Muschamp has to go

[sgacock]

Reassign Him to a different position. Give him a job like fat Brad had at Clempsun but remove him as head football coach NOW. Name Bobo as "Interim Head Coach. If he produces, consider him as HC. If he doen't turn this ship around, get a new head coach at the end of 2021 seaon.

We aren't going to move on a new head coach this year, No money coming in and too much going out.

 

[gamecock88]

In a non covid year we would probably add 2 non-conf wins, so it puts us at 4-3. Win two of the remaining games and we would be 6-6. Not what you would expect in year 5 of a coach. I can't put my finger on it. Recruiting seems to be good. But it's not translating to success on the field. The most perplexing is our defense. That is supposed to be Muchampos strong suite. What happened?

Recruiting is ok but it is not great and still lacking when you look at needs of this team.  When you have a 3 ACL QB from Colorado State come in and take the job that tells you a lot.  No disrespect to C Hill since he clearly has a ton of heart but he can hardly move in the pocket, has to hold the ball a long time waiting for WRs to get open.  No downfield threat and a slot WR is our best WR that has to play inside and out.  We're easily defended and have to dink and dunk down the filed.  Kevin Harris and the running game has been the only pleasant surprise on offense.  Calling another option play where C Hill cannot and should not be expected to keep it is about as dumb as it gets by an OC.  I think we've run one or two successful screens this year.  The rest are losses or blown up completely.  For D,  we get the same type guys for the most part along the DL.  They look like big LBs or DEs converted to play inside.  We're short of talent all over the field.  Champ is an ok recruiter.  If that's his strong suit, he's terrible at most everything else as a coach. 

 

[McCock]

Not sure that a $15+ million buyout (HBC alone, not considering assistants with multi-year contracts) in a year where the athletic department is going to be $40+ million in the red will be perceived by university administration as a reasonable level, regardless of what they think about the current staff's prospects for success. Even if we did pull this trigger, it seems doubtful that we'd have the resources right now to hire someone that is truly and demonstrably a significant upgrade (not advocating for Muschamp... merely talking financial resources relative to the names some here and elsewhere have been throwing around).

Whatever Spurrier did in his first 10 years here to dispel the notion that taking a job here is career suicide was sort of ruined in his last two years and the period that has followed. Muschamp wasn't an ideal hire, but he also wasn't our first or even second choice... those turned us down (and Lincoln Riley would've turned on us as fast as Cremmins did had OU offered him a job). Herman or Smart might've done better, but I don't know if there would have been a world of difference... the jobs they have now are far easier than coaching here is.

We have great facilities but a limited recruiting base, and the team up the road is also a limiter, Someone can be successful here but starting over will be a crap-shoot no matter who we hire. I have no inside knowledge but find it hard to believe that we would fire Muschamp this year given the tenuous nature of our finances.

As far as the SEC Shorts thing, they aren't talking about Muschamp's tenure here any more than they are about our tenure in the SEC or the larger 125ish-year history of our football program. With the exception of four years under Spurrier in which we won 42 games (but still never made it to a legit bowl or were truly competitive for an SEC championship) and one year during Morrison's tenure that we burned to the ground by losing to Navy, our football program has been the very definition of mediocre.

We have proven time and time again that the statement "anyone would be better than who we have now" isn't necessarily true. I share the anger and concerns about the current staff, but given the situation we are in financially with COVID, I would be very worried that taking action this year would leave us without the resources to hire someone who really gives us greater prospects for long-term success.

 

[Longhaul]

Not sure that a $15+ million buyout (HBC alone, not considering assistants with multi-year contracts) in a year where the athletic department is going to be $40+ million in the red will be perceived by university administration as a reasonable level, regardless of what they think about the current staff's prospects for success. Even if we did pull this trigger, it seems doubtful that we'd have the resources right now to hire someone that is truly and demonstrably a significant upgrade (not advocating for Muschamp... merely talking financial resources relative to the names some here and elsewhere have been throwing around).

Whatever Spurrier did in his first 10 years here to dispel the notion that taking a job here is career suicide was sort of ruined in his last two years and the period that has followed. Muschamp wasn't an ideal hire, but he also wasn't our first or even second choice... those turned us down (and Lincoln Riley would've turned on us as fast as Cremmins did had OU offered him a job). Herman or Smart might've done better, but I don't know if there would have been a world of difference... the jobs they have now are far easier than coaching here is.

We have great facilities but a limited recruiting base, and the team up the road is also a limiter, Someone can be successful here but starting over will be a crap-shoot no matter who we hire. I have no inside knowledge but find it hard to believe that we would fire Muschamp this year given the tenuous nature of our finances.

As far as the SEC Shorts thing, they aren't talking about Muschamp's tenure here any more than they are the larger history of our football program. With the exception of four years under Spurrier in which we won 42 games (but still never made it to a legit bowl or were truly competitive for an SEC championship) and one year during Morrison's tenure that we burned to the ground by losing to Navy, our football program has been the very definition of mediocre.

We have proven time and time again that the statement "anyone would be better than who we have now" isn't necessarily true. I share the anger and concerns about the current staff, but given the situation we are in financially with COVID, I would be very worried that taking action this year would leave us without the resources to hire someone who really gives us greater prospects for long-term success.

Well said.  I really believe it will take someone that has ties to the University that really wants to be here and be given some time to get the program heading in the right direction.  The guns for hire may come, but they will use it as a stepping stone and move on if they do have success.  We had time knowing Spurrier wanted to leave and I blame Tanner for not figuring out a better plan for succession and letting things deteriorate as they did.  

 

[cocky0]

That SEC shorts video may have been the coffin nail....if the BOT sees that, it may spark some anger. 

I'm not sure anyone on the BOT is aware of the internet.

 

[McCock]

Well said.  I really believe it will take someone that has ties to the University that really wants to be here and be given some time to get the program heading in the right direction.  The guns for hire may come, but they will use it as a stepping stone and move on if they do have success.  We had time knowing Spurrier wanted to leave and I blame Tanner for not figuring out a better plan for succession and letting things deteriorate as they did.  

Very true. Our recruiting was suffering well before he left (it wasn't bad, but evals and effort suffered when Beamer left), so the decline in his last two years was predictable, especially considering the downgrades at several key assistant positions.

To have the greatest chance to be successful here, I think you need a proven Power 5 head coach with recruiting and coaching ties to the southeastern U.S. generally, and South Carolina specifically. From there, he has to have enough coaching cachet to bring in a staff that is good to great at recruiting in this territory, but perhaps even more important is his chosen staff's ability to evaluate and teach. Programs like ours build with high three-stars and low four-stars, coach them up to compete with schools that have better athletes and depth, which then allows for upward mobility. (We had all of that in the middle of Spurrier's tenure but did not at the beginning and end... his results bear this statement out.)

If you look at Muschamp's tenure here, he has recruited well at certain positions and individuals on the staff have been lauded for their teaching ability, but I think sometimes our evals, especially at offensive skill positions, LB and safety, have been deficient. B-Mac had a great reputation as a recruiter but did little to recruit his position... we've had a number of busts at WR that we're still suffering for it now, and he seemed preoccupied with length rather than hands/athletic ability. The problems with game day coaching have been beaten to death, although sometimes I think we've given too much weight to the Xs and Os rather than Jimmys/Joes.

So who fits the above profile? Because South Carolina traditionally has had little tolerance for past moral or professional indiscretions, you can likely rule out guys like any member of the Briles family, Lane Kiffin (although that ship has sailed in any event) and Hugh Freeze. Urban Meyer is the only name that immediately comes to mind, but he'd probably rather die than debase himself by taking our job. I think we'd ultimately be forced to hire a small school coach or retread Power 5 guy who failed elsewhere given current finances, so effectively another Muschamp who perhaps doesn't have the stink of a full nine mediocre years on his resume. Or you can continue to try to continue to upgrade assistants for another year or two to see if fortunes improve while buyouts continue to drop, and if they don't then go after someone. I am skeptical that T-Rob/Muschamp can run a consistently competent defense because they haven't here yet, but I do think our offense can be good to very good with the current offensive staff, especially if they're around long enough to get Gunner Stockton and some more WR here. Either way, it's not a good situation.

 

[JimG]

I share the anger and concerns about the current staff, but given the situation we are in financially with COVID, I would be very worried that taking action this year would leave us without the resources to hire someone who really gives us greater prospects for long-term success.

But you don't give a contract extension to someone you would fire under normal circumstances. If they cannot afford to fire, then they can reassign. 

USC is in a bind, but if your comments can be held as factual;  then promoting one of our assts isn't any worse than retaining the current HC. 

In regards to a greater prospect, if we paint ourselves into the "homerun hire" box, we are double stupid. 

 

[gamecock88]

We cannot afford a proven power 5 coach with that type of ability to bring in a quality staff of folks willing to come to what is historically a graveyard for coaches or a place they will not stay long.  Along with overall mediocre history of Wins and Losses, you also have to consider our history of just bad coaches who either are finished coaching completely, or have to drop back quite a while after leaving here.  A relatively young staff is needed now days and they're not going to want to try and cut their teeth so to speak at SC.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Very true. Our recruiting was suffering well before he left (it wasn't bad, but evals and effort suffered when Beamer left), so the decline in his last two years was predictable, especially considering the downgrades at several key assistant positions.

To have the greatest chance to be successful here, I think you need a proven Power 5 head coach with recruiting and coaching ties to the southeastern U.S. generally, and South Carolina specifically. From there, he has to have enough coaching cachet to bring in a staff that is good to great at recruiting in this territory, but perhaps even more important is his chosen staff's ability to evaluate and teach. Programs like ours build with high three-stars and low four-stars, coach them up to compete with schools that have better athletes and depth, which then allows for upward mobility. (We had all of that in the middle of Spurrier's tenure but did not at the beginning and end... his results bear this statement out.)

If you look at Muschamp's tenure here, he has recruited well at certain positions and individuals on the staff have been lauded for their teaching ability, but I think sometimes our evals, especially at offensive skill positions, LB and safety, have been deficient. B-Mac had a great reputation as a recruiter but did little to recruit his position... we've had a number of busts at WR that we're still suffering for it now, and he seemed preoccupied with length rather than hands/athletic ability. The problems with game day coaching have been beaten to death, although sometimes I think we've given too much weight to the Xs and Os rather than Jimmys/Joes.

So who fits the above profile? Because South Carolina traditionally has had little tolerance for past moral or professional indiscretions, you can likely rule out guys like any member of the Briles family, Lane Kiffin (although that ship has sailed in any event) and Hugh Freeze. Urban Meyer is the only name that immediately comes to mind, but he'd probably rather die than debase himself by taking our job. I think we'd ultimately be forced to hire a small school coach or retread Power 5 guy who failed elsewhere given current finances, so effectively another Muschamp who perhaps doesn't have the stink of a full nine mediocre years on his resume. Or you can continue to try to continue to upgrade assistants for another year or two to see if fortunes improve while buyouts continue to drop, and if they don't then go after someone. I am skeptical that T-Rob/Muschamp can run a consistently competent defense because they haven't here yet, but I do think our offense can be good to very good with the current offensive staff, especially if they're around long enough to get Gunner Stockton and some more WR here. Either way, it's not a good situation.

I'd take Hugh Freeze in a heart beat.  If we're going to insist on this "pure as the driven snow" coach we'll never get anywhere. 

 

[McCock]

But you don't give a contract extension to someone you would fire under normal circumstances. If they cannot afford to fire, then they can reassign. 

USC is in a bind, but if your comments can be held as factual;  then promoting one of our assts isn't any worse than retaining the current HC. 

In regards to a greater prospect, if we paint ourselves into the "homerun hire" box, we are double stupid. 

That was exactly my point. I don't think there is a coaching hire out there who fits that set of criteria who would be willing to come here, so we are going to have to roll the dice on a retread or someone unproven a la Brad Scott and Sparky Woods, hoping that it works out better than Muschamp. Reassigning Muschamp really doesn't make the financial calculus any better assuming the university would have to create a temporary position for him (as is the case with most reassignments), and it's often a lousy situation for players and the new staff when you have the former coach still in the building.

I doubt we'd ever end up with a homerun hire, but I do think we have far more flexibility when the athletic department isn't hemorrhaging dollars.

 

[McCock]

I'd take Hugh Freeze in a heart beat.  If we're going to insist on this "pure as the driven snow" coach we'll never get anywhere. 

The only coach in recent memory with any sort of taint was Holtz and he was both a legend and made of Teflon (all of the NCAA violations associated with his staffs were uncovered after he moved on and never directly implicated him). I'd be shocked if Freeze were ever given a legitimate look here based on our hiring history and further based on the fact that morality would presumably matter, at least publicly, to a military guy like Caslen.

 

[JimG]

That was exactly my point. 

But if your numbers are correct, USC cannot fiscally afford any big changes until we relieve ourselves of the buyout burdens. That only comes through time & possible renegotiations. 

We are in uncharted territory with likely non-conventional paths.  

Still....with Muschamp, unless he pulls off some miracles, he's an underperforming employee that cannot be left in charge ( Just like the military relieving someone of command). His shelf life is about up. 

 

[McCock]

But if your numbers are correct, USC cannot fiscally afford any big changes until we relieve ourselves of the buyout burdens. That only comes through time & possible renegotiations. 

We are in uncharted territory with likely non-conventional paths.  

Still....with Muschamp, unless he pulls off some miracles, he's an underperforming employee that cannot be left in charge ( Just like the military relieving someone of command). His shelf life is about up. 

Yep. I actually understated the buyout by a couple hundred grand because I misremembered the number from the USA Today article (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/), which states the exact buyout for Muschamp as of 12/1/2020 at $15,378,350. He is listed in a companion article as one of seven hot-seat coaches "too expensive to buy out" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2020/10/14/college-football-coaches-hot-seat-too-big-buy-out/5900059002/).

Bobo's contract is fully guaranteed for two years (a possible sign that USC has no intention of firing Champ this year regardless), and if he were terminated this year the university would owe a buyout of $1.2 million (T-Rob gets same salary through 2021 but don't know whether his contract was fully guaranteed or if there is a LD provision that would reduce buyout). Those should be the only members of staff who have multi-year deals, so letting the staff go at year's end likely would cost the university just shy of $17.8 million. Obviously, this is going to be payable over time and the coaches would have a duty to mitigate, but it's a lot of cash. Others have referenced that we need to extend him if we keep him to avoid damaging recruiting, but that can be done without increasing his buyout.

In some ways, I sort of look at Muschamp as a discount-store Swinney. I think Swinney is an elite recruiter and Muschamp has a reputation of being a very good to great recruiter. Muschamp is probably a better teaching field coach/football mind than Swinney but hasn't proven he's able to handle macro-level game management decisions well (honestly haven't paid enough attention to Swinney's game management to make an educated comparison between the two of them, other than knowing that I don't think I have ever seen a coach more conservative than Champ).

Swinney was basically on the outs at Clemson in his third year before being given a vote of confidence + ultimatum by their athletic director to make staff changes or lose his job. He transitioned through multiple offensive coordinators (Billy Napier, Chad Morris, Jeff Scott and Tony Elliott) and defensive coordinators (Vic Koenning, Kevin Steele and finally Brent Venables) in the first half of the '10s before settling in with Scott/Elliott and Venables in 2015 and later just Elliott. In a lousy conference, Swinney's teams went from average/below average to conference champion/runner-up that would regularly "Clemson" in big games to the juggernaut they are now, largely because the recruiting stayed very strong throughout and the coaching around Swinney improved significantly. We also fell off at the end of Spurrier's tenure, which helped them.

I would hazard a guess that Swinney is not significantly better or worse as a coach now than he was in 2009-2010 when Clemson's fanbase wanted him fired, but his staff unquestionably became MUCH better over the years. Clemson opened its checkbook and got a championship-level DC to go with an already strong offensive staff and very good players.

Now, I have my doubts that Muschamp could take the same path because (1) I don't think he will ever be able to cede control of the defense and just be a CEO and Recruiter-in-Chief; and (2) I'm not sure he can overcome his hyper-conservative game day coaching instincts. However, I think there's probably just as much chance that this will happen as I do that we hit the lottery by hiring someone else now on the cheap.

 

[JimG]

1. Others have referenced that we need to extend him if we keep him to avoid damaging recruiting, but that can be done without increasing his buyout.

2. Swinney was basically on the outs at Clemson....

3. Now, I have my doubts that Muschamp could take the same path because (1) I don't think he will ever be able to cede control of the defense and just be a CEO and Recruiter-in-Chief; and (2) I'm not sure he can overcome his hyper-conservative game day coaching instincts.

1. But that only defers the likely inevitable. Will has not shown any indication that he'll ever rise above mediocrity. This is why coaches get fired. I just don't see USC dragging this out and reassignment could be the best option for all parties. Caslen would understand this. 

2. I'm convinced that Swinney is a lot smarter than people give credit. He was able to get the CU AD on board with revamping their recruiting which has paid off immensely. I also believe he's a guy that learns from his mistakes. I'd bet the whole "clemsoning" thing kept him up at night. 

3. There's something mysteriously wrong with Will's gameday coaching. I don't know if anyone can put their finger on it, but there always seems to be holes in his game plan and prep. 

 

[LBC]

I'd take Hugh Freeze in a heart beat.  If we're going to insist on this "pure as the driven snow" coach we'll never get anywhere. 

There is a difference between 'pure as the driven snow' and one of the dirtiest coaches of all time. Freeze was at Ole Miss for 5 years and committed so many cases of academic fraud and recruiting violations...as well as a measurable increase of unpunished/covered up crimes and sexual assaults committed by players on campus...that they had 27 wins expunged from the record books and a two year post season ban...including a personal one year ban and multiple coaches under his guidance with 'Show Clause' penalties moving forward in what's left of their careers...all before he got caught using university property and funds to contact and buy hookers. I'd rather lose games than be a character free shit show until it all blew up...like it always does. 

But that's me...character matters to me. Sportsmanship...sacrifice...honor...overcoming real world challenges...the right way...etc. The things that make sport so important in the first place. Why would anyone...especially some nobody with zero connection to the actual University of South Carolina...take some kind of 'pride' in a win you know you cheated to get? What kind of weak shit is that? What have you taught your own children is the way? Please tell me you've never coached a single game of any sport at the youth level...even if its obvious you haven't

 

[Cockyandproud]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that Carolina is not a highly desirable job at the moment. The only scenarios I see for getting us on a winning track is to spend a ton of money to hire a huge name like Saban, who can recruit on his name alone.  I think we know that isn’t going to happen.  The second option is to hire a good coach from a lower tier school, like Billy Napier or Jamey Chadwell.  We have enough talent now to be good, with the right coaching, and hopefully, they could recruit well enough to get us to be great.  However, my optimism is low, and assume we will keep Muschamp long enough to fart around and let all the good coaches be gone, and we will settle for a has been in a couple of years. 

 

[Hoganman1]

We are in a tough place. I'm not sure Muschamp will ever get us back to double digit win seasons, but who could we get? Even though he is off to a rough start I still like Mike Leach. We'll see how his season turns out, but it won't be any worse than ours.  He's got some baggage, but we know he can win games. Right now, I'm concerned that our defense is a major problem. I lost interest in the LSU game and quit watching. Did they ever punt? 

 

[TKE226]

If after Spurrier and Holts, the best we got is Muschamp then we won’t pull a huge name, especially under Tanner. I resign myself that we will get an up and comer from a lesser conference who is looking to make a name. Which is not all bad, it could work out but it’s no guarantee. Which can’t be much worse than the present. And if it does work out, he will leave for greener pastures, but maybe after that our program will be in better shape. 

 

[Blitzkrieg]

There is a difference between 'pure as the driven snow' and one of the dirtiest coaches of all time. Freeze was at Ole Miss for 5 years and committed so many cases of academic fraud and recruiting violations...as well as a measurable increase of unpunished/covered up crimes and sexual assaults committed by players on campus...that they had 27 wins expunged from the record books and a two year post season ban...including a personal one year ban and multiple coaches under his guidance with 'Show Clause' penalties moving forward in what's left of their careers...all before he got caught using university property and funds to contact and buy hookers. I'd rather lose games than be a character free shit show until it all blew up...like it always does. 

But that's me...character matters to me. Sportsmanship...sacrifice...honor...overcoming real world challenges...the right way...etc. The things that make sport so important in the first place. Why would anyone...especially some nobody with zero connection to the actual University of South Carolina...take some kind of 'pride' in a win you know you cheated to get? What kind of weak shit is that? What have you taught your own children is the way? Please tell me you've never coached a single game of any sport at the youth level...even if its obvious you haven't

So because he cheated in the past means he can't move forward without cheating?  Criminals deserve second chances but coaches don't? Do you believe everything is above board up the road especially 4-5 years ago before they started this incredible run when they were pulling in the top recruits from several different States consistently?    And you don't have to be an ass outside of the Political Forum unless you just can't help it because that's what you are.

 

[ShepCock]

So because he cheated in the past means he can't move forward without cheating?  Criminals deserve second chances but coaches don't? Do you believe everything is above board up the road especially 4-5 years ago before they started this incredible run when they were pulling in the top recruits from several different States consistently?    And you don't have to be an ass outside of the Political Forum unless you just can't help it because that's what you are.

Question 1. In this case, yes.  We essentially are Ole Miss, mediocre with hints of greatness at times.  Those violations at Ole Miss were egregious.  It would be more of the same here.

Question 2. Of course coaches deserve a second chance, and the university believes that.  How do you think we got Muschamp?

Question 3. I personally do not care about Clemson one iota.  I am glad we're not playing them this year.  I personally hope we never play them again.