OT: Lincoln Riley

[gamecock stock]

Given that most years, we have 3-4 creampuff wins, 8 wins seasons are a reasonable goal. Maybe also the ceiling. Might pop to a 9 or 10 win season once in a blue moon, but our history says that's not even realistic.

9 or more wins has only been done six times in our football history. The coaches who accomplished that were Joe Morrison, Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier. All three were known more for their "coaching" abilities than as "recruiters".

I agree you need the "Jimmys and the Joes". But if you can't "coach", (Hello Teasely), you are spinning your wheels.

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

They are the last "first-time" national champion, back in 1996.

Wow. Is this really true? <checks the list> Yep. And 1993 Florida St the last prior to the Gators.

The list is pretty exclusive, which we all know. But actually reading it in black and white year by by year is pretty stark.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Wow. Is this really true? <checks the list> Yep. And 1993 Florida St the last prior to the Gators.

The list is pretty exclusive, which we all know. But actually reading it in black and white year by by year is pretty stark.

I went back some time ago and pulled up top 25 rankings from random years, going back to 50s or 60s. What you saw was basically a rotation of the same teams. Every so often you get a Northwestern or Colorado blip for a year or two, but you essentially had the same teams cycling in and out.

 

[Piscis]

What's your solution to fixing South Carolina football and making it a nationally relevant program?

Since it has had 116 tries to do it and has only managed to in 3 of those seasons, I'm not sure it can be done on a long term basis.

A good start would be to hire an actual head coach who has head coaching experience or has at least been a coordinator at a big time program. Don't hire a failed head coach and imagine that he will suddenly be great. Don't hire a position coach or any coach for that matter based on his last name hoping coaching is some sort of genetic trait. A young G5 coach who has shown success and wants a stepping stone to a big time program might be a good thing to try or a P4 coach who is winning more than he loses at a traditionally weak football program who wants a program where football is the main sport and not a stepchild to basketball i.e. Indiana, UK (not Stoops), Duke, etc..

Finally, get an AD who demands winning seasons year in and year out. Being a nice guy and "wanting to be here" aren't enough. Anyone at any job making seven figures every year needs to perform or be fired.

 

[Piscis]

I went back some time ago and pulled up top 25 rankings from random years, going back to 50s or 60s. What you saw was basically a rotation of the same teams. Every so often you get a Northwestern or Colorado blip for a year or two, but you essentially had the same teams cycling in and out.

Success breeds success. Before the NCAA put the scholarship limits on programs in the late '70s top teams would recruit and sign top players just so their rivals wouldn't have them. Bear Bryant was famous for this, having 120+ players on scholarship to keep them away from Tennessee, UGA, Auburn, etc.. It really was a rich get richer world back then. Miami cheated their way to prosperity and so did Auburn and Clemson. USC and UCLA used integration of their teams to climb to the top of the heap when the Southern teams wouldn't have black players and Notre Dame was dominant because they didn't have to recruit, they simply "gathered" Catholic players.

I don't think Carolina is going to be dominant any time soon, probably not in my lifetime, but they can be relevant. However, as long as the fans and the admin are accepting, not satisfied or happy with but accepting of 6 or 7 win seasons, that is what Carolina is going to be and 6-7 win teams aren't relevant.