Spurrier vs Muschamp: apples to apples?

[CockNJersey]

Spurrier took over a 6 win team. It took him 6 seasons to achieve 9 wins. His first two seasons saw us go 15-10 overall, 7-5 and 8-5 (5-3 and 3-5 in SEC play). Notably, we didn’t get back to a winning record in conference play until his 6th season.

Muschamp took over a 3 win team and got us to 9 wins in his second season. His first two seasons saw us go 15-11 overall 6-7 and 9-4 (3-5 and 5-3 in SEC play).

In my opinion, the turnaround by Champ has been far more significant. He walked into a horrendous situation. Time will tell if the success is surtainable, as we know we aren’t going to add 3 wins every year, but in perspective of what Spurrier did, it’s pretty remarkable.

[Legalman72]

Not apples to apples. Not even close. Too many variables to list. Good start by both.

[carolina_corpsman]

Originally Posted by Legalman72

Not apples to apples. Not even close. Too many variables to list. Good start by both.

I think it's impossible to compare them, both were good starts. That being said, I think CWM has done more with less, up to this point.

Time will tell if he can keep improving and sustain the success.

[Coulwoodwarlord]

IMO.....Spurrier took over a "Program" that was much worse than the one Champ has been saddled with. And believe me, it pains me to say that.

[crowcutta]

that 2006 team was probably better than this team, having the no.1 wr available for the whole season is the big difference. going into the 3rd year we're better equipped to challenge for the east and not get stuck in the mud like we did 2007-2009.

[wincocks84]

Hard to say. However, the SEC East was much tougher as a whole back then. I'd give the edge to Muschamp though. He inherited much less talent than Spurrier. Plus an Outback win is greater than a Liberty bowl win.

[CockNJersey]

Originally Posted by Coulwoodwarlord

IMO.....Spurrier took over a "Program" that was much worse than the one Champ has been saddled with. And believe me, it pains me to say that.

I’m not certain. Fans seems hesitant to admit what a disaster the program was at the end of Spurrier’s time here. Just one example: Spurrier inherited Blake Mitchell while the QB Champ inherited was a former walk-on. There was actually some decent talent on that team Spurrier inherited. Champ inherited almost no talent. There was NO recruiting strategy in place. By all accounts, we were t even doing much analysis of recruits and there wasn’t no quality oversight.

Both coaches inherited programs that were a mess for different reasons. But Champ inherited a talentless mess.

[longhaul]

I think Spurrier being here made the turnaround for Muschamp easier. As someone else mentioned, the Program as a whole was not good when Spurrier got here. Not just players, but facilities etc. Spurrier helped grow this program off the field as much as he did on the field. As much as how he left it, burns me, he did do a lot of good while he was here.

[92Pony]

I would say that Spurrier inherited a worse "program", but Muschamp inherited a worse "team". Spurrier's tenure elevated that program to the point where Muschamp inherited a better program overall. However, thanks to SOS, 'Champ has had to rebuild the team from the ground up.

Now, as also mentioned above, the SECe was a bit stronger when Spurrier came onto the scene vs when Muschamp did.

It's a tough comparison due to those variables. I will say though, if CWM can get the OC/offense figured out and on track, in the end, he can easily be a better coach here overall than SOS.........

[GregoryHouse]

Originally Posted by CockNJersey

Spurrier took over a 6 win team. It took him 6 seasons to achieve 9 wins. His first two seasons saw us go 15-10 overall, 7-5 and 8-5 (5-3 and 3-5 in SEC play). Notably, we didn’t get back to a winning record in conference play until his 6th season.

Muschamp took over a 3 win team and got us to 9 wins in his second season. His first two seasons saw us go 15-11 overall 6-7 and 9-4 (3-5 and 5-3 in SEC play).

In my opinion, the turnaround by Champ has been far more significant. He walked into a horrendous situation. Time will tell if the success is surtainable, as we know we aren’t going to add 3 wins every year, but in perspective of what Spurrier did, it’s pretty remarkable.

Don't just look within. Look without. The SEC was different.

[mack]

How in the hell did Spurrier survive after year 5? 5 straight years of MEH results. And the deeply depressing PapaJohns Bowl loss.

I vaguely remember him being close to stepping away at that point? But maybe it was hooking Lattimore that changed his mind?

Were people screaming for his head back then?

I seriously doubt Muschamp would be given nearly that much latitude after even 3-4 years.

[cocknblue]

Originally Posted by mack

How in the hell did Spurrier survive after year 5? 5 straight years of MEH results. And the deeply depressing PapaJohns Bowl loss.

I vaguely remember him being close to stepping away at that point? But maybe it was hooking Lattimore that changed his mind?

Were people screaming for his head back then?

I seriously doubt Muschamp would be given nearly that much latitude after even 3-4 years.

People were not screaming for his head because there were enough signs of improvement and because we knew if we were the school that fired Steve Spurrier, we might as well tear the stadium down and give all the football money to soccer.

[mack]

Originally Posted by 92Pony

I would say that Spurrier inherited a worse "program", but Muschamp inherited a worse "team".

Agree, very good way of putting it.

[GregoryHouse]

Originally Posted by mack

How in the hell did Spurrier survive after year 5? 5 straight years of MEH results. And the deeply depressing PapaJohns Bowl loss.

I vaguely remember him being close to stepping away at that point? But maybe it was hooking Lattimore that changed his mind?

Were people screaming for his head back then?

I seriously doubt Muschamp would be given nearly that much latitude after even 3-4 years.

People were definitely saying 'Fire Spurrier' and that he was washed up. Still during those early years we always had a win or two that we could really latch on to and that would hold us over. Also, winning 7 games a season was a pretty good season for the South Carolina program at the time-especially since it meant going bowling nearly every year.

We had different expectations.

[CockNJersey]

Originally Posted by 92Pony

I would say that Spurrier inherited a worse "program", but Muschamp inherited a worse “team”..

What of value did Muschamp inherit? Not talent, for sure. See the recruiting commons below.

Not a good coaching staff, that’s for sure. Even by Spurrier’s own words, he didn’t put enough effort into biluildog a quality staff.

No recruiting infrastructure. This is well documented. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. Spurrier has apologized for putting together talent-deficient teams towards the end.

So, little or no talent in players or coaches and no recruiting infrastructure. Spurrier did help in upgrading our facilities, but even those were middle of the pack when he left.

So how did Champ inherit a better program?

[Dizzy01]

Originally Posted by mack

How in the hell did Spurrier survive after year 5? 5 straight years of MEH results. And the deeply depressing PapaJohns Bowl loss.

I vaguely remember him being close to stepping away at that point? But maybe it was hooking Lattimore that changed his mind?

Were people screaming for his head back then?

I seriously doubt Muschamp would be given nearly that much latitude after even 3-4 years.

Their prior coaching histories really aren't comparable. Spurrier had past success to look at and Muschamp does not have that same resume.

Everyone talks about how crappy the team was that Muschamp inherited yet at the same time people talk about how many upper classmen the defenses is losing and how the best players on offense are holdovers from the prior staff.

I will agree that the QB spot was a train wreck created by the prior staff but when some of your top players are juniors and seniors and you've been here two years you didn't inherit garbage. The guys may have been poorly coached but they weren't void of talent.

[sandstorm2001]

Originally Posted by CockNJersey

What of value did Muschamp inherit? Not talent, for sure. See the recruiting commons below.

Not a good coaching staff, that’s for sure. Even by Spurrier’s own words, he didn’t put enough effort into biluildog a quality staff.

No recruiting infrastructure. This is well documented. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. Spurrier has apologized for putting together talent-deficient teams towards the end.

So, little or no talent in players or coaches and no recruiting infrastructure. Spurrier did help in upgrading our facilities, but even those were middle of the pack when he left.

So how did Champ inherit a better program?

I would say "team" would be more temporary things, like players and coaches. "Program" is more permanent things. Facilities, national perception, etc. Spurrier showed it can be done here. I think whether our facilities are "middle of the pack" can be debated, but regardless they were absolutely terrible before, so middle of the pack would be a solid improvement.

[92Pony]

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

I would say "team" would be more temporary things, like players and coaches. "Program" is more permanent things. Facilities, national perception, etc. Spurrier showed it can be done here. I think whether our facilities are "middle of the pack" can be debated, but regardless they were absolutely terrible before, so middle of the pack would be a solid improvement.

Exactly.

[gotrice?]

Originally Posted by Dizzy01

Their prior coaching histories really aren't comparable. Spurrier had past success to look at and Muschamp does not have that same resume.

Everyone talks about how crappy the team was that Muschamp inherited yet at the same time people talk about how many upper classmen the defenses is losing and how the best players on offense are holdovers from the prior staff.

I will agree that the QB spot was a train wreck created by the prior staff but when some of your top players are juniors and seniors and you've been here two years you didn't inherit garbage. The guys may have been poorly coached but they weren't void of talent.

The concern with the defense next year isn't the talent level, it's the experience level. I think any time you lose a number of starters it's a concern. The defense next year will be more talented, just won't have the great benefit of experience we had coming into this year, remember we were returning almost everyone not named English coming into this season. Zero question the talent level is elevated it's just going to come down to how quickly they adjust to their increased/new roles and that's always difficult to accurately guess which is why it's concerning.

[sporkgod50]

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

I would say "team" would be more temporary things, like players and coaches. "Program" is more permanent things. Facilities, national perception, etc. Spurrier showed it can be done here. I think whether our facilities are "middle of the pack" can be debated, but regardless they were absolutely terrible before, so middle of the pack would be a solid improvement.

This is a well reasoned response but nothing that cocknjersey has posted make me think he's likely to care about it.