Why do some REALLY want muschamp gone this year?

[lakeworld]

As lifelong fans, it is easy to think and feel like the team should improve each year but this is not the NFL, it is college. Every 3-5 years you have attrition. It doesn't matter if the player is a 5 star or 2 star, he will leave within that 3-5 years. The coaching staff has to win with the immediate talent they have and not wait on a first round draft pick for next year. This herein lies the problem at USC. Muschamp's teams do not have an identity. Are we a tempo offense, running offense, passing offense or whatever? Other coaches have figured out Muschamp and eating us for breakfast. You get players to fit your system not just best available player... there is a difference. Dabo gets it, Muschamp hasn't yet...

 

[cornstock84]

Our 3 11-win seasons in hindsight are proving to be poison. Our fan-base (at least a lot of them on this and other boards) weren't/aren't capable of handing that success. Now some feel we're entitled to have 10 and 11-win season every year, and after any loss, someone must be fired. Geesh.....

It's a combination of the three 11 win seasons as well as the elite level that Clemson and UGA are at. It reminds me of all the good coaches that have been fired in the SEC West because of how far behind Bama every other team always is (sans Auburn once every few years).

 

[jerryusc]

I think the world of Will and his family. Fine man but if you can't win at The University of Florida with a locker room stocked with NFL talent, a championship tradition, world class facilities, tremendous amounts of booster support, bot support, community support and centrally located in the most fertile recruiting grounds on the planet, what in this universe makes you think for 1 second he was going to more than average here? Wish we could have paid for JIMBO! He will win championships at A&M. The Aggies went and paid for a championship caliber coach because their program and admin has made a decision to WIN at all cost. Kinda like that small school in the NW part of SC that we all hate so much. Peace.....

This sums up what the problem is. Even tho USC is No. 17 in revenue, the powers that be spend like a homeless person. Why should the admin do anything differently? Great fan support without a winning tradition, plenty of money, the greatest excuse making fans in the world, gotta be patient, gotta be patient, etc., etc.

 

[BTMGarnet]

If some had their way even Spurrier would be gone in three years, it took him, what six years to win nine games?

I remember some threads on here calling for Spurries head after the Auburn loss in 2010. "Spurrier can't win here." "Spurrier is too old." They'll never fess up to it but if Hyman had been as short sighted, we would not have had that successful run.

You're missing the point that so many fail to see. Spurrier WON big games during those six years so you knew that big seasons were imminent. Muschamp seems to go out of his way to LOSE those same big games (or he just gets embarrassed like against CLEM). He is what he was at Florida . . . average.

 

[jimnasium]

You're missing the point that so many fail to see. Spurrier WON big games during those six years so you knew that big seasons were imminent. Muschamp seems to go out of his way to LOSE those same big games (or he just gets embarrassed like against CLEM). He is what he was at Florida . . . average.

I don't fail to see the point, let's wait and see where Muschamp is in those same 10 years SOS had then talk about it. Muschamp doesn't go out his way to embarrass us that's nuts in fact he is ahead of where SOS was at the same juncture, all I'm saying is wait until a real comparison can take place not talk about what could happen. Remember it was Spurrier who left us with this dumpster fire regardless of how many big games he won. Big seasons were imminent and so was the 2015 season when his "give a darn" disappeared just before he did.

 

[BobbyB1975]

This sums up what the problem is. Even tho USC is No. 17 in revenue, the powers that be spend like a homeless person. Why should the admin do anything differently? Great fan support without a winning tradition, plenty of money, the greatest excuse making fans in the world, gotta be patient, gotta be patient, etc., etc.

I agree . Admin has no need to change if we keep keep accepting it . I will say that Muschamp deserves at least two more years . Elite programs would not give him that much time but sadly our program is mediocre at best for 100 years . The real question is , how do we handle it if the next two years if we are 6-6 or 7-5 years . If Muschamp can go .500 the next 2 years he will be the most “Successful” coach in our history starting out . You bring up some great points ... our revenue and support is that of a top 5 team every year , will it continue to be so if we are just avg after Spurrier won big for 3 years in a row . I honestly think this weekend is a big fork in the road for Muschamp . If he battles and makes this a game a lot of faith will be restored . If it’s an absolute massacre the sharks will smell blood really quick .

 

[coolcock2001]

He has not beat Clemtech and has not won nashnul champyunship!!!

 

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

You're missing the point that so many fail to see. Spurrier WON big games during those six years so you knew that big seasons were imminent. Muschamp seems to go out of his way to LOSE those same big games (or he just gets embarrassed like against CLEM). He is what he was at Florida . . . average.

No, I just don't agree with you.
Lol, average. Muschamp is about to be the winningest USC coach in 1st 3 years yet the anti-Muschamp fans declare them as failure years. He will have won more games in his first 3 years here than ANYONE, including Holtz and Spurrier. Only difference is, the expert fans weren't obsessed with declaring Holtz and Spurrier failures from day 1. In my opinion, it's all bias. You guys have framed a picture before it's been painted, and trying your damnedest to make it fit.

 

[cneville]

No, I just don't agree with you.
Lol, average. Muschamp is about to be the winningest USC coach in 1st 3 years yet the anti-Muschamp fans declare them as failure years. He will have won more games in his first 3 years here than ANYONE, including Holtz and Spurrier. Only difference is, the expert fans weren't obsessed with declaring Holtz and Spurrier failures from day 1. In my opinion, it's all bias. You guys have framed a picture before it's been painted, and trying your damnedest to make it fit.

There’s a bit of a difference btwn Holtz / spurrier and Muschamp that leads to them being viewed in different light. Holtz and spurrier both had immense success at their previous coaching stops. Muschamp took one of the best programs in the country and drove it into the ground. That’s why and rightfully so imo he has a shorter leash.

And the idea that he inherited no talent at Florida is a myth. He inherited a defense littered with nfl talent. And while he left the def In decent shape when he left it wasn’t as good as the one he inherited. On offense he had nfl players on the line, wr, rb and qb. Yet somehow could not put together an even decent offense. Jeff driskel eas highly ranked but terrible at UF. Transferred and was immediate great and spent time in nfl. Same story for jacoby brisset

While the entire Muschamp story hasn’t been written at this point in his career it’s safe to say player development is not a strong suit. I agree he should get two more years But at some point he needs to show he can develop the talent he can recruit.

 

[wentzel25]

No, I just don't agree with you.
Lol, average. Muschamp is about to be the winningest USC coach in 1st 3 years yet the anti-Muschamp fans declare them as failure years. He will have won more games in his first 3 years here than ANYONE, including Holtz and Spurrier. Only difference is, the expert fans weren't obsessed with declaring Holtz and Spurrier failures from day 1. In my opinion, it's all bias. You guys have framed a picture before it's been painted, and trying your damnedest to make it fit.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. A lot of posters here would prefer to see the program flushed down the toilet just so they can say "I told you so," about Muschamp.

 

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

There’s a bit of a difference btwn Holtz / spurrier and Muschamp that leads to them being viewed in different light. Holtz and spurrier both had immense success at their previous coaching stops. Muschamp took one of the best programs in the country and drove it into the ground. That’s why and rightfully so imo he has a shorter leash.

And the idea that he inherited no talent at Florida is a myth. He inherited a defense littered with nfl talent. And while he left the def In decent shape when he left it wasn’t as good as the one he inherited. On offense he had nfl players on the line, wr, rb and qb. Yet somehow could not put together an even decent offense. Jeff driskel eas highly ranked but terrible at UF. Transferred and was immediate great and spent time in nfl. Same story for jacoby brisset

While the entire Muschamp story hasn’t been written at this point in his career it’s safe to say player development is not a strong suit. I agree he should get two more years But at some point he needs to show he can develop the talent he can recruit.

My question is, what does past coaching experience have to do with anything? What should matter is what happens here. I don't care what happened at Florida, or Washington, or Notre Dame. How many wins does our coach have HERE. Is the team improving HERE. Is recruiting improving HERE.

 

[cneville]

My question is, what does past coaching experience have to do with anything? What should matter is what happens here. I don't care what happened at Florida, or Washington, or Notre Dame. How many wins does our coach have HERE. Is the team improving HERE. Is recruiting improving HERE.

I agree with you. Past failures or successes should have no bearing on what’s going on now at a new program. But in the opinions of some it does matter. Sometimes perception > reality

 

[Legendary Cock]

My question is, what does past coaching experience have to do with anything? What should matter is what happens here. I don't care what happened at Florida, or Washington, or Notre Dame. How many wins does our coach have HERE. Is the team improving HERE. Is recruiting improving HERE.

Then why was our fanbase so thrilled when we hired Holtz and then Spurrier. Was it because they told good one-liners? Was it their golf games? No. It was because of their huge successes at their previous schools. And they were hired with the hopes that they could duplicate that success here.

As has been stated multiple times, Muschamp does not have anything near their resumes. That's why there was some skepticism when he was hired and why he's on a much shorter leash with many of the fans than they were.

 

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

Then why was our fanbase so thrilled when we hired Holtz and then Spurrier. Was it because they told good one-liners? Was it their golf games? No. It was because of their huge successes at their previous schools. And they were hired with the hopes that they could duplicate that success here.

As has been stated multiple times, Muschamp does not have anything near their resumes. That's why there was some skepticism when he was hired and why he's on a much shorter leash with many of the fans than they were.

That's fine to have skepticism or enthusiasm over a hire. Those don't guarantee a coaches success or failure though and some fans are trying to do just that. IMO, they're blinded by their own predetermined prejudice.

 

[Legendary Cock]

That's fine to have skepticism or enthusiasm over a hire. Those don't guarantee a coaches success or failure though and some fans are trying to do just that. IMO, they're blinded by their own predetermined prejudice.

There's no way to guarantee success when hiring someone. That's why we look at resumes. Holtz's and Spurrier's were much more impressive. And both took us to new levels -- especially Spurrier.

 

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

There's no way to guarantee success when hiring someone. That's why we look at resumes. Holtz's and Spurrier's were much more impressive. And both took us to new levels -- especially Spurrier.

Muschamp will be the winningest coach at South Caroline, for the 1st 3 years. He will have more wins than Holtz and Spurrier but that is ignored because Muschamp was fired at Florida. Predetermined prejudice. I've heard/read about how he can't have an offense here because he didn't have one at Florida. Well, that is incorrect.

 

[Legendary Cock]

Muschamp will be the winningest coach at South Caroline, for the 1st 3 years. He will have more wins than Holtz and Spurrier but that is ignored because Muschamp was fired at Florida. Predetermined prejudice. I've heard/read about how he can't have an offense here because he didn't have one at Florida. Well, that is incorrect.

It's ignored because it rings hollow, not necessarily because of predetermined prejudice -- at least not by me. Only one of those wins have come against a ranked opponent. And that was against an overrated UT team. Against really good opponents? Well, you've seen what we've all seen. And we're probably going to see it again this Saturday.

 

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

It's ignored because it rings hollow, not necessarily because of predetermined prejudice -- at least not by me. Only one of those wins have come against a ranked opponent. And that was against an overrated UT team. Against really good opponents? Well, you've seen what we've all seen. And we're probably going to see it again this Saturday.

Well, IMO, that's just the flavor of the week. It used to be Muschamp needs to be fired because he sticks his nose into the offense too much or QBs don't develop under Muschamp (which I find hilarious considering he's a defensive coach and is somehow responsible for offensive development). Now that it has improved, that "rings hollow" so now he needs to be fired because he doesn't have any marquee wins. Flavor of the week to support bias.
If he keeps improving the team, improving the talent, improving the depth, all the other "noise" will take care of itself. JMHO.

 

[Legendary Cock]

Well, IMO, that's just the flavor of the week. It used to be Muschamp needs to be fired because he sticks his nose into the offense too much or QBs don't develop under Muschamp (which I find hilarious considering he's a defensive coach and is somehow responsible for offensive development). Now that it has improved, that "rings hollow" so now he needs to be fired because he doesn't have any marquee wins. Flavor of the week to support bias.
If he keeps improving the team, improving the talent, improving the depth, all the other "noise" will take care of itself. JMHO.

How do you figure? This has long been a complaint, dating back to at least last year. As for him sticking his nose in the offense's business, I'll agree that he had improved in that area. Until the 4th quarter of the Florida game.

Until he can field teams that can line up and play well and beat other good teams, any other perceived improvement is just statistical.

While I don't expect a win this weekend, he can take a major step forward by having his team play tough and poised for the first time against Clemson. But next year, he needs to start beating some ranked teams.

 

[Cshot411]

People that are leaning on the stat of Muschamp being our winningest coach in their first 3 years are looking at an irrelevant stat that only shows a sliver of the whole picture. Here are some others stats:

1. CFB didn't move to playing 12 games until 2006, Spurrier's second season.
2. Spurrier's vs top 25 teams in his first 3 years, 5-8 including first ever win at Knoxville and first win against Florida in 70 years.
3. Holtz vs top 25 teams his first 3 years (includes an 0-11 1st season), 6-9.
4. Muschamp vs top 25 teams his first 3 years, 1-10 (likely 1-11 after Saturday).

The fact is Muschamp gets that 'winningest coach' designation as a result of beating teams he should beat, while not beating any good teams. We will ALWAYS play top 25 teams regularly in our league. Even when Spurrier and Holtz inherited depleted rosters from their predecessors they were able to point to some signs of progress against peers that are perceived as superior programs that we just haven't seen in Muschamp.

I'm not saying that he may not be our guy long haul. He has head and shoulders put together the best recruiting staff we've ever had together. I just don't think he has earned the benefit of the doubt yet to just receive pats on the back for a job well done after 3 years, and definitely shouldn't be viewed as doing a better job than those that came before him.

 

[BobbyB1975]

Muschamp will be the winningest coach at South Caroline, for the 1st 3 years. He will have more wins than Holtz and Spurrier but that is ignored because Muschamp was fired at Florida. Predetermined prejudice. I've heard/read about how he can't have an offense here because he didn't have one at Florida. Well, that is incorrect.

The thing that made me scratch my head a little was hiring Roper . I think that’s a tough sale to the fans when they are worried about a coach whose biggest issue is scoring points . Why hire the guy who helped get you fired ?? . Roper was by far the most productive of the OC’s he had at UF but it’s still a red flag . That being said he did realize it was a mistake and he corrected it and I think the Bmac hire is actually a pretty good hire . Time will tell . Honestly anybody that would have followed Urban and more importantly Tebow and Percy at UF would have struggled .

 

[BattleshipTexas]

The fact is Muschamp gets that 'winningest coach' designation as a result of beating teams he should beat,

You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

We got us a winner winner CHICKEN dinner! WILL was given the golden key to the College Football Kingdom @ Florida and he f#%@&#d it up. He couldn't find a True Gator fan in this country to by him a cup of coffee.

Everyone in Texas thinks Muschamp is great. We are happy with Coach Orlando on defense, but if we lost him having Muschamp come back as DC would make Texas fans happy.

 

[Cshot411]

You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't.

It isn’t a bad thing if you’re ok with the program being at a certain level of mediocrity. It’s a bad thing because those are the ONLY teams he has beaten, not to mention barely even being competitive in the big games.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

It isn’t a bad thing if you’re ok with the program being at a certain level of mediocrity. It’s a bad thing because those are the ONLY teams he has beaten, not to mention barely even being competitive in the big games.

Your premise seems to imply that a coach who lets his team be beaten by teams that have no business winning over his team is more likely to be long term successful than a coach that reliably beats the teams that he should beat. I find that doubtful. The long term successful coaches like Saban and Meyer aren't known for upsets, they are known for always beating the teams they should beat. They then work to improve their team so that the subset of teams that they should beat grows larger and larger. The inspirational coach who occasionally can whip his team into a lather to pull an upset is never going to win a conference title much less a national championship. You can't do frenzy like that every game. If you want to criticize for not improving and increasing the subset of teams that he should beat, do that. Criticism based on always beating the teams that he should beat is faulty criticism.