Started By
Message
re: As of today, who’s the better coach: Kirby or Spurrier?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:12 pm to Uga Alum
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:12 pm to Uga Alum
Spurrier. He transformed offense and turned a program that wasn’t much better than Kentucky into a national power. He also made South Carolina respectable for a pretty long while
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:28 pm to JamalMurry27
quote:
did not know this......what is the story on this? HOW were they so loaded every year?
2 things.
He had a good mix of recruiters and coaches on staff. He really wouldn’t do much recruiting except closing the deal on an elite player when it was time. So while Spurrier wasn’t a great recruiter he put together a staff of them. He was really underrated as far as having an eye for assistant coaches.
UF sold its self back then. Players just flocked to the school. Offensive guys knew that they would put up huge numbers. Defensive guys knew they were going up against the best offense in the country during practice and were ready for any offense out there. TBH Spurriers defensive players always had better NFL careers.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:49 pm to Uga Alum
Spurrier is at least twice as funny.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 12:38 am to Uga Alum
Spurrier never went undefeated.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 4:08 am to Uga Alum
Spurrier
And it’s not close. This is like saying who is better Steve Jobs or Tim Cook. It’s a lot easier to tweak something that is already going well than to build something from the ground up.
And it’s not close. This is like saying who is better Steve Jobs or Tim Cook. It’s a lot easier to tweak something that is already going well than to build something from the ground up.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:31 am to Uga Alum
Does it matter?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:32 am to Uga Alum
I understand why UF fans say Spurrier, the rest? It's really jealousy.
Kirby wins more. To win the SEC you had to go through Saban or someone who knocked Saban off. Spurrier just had to beat UTK for the most part.
Stallings had one great team and then a bunch of Richt type teams at Bama.
Fulmer had a couple of great teams but was never really in SOS's class.
Kirby has done what he's done with Saban being the only one to really stop him in any kind of prolonged way.
Spurrier was the king and somehow found a way to lose more games than Kirby.
If the East being weak is the reason Kirby has been great, then Georgia would have looked like Mizzou and UF when they played Bama all these years under Kirby. Even in those 17 point losses, Georgia had the lead at halftime in one and proved to be the better team in a rematch and over the long haul of the season.
In 2022, the third best team in the conference, who took out Bama, was in the East. South Carolina was also strong that year as well.
As far as his time at SC is concerned, it's a nice feather for him, but doesn't prove anything. He was great there for a few years, mediocre for a few others. We'll never know what Kirby would've done there.
Fact is, given two similar schools, Kirby has been better.
Kirby wins more. To win the SEC you had to go through Saban or someone who knocked Saban off. Spurrier just had to beat UTK for the most part.
Stallings had one great team and then a bunch of Richt type teams at Bama.
Fulmer had a couple of great teams but was never really in SOS's class.
Kirby has done what he's done with Saban being the only one to really stop him in any kind of prolonged way.
Spurrier was the king and somehow found a way to lose more games than Kirby.
If the East being weak is the reason Kirby has been great, then Georgia would have looked like Mizzou and UF when they played Bama all these years under Kirby. Even in those 17 point losses, Georgia had the lead at halftime in one and proved to be the better team in a rematch and over the long haul of the season.
In 2022, the third best team in the conference, who took out Bama, was in the East. South Carolina was also strong that year as well.
As far as his time at SC is concerned, it's a nice feather for him, but doesn't prove anything. He was great there for a few years, mediocre for a few others. We'll never know what Kirby would've done there.
Fact is, given two similar schools, Kirby has been better.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 5:35 am
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:35 am to Poker_hog
quote:
Spurrier
And it’s not close. This is like saying who is better Steve Jobs or Tim Cook. It’s a lot easier to tweak something that is already going well than to build something from the ground up.
Florida wasn't a dumpster fire when he arrived. The dude before had a talented roster because he cheated.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:40 am to Uga Alum
Considering what Florida was and is now, a middle of the pack SEC program, Spurrier did more at UF. Kirby may be the GOAT eventually but he is at a program that has ALWAYS been competitive where Spurrier was at Mississippi State for all practical purposes.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:42 am to koreandawg
quote:
It's really jealousy.
Kind of a presumptuous statement.
quote:
Fact is, given two similar schools, Kirby has been better.
When did opinions become facts?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:51 am to junkyarddawg3
quote:
When did opinions become facts?
Fact: The only thing Spurrier would have over Kirby is SEC titles at this point.
Fact: Spurrier had to beat out Fulmer mostly to win those. Kirby had to beat out Saban or someone who beat Saban. If you beat Saban, you had a competitive team. Saban>Fulmer
Fact: Spurrier was only one game over .500 in bowl games at UF. This would suggest that had he had a four team playoff, he likely wouldn't have been much better off in titles.
Fact: Kirby has a better winning pct. despite starting out with a much weaker team record wise.
Fact: Kirby has kept Georgia higher in the rankings on average than Spurrier kept UF.
Fact: Two national titles > 1 national title
There's more, but I'll stop there.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 5:53 am
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:10 am to Uga Alum
Spurrier is the winningest coach at two different programs. I don’t know how many other coaches have pulled that off.
And the SEC may have not been the monster it was in the 2000’s, but the Florida schools were all playing at a very high level, especially Florida State. That made it significantly harder to recruit as well.
And the SEC may have not been the monster it was in the 2000’s, but the Florida schools were all playing at a very high level, especially Florida State. That made it significantly harder to recruit as well.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:13 am to BFANLC
quote:
Easier to get into playoffs now
on the flipside: back then you could just be crowned national champion simply by winning any ol' bowl game. Ga tech "won a title" in '90 by virtue of beating a team ranked #19 in teh bowl game the ACC champion just happened to be slotted for. Prior to 1998 it was 100% up to the pollsters with no other rhyme or reason, so you could argue ti was eaiser to win without a playoff.
And to elaborate on that further, with a 4-team playoff you not only had to finish the first 13 weeks ranked in the top 4, but you then had to beat two teams back to back that were ALSol ranked in the top 4. Nowadays it's easier than ever to make the playoffs obviously, but you still have 3-4 games against top 10 compteitiotn. Extra games, extra difficulty = harder to win. Imagine if some of thsoe spurrier temas had to face FSU or Miami or Nebraska or UT in a back to back setting to win it all.
quote:
plus sec east has been notoriously weak.
Excuse me sir do you not realize florida is in the east as well? How could you possibly ahve this so backwards? In spurrier's east he had Tennessee and that's all. UGA had goff/donnan and SC/VU/UK were some of the historically worst programs IN AMERICA. Not to mention their cross division rival LSU was wandering in the wilderness as wlel. Kirby's east has not been nearly as top heavy, but has been exponentiallly touhger from a top to bottom perspective. not to mention AU now is better than LSU was then. Also realize that we keep having to face bama most years, which is a better program than any in spurrier's era.
quote:
I think some people overlook is that Spurrier kinda elevated sec offenses
the ONLY argument that could be entertained for spurrier being better is this, the innovation factor. That's not really quantifiable so it's hard to be objective with it, but he completely changed the game. He changed the way SEC football had been played for decades, so there will always be a place for him on tghese lists.
But when comparing to Kirby, Kirby played in a MUCH more difficult environment.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:51 am to Uga Alum
Kirby
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:48 am to Uga Alum
Given Spurrier has one foot in the grave and the other on an empty bottle of Evan Williams I'll say Smart.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:55 am to Uga Alum
Kirby never lost to mike dubose twice, in the same season...
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:56 am to Uga Alum
quote:
As of today, who’s the better coach: Kirby or Spurrier?
Well one of them quit on his team during the season and the did not.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:57 am to Uga Alum
quote:
He also took South Carolina to the SECCG for the only time in school history and had three 11 win seasons in a row at South Carolina.
Given our history, this is a big or bigger accomplishment than anything he did at UF.
Dollars to donuts Kirby couldn't accomplish the same there given SC's resources/limitations
Posted on 12/6/25 at 8:05 am to Uga Alum
Kirby
Posted on 12/6/25 at 8:06 am to Uga Alum
Lil Kirby won because (like his mentor) he went all in on paying talent before other programs began NIL.
Spurrier won without doing that, while bamma was doing that.
Spurrier won without doing that, while bamma was doing that.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News