Why isn't he on the hotseat?
- Thread starter Kendrick
- Start date
Lewis
Peabody Warhorses
He is the best thing that happened to them since George Rodgers. Beside, I heard Lou Holtz turned them down.
Exactly... I mean who can they get to come there and do better? His legend is the best thing they got going.
I know South Carolina is not exactly the beacon of college football dominance, but every year Spurrier has been the coach the Gamecocks have faded down the stretch. Charlie Weis, who many do not consider a good college football coach, has a 35-26 record at Notre Dame. Spurrier, who once dominated the SEC at Florida, has a 34–27 record at South Carolina.
Last edited:
If Weis had that record at SC he would not be on the hot seat either.
SC is happy going to a bowl game, and beating Clemson every now and then.
ND has national championship aspirations (no matter how delusional) every year.
If SC really wanted to be a football power, they'd start hiring up and coming coaches instead of these retirees.
I thought Spurrier was that guy. Albeit not an up and coming coach, but yet the dude had a pretty impressive resume nonetheless before he stepped in a South Carolina. Spurrier kinda proves my whole theory on coaches. Those men are only as good as the talent they have at their disposal.
Lewis
Peabody Warhorses
I don't totally agree with that. A good coach can "coach up" players and a bad coach can underachieve with great players. The coach is a big factor, but by far not the only one. There is only so much a coach can do if he doesn't have the talent. I personally think South Carolina doesn't have near the talent that the best teams in the SEC have. Spurrier is getting about all he can get out of them and he is getting more than previous coaches were getting. IMHO, they don't have the talent in state and don't have (whatever) to get enough out of state kids to come.
Maybe they should move to the ACC with Clemson.
I don't necessarily believe in the whole coach up idea. Either a player is talented or he is not talented.
The only thing a coach can do use guys to their strengths. That's not exactly coaching them up by getting every ounce of talent out of them that no other coach would with that player.
Spurrier is not dominating for the same reasons most coaches don't dominate. They just don't have the talent across the board to win consistently. And fans hate to admit that because they all--even in the FCS--have unrealistic expectations.
But yet the coach gets the blame even though folks know their program has disadvantages other competing programs don't when it comes to recruiting, facilities and funding.
So they went from bad to average.
An answer to the question could be that they are South Carolina.
Notre Dame has resources that most schools want. The expectations are as high as they are anywhere in the country. It has been said that coaching 25 years at other schools is like coaching 10 years at Notre Dame. The contract with NBC does not hurt when it comes to them getting the money.
The Gamecocks are in a divison with Florida, Georgia, and an improving Tennessee. For the time being many do not see the Gamecocks winning SEC titles in the years to come. Why? They are South Carolina.
Notre Dame has resources that most schools want. The expectations are as high as they are anywhere in the country. It has been said that coaching 25 years at other schools is like coaching 10 years at Notre Dame. The contract with NBC does not hurt when it comes to them getting the money.
The Gamecocks are in a divison with Florida, Georgia, and an improving Tennessee. For the time being many do not see the Gamecocks winning SEC titles in the years to come. Why? They are South Carolina.
Like I said before I understand that South Carolina is in a tough league and might not have the same resources as other schools. But you would think with Steve Spurrier's resume and coaching ability the Gamecocks would have had one or two seasons where they were legit contenders for a conference title or national title.
Northwestern, with meager practice facilities and not a large athletic budget, has won the Big Ten title twice in the last 14 years and won nine games last season. Illinois, not a football power, won the Big Ten in 2007. Stanford has even played in a Rose Bowl this decade.
It just boggles the mind how a coach like Spurrier can go this long without threatening to ascend to the top of the SEC in now his second stint in the conference.
TSUalum05
Well-Known Member
He's not getting the same athletes when he was on top of his game. Previously, he was able to sell a kid on being Spurrier, but now, these same kids who once looked at Spurrier on a different level are now looking at Urban Meyer, Saban, Pete Carrol and others. He's not getting the top athletes in his State. As Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and now Georgia Tech are getting those top tier athletes from all over the south plus raiding South Carolina. SC always has to deal with Clemson out. Recruiting them.
But to answer your question with my own opinion, SC is satisfied with being average after the past century of being loosers
Kendrick, what's the purpose of asking the question if your going to poke holes in everyone's opinion. Why do you think he's not on the hot seat?
Why do I think he's not on the hot seat? Well, the same reason why many coaches whose programs are in South Carolina's current situation. The fan base, alums and media just don't care as much about being Florida or Alabama or USC or Texas. Winning the SEC and going to a BCS bowl game is not the end all be all for those folks in that region.
I think he should be on the hot seat because you don't bring in a Steve Spurrier just to be competitive and go 7-5 or 8-4. You bring in Spurrier to compete for SEC championships and play in BCS bowl games. He's not Lane Kiffin or Gene Chizik new to the game in the SEC. It is OK for him to go 7-5 his first two years, but not your fifth year in at the program.
Like you and others have said, they are content with just being competitive. Much like the Northwesterns, Stanfords and other mid-major BCS schools are. Those fans are realistic about their team. Something I wish more fans would be at the FBS and FCS level.
As far as the perception of me poking holes in folks responses, well we as fans and alums don't always think rationally and use perspective when it comes to discussing our or other football programs. It's mostly knee-jerk reactions to say the least.
That is all I was trying to get across in the statements to other posters.
Last edited:
This is true. Schools from out of state have constantly raided South Carolina. Georgia had a good number of players from there. Georgia Tech would get a few including one named Ryan Stewart.
It is one thing to be Steve Spurrier at Florida. It is another thing to be Steve Spurrier at South Carolina.
In_The_662
Deeeeep In The Delta.....
Exactly.
Just like it was different when Bobby Knight was in Texas Tech. Texas Tech is a football school. Bobby Knight just getting them to the Big Dance (and getting their b-ball program national recognition) was good enough for them.
Garcia is a solid QB, but he's not the type of QB that Spurrier prefers and it seems like Spurrier cant get HIS type of QB to come to Columbia. SC's defense is what has kept them in a lot of their games