re: How quick will South Carolina fall on their face when Spurrier leaves

quote:

---

HC will make or break a program

---

You would know more than most on this board. Kiffin, Dooley...yikes.

quote:

---

Bama went through the same thing and so did LSU in the 90's.

---

I understand that you are content with Richt and the whole "less with more" mentality, but how long are ya'll gonna ride the SEC championships from 02 and 05?
I mean the west was down and the only competition uga had in the east was uf at the time.

I don't want to rain on your little parade of history lessons you like to throw out at SC every time you get a chance, but those 2 SEC championships are getting close to being a decade old. It's time to stop riding them and realize that the SEC has grown stronger since then, there is no longer just 1 or 2 teams that are clear cut favorites anymore. There are 2 or 3 teams in each division now that can take it.

uga is quickly losing its blue blood roots, tDecline from untouchable status is real. *see tennesee
lil ol SC has become competitive, Mizz is competitive, UK is getting serious, heck even tiny vanderbilt busted the glorious bulldogs in the mouth last year!

Climb down from your high horse and don't worry about SC falling off after Spurrier leaves. Worry more about uga becoming the new Vanderbilt after Richt leaves.

quote:

---

I have "a chance" every time I log on. But if you'll notice I don't ever bring that up unless it's in response to something else. In this case, you're the one who, unprovoked and out of the blue, tried to make a dig at richt. My earlier post in this thread was completely unbiased and related to the topic at hand. Yours wasn't.

---

You make a dig at SC pretty much every chance you get, you might as well throw that Mizz logo up by your name. I made the dig at uga because it always seems that uga fans think that SC is just gonna fall back into obscurity after Spurrier, at least the majority of you do. If you look at it objectively (which is saying alot for a uga fan) you will see that Sc/uga has been a pretty tight battle... what the past 5 years? a bounce here or there by the football lands either team in the SECCG, yet SC falls into obscurity after Spurrier but uga stays the same? GTFO with that!

quote:

---

Now I know you're just fricking with me.

---

Maybe a little

quote:

---

I still decided to respond, but when you starting talking about UK being an up and comer you just completely went off the rails.

---

It is what it is,

was actually waiting for dallasga, I like his responses.

quote:

---

1) This is it. They are in the pinnacle of SC football history on the back of one of the 5 or 6 greatest SEC coaches of all time. Nowhere to go but down from here. Not that they'll start going 0-21 again, but they will drop off to "normal" SC levels. Maybe 7-5ish on the reg. Let's be honest, most recruits likely go to SC because of spurrier. It also helped that 2 of the best players in school history (that both played in the last 5 years) were from SC.

2)The foundation is laid, similar (not remotely on teh same level, but similar) to what spurrier did at UF. He's got them winning, got people pumped about SC, and the ball can keep rolling downhill. They won't be 11 wins a year good, but 9-10 wins can be expected. All the next guy has to do is just steer the ship.

---

Of these two scenarios, #2 is more likely for a variety of reasons.

First of all, the capital improvements around the campus since the Holtz years are astounding. Building that infrastructure and embracing the responsibilities required to be an SEC-caliber school are in place, and with current championship-winning leadership, will continue on that path. No, I'm not saying that USC has better facilities than everyone else. What I *am* saying is that they have brought them up to speed and it has made them that much more competitive.

Next, USC is winning the in-state battles for not only recruits, but for the hearts and minds of the casual fan. Used to be that a kid growing up in SC was evenly split on the prospect of pulling for USC or Clemson, on account of USC's lack of success vs. Clemson's relative ascension. Now, it's much more 75/25 USC. Georgia fans can attest to the fact that, when the flagship school in a state is winning, the rival begins to wither. Clemson has more staying power than GT does, and an administration that is willing to work harder for athletic success, but USC has far more cash, and will always have more cash going forward. Alumni donations are growing rapidly, as is the relative financial clout of the fanbase. Couple that with SEC cash, and Carolina will continue to push Clemson into more and more of a niche fanbase.

Finally, SC as a state overall is growing. As more people move here, the talent base increases overall. Georgia and Florida have seen this, as well. Granted, SC will never be as big as either of those two states on account of sheer land size, but the principle holds true. And SC produces a ton of high-quality talent for a state its size, anyway.

Coaching hires mean everything, and I'm not foolish enough to believe that USC can withstand another Brad Scott and still win 10 games a year. But the infrastructure is in place to do big things moving forward, and I expect Tanner and Co. to push on with another quality coach, be it internal or outside the system. There's absolutely no reason USC isn't a destination job at this point, as opposed to a reclamation or challenge gig, as seen by Holtz/Spurrier.


TL;DR version: USC is going to be fine after Spurrier retires due to infrastructure, population, leadership and success over rivals.

quote:

---

Potentially yes, but to think the next guy is not going to miss a beat after spurrier isn't a given. UT had better history, tradition, fan support, etc. when Fulmer left but they've gone 5 years now either being mediocre or downright atrocious. The pieces may be in place, but none of that matters if you don't have the right guy.

---

The two things that USC has that UTK didn't/doesn't are strong, competent leadership and a population that produces football players. UTK had tradition, but we've seen that tradition can get trumped by leadership. And I wouldn't argue that UTK had better fan support. They have a bigger stadium, yes, but USC's fan support takes a backseat to no one.

Having to rely solely on out-of-state kids to support your program can create a lot of instability if things go wrong. USC certainly supplements with the GA/FL/NC kids, but the heart of those teams the last few years were all home-grown, with the (notable) exception of Shaw.

Plus, I specifically mentioned that USC can't withstand a shitty hire. I never said that they aren't going to miss a beat, just that they're in good position.

Instantly.

Depends on who they hire. Spurrier has proven that USCe can compete at the top of the SEC ladder. I don't think they will have any trouble hiring a quality HC after he leaves.

Spurrier (and Holtz too for that matter) have shown that South Carolina can be and is a successful program in the SEC.

The best thing that South Carolina has got going for it is:
1.) It's a SEC Program. Face it, recruits now a days want to go to the SEC. The SEC is head and shoulders above all other conferences. With the new ESPN deal/SEC Network, it will only continue to be that way.
2.) South Carolina has a good recruiting ground. The state of South Carolina produces some really good talent and it helps to be sandwiched in between Georgia and North Carolina (with Florida a stone's throw away).
3.) Say what you will, but we have a very passionate fanbase. I'd put South Carolina's up against most in the country.
4.) We have some very enticing rivalries. Recruits like to play in "the big rivalry game". Rivalries with Clempson and Georgia only help to that extent.

We've hired two legends and hall of famers in Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier. I'm sure we are capable of hiring someone that is more than adequate.