There-in lies the rub! I mentioned this in my post, and now D3 has mentioned this AGAIN. I keep reading about all of these "great" things that are happening in Columbia and keep reading all about the myriad of plausible excuses for the fact that the results AREN'T translating to the field, but neither of the 2 "gurus" of this thread who are setting the rest of us "ignorant folk" straight have addressed this very obvious damning FACT!! I mean, if you girls don't like hearing that SOS is "washed up", then please dispense with the lame excuses and enlighten us as to WHY his tried and true style is no longer working... because THAT fact is irrefutable!
And don't try to feed us horse sh*t about bad assistant coaches... that falls right back on Spurrier. Furthermore, IF you buy it, then we have substantiated proof of a fall-off in his coaching ability!
And recruiting?? To a very small extent I'll buy it, BUT if memory serves me correctly few of Spurrier's "Fun-N-Gun" QBs were really THAT sought after out of HS. They were coached up more than anything.... and MUCH more benefited from Spurrier's system as opposed to Spurrier's system benefiting from them! Not to mention that if schools like Miami, OH; Vandy; NC State; Eastern Illinois; Virginia; and Hawaii (ect. etc...) can all produce NFL caliber quarterbacks, I'm simply not buying that South Carolina's at some sort of disadvantage. ESPECIALLY considering Spurrier's track record and history of success.
Look.... nobody's arguing that Spurrier isn't a good coach and nobody's arguing that he hasn't done good things for South Carolina. I honestly think he's turned Carolina into a consistent competitor relatively speaking. All of that said, however, this is NOT the same Spurrier that coached in Gainesville years ago. Call it what you want and make all of the excuses in the world you want but he's lost a step if not two. The results speak for themselves. Four years in he's 15-17 in the SEC. You can throw all of the sprinkles and point out all of the meaningless BS you want and talk to as many former players you want, it doesn't change the fact that his results are STILL a step below average.
Spurs went 2-5 in the ACC in his first year at DUKE just to go 6-1 and tie for 1st place in the ACC only 2 years later. Did I mention that was at DUKE??? ... but I guess he had certain "advantages" there as well! In 12 years at Florida, Spurs lost only 14 SEC games. In 4 years at USC, he's lost 17.
Sure he didn't inherit a LSU NT team, but it's not like he inherited a program in shambles either. The Cocks were coming off a 6-5 (4-4) season when Spurs took over. Can you really make a case that he didn't come into a better situation at USC than ANY previous coach in their history?? And if the program was as bad as some of you are suggesting, then how much clearly better is Saban than Spurrier?
Look... everyone's entitled to their own opinion and many just aren't going to agree. That's OK. But let's not act like there's something there that isn't! At the end of the day, results is ALL that matters. Understanding that fact and realizing that I'm arguing on the side of "what is" while some of you are arguing on the side of "what could be", how could you be the least bit surprised or upset that there are those that don't buy what you're trying to sell??
Hmmmm.... selling a hollow promise of hope.... we've heard that some where lately haven't we??