That's nonsense. South Carolina simply hired the wrong people, and at important inflection points in the college athletics landscape, those bad hires made poor decisions. Bad decisions compounded and put the basketball and football programs behind other schools in the region. When quality people were hired at different points-- Hyman and Spurrier for example, the strides they made were monumental and elevated the program immediately. It's like any other organization, if you hire smart people to run it, they establish a vision and a legacy that other smart people can build on. You hire bad people, and they leave you adrift. If Muschamp and Tanner can build on what Hyman and Spurrier started, we might be in a totally different place in 10 years. If they both prove to be bad hires, they'll obscure all the progress that was made and we'll be starting again.
USC lacks the long time, loyal football coach who built a foundation. Like General Neyland at Tennessee or Howard at Clemson.
Studying our history, I think Billy Laval could have been that man, but alas we asked him to take pay cuts in successive seasons (when he was winning!) and he left.
Some info on him from Wikipedia:
Billy Laval, a Columbia, South Carolina native, came to USC from
Furman. Laval accepted a three-year contract worth $8,000 per year to coach the Gamecocks, which made him the highest-paid coach in the state. From 1928 to 1934, he led the Gamecocks to seven consecutive winning seasons and a 39–26–6 overall record, which included a perfect 3–0
Southern Conference campaign in
1933. Laval is one of only two South Carolina football coaches to have produced seven consecutive winning seasons (Steve Spurrier is the other, from 2008-2014). In 2009,
The State called him "the greatest collegiate coach" in the history of
South Carolina.Laval left USC after six seasons to coach multiple sports at
Emory and Henry College, partly due to differences over his contract with the USC athletics department
In 1933, the South Carolina athletic department reported a $15,200 deficit, and Laval reluctantly agreed to take a pay cut to $5,000. However, the department's financial difficulties worsened, and the next year it requested Laval take a second pay cut to $3,600, which he refused. The school allowed his contract to lapse after the 1934 season.