"Spurrier's Star Fading"? Hardly
by cocknfire on Sep 25, 2007 12:54 AM EDT
in News
6 comments
I usually don't call out fellow bloggers. It's just not something I do -- it's not really my style -- and it can divert energy from criticizing people with larger audience, particularly when it comes to a certain SB Nation rival.
Besides, it can look like this.
But this requires a response. (HT: Leftover Hot Dog)
Surely, if anyone could create a new tradition of winning in Columbia, it would be Steve Spurrier. ...
But since 2000 -- the last year the Gators won the SEC under his tenure -- Spurrier hasn't come within sniffing distance of a championship. In two years as an NFL head coach, Spurrier's Redskins only managed to win 12 games. And since his return to college football, he's gone 18-10.
Since Spurrier left Gainesville, he's won 30 games... and lost 30.
Sure, the NFL is not college. The two are not directly comparable. But the fact remains that Spurrier is seven years removed from his last run at a championship of any kind, and he's only won 50% of his games.
Yes, the games are completely different. But I'm trying to make a point here, so I'm going to ignore the hole in my logic that I myself pointed out.
Spurrier's a good coach; no one is doubting that. But it seems as though "Darth Visor" is immune to any of the pressures faced by coaches of other prominent D-IA programs because he's, well, Steve Spurrier.
When Spurrier was first announced as the Gamecocks' coach, many Carolina fans began excitedly predicting an SEC championship -- perhaps as quickly as the OBC's first or second season.
And I was among those calling for any fans who predicted success that quickly to be admitted to the nearest psychiatric institution for copious amounts of electroshock therapy.
By the way, if you're waiting for the first concrete point not based totally on opinion, you're not alone. There hasn't been one yet, except for the 30-30 statistic that was debunked by the author of the post.
But two 5 loss [sic] seasons later, the Gamecocks are about where they were when Spurrier started: a decent SEC team with the ability to rear up and bite any team who takes them lightly.
This is almost too far removed from reality to believe. First of all, the Gamecocks' records in the three years before Spurrier came were 5-7, 5-7 and 6-5. So far, his teams are 7-5, 8-5 and 3-1.
The only two season since 1994 better than Spurrier's first two in South Carolina were Holtz's second and third season. In both years, the Gamecocks had an easier conference slate than Spurrier faced in 2005 and 2006.
In neither season did Holtz beat an SEC team that finished the season with a better record than South Carolina; Spurrier did when his squad defeated Florida in the Swamp in 2005. Three times in Holtz's best seasons, his team lost to SEC teams with a worse record than the Gamecocks -- something that Spurrier has not yet done.
Before Spurrier, the Gamecocks had not defeated Florida since Franklin Roosevelt was president; Head Ball Coach did it in his first year. South Carolina had not beaten Tennessee in 13 years; again, Spurrier did it in Year One.
So, no, the Gamecocks were not, pre-Spurrier, "a decent SEC team with the ability to rear up and bite any team who takes them lightly." They were anything but; if, at the end of the season, you ended up with a better record than the Gamecocks, you beat them.
They played mediocre football for all but two of the six years Holtz was in Columbia. Anyone who has actually watched the team knows they play better football than they ever did under Holtz.
The Gamecocks' outing at LSU proved that they aren't competitive at the highest level.
Really? Would that be the fact that they held LSU to nearly 100 fewer offensive yards and a dozen fewer points than the Bayou Bengals' per-game average? The fact that they scored more than double what all three previous teams combined had scored against LSU? Or that it was better than South Carolina's two previous games against LSU, which ended as 38-14 and 33-7 blowouts?
And I suppose that losing to last year's national champion by one point, on the road, after a freakish blocked field goal also proves they're not "competitive at the highest level," as does the fact that they lost to only one team last year by more than a touchdown, despite facing Georgia, Auburn, Darren McFadden University Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida.
An SEC East title is still in the cards for Coach Click Clack, but with one loss early, it's unlikely.
How, exactly? South Carolina still controls its own destiny. Will it be difficult? Yes. Unlikely? That stretches the definition of the word. Before LSU, they were likely to have to beat Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee to assure an East title. After LSU, they are likely to have to beat Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee to assure an East title.
Year 3 is usually the time when critical fans begin to assess the overall direction of the program and evaluate the successes or failures of the coaching staff.
Yet you won't find anyone overly critical of Spurrier's progress to date, possibly because South Carolina's football history has been marginal at best.
Or possibly because Year 3 isn't over. How the hell can we determine how good this team is when it has played a mid-major club a week before it played Georgia, a Georgia team it defeated, a DIAAFCSABCETC team the week before it played LSU, and an LSU team which looks very much like it won't lose this year?
But Spurrier's arrival at Florida, in 1990, was similar in many respects. Florida had little tradition of winning prior to the OBC's arrival. Florida's 1984 squad had finished first in the SEC, but lost their title due to NCAA violations.
I don't even have time to go back and link to the numerous people who pointed out the enormous talent gap between the team Spurrier inherited at Florida and the one he inherited at South Carolina.
Tough games remain: Kentucky, @ Tennessee, @ Arkansas, Florida, and Clemson. South Carolina can't even afford to overlook Mississippi State, who beat Auburn, or North Carolina with Butch Davis running the show.
First of all, beating Auburn this year apparently has as much value as beating Vanderbilt. "North Carolina with Butch Davis running the show" has one victory -- against James Madison. Forgive me if I don't chalk that one up as a likely loss.
Mobile, accurate quarterbacks are all the rage, but Spurrier's offense doesn't utilize them.
Except last year, when it did. And while they are "all the rage," did Southern Cal win with a mobile quarterback in 2004? Texas did in 2005, but unless you honestly believe that Florida could have won without Chris Leak last year, you also can't chalk up the Gators' 2006 crown to mobile quarterbacks, unless by "mobile" you mean "a quarterback who can breathe."
Why is it that Spurrier gets a permanent pass when coaches like Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno, whose best coaching days are clearly behind them, take criticism for hanging on too long?
Maybe that's because Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno have established successful programs at their current universities, while Spurrier is trying to build a program from the ground up. Slightly different.
Sure, there are legitimate criticisms of Spurrier after his first two seasons, just as there are legitimate criticisms of any coach after his first two seasons.
But if you're going to suggest that one of the most successful coaches in SEC history isn't getting the job done, you need more than half-baked arguments and unsupported opinion.
Unfortunately, that's all the author of this post offers.
0 recs |
6 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Well ...
He's a Gator fan (pretty good guy on the whole, though), and I think deep down Gator fans can't help but rationalize away the fact that he's probably a better coach than Meyer.
If they had to admit that, Florida EMS would be cleaning up gore from a collective explosion of heads all over Gainsville.
Deep down, they all know Spurrier is an evil genius. They just hate it because he's your coach and not theirs.
by Truzenzuzex on Sep 25, 2007 2:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In fairness...
I'm also sick of people who don't realize the depth of the decay left behind by the Holtz Administration (which, in fairness, did a very good job during its first three years) who say that because Spurrier hasn't "won big" yet means that he's somehow been less than successful. Again, anyone who's actually watched the program over a period of eight or nine years realizes we're light years ahead of where we were before Spurrier came.
by cocknfire on Sep 25, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well ...
there is no doubt, really that Spurrier has been successful at USC. His recruiting keeps getting better. Still isn't to the level of Florida, and maybe never quite will be (Florida produces obscene amounts of football talent), but I predict he will get to the SEC championship reasonably soon.
South Carolina has unquestionably improved as a program since he came.
by Truzenzuzex on Sep 25, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy, slugger...
I'll respond to your comments. First, kudos on the blog. Love it. Second, don't fear FanHaus. It's made up of bloggers who run smaller blogs just like you and we love to send out mad love and as much traffic as possible to our favorite sites. I don't know if you've noticed but I've linked to Cock 'n Fire many-a-time.
Now, to dive in and respond to your comments:
>Yes, the games are completely different. But
>I'm trying to make a point here, so I'm going
>to ignore the hole in my logic that I myself
>pointed out.
Well, the point was that Spurrier's lost a lot of games in the past six or seven years. His last winning season was in 2001 and his combined NFL and college record has hung 30 losses on him. I'm pretty familiar with the OBC, being a Gator fan and all, and -- those losses have worn on him. He's not any less of a coach. He's still cocky and now that we've been on the receiving end of one or two of his barbs, I realize how annoying he must have been in the 90s to everyone else. But my subjective analysis is that these losses have weighed on him.
Spurrier didn't have a play ready to go against LSU on 4th down.
Didn't have a play? Seriously?
I know there's a talent difference between LSU and South Carolina. And yes, I heard his reasoning. But that was a white flag. Spurrier surrendered. That's something I've never seen him do before. LSU's looks like a great team, but... that was an incredibly un-Spurrierlike act. Truth be told, that was what got me thinking about the 'Fading Star' article.
>This is almost too far removed from reality to
>believe. First of all, the Gamecocks' records
>in the three years before Spurrier came were 5-
>7, 5-7 and 6-5. So far, his teams are 7-5, 8-5
>and 3-1.
Dude. Re-read what I wrote. C'mon man, you're one of my favorite reads. You're better than this. What I wrote was:
"But two 5 loss [sic] seasons later, the Gamecocks are about where they were when Spurrier started: a decent SEC team with the ability to rear up and bite any team who takes them lightly." (I'll leave your [sic] in there -- heh.)
Where they were when Spurrier started. Not where they were before he started. In Spurrier's first year the Gamecocks bit Tennessee and Florida. Tennessee sucked that year and Florida was still coming together under Meyer, and SC bit 'em good, all right.
It's 2007. They still present the exact same threat.
Except for perhaps what appears to be a slightly (nominally?) stronger defense in '07, at least before the loss of one of the Brinkley twins, I still see the same team with the same strengths and weaknesses. You and I both know, Brandon, that the only reason the OBC won an extra game in 2006 was because of the newly mandated 12th game which is a cupcake matchup for nearly every Div-IA team. So don't tell me Spurrier actually improved in year two in terms of his overall record. I also recall Houston giving SC everything they could handle in their bowl game.
Regarding LSU and competing at the highest level:
>Really? Would that be the fact that they held
>LSU to nearly 100 fewer offensive yards and a
>dozen fewer points than the Bayou Bengals' per-
>game average? The fact that they scored more
>than double what all three previous teams >combined had scored against LSU? Or that it was
>better than South Carolina's two previous games
>against LSU, which ended as 38-14 and 33-7
>blowouts?
Brandon. Please. You and I both know that game was nowhere near as close as the score indicated. LSU shut it down early in the third quarter when it became clear the weather conditions were rotten and the risk of injuries was rising. Yeah, South Carolina kept the score closer than anyone else, but the final TD was in garbage time. You know it and I know it. Spurrier conceded with that field goal and Les Miles was gentlemanly enough to shut down his offense.
'07 LSU would beat '07 SC 10 out of 10 times. Probably even 50 out of 50 times. And if it were not for Spurrier's concession, this one could have gotten out of hand. Don't let your love for your team blind you to this fact.
I wrote about South Carolina's hopes for an SEC title being slim. Specific word I used was 'unlikely'. Your response:
>How, exactly? South Carolina still controls its
>own destiny. Will it be difficult? Yes.
You say difficult, I say unlikely. Shades apart or semantics? I vote for the latter, but our game in Columbia will be a tie-breaker if both Florida and South Carolina are still in the running for the east at that time. I see South Carolina's schedule and I just don't see the OBC winning the East this year. My opinion, and that's based on the fact that the senior quarterback has already been pulled, Brinkley's out for the year, the team has a hard time breaking 20 points and that Florida remains on the schedule.
Unlikely or difficult? Take your pick, they're basically the same.
I wrote about 3rd year evaluation. Your response:
>Or possibly because Year 3 isn't over. How the
>hell can we determine how good this team is
>when it has played a mid-major club a week
>before it played Georgia, a Georgia team it
>defeated, a DIAAFCSABCETC team the week before
>it played LSU, and an LSU team which looks very
>much like it won't lose this year?
This is a fair observation and you could very well be right. You really never know for sure with a Spurrier-coached team, which is part of the fun you and your fellow Gamecock fans are going to have with the OBC over the next few years.
But I'll tell you this: when Spurrier waved the white flag against LSU, it was a real eye opener for you. I know you've been following the man for the last couple of years but Gator fans know every nuance from twelve seasons of play. Spurrier doesn't concede. Spurrier will attack to the last play. Hell, Spurrier will run up the score. He enjoys that.
This is a different coach in 2007. My opinion, granted, and no doubt an unpopular one in Columbia. There's no gentle way to say it, but I'll be frank: this is a coach whose best days are behind him. I've watched every game Spurrier has coached since he's returned to the college game and while the talent level is different from what he had at Florida, this is a different coach. The scheme has not changed. Do you realize that the SEC has 14 years of game tape on Spurrier? He has not changed. Shane Matthews, one of his famous Gator quarterbacks from the early 90s, now an AAFL head coach, said he could recognize Spurrier's signals on the SC sideline. He even knew when certain plays were being set up. He said this as recently as late 2006. Do you really think Spurrier is innovative anymore? No, but he's still cagey and clever enough to win more games than he should and that is why the Gamecocks have a winning record.
Again, just my opinion and I know it isn't pleasant to hear. And I know you'll never agree with it. But I have no reason to believe otherwise.
>First of all, beating Auburn this year
>apparently has as much value as beating
>Vanderbilt. "North Carolina with Butch Davis
>running the show" has one victory -- against
>James Madison. Forgive me if I don't chalk that
>one up as a likely loss.
You're forgiven. It is a likely loss for UNC. But you're playing a team with a quality coach who may be only one or two games from putting it all together.
Auburn is still strong defensively, and matches up well with USC. They have no problem getting into a defensive struggle and although they've lost two of those this year, they've won plenty in the past. Better not overlook them. The Gators won't be this Saturday. They're still a tough team to beat.
I wrote about mobile quarterbacks and Spurrier's un-propensity to use them. You replied:
>Except last year, when it did. And while they
>are "all the rage," did Southern Cal win with a
>mobile quarterback in 2004? Texas did in 2005,
>but unless you honestly believe that Florida
>could have won without Chris Leak last year,
>you also can't chalk up the Gators' 2006 crown
>to mobile quarterbacks, unless by "mobile" you
>mean "a quarterback who can breathe."
Spurrier was as comfortable with Syvelle Newton as Phil Fulmer would be on a no-sugar diet. That was extremely obvious watching South Carolina last year. And when Blake Mitchell came back in off the bench, he looked like a very sharp, pro-style dropback passer for several games (including vs. Florida in the Swamp.)
Spurrier's offense didn't change. He doesn't run the spread, nor does he want to. He runs a pro-style offense based on mismatches. Syvelle Newton's innate scrambling abilities made for some 1st-down and TD opportunities for the 'Cocks in '06, and the OBC was only all too eager to give Newton the hook and send his traditional QB back into the huddle.
Spurrier has not been recruiting that type of quarterback. He is playing the same game he did in the 90s. The big problem in my mind is that he does not have the athletes to create the type of mismatches he needs to make his offense work. Florida has a ton of speed and spreads the field out. South Carolina is still operating with only a couple of strong receivers and have yet to uncover the next great Spurrier quarterback. That may change in time but when Florida and USCw are averaging close to 5 stars while SC currently, I believe, is ranking 68th nationally for their next recruiting class, there's a big chasm there. Spurrier has improved recruiting but was never known as a great recruiter at Florida. I believe he'll continue to improve the quality of players at South Carolina, but his dominance due to mismatches will not occur again as it did in the 90s.
>Maybe that's because Bobby Bowden and Joe
>Paterno have established successful programs at
>their current universities, while Spurrier is
>trying to build a program from the ground up.
>slightly different.
Is it, really? I wasn't aware that FSU had top-tier talent before the arrival of Bobby Bowden. And Florida was never a perennial contender before Spurrier's arrival. They had some good teams, and he happened to arrive at a good time talent-wise, but he fundamentally changed the SEC with his offense. And the SEC was a weaker place in the 90s; LSU wasn't a power, Tennessee struggled and of course Spurrier had Georgia's number.
Urban Meyer is the coach who's changing the game today. I'm not saying that to make this a Gators-SC discussion, he just happens to be the coach who is doing it. If you don't believe me, watch what other SEC teams do with their offenses in the next few years. All we heard when Meyer came aboard was that the spread-option attack couldn't work in the SEC. Now that's he's proven it can, watch the copycats go to work. For Florida fans, it's just like Spurrier all over again.
My point at the end of the day, Brandon, is that when you look at Spurrier's best years and compare them to today, while also taking into account the different level of resources the OBC has at South Carolina than he did at Florida, that it seems like Spurrier's unlikely to do more than maybe win an SEC East championship or even an SEC title once. Maybe twice. That is doable but it will take down years from a number of other SEC superpowers that are hitting their prime and showing absolutely no sign of slowing down. Spurrier's timing was good the first go-around. This time? Not so much, in my view.
Spurrier took on a huge challenge at South Carolina. We all know that SC has never been a fearsome SEC power and I think you and I both expect, wearing our objectivity caps, that they're unlikely to become dominant the way Spurrier's Gators were in the 90s.
The OBC hates to lose. I think it's wearing him down. And yeah, I think his star is fading. I don't harbor him any ill will and I like to see SC win whenever they don't play Florida. But he's changed. I wouldn't be surprised if that LSU 4th-down call appears in his published memoirs one day. That was a watershed moment, very indicative of how different he is today than he once was.
Thanks for listening. Sorry this was such a long reply. And keep up the great work on the blog.
by Gatorpilot on Sep 28, 2007 12:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
By the way...
by Gatorpilot on Sep 28, 2007 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all...
As I said to Glenn, your post hit me on a really bad day, mostly because of the fact that everyone outside the program seemed to be bailing or doing things like ranking Georgia ahead of South Carolina, despite the head to head, yada yada.
I don't think you'll be surprised to know that I have some disagreements, etc. ... And since I'm writing this not long after you wrote yours, I'll lay off the [sic]s in return for the same consideration.
But that was a white flag. Spurrier surrendered. That's something I've never seen him do before. LSU's looks like a great team, but... that was an incredibly un-Spurrierlike act. Truth be told, that was what got me thinking about the 'Fading Star' article.
Actually, I was critical of the FG decision, for much the same reason. But I think that too extrapolate from that play -- however unlike Spurrier it was -- is a bit much.
You and I both know, Brandon, that the only reason the OBC won an extra game in 2006 was because of the newly mandated 12th game which is a cupcake matchup for nearly every Div-IA team. So don't tell me Spurrier actually improved in year two in terms of his overall record. I also recall Houston giving SC everything they could handle in their bowl game.
First of all, Houston was not a bad team. The Liberty Bowl score was pretty close to what I predicted on C&F at the time.
And I'll grant you that the "extra" win in 2006 came to some extent because of the gimme nonconference game.
All that said, I also know that I watched most of the games in 2005 and most of the games in 2006, and I said midseason that, whatever the record said, the Gamecocks were actually playing better on the field. The fundamental stuff wasn't being missed as much -- something that isn't a big deal now, but was a big deal even as late as 2005. The 7-5 record in '05 was, trust me, built on as many uses of smoke and mirrors as I think I've ever seen in a single season -- and I watched this team when it was coached by Holtz. There was less of that in '06.
You and I both know that game was nowhere near as close as the score indicated. LSU shut it down early in the third quarter when it became clear the weather conditions were rotten and the risk of injuries was rising. Yeah, South Carolina kept the score closer than anyone else, but the final TD was in garbage time. You know it and I know it. Spurrier conceded with that field goal and Les Miles was gentlemanly enough to shut down his offense.
'07 LSU would beat '07 SC 10 out of 10 times. Probably even 50 out of 50 times.
I'm not saying that the game was a close game, or even as close as the score looked, but I still felt like we left with our dignity intact and, all the rain other stuff accounted for, performed a lot better than I expected us to. And Virginia Tech, et al had plenty of garbage time to score and couldn't do it -- the Hokies' one touchdown, which did pretty much come in garbage time, being the one exception. Yes, LSU was the better team. But my larger point that the performances of the last couple of years prove we can compete with the "big" teams, far better than we did pre-Spurrier. (A side note: I think comparing the team's performance inside the Spurrier era is basically meaningless until we have a little larger sample size, say four or five years -- or even three complete ones.)
I see South Carolina's schedule and I just don't see the OBC winning the East this year. My opinion, and that's based on the fact that the senior quarterback has already been pulled, Brinkley's out for the year, the team has a hard time breaking 20 points and that Florida remains on the schedule.
I don't see South Carolina winning the East, either -- said so many times. All semantics aside, though, the loss to LSU doesn't really make a damn bit of difference to whether they can or not. It might elevate the importance of the Arkansas game just a touch, but that's about it. The Gamecocks still largely have to win the games they had to win.
And Blake getting pulled only enhances our chances since I'd be surprised if Smelley had the ability to make half the bad decisions Blake does.
Auburn is still strong defensively, and matches up well with USC. They have no problem getting into a defensive struggle and although they've lost two of those this year, they've won plenty in the past. Better not overlook them. The Gators won't be this Saturday. They're still a tough team to beat.
The point was in response to the comment about Mississippi State, since we don't play Auburn this year. But, sorry, and I say this with Auburn as my second-favorite team -- I'm not impressed with the Tigers this year. I have them ranked 12th in the SEC Power Poll. It doesn't matter how good their defense is as long as Brandon Cox continues to be instant points for the other team.
That may change in time but when Florida and USCw are averaging close to 5 stars while SC currently, I believe, is ranking 68th nationally for their next recruiting class, there's a big chasm there. Spurrier has improved recruiting but was never known as a great recruiter at Florida. I believe he'll continue to improve the quality of players at South Carolina, but his dominance due to mismatches will not occur again as it did in the 90s.
First of all, Spurrier closed strong last year to haul in a consensus Top 10 class -- Top 5, by many estimations. Not saying that will happen again, but I'd be surprised if he had a bad year recruiting. (Besides, I've never been impressed with recruiting numbers and ranks -- perhaps a shortcoming, but a view I've seen no reason to loosen my grip on.)
I wasn't aware that FSU had top-tier talent before the arrival of Bobby Bowden. And Florida was never a perennial contender before Spurrier's arrival.
But nobody criticized Bowden as being "past his prime" when FSU was building, either, and that was my point. Bowden and JoePa get criticized for being over the hill now because they've already built their programs, and yet have had considerable problems winning the last few years. If Spurrier were to have a great couple of years at South Carolina and then go 7-6 or 3-8 one year with no discernible reason other than coaching -- or if he continues to bump along at the five-loss plateau for a few more years -- you might have a point.
All we heard when Meyer came aboard was that the spread-option attack couldn't work in the SEC. Now that's he's proven it can, watch the copycats go to work.
I wasn't one of those saying the spread-option wouldn't work in the conference. I said I would be interested to see if it could, but I noted that it had worked at Bowling Green and Utah. Remember, I was one of the only folks that had Florida in the top two preseason last year.
But...I also don't think you have to run the vogue offense to win things. When Spurrier was "changing the SEC," he didn't win every year. And for all the hype about mobile quarterbacks, I think there are still going to be plenty of teams that can win without them. Really, when was the last time you saw JaMarcus Russell, JD Booty or Colt McCoy break a 20-yard run off the read option? Don't let Urban's innovation convince you that's the only way to win.
That is doable but it will take down years from a number of other SEC superpowers that are hitting their prime and showing absolutely no sign of slowing down. Spurrier's timing was good the first go-around. This time? Not so much, in my view.
Of the established "superpowers" in the East, I think the only one "hitting their prime" right now is Florida. Tennessee is stagnant, and it will be interesting to see whether there are any lingering effects at Georgia from last year. (And whether Richt stays around when Pappy Bowden leaves FSU, because I'm not convinced he will, huge buyout or no.) To be honest with you, I'm more worried about what might be brewing in Kentucky (presuming there's anyone behind Woodson) than what's going on in Knoxville.
We all know that SC has never been a fearsome SEC power and I think you and I both expect, wearing our objectivity caps, that they're unlikely to become dominant the way Spurrier's Gators were in the 90s.
I agree, but I also think that Spurrier in the 1990s is going to become like Bear Bryant in his heyday: untouchable. (A lot of people forget that, when he started out, Bryant could do things like have 150 guys on scholarship.) I don't think any team is going to stand astride the conference for a decade at a time -- it's just too hard to do right now. Florida might, but I doubt it.
I actually find myself slightly pulling for the Gators when it doesn't hurt South Carolina, as well. And if the post came off as a personal attack, that's not what I meant -- it was a reponse that might got a bit too hot-headed at times.
I actually said when Spurrier came that I didn't think his first title would come until sometime around Years 3-5. I think it will be near the back end of that scale now -- barring some lucky bounces -- so I wouldn't be surprised if a conference title or two is all that's in the offing. But I also wouldn't be surprised by more.
SB Nation needs to get an 'edit comment' option.
I agree, but they don't ask me about things like that.
by cocknfire on Sep 28, 2007 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
