Need to give Muschamp some time...
- Thread starter cocean
- Start date
You don’t need 4 years to beat UNC and Mizz. That is all.
Its Gamecock football...you have already lived thru the glory years...why do you think we are any better than kentucky,vandy,mizzou...etc?
You’re hiring a guy to take you to that level not just stay in mediocrity. If by year 4 your not bearing a first year rebuild then you’re not doing a good job.
Agree. I'm for giving Muschamp more time. And I'm at the game supporting this team....
I fully understand the argument that a coach needs time to get his players in and it's more difficult for a program that isn't a traditional blue blood, but one thing that has to be seen is growth and improvement throughout each year and from season to season. The inconsistency has plagued this team throughout the Muschamp era.
Gotta be able to beat the UK's, Vandy's, Mizzous, and Tenn (in their current state) by year four to be able to measure progress.
Game is looking good so far tonight after the debacle against Mizzou.
Seems to me that the more time he has and each game is played, the games show how much improvement is needed and are quite boring to watch. He/USC continue to allow Kentucky which is reall bad, to stay in game and if this was played in Kentucky we would likely find a way to lose. Since we are at home Kentucky just will not have an emotional edge to get in game. I mean it is depressing to think about where this team could be and where we actually are. Feaster has big gain looking like he really wants it and then comes out of game. I guess we can always keep hope alive
Well we are winning tonight and this is the first game towards our turnaround. Go Gamecocks...
He deserves more time why? Because we beat a terrible Kentucky team? We're still bad enough to lose to everyone on our schedule. No more time, He'd had plenty. He's a proven horrible coach that can't get the job done with top 20 national recruiting classses. He needs to get out. Not "getting over" it. The reason why we aren't a "Blue Blood" is because we tolerate bad coaches and keep saying "give it more time."
I know, but what I mean is that he needs to continue to beat 3 of 4 or preferably 4 of 4. Too late for Mizzou, but he's gotta at least beat Tenn and Vandy so that he will still have a 3-1 record against those four. Anything worse would be moving backward.
Knew this would happen. We beat a terrible Kentucky team, who's clearly rebuilding, and now here comes the sunshine pumpers to proclaim we're fine. Let's keep Muschump for as long as possible. He'll turn it around, just you wait and see. No thanks. This win didn't change anything for me.
The most disappointing thing to me is we have real talent on this roster. I said it preseason, I won’t change my opinion on that. But, these players deserve a competent staff that can coach and develop them. Great win tonight, but I was never worried about the players, but whether the ones paid handsomely to do their jobs right will do so.
Shoulda/woulda/coulda been an 8-4 team with the right staff, and should’ve dropped 60 on this UK team. But a win is a win.
Shoulda/woulda/coulda been an 8-4 team with the right staff, and should’ve dropped 60 on this UK team. But a win is a win.
Don't worry....he has at least another year, more likely two. His contract will be rolled over at the end of the year, as all coaches contracts are.
Kentucky rebuilding? In what year of Stoops tenure? And many of the fans calling for Muschamp's head were wanting to hire Stoops.
You can't make this crap up.
I’m certain he is referring to rebuilding after losing their starting QB and phenom Benny Snell Jr. from a 10 win season where they beat us pretty soundly and beat Penn State in the Citrus Bowl. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Kentucky team we beat tonight is a shell of last year’s team. On the positive side, it feels nice to finally end that streak.
Oh, I know to what he was referring.
But that is not the mindset on many on here when it comes to our team....there is no "rebuilding" after your third or fourth year....you just haven't coached or recruited well. Just pointing out the hypocrisy that continually exists on this board.
Spurrier lost to all of them and I believe he holds the record for number of wins....
These threads make me laugh.... "Need to give Muschamp time."
He has time. He has this season. Tanner wasn't going to fire him midseason. That was never even a thought. So what is point of that comment? He had 8 more games of "time" before tonight. Tonight was a positive. Now he has 7 more games of "time."
So how do you know we need to give him "more time" yet?? I am not saying it is likely but what if team loses every game by 25+ points the rest of the year? Every single game. We certainly wouldn't need more time. Or how about if the team wins every game of the year including Clemson?? Again, not likely, but if he did it would answer the question of "more time."
The more likely scenario is that it will fall somewhere in the middle.. But no one knows yet, so how can you say definitely he needs "more time" outside of those 7 games? That is ridiculous.
Up to him what he does with it.
Then at the end of the year, you count up the wins and losses and see where things stand.
He has time. He has this season. Tanner wasn't going to fire him midseason. That was never even a thought. So what is point of that comment? He had 8 more games of "time" before tonight. Tonight was a positive. Now he has 7 more games of "time."
So how do you know we need to give him "more time" yet?? I am not saying it is likely but what if team loses every game by 25+ points the rest of the year? Every single game. We certainly wouldn't need more time. Or how about if the team wins every game of the year including Clemson?? Again, not likely, but if he did it would answer the question of "more time."
The more likely scenario is that it will fall somewhere in the middle.. But no one knows yet, so how can you say definitely he needs "more time" outside of those 7 games? That is ridiculous.
Up to him what he does with it.
Then at the end of the year, you count up the wins and losses and see where things stand.
Last edited:
He's not being let go this year period...he has probably two more years before any decisions are made.
You don't know that.. You simply don't. Now I will say tonight was a big step in the right direction, but you simply can't say definitely he isn't being let go. I remember people saying Kurt Roper would never get let go the year he was fired. Yes, people said it just like you. "no way he gets let go."
I just don't believe in talking in absolutes less than halfway through the season. I can PROMISE you with absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this team ended up 2-10 (crazier things have happened), he would not be back. If you think he would, well then let me just say you are wrong.
On the other hand, I can promise you that if somehow he wins out and goes 9-3, he would get a contract extension and a raise.
Both of those, while unlikely, are still possibilities. So you can't say definitely what is going to happen. You just can't.
Even using the word "period" doesn't make it more true.
So if this team goes 2-10 and he loses the locker room, the players, and half the recruiting class, he will be brought back???
No, he will not. You are making me laugh though. Some of you don't understand how this works.
Name me a single SEC coach (or power 5) that has been at a program at least three years that has gone 2-10 and been retained for the next season. A single one.
The first won't happen. And, yes, I do understand how this works. Name another coach? Arky and Vandy's current coaches. Regardless, that is not why.
Look at Pruitt's contract at UT and Morris' contract at Arky.
Tell me when Arkansas and Vandys coaches were at those schools at least three years and only won 2 games. I'm waiting. Muschamp being here 4 years is important. I said 3 just because even in 3rd year, you can't go 2-10 and keep your job. You just can't.
Pruitt is in his second year. If he goes 2-10 next year, he isn't coming back. If you think that, you are delusional. You are so making me laugh though. This is good stuff. Keep it going.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree 1000%, but I could see USC being on the wrong side of history in this matter. I don’t even think I’d be furious, just beyond apathy, and that’s the worst of all. It’s crazy to think that we haven’t had to fire a coach for 21 years, so that’s another interesting wrinkle, because I know someone who ain’t up to that task, and unless he goes too, I almost don’t see the point of firing CWM.
Hey, CWM = Coach William Muschamp
CWM = Content With Mediocrity
You keep changing the conditions. Tell you what, I'll bet you that Muschamp will be here at least through next year. How much do you want to lose?
I hope UT is dumb enough to fire Pruitt, not because I think he's a good coach....but because it will completely destroy their program.
How am I changing the conditions? Explain that to me. I started by saying Muschamp, who is in his 4th year, wouldn't be back if they went 2-10. You said he would. You are wrong. I was talking specifically about Muschamps "condition" which is that he has been her 4 years. That is important.
To PROVE MY POINT, I asked you to tell me of a SINGLE other scenario where a coach that has been at the school at least 3 years has been retained after a 2-10 record. You can't come up with one. Because it doesn't exist.
As far your "bet." I never said Muschamp wouldn't be here. In fact, it is "much more likely than not" that he will be here because I don't think they will go 2-10.
But I like to use my brain and logic. You said something stupid when you said he would be back no matter what. That is stupid. He could have a situation like Pellini had. He could go 2-10 like I already said. There are plenty of reasons that he wouldn't be back.
No. First you said add up the wins and losses mentioning nothing about all remaining games being losses. In your second post on the subject, you added the 2 win criteria....and I pointed out a current coach who was retained after only having 2 wins. Then you added the "after 3 years" criteria to the equation. So, yes, you have consistently changed the scenario.
It is simple, absent some "morals clause" violation, Muschamp will be the coach here throughout next year....and more than likely, the year after that. That I do know.
So let me try to take a step back and ask this question again. Seriously. I am really interested in how you could think this.
So first lets get a few housekeeping things out of the way.
1. I am not saying SC will go 2-10. I think it is unlikely.
2. I am only questioning your remark that he would be back "no matter what." That is what I am questioning.
So let me ask you again. You really think that if SC lost every single game the rest of the year including App state and Vanderbilt that Muschamp would be back??? So stop and think to the future and think about what that would feel like at the end of the year if SC had lost the last 7 games of the season and was 2-10. You really think he would be back?
Last edited:
Uhm, you may want to go back and read the posts, You aren't following very well. I did SPECIFICALLY mention the 3 years in the very first post where I questioned you about 2 wins. Go back and look. You even quoted it.
Here is the post. Did you not read the bottom? Have to read the whole thing you know..
"So if this team goes 2-10 and he loses the locker room, the players, and half the recruiting class, he will be brought back???
No, he will not. You are making me laugh though. Some of you don't understand how this works.
Name me a single SEC coach (or power 5) that has been at a program at least three years that has gone 2-10 and been retained for the next season. A single one."
Last edited:
Rogue cock, what is so funny about this debate is you were one of the people who absolutely promised that Kurt Roper would be back too when I said he wouldn't 4 games into the year. I absolutely remember that.
You just don't learn do you?
You just don't learn do you?
Won't happen....but based on what I do know, I wouldn't bet against him being back. Look at Morris' and Pruitt's contract term....and note that most coaches we interviewed believed we were a more difficult rebuild than either Arky or UT. You may get an understanding of the term that was being requested of us. Term in this case being one particular....the number of years being demanded.
Muschamp was always going to have at least 5 years to turn the program around...and more than likely 6. Others were demanding more.....a minimum of 7 is what I understood was the lowest.
Here was the thread where you bet me a year of no posting that Kurt Roper wouldn't be fired. Did you quit posting for a year??
So funny, because you were pretty sure of yourself then too. Talking in absolutes. You just don't get it.
https://southcarolina.forums.rivals.com/threads/if-you-want-to-fire-coaches.245028/#post-3679093
Yes, I was a supporter of Roper....and didn't think he was the primary problem. I was fine with Muschamp changing him however. I also think TRob is doing better, but wouldn't be surprised to see Durkin on staff next year as a Co-DC with play-calling responsibilities.
