If one of those 6 wins is against Clemson then it is an improvement over last year.And, sorry to burst bubbles, but 6 wins is not even improvement over last year.
If one of those 6 wins is against Clemson then it is an improvement over last year.
6-8 wins a season with the occasional 9-10 will probably keep your job as long as you can walk.In year 4 a team is the coach's team and what you see is pretty much what you are going to have going forward. No successful coach in the current era of college football has magically become great after 4 mediocre seasons. If 6 wins is what the fans demand to be satisfied, I think Beamer may be the man for the South Carolina job. He may not hit that magic number this season but I think he will most seasons.
Spurrier doesn't have a statue, so it'll take more than that. But you're right it would be plenty good enough to keep your job in perpetuity.6-8 wins a season with the occasional 9-10 will probably get you a statue around here.
Yeah, I exaggerated. But there's a grain of truth in it.Spurrier doesn't have a statue, so it'll take more than that. But you're right it would be plenty good enough to keep your job in perpetuity.
Spurrier, overall, was not a 9-10 win coach. 6 of his 10 full seasons here, he was a 6-8 win guy. So you weren't far off, I don't think. If we ever had a coach who could consistently win 9-10 games for a prolonged period, he would be considered coaching deity.Yeah, I exaggerated. But there's a grain of truth in it.
And, given the conference we play in, a consistently winning coach should be considered a success. I believe the best we can ask for is a guy who is a perennial winner and makes a an occasional run at the conference championship. Apparently, I'm asking too much.Spurrier, overall, was not a 9-10 win coach. 6 of his 10 full seasons here, he was a 6-8 win guy. So you weren't far off, I don't think. If we ever had a coach who could consistently win 9-10 games for a prolonged period, he would be considered coaching deity.
And, given the conference we play in, a consistently winning coach should be considered a success. I believe the best we can ask for is a guy who is a perennial winner and makes a an occasional run at the conference championship. Apparently, I'm asking too much.
And, given the conference we play in, a consistently winning coach should be considered a success. I believe the best we can ask for is a guy who is a perennial winner and makes a an occasional run at the conference championship. Apparently, I'm asking too much.
I think we should be a bowl eligible team at a minimum.
You wouldn't celebrate making the playoff as a 12 seed?That should be absolute baseline. Considering that many years we have 3-4 cream puff wins on the slate (including Vandy even though they aren't a cream puff this year), all we're asking is for the team to 3-6 or 2-6 in our other 8-9 games.
That's not a particularly big ask. Making bowl games has to stopped being looked as an accomplishment and start being considered a required minimum. A foregone conclusion. In the current bowl system, > 60% of all teams go to a bowl. Entering the season, teams actually have a greater statistical chance of making a bowl than not making a bowl. Being in the top 60% is NOT a very strenuous demand.
With how much college football has evolved, I don't know why so many people still look at the 6-win mark as an accomplishment. Well, actually, I do. The same reason some folks would celebrate making the NIT. Or how some teams will celebrate being a playoff team as the #12 seed.
You wouldn't celebrate making the playoff as a 12 seed?
6 wins and the NIT are accomplishments for some programs. Those are reasonable steps for a coach as he builds a program. Context is important, and whether or not those are reasonable accomplishments or failures is going to depend on context.