Analysis: Examining the year three dynamic
- Thread starter Chris Clark
- Start date
Chris is entitled to his opinion, to be sure. But, this isn't year 3. It's year 7. Nothing has changed and Champ has hitched his wagon to coordinators who have never done it before. I'm sorry, but competing in the SEC is as fierce as it gets. You can't win at any SEC school with tenderfoot coordinators who are still wet behind the ears. Especially at SC. We are not a stepping stone where coaches are paid millions to learn their craft.
I've seen enough of Champ to know this ain't changing. And before the chorus of tater ensues, make no mistake that my allegiance always has been and always will be to our school and not a coach.
I've seen enough of Champ to know this ain't changing. And before the chorus of tater ensues, make no mistake that my allegiance always has been and always will be to our school and not a coach.
Except for clemson and uga, our talent is equal to or a little bit better than the other teams on our schedule. Biggest difference from last year 9wins to this year 3wins so far is the turnover battle. We can beat everybody remaining on the schedule except clemson if we win the TO battle and catch the ball.
I think everyone's biggest concern is that our skill players seem to regress. Bentley looked better as a true freshman. Dowdle looked better as a true freshman. Our receivers haven't improved and, if anything, are dropping more passes.
Give Muschamp credit for hiring Wolford as the O-line has improved a lot. In fact, if not for the O-line, I think we would be worse on offense this year despite more veterans.
I don't know what the problem is with the offense, but I think Muschamp has 5 years here to figure it out unless we "go off the cliff" (meaning we lose 8 or 9 games next year....in which case he should only get 4).
Honestly, with good quarterback performance this is a completely different team. Not sure if that is the coaching, but at some point Muschamp has got to figure it out.
Give Muschamp credit for hiring Wolford as the O-line has improved a lot. In fact, if not for the O-line, I think we would be worse on offense this year despite more veterans.
I don't know what the problem is with the offense, but I think Muschamp has 5 years here to figure it out unless we "go off the cliff" (meaning we lose 8 or 9 games next year....in which case he should only get 4).
Honestly, with good quarterback performance this is a completely different team. Not sure if that is the coaching, but at some point Muschamp has got to figure it out.
The turnover stat makes me believe we were a team that was no better than this year. We've lost to Kentucky with and without Deebo.
Chris is trying to make the case that three years has been the low-water mark for a lot of coaches. But next year's schedule will challenge that notion here. With research, you could probably make the same case for any year of a tenure by citing a different group of coaches.
I agree but USC certainly could have won that game.
We should see improvement in year 3 not regression. I hate klempson but in year 3 of datboy they won 10 games and won the acc. They were 6-7 his first year. We are not showing that improvement at all.
Sorry but not sure how “ it’s year 7”. You can’t combine tenures. This is year 3 in the rebuild HERE. You wanting to discuss situations about coordinators may be relevant to an extent but has nothing to do with adding talent and the details Chris mentioned
Some want to hate on Champ and I get that but this is year 3 and it takes time
And if anyone truly read the article Then it’s easy to understand how in many other major programs it’s been similar . And yes even in year 3 some regressed. It’s a process .
This isn't year 7 at South Carolina.
There's a big difference. If you don't consider the situation that Muschamp walked into, there's no reason to even have a discussion because it's completely out of context and lacking any perspective.
I'm not sure if you read the piece in full, but I mentioned it's plenty fine to have concerns and I mentioned how hiring Roper was a mistake, which was evident both in production and in the fact that Muschamp cut him loose.
Saying nothing has changed about Muschamp since his time at Florida is, quite simply, not correct. I can tell you that as someone who covers the program every day and have spent countless hours talking to people at Florida and South Carolina about it.
This team is not where it wants to be in record or on offense. And watching the games this season provides some context as to why that is (turnover margin, slow starts, drops, etc.) and what needs to change. It's OK to have concerns about that. But USC has adjusted what it does on offense in terms of being more multiple, using more tempo, being more aggressive. It hasn't worked out as much through six games, but the fact that people are saying "it is what it is" through 6 games this season pretty much exactly illustrates the point I'm making.
I guarantee if you go back and read opinions, message board posts, etc. during the years many of these teams I mentioned (that are now highly successful) were struggling, we'd see some of the same rhetoric.
None of that means Muschamp will or won't get it done here. I don't know the answer to that. If I did, I'd be in another line of work.
There are things that have to get better, and it's OK to be critical because there are things to be critical of. It's also OK to have perspective, put things into context as to here USC is now and where it's come from historically, and to recognize some of the good as well.
I implore you to read the story.
But even if you choose not to...
The 6-7 year at Clemson was not in year one. It was in full year two, and (you could call it year 3 or year 2.5) it was also after Dabo coached 7 games as an interim in 2008. Clemson was, as much as it had some struggles, in a better place as a program at that time in terms of roster composition and not having multiple other Southeast schools/rivals being elite than South Carolina was when Muschamp took over. Again, the point I was making in the story was to have perspective, not to just dismiss any ability to be critical or things like that.
You also mentioned USC not showing improvement "at all". USC's improved in recruiting each cycle since Muschamp has been here, has the first five-star of Muschamp's tenure in place, and the highest-ranked QB in school history (from California, no less). He's also upgraded the roster from what we saw on the field in 2015 from a talent standpoint. He also took a 3 win team and won 6 games in year one, then 9 the next. That's also improving.
I laid out in the story how year three sometimes sees a step back in terms of record even for programs that go on to be elite. Those programs were actually improving behind the scenes.
I also pointed out in the story that other excellent coaches at big-name or elite programs improved every season (including year three).
The point of the story was to address the narrative that you have to improve in terms of record in year three to know you're going up. That's demonstrably false because there's evidence otherwise.
You can certainly find evidence for different takes by looking at certain groups. That wasn't my goal. If it was, I wouldn't have laid out a lot of different data points (citing coaches that improved/regressed in year three and other phenomena) in the story.
Your first sentence isn't the overall point I was trying to make. It was to address the year three question in total. I do think your sentence has some fact, because some elite programs have regressed early in a coach's tenure, including in year three.
Aside from addressing the question, the point I was trying to make more than anything was that if someone (whether Muschamp or anyone) is to build a winner at South Carolina of all places, it's going to take time. It will not be a two or three year process, especially under these circumstances.
I was also trying to make the point that it's OK to have perspective and to understand what improvement and building looks like, which is the fact that it's not 100% wins and losses when you're building.
You mentioned next year's schedule (which will be year 4) - that could be at best a three loss season for USC. It could be worse. It could be better, maybe? That's because it's playing Alabama, Georgia, and Clemson, all of which are elite, and other more traditionally strong programs that are also improving.
Does that mean USC isn't improving as a program? To me, it doesn't. While Clemson was losing five in a row to USC, some fans wanted Dabo out up there. Even when they were doing extremely well in conference. They stuck with it and it paid off. And Clemson was certainly improving even in the midst of that streak.
I don't measure whether or not USC runs the table or wins two of three of those huge games on the schedule next season as a definitive barometer of improvement.
Now, at some point the wins - those type of wins- have to come. But that's why I cited perspective. It's just not something that's done very well in college football.
We still haven't lost to anyone we didn't lost to last year. Saturday will be telling. We won games last year because of TO, not because we shut down offenses.
Chris, we make awful mistakes on the field. We make many that are very much self inflicted. We have one guy on defense that still doesn’t know where to line up. We are NOT improving. Very hard to take.
I wouldn't dispute that USC has had a lot of self inflicted mistakes. Everyone's said that and that's quite obvious.
A lot of those same mistakes USC didn't make last season. The receivers didn't have as many drops. Bentley did have a poor multi INT game against Florida, but USC won and it helped cover it.
I'm not trying to be crass here I promise, but I don't see how what you said here relates to any of the points I gave in response to your post.
USC has played poorly in the three losses to ranked opponents this season. It did some good things in the games it did win.
The program overall has improved. The team may not have improved from last season overall - we will see at season's end.
Other SEC schools don’t have a punt hit a player before it gets to the returner. They don’t run out the clock when you down two scores. They don’t have a RB ave over 5 yds a carry for 5 carries and then sit them. They don’t have a QB ave 40 yds passing in a half of football. They don’t keep starting WR that have the dropseys. They don’t have to revamp their offense mid season. Our assistants are a joke
It just seems like all of the big staples on the schedule - UGA, UF, UK, A&M, CU - know EXACTLY what they are going to get in a Muschamp lead team.
The odds of Smart, Mullins, Stoops, Fisher & Dabo losing to Champ with any regularity is pretty low.
He's too cut from the same cloth as Kirby, Saban, etc. and without the horses (or the head coaching ability) to succeed.
When everybody is looking one direction, it's time to look the other way.
That's what we had in Spurrier, and that's how he amassed the record he did against the teams we can't touch now.
IMO, the best case scenario is Champ eventually takes the Co-Head Coach position and we bring in a creative offensive mind - such as a Josh Heupel type - and give that a shot.
The odds of Smart, Mullins, Stoops, Fisher & Dabo losing to Champ with any regularity is pretty low.
He's too cut from the same cloth as Kirby, Saban, etc. and without the horses (or the head coaching ability) to succeed.
When everybody is looking one direction, it's time to look the other way.
That's what we had in Spurrier, and that's how he amassed the record he did against the teams we can't touch now.
IMO, the best case scenario is Champ eventually takes the Co-Head Coach position and we bring in a creative offensive mind - such as a Josh Heupel type - and give that a shot.
I think only a great coach can succeed here over time in an SEC environment. We've had two such coaches come through here and demonstrate the possibilities, but both were in the last stage of their coaching careers. Both expired professionally while here. Any less a coach than those will not succeed in lifting this program to reliable relevance.
We just arent seeing the improvement in gamecalling or player development. Remember we barely beat La Tech last year. I dont see much improvement this year
That scenario will never be agreeable to any coach, and I suspect not to any AD, either.
Clemson and now Georgias success has put the bright light directly on this coaching staff. Between relatively recent success (10-13) and those two teams battling for playoff berths I can honestly say it’s tougher than ever to be a patient Gamecock. We now know it can be done here AND we have to witness our closest neighbors talking up their dogs and kitties. So for those reasons and the fact Champ failed at Florida there is a big contingent of fans who are already convinced he can’t do it here and are already looking for change.
As much doubt as I have at this point I think we have no choice but to give the man 4-5 years. Our coaching options would not be near as plentiful as some believe. Plus, with the playoff, getting a coach from another power 5 (one that’s currently employed) would be tough. The path to success here is much tougher than their present one would be.
As much doubt as I have at this point I think we have no choice but to give the man 4-5 years. Our coaching options would not be near as plentiful as some believe. Plus, with the playoff, getting a coach from another power 5 (one that’s currently employed) would be tough. The path to success here is much tougher than their present one would be.
Okay. Fair enough. To me we look just like his UF teams. To me he’s still making the same decisions and mistakes. In fact, an argument can be made he has more authority at SC and failed to take advantage by bringing in some high powered coordinators. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect it. But this is year 7 of the same with Champ.
Here here, an opportunity was missed after spurrier gave us a head start. I was astonished at muschamps nane coming up in our coaching search and even moreso when he was hired. Truly could not understand how we arrived at that point. This was the most important hire in the history of the athletic department as we had finally found some relevance and had an opportunity to truly keep the ball rolling. Again, things could have changed with a new offensive coordinator. It seems we settled. Seeing stupid play and then asinine statements in the media just fuels the fire. Our neighbors play for championships and we play for bowl eligibility. Not what i envisioned post spurrier.
If someone is at South Carolina and turns South Carolina into a consistent winner, that coach will have proven himself to be a great coach. There's no doubt about it. That's the case with a guy who's already proven or a guy who develops into a great coach.
Let me give you an example of program building, and this was even at a school that entered the fray with a title and more tradition than USC, because I mentioned this school in the story.
At Clemson, much of the fan base clamored for an established guy or a hot up and comer. Actually, many Clemson fans clamored for Will Muschamp.
Dabo Swinney got the job and it was largely viewed as eh...ok. And then some things happened the few first years that led folks to wonder if he had what it took. Then it took off.
I'm not saying that will happen at USC. I don't know what will happen. Muschamp had more of a body of work (it wasn't a positive one overall, save for one very good year at UF) before he took that USC job than Swinney did at Clemson, and that's led some to go ahead and pull the plug in their mind on Muschamp. Any failure at USC automatically has some to make the leap that "well, this is Florida all over again." But it's really not. If he fails at USC, it won't be because of Florida because a lot is different.
And some folks forget a lot of the positives that took place in the program in two short years under very difficult circumstances. If Muschamp was a new coach, an up and comer, he'd be viewed MUCH differently. He'd be viewed as a guy who did a great job turning things around and now has some questions going forward as to how far he can take the program.
I think what makes a coach is what he ultimately does at each place. Who knew Nick Saban would be so awesome after his time at Toledo and Michigan State? Who knew Swinney would build the program he has at Clemson? How many thought Muschamp's tenure at Florida would end the way it did? Thing is, ya never know.
The point I'm trying to make in the story is that it's hard to make broad generalizations and to paint everything in college football with the same brush.
If Swinney had gotten his break at an SEC school, or even a Big 10 school, it is doubtful he would have flourished as he has. UPC is an SEC-like school in a more favorable environment. You could say the same thing about FSU. They invest in football at an SEC level without facing that caliber of conference opposition. UPC is a dream scenario for Swinney, and his success lies in the fact he has survived to exploit it. He is good, but he was also uncannily fortunate not to get a top-tier SEC job first. He could have been another Shula.
Muschamp has a track record. Datboy had not yet proven anything but he began to win quickly. Totally different. Tanner ignored history...at the university of Florida. That’s about as good a job as there is in college football. We can only hope. I hope i am completely wrong. The lack of improvement is a bad sign. Hope for the best
Year 7? How do you figure that? THIS team is in year 3 of its rebuild. You can't include Muschamp's previous coaching experience with this team's rebuild. He took over a 3 win team just 3 seasons ago.
Dabo was 4-3 after taking over as interim HC in 2008. He took over a team that went 9-4 the previous season.
2009: 9-5
2010: 6-7
2011: 10-4 Lost bowl game 70-33
Muschamp took over a team that went 3-9 and lost to the Citadel.
Our ship was sinking quickly before Spurrier left us. Did you not watch any if our games during Spurrier's final two seasons? Muschamp cannot be blamed for not capitalizing on Spurrier's success when Spurrier himself couldn't keep the success rolling. 6-7 and 3-9 didnt exactly lay a great foundation for rapid success for Muschamp.
I don't know.... Maybe completely different teams? Players? Circumstances?
Were you complaining so much when we won 9 games last year? Yes we have lost 3 games, but we had opportunities to win 2 of the 3, against top 15 opponents.
Perhaps you're just not a Muschamp fan so you will refuse to give any credit at all? It's hard to look at our 2019 recruiting class and not see improvement. It's hard to watch a game and not see how so many contributors are underclassmen recruited by Muschamp. If the recruiting momentum continues, and we continue to stack quality players each year, then we'll have the quality depth that we have not had in years.
I mean, perhaps, but we have no way of knowing that. Dabo was definitely a perfect fit for Clemson.
Maybe even at this stage in his career he'd go somewhere else and wouldn't do nearly as well (I don't think he'll ever leave and I wouldn't either). That's possible. There have been coaches that have been just OK at places and great at others, and vice versa. Fit is a big part of that.
Will Muschamp wasn't a fit at Florida and is a much better fit at South Carolina.
I wouldn't say he won that quickly. He went 4-3 as the interim, won 9 games, then had a losing record in 2010 at 6-7. It took some time. He also lost five in a row to USC and some folks wanted him gone. They gave up 70 points in the Orange Bowl and that was after a 10 win season the following year.
I mean, couldn't you argue that Muschamp won quickly at USC? He doubled the win total and then won 9? Hard to say where it will go from here either this season or in future years. USC definitely faces more difficult circumstances right now than Dabo did when he took over at Clemson from a roster/recruiting/scheduling standpoint.
Everyone is aware that Muschamp's tenure at Florida failed to win enough games. That's been discussed ad nauseum. It doesn't completely have everything to do with South Carolina. As I've said, I don't know how it ends. Maybe it's a complete failure in a few years. Maybe it's a rousing success. Maybe somewhere in between. I just think it's short sighted to say well, his track record at Florida wasn't good and he's not doing anything differently (which isn't true) so it will be the same at USC. And I think it's especially unfair to just completely throw circumstance out the window.
My question???
What were the stats on offense???
How did they lose those games???
How Many INT's? drop passes? And going away from the run when the running game was working???
What were the stats on offense???
How did they lose those games???
How Many INT's? drop passes? And going away from the run when the running game was working???
Great response and accurate ! I just don’t see how people do not think rationally and realize this
I still believe Muschamp will get it turned around here. I think he doesn't have the talent that even UF or UK have much less UGa or Clemson. Muschamp and his staff are good enough recruiters that we will eventually win by putting more talent on the field as the other teams. But that takes time. If we get rid of Muschamp now, we won't get a known good coach here. We would have to roll the dice on an unknown coach which is awful for recruiting. As a reminder, Darren Horn was the type we ended up with. How did that work out for us? This is a frustrating rebuilding process but I am willing to give Muschamp 2 more years to see what he can do. I say this because I don't see any other good option.
Rah rah rah rah...pump pump pump. Deep down we all know next year will be bad and probably the next year as well. Giving him 2 more years is just 2 years we cant get back. If I'm wrong I'll gladly eat crow. And Chris is right Florida was the wrong fit and we are the right fit. Programs that like winning dont have our woe is me attitude.
