Interesting stuff on Muschamp vs. Spurrier, through first 4 years.
- Thread starter gr8spur
- Start date
I dunno. Spurrier took over a team that had gone 6-5 and only missed out on a bowl b/c of the brawl against Clemson. We had one ugly loss to Ole Miss. The rest were to the usual suspects...UF, UGA, UT and Clemson. On top of that, Spurrier inherited a couple pretty good QBs in Blake Mitchell and Syvelle Newton. As many issues as that team had, they talented their way to 6 wins.
Muschamp inherited a team that had gone 3-9, including a humiliating loss to the Citadel. In any year, we should be able to defeat the Citadel based on talent alone, so that tells you how truly awful that team was. We were so bad, that our legendary coach resigned/quit/retired in historic mid-season fashion. Muschamp inherited a team who was starting a walk-on at QB.
Both coaches inherited teams that lost their leading rusher and leading receiver.
People over-inflate the team that Champ inherited because some of the players developed into NFL talent. Anyone who actually watched that 2015 team play knows how truly dysfunctional the team was. We were BAD...bad, bad. Spurrier has publicly apologized for the lack of talent he recruited at the end. Kudos to Champ for developing some of those guys into NFLers.
Neither coach inherited a gem of a team, and both teams were dysfunctional in their own right, but there's not much of a case to be made for Champ inheriting a better team than Spurrier.
Now, none of this is defend where we are as a program. We're still a train wreck now, but that has nothing to do with the kind of disastrous team Champ inherited.
Last edited:
Statistics maybe similar on some level, but coaching ability is miles
apart!! Spurrier was a proven winner before he came to USC. Muschamp the total opposite. I ask again, WHY RAY, WHY??!!
apart!! Spurrier was a proven winner before he came to USC. Muschamp the total opposite. I ask again, WHY RAY, WHY??!!
You are right. It is not just the losses. It is, as you put it, the miserable brand of football. The dinking, dunking, pseudo ball control capped by penalties that is so unwatchable. The D is on the field for too long. The excitement has exited.
Can we have some relief?
I think its fair and I think you have every right to be pissed the **** off about 4-8. But I also agree with keeping champ due to buyouts. Its possible he turns it around, and he very well may not. But its better to keep him and its better for the program in the future if we do, even if hes not the coach in 3 years.
Cocky_Corleone
Active Member
I stepped away from the Gamecock Club and season tickets after 2009. Papa John's bowl to be exact. When they beat Alabama 9 months later I never thought wow I wish I was there. It was more fun for me in the comforts of our home.
Stepping away financially makes everything that has happened since a lot less irritating. Better to be bitter with money in the pocket than to be bitter and empty handed.
Stepping away financially makes everything that has happened since a lot less irritating. Better to be bitter with money in the pocket than to be bitter and empty handed.
In order for Champ to be fired at this point, we have to lose the rest of our games AND look bad doing it. If we lose all our games but the scores are respectable, he's save. If we pick up 1-2 more wins, he's safe. He needs to start preparing this team for the future.
If Muschamp were Spurrier, we'd win the SEC East next year and finish in the top 10 the following three years including a top 5 finish. Does anyone really think that is going to happen?
Here's the deal, Spurrier hated recruiting. When the talent in SC fell into his lap, we went from 7-5 to 11-2. It's that simple. Muschamp already has multiple 5-stars on defense and LSU didn't punt on Saturday night. There's no excuse for that. I'm not saying we should be 11-2, but we certainly should doing better than we are. Even if Muschamp had Lattimore and Clowney, we'd probably only win 8 or 9 games. His staff can recruit, but most of them can't coach. I personally think his ceiling is 8 or 9 wins and I'd be shocked if we ever win the SEC East. We should expect more.
Here's the deal, Spurrier hated recruiting. When the talent in SC fell into his lap, we went from 7-5 to 11-2. It's that simple. Muschamp already has multiple 5-stars on defense and LSU didn't punt on Saturday night. There's no excuse for that. I'm not saying we should be 11-2, but we certainly should doing better than we are. Even if Muschamp had Lattimore and Clowney, we'd probably only win 8 or 9 games. His staff can recruit, but most of them can't coach. I personally think his ceiling is 8 or 9 wins and I'd be shocked if we ever win the SEC East. We should expect more.
I doubt he’d survive if he lost every remaining game. There were already BOT members who wanted him gone after last season. If he didn’t win another game, that would mean losses to Mizzou, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. Those are teams even the South Carolina admin and BOT don’t condone.
It was '06 when things got shaky with the OL. That was the year we wound up starting Syvelle and wound up with 2 walk-ons starting on the OL. I don't think Will ever had that kind of issue. Shawn Elliott left USC with decent OL.
Some of the OL issues were HBC's fault: his OL coach. We were notorious for moving the chains, then getting our drives killed by blitzes in the red zone.
BTW....Blake could throw a beautiful fade.
I don't remember which season it was that the OL was so bad at getting false starts, that Spurrier started pulling linemen from the game if they got a false start.
Hey @jthunder - very good question.
I thought everyone knew the overall records. As many have pointed out, Spurrier didn't have a losing season at South Carolina in those first four years (or at all, unless you count the last one).
This was giving a picture of two measures that folks frequently look at to measure success - conference wins and quality, top 25 wins.
And of course, we all know what Spurrier did after the first four years. I don't know what will happen the rest of this season, next year, etc. We'll see.
I decided to use postseason top 25 teams because - to me - that's a more accurate picture of the competition level played.
If a team's #5 in preseason or when you play them, great. But if they play the actual season and lose a bunch of games and aren't ranked at year's end, then that's more indicative of their quality.
I then - completely randomly - chose the Coaches Poll instead of the AP Poll. There may well be differences in those two in terms of how the wins would be numbered.
None. He didn't have a losing record the first four years, or at all unless you count the last one.
That's been a point discussed a lot, and not presenting it as part of this particular piece (which dealt with a couple other metrics) isn't trying to hide it in any way.
In the piece I said that Muschamp's record the first four years here is not good enough - well, if you count the last two seasons, anyways.
That 4-8 record in '19 is, it seems, the biggest issue.
Yes, and this is exactly why I said that the tenures are viewed differently even if *some* not all numbers were same at a common place.
Nobody is arguing (or they shouldn't!) that Muschamp's resume is somehow the same or better than Spurrier. That'd be crazy.
Spurrier won at several places that didn't have tradition of winning and one of those (UF) he made into a national power.
Muschamp has not done that. Muschamp also had a similar overall record in some areas (yes, one season was a losing year but he also had a 9 win year earlier) in the first four years at USC - that's not really disputable.
What does that mean? Perhaps absolutely nothing as far as how the tenure will go. I'm not saying here comes a bunch of 11-win seasons. I just presented the numbers and said that the first 4 years weren't good enough and that he'll either get better or he won't.
I hope nobody argues that. That would be completely asinine.
To be clear, since for some reason there's been a contingent of people implying this piece made that argument (which it didn't by any stretch)...
Steve Spurrier is the best coach in South Carolina history, what he did at South Carolina has not ever been done, and his track record at South Carolina and overall is much better than Will Muschamp's. The resumes are not comparable. He is a college football coaching legend that's taken 3 programs with little history and made them into winners.
That said, it's OK to say that some of the figures were similar the first 4 years, and to then discuss if that means anything at all. Perhaps it doesn't.
It doesn't seem like it, and the piece didn't argue that either.
I remember that time period for Spurrier very well. I thought he would eventually find some measure of greater success. I can't say I saw - after the 2008 and 2009 seasons - USC making it to Atlanta the very next year and then reeling off 33 wins and a 5 game win streak over Clemson the next several seasons.
Yes, we have the hindsight to know that at least behind the scenes they were on an upward trajectory.
In 08, it seemed sort of flat. In 09, the team won 7 again and lost the PapaJohns Bowl in a fashion that almost lit Gamecock Internet on fire back then. People were hot. USC signed a good recruiting class in 09 and Marcus Lattimore in '10 (plus Shaw, others) which gave hope that it would turn around and it did.
Spurrier did have more "close losses" than Muschamp at this same point. I think it was something like 5 20 point or more losses for Spurrier teams, 10 for Muschamp in this same period.
There were definitely some games under Spurrier - albeit less - in which you wondered what was going on, though. It's not as if we walked away from every game back then just raving about the team even in a loss.
Your general points can stand, without getting into competition, etc.
We'll know more on Muschamp's trajectory at the end of the year. It was up in years one and two, then down in three and four. Of course, The only way USC could have gone up in year three would have been to win 8 or 9 (or more) games again. Spurrier had a regression from 8 downwards at one point, but the thing is he never had a losing season. Muschamp had a 4-8 season that's the biggest issue for people right now, that and the fact that Clemson is absolutely elite.
Another point that has to be considered regarding Clemson (and USC needs to beat Clemson, but we have to give this perspective).
Clemson was ranked twice from 2005-2008, and in the back half of the top 25. Spurrier's win against Clemson in 2006 was against an unranked team. I remember that game and it was thrilling for USC fans.
Muschamp is 0-4 against Clemson and Clemson has been ranked in the top 4 each time. Two of those Clemson teams finished #1 and won the national title.
So it's a little different in terms of competition level. That's not an "excuse", but it is reality that these Clemson teams are not the Tommy Bowden teams.
As a point of clarity, I used postseason top 25 records and applied it evenly across the board.
That definitely changes it, but I just think it's a better measure of a team to discuss their ranking after the season rather than in the beginning of the season - when zero games have been played - or just a few.
For instance in 2007 USC was ranked #6 in the country and started 6-1. They lost five straight games and weren't ranked at year's end. So they weren't #6, really.
That 2007 UK win was a great moment, but UK also finished the year 8-5 and fell out of the rankings.
I didn't do this to try to change the data in any way, I had no idea (and still haven't crunched the different numbers) - I just wanted to use postseason rankings because I feel it's a more accurate "hindsight" measure. If others want to use rankings at the time, that's totally fine, too, and can change the picture.
Oh, there's a ton to look at! Tons of stuff. I couldn't possibly cover it in one piece, We've written about a lot of other topics and will continue to do so.
Thanks for reading!
They indeed are, and the piece never disputed that.
I was more concerned about what happened at South Carolina for the purposes of this particular analysis.
And we know what Spurrier did after year five here. There was no insinuation in the piece that Muschamp would do that either.
I didn't compare Muschamp and Spurrier as coaches overall. Spurrier's resume is way better at South Carolina, at Florida, and overall. That's pretty obvious, I'd think.
This piece literally looked at the first four years of each at South Carolina, which is most important for South Carolina fans since Florida's wins and losses don't count here.
It mentioned how Spurrier turned it around at USC and all the good he did leading up to year five and after, said that Muschamp either will or won't (and drew no conclusion as to such)
I'm having a hard time figuring out how folks took this as me saying that Muschamp was as good a coach as Spurrier or something of that nature. I didn't draw that conclusion.
I did draw the conclusion that the first four year tenures for each coach had some similarities at South Carolina (and there are certainly differences - like no losing record for Spurrier and Muschamp having a 4-8 season) - but I drew that conclusion based on data, not an opinion or an eye test or anything. It may have zero bearing on how Muschamp's tenure is here. We may look back in 2022 and say yeah, Spurrier turned it around and Muschamp didn't. I don't know.
And that's totally a fine opinion to have.
I just presented the data and discussed how Spurrier turned his tenure around.
Some folks are drawing the conclusion that I'm defending the first four years of Muschamp by comparing it to Spurrier or implying he's the same level coach. I didn't do the latter at all. Spurrier's resume is way better, that's obvious to anyone.
I said within the piece itself that the first four years for Muschamp were not good enough and that he'll need to get better.
Going back and analyzing the two first year teams would be interesting. There were definitely some good individual players on that first team in '16.
The facilities were undoubtedly better, which I credited Spurrier for in the piece.
@polo-loco - hope you're doing well!
Anything in particular you disagreed with in the piece or want to discuss? Would be glad to!
The piece never disputed that Spurrier's resume is and was better. He ended up winning at USC, which is what everyone expected in some form or fashion at some time. He did it everywhere else in college, too.
To answer that first question, I don't think anyone is projecting that right now. It's hard to see that happening.
But to go back to your first sentence, I hope you're not thinking I was trying to imply Muschamp is Spurrier. The piece never made that leap, nor would I make that leap. That would be silly. Spurrier's resume is clearly superior whether at South Carolina or other places. That doesn't change the fact that the first four year data is similar in a lot of regards. What does that mean? Maybe not a thing! We know Spurrier turned it around and won lots of games after scuffling for the most part the first five years (with a few breakthroughs here and there).
I don’t know if anyone took it as a comparison of Muschamp being as good of a coach but leaving out overall records and even yearly records in favor of just the stats that line up with each other just makes it come across as an attempt to justify Muschamp is doing the same kind of job Spurrier did here through his first four years.
I can tell you from some of the comments that I've gotten that some people have definitely taken it that way, haha. Not surprising overall, but not accurate.
I probably should have included the overall but I thought that had been discussed so much that I was bringing some new data points to the conversation. I thought everyone knew that Muschamp had two losing seasons and Spurrier didn't have any in the first four years. I presented this data to a bunch of folks I knew when researching and to a man it surprised everyone, including me.
I'm not "justifying" anything Muschamp's done because I mentioned in the piece that the first 4 years for both coaches were not good enough.
Now, the data does show that in some areas Muschamp has performed comparably to Spurrier in that time frame. Namely, they have the same number of conference wins and same number of postseason top 25 opponent wins. In other areas Muschamp is not up the same standard (such as having two losing seasons, etc.) This data is not something I made up or trying to squeeze out, it's just what happened. That may not mean a lick for the future.
I don’t think anyone feels you made up the data as the numbers are what they are and they can all be verified and checked. Again I think the issue that almost everyone is having is that these were the only numbers presented which absolutely (whether intentional or not) comes across as a piece to support Muschamp doing the same level of job as Spurrier did. Yes some of the numbers presented are surprising and yes it is a good reminder of where Spurrier started but it doesn’t change the fact that those surprising numbers are picked from a whole series of stats that might paint a completely different picture if all shown together.
I do think it’s obvious that everyone knows Muschamp has had two losing seasons and everyone knowing that but it being excluded is the primary reason people are having such a strong reaction to the piece. It’s the most glaring thing about the two coaches and yet it’s not included in a piece comparing the two coaches.
Down two scores with 8 minutes to go, Spurrier was a guy to be feared. Muschamp, not so much.
Your criticism is certainly welcomed and appreciated!
I left out some other things as well that I could have painted in the "Muschamp corner", if I wanted - as you said, there's a whole series of stats.
I could have said that Muschamp got to 9 wins "faster" or that Spurrier had not done that at all in the first 4 years. I could have said that Muschamp took over a 3 win team and that Spurrier took one over that won 6, etc. I didn't because I was just using a couple metrics that perhaps folks had not thought about, and a couple very important ones at that, that fans use to measure success. I could have put forth some other "Spurrier corner" stuff as well - although I thought I rightfully gave him way more credit for what he accomplished in the piece than Muschamp because of his track record.
There are tons of data points, for sure. I didn't research every single data point for the piece, which may be a good idea at some point!
I do think your point is very valid about why people are reacting. But I can't trick people - nor it was my intention - into hiding a 4-8 year. It was just a different set of points. There are so many different things to count.
I also think lots of people are just upset that the fact was presented at all, and are projecting some nonexistent stuff like I'm trying to equate Muschamp to Spurrier as a coach onto it.
Never said your piece disputed Spurriers resume was better. Just pointed out the two coaches statistics may be similar in some areas, but resumes and coaching abilities are vastly different. I was not trying to offend you or your work. Just stating differences. Don’t take offense and keep up the good work.
Last edited:
No problem - I wouldn't take offense even if you did! Haha! Sorry if I seemed harsh there.
I've had to sort of clear up what the piece meant to some folks. Appreciate you reading and commenting.
Hi Chris. Thanks for your kind response.
Another metric is looking at Sagarin ratings, which factors strength of schedule and give scoring for wins/losses.
It's interest to note that both head coaches seemed to do better with the previous coach's players than their own as shown in year 3 & 4.
Jeff Sagarin data:
Steve has an advantage in final rank strength of schedule. Often overlooked with those '07 & '08 teams is how hard the schedule was.
| HBC | Sagarin | WM | Sagarin | ||
| Rank | SoS | Rank | SoS | ||
| 2005 | 45 | 45 | 2016 | 81 | 45 |
| 2006 | 24 | 16 | 2017 | 34 | 53 |
| 2007 | 32 | 8 | 2018 | 41 | 17 |
| 2008 | 38 | 3 | 2019 | 55 | 1 |
| AVG | 35 | 18 | AVG | 53 | 29 |
NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY
Current NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY
www.usatoday.com
Put it this way, if the purpose wasn't to assert a favorable comparison between Muschamp and Spurrier, or to insinuate that Muschamp could yet have Spurrier-like success in Columbia, the point was lost on me. I appreciate you, though.
Sure. And it certainly appears the overwhelming public opinion on this board is that it doesn't.
Hopefully we are comparing Spurriers stats to our new coach come 2022
Similar threads
