell or Holtz were at their respective schools, Spurrier may not have coached at either one as both would have required building a program from scratch and not just upgrading one that was already competitive.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News