I popped on over to Cockytalk to see what the discussion was

Prayers sent

I used to post there a lot. Ever since I joined this site and another one, I've fallen off there a good bit.

I just saw this though, and it's interesting.

Per Gamecockology on Twitter:

Record thru first 4 seasons as HC:

Saban: 28-18
Beamer: 17-26
Mack Brown: 12-33
Holtz: 21-23
Dantonio: 25-23

Muschamp: 28-21

There is one thing missing from that stat that makes it misleading, and that is where were those jobs.

quote:

---

First HC Jobs:

Saban: Toledo
Beamer: Va Tech
Mack Brown: App St, Tulane
Holtz: William and Mary
Dantonio: Cincinnati

Muschamp: Florida

---

When Beamer took over, Virginia Tech was a shell of what it is now.

It's hard to win at a small to mid-level school. It's also hard to lose at a school with the talent and resources of Florida.

I really hope I'm wrong on all my Muschamp hating.

That place is a joke.

You'd seriously think that the world was ending by reading what they were saying.

quote:

---

This gets reiterated a lot, but is it genuinely true?

---

Think of it this way: If Lane Kiffin didn't have the a-hole personality, would we consider him for the job? He inherited a talent and resource-rich program at USC, had a good second season, but was fired for going barely above .500. A lot of people blamed his inability to recognize the necessary points of need in the position coaches as the reason his offense (and defense) was always flat. No matter what, his HC ability will always be called into question, because he couldn't manage to win at a program that had an immense amount of name recognition and power. If you're looking at just pure coaching, I still think most SC fans would say we don't want Kiffin, and he's just better as a coordinator.

Unfortunately, we won't know the validity of carrying on a legacy at USC because Sark was a drunk, but following a coach who built a foundation for success is possible - just look at David Shaw, Jimbo Fisher, and Mark Helfrich.

I know that Muschamp is a better fit here than he is at Florida. I just think it's too soon after his last gig to hope he learned what he did wrong. I also think after 2 seasons, we should have seen improvement in Florida as a program all around, but we didn't.

I'm rambling. I need to stop and get back to work.

quote:

---

Haven't posted on Cockytalk since about 2009, and probably haven't even read anything from there in 2-3 years. Everyone there was a football genius.

---

One of the older posters, Spurticus, decided to leave the site because it wasn't the way it used to be or some BS. I just don't think he liked people criticizing Spurrier. He wrote this novel length post as his goodbye.

It was hilarious.

quote:

---

This gets reiterated a lot, but is it genuinely true?

Two coaches have had great success at UF, and both are considered legendary. Also, both left for other opportunities in the prime of their careers.

Everyone else has been mediocre there. BeaverTeeth has them in the SECCG using Muschamp's players, and Muschamp's defense. Muschamp probably has UF in the SECCG this year, too. But the East was a flaming disaster this year; hell, last year's USC team has a chance at the division this year.

I'm not saying Muschamp is The Guy. But he is a much better fit here than at UF, and for a host of reasons. If the team is markedly worse in Year 3 under Muschamp (nearly impossible), then try again when it's not the worst coaching environment in 25 years.

---

That's a convenient rationalization: Both Spurrier and Meyer are considered legendary (I guess) because of WHAT they did at Florida - they weren't legendary coaches that went to UF and then did what they did. At best they were considered very young but talented offensive minds in CFB, with an interest on whether or not their "gimmicky" offenses would work in the SEC (they did). But they were NOT legendary by a long shot on their first days on the job. Spurrier came closest to that but only due to what he did as a player at UF, not as a coach anywhere else.

"Everyone else has been mediocre there": Spurrier and Meyer accounted for 18 seasons over a 21-season period that began in 1990. Spurrier took over a program that went 0-10-1 in 1979, then followed that up by going 8-4, 7-5, 8-4, 9-2-1, 9-1-1, 9-1-1, 6-5, 6-6, 7-5, and 7-5.

The latter years suffered due to severe recruiting sanctions as a result of NCAA violations by Charlie Pell. I didn't follow what happened there much when it happened, but it seems to have had some merit: however these were during the early and mid 1980s when the Florida prep talent boom exploded, and Miami rose up from mediocrity and FSU went from winning 9 & 10 gms a year playing nobodies, to winning 11 & 12 gms and playing for national titles, playing mostly nobodies.

Had the staffs at UF (mostly Pell) not screwed the pooch, UF would have been playing for SEC titles before Spurrier came to UF. He's said many times over the years that his 1st year at UF went 9-2 due to the great talent the team was stocked with from Galan Hall's regime. UF took off from there - it still took Spurrier 6 years before he could win the MNC in 1996. But even with the NCAA and SEC sanctions, Florida went 76-38-3 in the 10 seasons prior to Spurrier taking over. I think most Gamecock fans would take that kind of "mediocre" decade.

Steve Spurrier was a case of the right type of head coach with the right type of offense taking over a FB program in a state exploding with elite prep talent at the right time in the history of CFB.

Everyone who request access has to give a reason for why they want it. He said as much.

quote:

---

: If Lane Kiffin didn't have the a-hole personality, would we consider him for the job?

---

It's not his personality, it's how he bailed on UT after he created the bad situation with sanctions. USC can't afford a coach like that. At the very least, Will can recruit and for four years kept a clean program.