Spurrier on the hot seat? Well, somebody thinks so, anyway.
Steve Spurrier has been put on the hot seat because when you are making as many millions as he is, dropping five straight games after reaching #6 doesn't cut it. Throw in some questionable discipline techniques, four years to rebuild, and you have a seat dialed up to hot. (HT: LOHD)
Spurrier? On the hot seat?
Let's get one point of agreement out of the way: The end of last season was an unmitigated disaster. But, as I've noted before, anyone who believed that the Gamecocks truly deserved a No. 6 rating (as opposed to being a default No. 6 because everyone else was embarrassing themselves) didn't watch them play. The team was living on borrowed time, and it was just a question of whether the bank note came due in 2007 or later. It came due against Vanderbilt, and the team never recovered.
But placing the entire burden for the shambles that became the last five games directly on Spurrier is a bit much. Tyrone Nix contributed a good bit to the problem, as did the fact that the schedule was (as it usually is) horrendously backloaded, allowing expectations to outpace where the team actually was.
Meanwhile, rebuilding what Holtz left behind at South Carolina was always going to take more than four years.
And where does this talk of the "many millions," which has also been used elsewhere, come in? Spurrier's making $1.75 million, which is really not all that outrageous for an SEC coach nowadays.
$1.75 million? I lose that much in my couch cushions every week.
In any case, Spurrier is undoubtedly on the hot seat with some of the Gamecock faithful; has been since the end of last year. But to argue that he's on the hot seat in the traditional way -- meaning he should either be touching up the resume or seeing if he can become an analyst at ESPN -- is to part with reality in an abrupt manner.
Spurrier is 21-16 in three seasons. No, that's nothing to write home about, but it's a sign of steady average-ness for a team that hasn't had much of that. (Holtz was 22-14 over
the same time period his best three years, but the records were far less consistent: 8-4, 9-3, 5-7. And that's only if, like C&F, you forget that Holtz was 0-11 his first year for a record of 17-18 for his first three years. Apologies, but C&F has a mental block that often leaves him forgetting 1999 -- for obvious reasons.)
Eric Hyman isn't going to show Spurrier the door after this year. Spurrier might leave of his own accord -- but not because he's been pushed.
Georgia fans, nervous about No. 1. The Mayor says they shouldn't be, but apparently some devotees of the spelling-challenged Dawgs are worried that being No. 1 might set them up for a fall. (By the way, the Mayor gets bonus points for using both The West Wing and TR in the same post. Kudos.)
I really wish I could say I was diabolically boosting Georgia's chances at being No. 1 for exactly that reason. But, alas, there are two problems with that theory: (a) that's not what I am doing; and (b) to try to do that would be to vastly overestimate my influence on the CFB establishment.
Meanwhile, EDSBS lampoons Georgia fans. Worth a read.
Scarlett drops. According to FHM, Scarlett is down to No. 5 on their list of 100 Sexiest Women. Of course, it probably doesn't help that they used a picture that makes her look like she's been spending a bit too much time with Amy Winehouse. Of course, what do you expect of a poll that has Mila Kunis at 81 and Hillary Duff at 7?
(Of course, C&F could just point out the general editorial standards of FHM -- which are low even in comparison to other men's magazines -- but why stoop to that level for what is essentially a cheap, tawdry knockoff of an already mid-priced and low-brow genre?)
Still No. 1 in C&F's heart. For whatever that's worth.