volfanbill
pack light and love heavy…
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 44,680
- Likes
- 31,719
Not really. South Carolina is LOADED with football talent as a state. Columbia isn't exactly glorious, but the Clemson area is awful.
It didn't seem to matter that South Carolina was loaded with football talent for the 100 or so years before Spurrier got there.
Having talent in the state and getting it to Columbia are two very, very different things.
It was also apparent that USC didn't care about winning until around 2000. Also, they were winning and had a great foundation before Spurrier got there
They were 497-504 all-time before Spurrier and had been to only 3 bowl games in the 15 years prior to Spurrier.
Holtz finished with a 3337 overall record from 99-04.
I wouldn't call that winning.
1999 they went 0-11
2000-2001 they went 17-7 with 2 Outback Bowl wins over Ohio State
2002-2004 they went 16-19
Holtz turned it around. It was a train wreck when he got there. They went 1-10 in 1998 under Brad Scott. He just couldn't sustain it.
Has Spurrier had them ranked higher than 2nd in the country?
Is that all it takes?
The highest Morrison ever finished in the AP is 11.
Spurrier's finished in the top 10 three times in a row, including a Top 5 finish last year, their highest finish ever.
Morrison didn't even have 3 winning seasons in a row.
Morrison didn't win a single bowl game at SC.
Spurrier's 4-4 in bowl games, and has won the last 3 in a row.
Morrison was 2-3-1 against Clemson, and never beat them back-to-back.
Spurrier's 6-3 against Clemson, and has won the last 5 in a row.
This isn't even a discussion.