Started By
Message
re: [EDIT] Mizzou will hire Odom, Herman, Fuente, or Patterson (all huge hires)
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:21 am to gatorrocks
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:21 am to gatorrocks
quote:
Both USC jobs are more desirable
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years.
How is SC a better destination?
6
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:22 am to mizzoukills
quote:
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years.
How is SC a better destination?
Did USCe's team cause Spurrier to quit out of embarrassment?
edit: I mean off-the-field embarrassment.
This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 10:23 am
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:23 am to mizzoukills
quote:
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years.
Well, their football team isn't threatening to forfeit games because of a dude yelling a mean word at a student 3 weeks prior.
That's a start.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:23 am to mizzoukills
Better weather. Better fans. Better support. Better stadium. Fewer SJWs. Stronger admin.
I'm trying to think what Mizzou has to offer right now.
I'm trying to think what Mizzou has to offer right now.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:32 am to mizzoukills
quote:
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years. How is SC a better destination?
A better recruiting base to build on within the state, averaging 80,000+ fans a game (even when they're not very good), and the area is a desirable locations.
And that's not even taking into account not wanting to follow in the footsteps of Pinkel after the way his leave went down as well as the obvious shakeup in your University administration.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:46 am to mizzoukills
quote:
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years.
How is SC a better destination?
Location, location, location.
Recruiting the top players in the south to South Carolina is a HELL of a lot easier than convincing them to go to Mizzou .
Families in Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, etc all can make it pretty easily to South Carolina within a few hours (ok, maybe not Miami players).
There are tons of players right in the area that a good coach can easily convince to go to South Carolina over Mizzou.
Not to mention, living in South Carolina is a bit, well, nicer than Missouri. Especially pigeon holed between the two shite holes of St. Louis and Kansas City.
As far as history goes (as far as recruiting goes), neither team has anything significant going for it from a football perspective.
When was the last time any of you won a conference title?
Guess it all comes down to whether he wants control of his team or the team to control him.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 5:39 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
How is South Carolina more desirable? They have a FAR worse history than Mizzou. They were competitive for 3 years.
Plus you'd have to deal with the assholes in those cockabooses who think wasting their money entitles them to have a say in the coach's business.
Not to mention the fact they're a little brother school in their own state who has to recruit against multiple bluebloods in the region. There's a reason they were only competitive for three years.
They should erect a statue of Spurrier with drop hatch trousers so SC fans can kiss his arse for making them relevant during their hiccup of success.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News