Should Beamer get at least 6 years?

[18IsTheMan]

It goes against conventional wisdom these days. The standard used to be 4 years, but even that is getting cut short in a lot of cases these days. The reality for us is that there are no quick turnarounds here. Even with all the coaching genius Spurrier brought to the table, it took him 6 years to get us over the hump. We are not, and never will be, a Bama or a UGA where all you need is the right coach and you can get things rolling in a couple or 3 seasons. It's always going to take longer here. As painful as it may be, I believe we simply have to double down on Beamer. I'm not confident that he's the solution, but barring some kind of 1-11 fiasco, I think the only way to know is to give it time. We have to accept what this year is and that next year is shaping to be potentially just as bad with our schedule. We should show progress in 2025 and 2026 should be the make-or-break year.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

There are several variables to consider before I could give a hard statement concerning extended tenure.
1. Is there visible/measurable improvements in team play.
2. Recruiting. Are the new recruits making an impact on the team. Rankings non withstanding.
3. Staff. Is there cohesiveness and consistency.
4. Portal. The outlet is available, so is Beamer taking advantage.
5. Attrition. Is Beamer able to keep the players and/or staff with the program.

As of now today, no I would not be in favor of 3 more years. Could that change by end of next year, yes of course, but that would mean an improvement in all the of the mentioned above.

EDIT: added measurable to item 1.

 

[Celtic Riot]

Fugg it, give him 12.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There are several variables to consider before I could give a hard statement concerning extended tenure.
1. Is there visible improvements in team play.
2. Recruiting. Are the new recruits making an impact on the team. Rankings non withstanding.
3. Staff. Is there cohesiveness and consistency.
4. Portal. The outlet is available, so is Beamer taking advantage.
5. Attrition. Is Beamer able to keep the players and or staff with the program.

As of now today, no I would not be in favor of 3 more years. Could that change by end of next year, yes of course, but that would mean an improvement in all the of the mentioned above.

Typically, I'd agree with you. But, barring a total collapse like I mentioned, I think we just gotta give it 6 years and see. This job is just a slow burn. Next year is gonna be bad. No way around that. We'll be breaking in a QB against Bama, OU, LSU, and A&M.

I don't think we'll ever find a coach who can come in here and have things rolling within 4 years.

 

[Lurker123]

Typically, I'd agree with you. But, barring a total collapse like I mentioned, I think we just gotta give it 6 years and see. This job is just a slow burn. Next year is gonna be bad. No way around that. We'll be breaking in a QB against Bama, OU, LSU, and A&M.

I don't think we'll ever find a coach who can come in here and have things rolling within 4 years.

True, but what arenour goals?

Should a coach have us at .500 in conference by year 4?

Imho, we can't put a number on it, like 6 years, and wash our hands. (Or Beamer would have gotten extra time too) (edit: I meant to say muschamp there)

Harvard's list is pretty good, you've got to be able to judge how things are going, trending, whatever you want to call it.

The right coach might take 6 years, but we should be able to tell we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Deleted11512]

There are several variables to consider before I could give a hard statement concerning extended tenure.
1. Is there visible improvements in team play.
2. Recruiting. Are the new recruits making an impact on the team. Rankings non withstanding.
3. Staff. Is there cohesiveness and consistency.
4. Portal. The outlet is available, so is Beamer taking advantage.
5. Attrition. Is Beamer able to keep the players and or staff with the program.

As of now today, no I would not be in favor of 3 more years. Could that change by end of next year, yes of course, but that would mean an improvement in all the of the mentioned above.

Here is how I see it based on your criteria, which I 100% agree with btw:

1. Improvement - Nobody likes our record. However, the UGA and UF games last year were unmitigated disasters. Did we improve on how we competed with those two teams year over year? Yes. Ga St game vs UNC game - Do we beat Ga St without the blocked punts? We had 7 drives that ended in punts or INTs. It wasn't pretty. I'm not sure we played any worse against UNC than we did GA St. Results against Mizzu were the same. UT flipped. Beat a bad MSU team, lost to a bad Ark team last year. All in all, even though the record doesn't show, has the level of play relative to how we've played opponents improved? I'd say yes, marginally. We'll see if it holds.

2. Recruiting - The 22 class produced Nick E and DQ. Both freshman all Americans that are struggling a little with different positions, that had 2 NFL CBs removed from the secondary. There are a bunch of 23 guys that are playing. Hard to measure too much b/c they're true freshmen, and on defense, it's hard to gauge due to coaching deficiencies. People disagree, and that's fine, but Harbor is progressing and becoming a weapon. 4 catches with a 25.5 yd average, 1 TD. He's going to be a stud. We would probably have 3 true freshman OL starting if Anderson didn't get hurt. There is no doubt his guys are making an impact.

3. Staff - this is a mark against him, really no way to sugar coat it. I like the Logg hire. And I think when he gets ahold of Sellers and has a QB that he can also use in the running game it's going to be really exciting to watch. That's what he really wants to do. If he can make a move on DC and have similar results, all is well.

4. Portal - The portal woes this year were exaggerated. The portal is not the reason for our record this year. He replaced Bells production. We could have used Lloyd though. Burch wasn't a big loss. The biggest issue we have is that we lost two really good CBs to the draft and had nothing behind them, not the portal. But overall, I'm pleased. He's not going to bat 1.000. Getting Ratt, Juice, Adkins, Mario, Nick G have all been big wins.

5. Attrition - We will get a better measure as his guys get in there. Say what you will, but he and Muschamp go about things differently. Muschamp pitched a NFL training camp to these guys. Beamer isn't doing that, so you got two different kind of players there.

Lets see how this year plays out. I need to see 4 years before I say yes to 6. If we flame out and go 4-8 this year, and 3-9 next, he's in trouble. But I'm still a believer that he'll get it right.

 

[The Orange Dog]

What do you all consider the bottom dropping out to be? 2 wins, 3, maybe? If you keep Beamer around for 3 more years he will completely destroy your program to the point no head coach with a winning record at any level will come there. I see possibly 2 or 3 more wins for this season and no bowl game. I won't be surprised to see a few more blowout losses either.

 

[Lurker123]

What do you all consider the bottom dropping out to be? 2 wins, 3, maybe? If you keep Beamer around for 3 more years he will completely destroy your program to the point no head coach with a winning record at any level will come there. I see possibly 2 or 3 more wins for this season and no bowl game. I won't be surprised to see a few more blowout losses either.

Not sure if trolling or....

But if you're serious, the bottom dropping out can't be 3 wins. At least next year, we have 3 patsies and vandy. The FLOOR has to be 4 wins.

 

[Deleted11512]

What do you all consider the bottom dropping out to be? 2 wins, 3, maybe? If you keep Beamer around for 3 more years he will completely destroy your program to the point no head coach with a winning record at any level will come there. I see possibly 2 or 3 more wins for this season and no bowl game. I won't be surprised to see a few more blowout losses either.

I appreciate your concern with our program, but I honestly don't think anyone here really gives a **** about your opinion of our coaching situation.

 

[Dutch Cock]

Typically, I'd agree with you. But, barring a total collapse like I mentioned, I think we just gotta give it 6 years and see. This job is just a slow burn. Next year is gonna be bad. No way around that. We'll be breaking in a QB against Bama, OU, LSU, and A&M.

I don't think we'll ever find a coach who can come in here and have things rolling within 4 years.

I agree, next year is going to be real tough with the away games, Bama, Okie, Clem, Kty, and playing LSU at home. He's got some good OL coming in to go along with what he has this year but it's probably going to take two years. If I was a coach on the move and the school had just canned a coach in four years, I'd want a big fat contract with more than 4 years on it.

 

[KingWard]

It goes against conventional wisdom these days. The standard used to be 4 years, but even that is getting cut short in a lot of cases these days. The reality for us is that there are no quick turnarounds here. Even with all the coaching genius Spurrier brought to the table, it took him 6 years to get us over the hump. We are not, and never will be, a Bama or a UGA where all you need is the right coach and you can get things rolling in a couple or 3 seasons. It's always going to take longer here. As painful as it may be, I believe we simply have to double down on Beamer. I'm not confident that he's the solution, but barring some kind of 1-11 fiasco, I think the only way to know is to give it time. We have to accept what this year is and that next year is shaping to be potentially just as bad with our schedule. We should show progress in 2025 and 2026 should be the make-or-break year.

No. Not automatically. We're reaching the stage that each successive year after this one must be marked by measurable improvement. If this year isn't the bottoming out year, crematorium heat will be cooler than the heat on him after next season.

 

[The Orange Dog]

I appreciate your concern with our program, but I honestly don't think anyone here really gives a **** about your opinion of our coaching situation.

Yeah, I understand. Keep that clown another 3-5 years and enjoy the circus.

 

[1vagamecock]

Yeah, I understand. Keep that clown another 3-5 years and enjoy the circus.

Although I respect your ability to recognize clowns and circuses (see the ugly orange checked end zone and fans clothing in Knoxville ) I still think Beamer can be successful here. I'd give him 6 or 7.

 

[18IsTheMan]

No. Not automatically. We're reaching the stage that each successive year after this one must be marked by measurable improvement. If this year isn't the bottoming out year, crematorium heat will be cooler than the heat on him after next season.

Improvement in terms of wins and losses will be immensely difficult with next years schedule and a young team.

 

[KingWard]

Improvement in terms of wins and losses will be immensely difficult with next years schedule and a young team.

Nevertheless, if we wind up with four or five wins this year, next year will have to be better. Otherwise, progress will not be statistically certifiable and fanbase dissatisfaction will rise. I would also posit that player acquisition will be negatively impacted as confidence erodes. We can theorize now all we want to, but it will be real then. The picture has to noticeably brighten.

 

[The Orange Dog]

Although I respect your ability to recognize clowns and circuses (see the ugly orange checked end zone and fans clothing in Knoxville ) I still think Beamer can be successful here. I'd give him 6 or 7.

Great, give him 7!!! The entire nation recognizes beamer the clown. Your mentality (convincing yourself that results do not matter, stick with the same crap another 4 years) is exactly why your program has never achieved anything noteworthy. Yet you will weakly attempt to ridicule the traditions of one of the most storied programs in the SEC while failing to understand how that further proves your ignorance of the conference and the sport. Our unique colors were chosen by General Robert Neyland, one of the best to ever stand on a sideline, for reasons that are well beyond your capacity to understand. Our unique orange is recognized the world over as the colors of the Tennessee Volunteers. You all just copied someone else's colors and no one correlates them to USCjr.

 

[1vagamecock]

Great, give him 7!!! The entire nation recognizes beamer the clown. Your mentality (convincing yourself that results do not matter, stick with the same crap another 4 years) is exactly why your program has never achieved anything noteworthy. Yet you will weakly attempt to ridicule the traditions of one of the most storied programs in the SEC while failing to understand how that further proves your ignorance of the conference and the sport. Our unique colors were chosen by General Robert Neyland, one of the best to ever stand on a sideline, for reasons that are well beyond your capacity to understand. Our unique orange is recognized the world over as the colors of the Tennessee Volunteers. You all just copied someone else's colors and no one correlates them to USCjr.

Exactly. Because no one uses ugly orange within 300 miles of Knoxville. Oh wait, we'll no more than 3 teams.

 

[The Orange Dog]

Exactly. Because no one uses ugly orange within 300 miles of Knoxville. Oh wait, we'll no more than 3 teams.

Really? No one else in the nation uses pantone 151. It is unique and is recognized everywhere as "Tennessee Orange". Tell me how you came to steal free shoes U's "garnet".

 

[Big JC]

Next year will be year 4. Everyone will know what he has created then, no need to go on much longer if things aren't markedly better. Beamer is personable and enthusiastic, unfortunately those attributes don't automatically translate to success on the field. Everyone talks about what a great recruiter he is but recruiting rankings don't reflect any great newfound success recruiting, rankings are still about where they have been for quite a while.

6 years is too long to wait unless results are much better next year.

 

[Big JC]

Really? No one else in the nation uses pantone 151. It is unique and is recognized everywhere as "Tennessee Orange". Tell me how you came to steal free shoes U's "garnet".

The reason no one else uses it is because it is hideous.

 

[Uscg1984]

I do think there is a valid argument that maybe the modern trend of firing guys after 3-4 years doesn't work out for most teams and generally only works out for blue-blood programs that are already on every recruit's wish-list. It is also very expensive. I think there is some validity in saying that we're going to give a coach time to build his program, laying a foundation for continued success, rather than looking for a quick-fix. And in a college football future that includes smaller TV payouts, that model may take hold.

Having said that, it's incumbent on the coach to demonstrate that patience and trust is warranted. I think we kept both Brad Scott and Will Muschamp one season too long - but at least we let them have that last season to erase any doubt as to whether they could get it done here. A coach doesn't just get a "blank check" for 6 years. He has to show _something_ in those early years to give us reason to believe he can get it done. Think of it as a down payment on future success. Spurrier gave us wins over Tennessee and Florida in his first year, tripling our SEC win total over those two programs in one season. It took longer than we had hoped to get over the next hump, but finally, in 2009, things started coming together with some impactful wins that set us on a great trajectory.

I think Beamer gave us the "down payment" last year with the back-to-back wins over top 10 teams (and not just any top 10 teams) to finish the season. After two better-than-expected seasons in a row, he proved that he possessed a threshold level of competence. It doesn't necessarily mean he's "the guy," but he showed that we can do some pretty good things under his leadership. He earned some patience. Now, he has to prove the next level of competence by proving he can fix some real problems. Whether it's coaching changes, portal pickups, or a combination of the two, he has to get things moving in right direction again. Assuming we're on our way to a 4-8 type season this year, I think something like a 6-6 type season next year (while looking competent in our losses) would give us reason for hope moving forward.

Now, if he follows up a 4-8 season with another 4-8ish season, then the seat will and probably should get VERY hot.

 

[Sweetwatergolf]

Yes

 

[The Orange Dog]

The reason no one else uses it is because it is hideous.

The Good Lord loves it. He paints his most beautiful sunsets in it.

 

[The Orange Dog]

In all seriousness, you guys should fire beamer tonight, call Chadwell and offer him whatever it takes. I'm really glad that you all won't do it though, just stick with beamer a decade or two and he'll eventually get you one or two more 8 win seasons.

 

[accock]

I believe 8 years would be ample time to build a really good football team, if he and the coaches can sustain the recruiting that they have done the last couple of years.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I do think there is a valid argument that maybe the modern trend of firing guys after 3-4 years doesn't work out for most teams and generally only works out for blue-blood programs that are already on every recruit's wish-list. It is also very expensive. I think there is some validity in saying that we're going to give a coach time to build his program, laying a foundation for continued success, rather than looking for a quick-fix. And in a college football future that includes smaller TV payouts, that model may take hold.

Having said that, it's incumbent on the coach to demonstrate that patience and trust is warranted. I think we kept both Brad Scott and Will Muschamp one season too long - but at least we let them have that last season to erase any doubt as to whether they could get it done here. A coach doesn't just get a "blank check" for 6 years. He has to show _something_ in those early years to give us reason to believe he can get it done. Think of it as a down payment on future success. Spurrier gave us wins over Tennessee and Florida in his first year, tripling our SEC win total over those two programs in one season. It took longer than we had hoped to get over the next hump, but finally, in 2009, things started coming together with some impactful wins that set us on a great trajectory.

I think Beamer gave us the "down payment" last year with the back-to-back wins over top 10 teams (and not just any top 10 teams) to finish the season. After two better-than-expected seasons in a row, he proved that he possessed a threshold level of competence. It doesn't necessarily mean he's "the guy," but he showed that we can do some pretty good things under his leadership. He earned some patience. Now, he has to prove the next level of competence by proving he can fix some real problems. Whether it's coaching changes, portal pickups, or a combination of the two, he has to get things moving in right direction again. Assuming we're on our way to a 4-8 type season this year, I think something like a 6-6 type season next year (while looking competent in our losses) would give us reason for hope moving forward.

Now, if he follows up a 4-8 season with another 4-8ish season, then the seat will and probably should get VERY hot.

Problem is it’s very unfortunate timing bc next year’s schedule is an absolute buzz saw.

 

[KingWard]

I believe 8 years would be ample time to build a really good football team, if he and the coaches can sustain the recruiting that they have done the last couple of years.

The sarcasm jumps off that post.

 

[CriminalTrakerAlum80]

Yes...unless this season becomes the norm and 2024-2025 recruits start to bail for other programs. Everyone associated with USC should consider becoming members of the Garnet Trust too. A large pool of small donations from our fan base can add up in a hurry.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Nevertheless, if we wind up with four or five wins this year, next year will have to be better. Otherwise, progress will not be statistically certifiable and fanbase dissatisfaction will rise. I would also posit that player acquisition will be negatively impacted as confidence erodes. We can theorize now all we want to, but it will be real then. The picture has to noticeably brighten.

It goes directly against my usual thinking, but we can show progress next year and not see that translate into wins and losses. The schedule is just that tough. I normally evaluate progress ONLY in terms of wins and losses. For me, 2025 is when we really need to see something. If he can get us back to 7 or 8 wins in 2025, then 2026 is when it needs to come together. What exactly does that mean for USC is the question.

Do we accept UK-like status and lock Beamer in long-term? If Beamer can win 7-8 games/year, is he golden? Or do we aspire for more?

All that said, I think he gets a pass next year due to the main factors of a breaking a young team from a very talent recruiting class and a brutal schedule. Again, unless it turns into a 1-10 kind of debacle. Coming off what will likely be a tough 2024, he absolutely needs 2025 to be a bounce-back year. The recruiting talent will have had time to develop and gel. 7 wins should be the expectation. I look at 2026 as his make-or-break year b/c I think that's the first season where we'll be able to say "this is what we can expect going forward long-term". His recruits will be entrenched by then. Talent and player development should no longer be still be in their infancy.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I believe 8 years would be ample time to build a really good football team, if he and the coaches can sustain the recruiting that they have done the last couple of years.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I believe 8 years would be ample time to build a really good football team, if he and the coaches can sustain the recruiting that they have done the last couple of years.

I get the sarcasm, but the reality is, it's never going to happen here in 4 or 5 years. Spurrier was thoroughly average here for his first 5 years and had a losing conference record. His 5th year saw us finish 7-6 overall (going 2-5 down the stretch), 3-5 in conference play, and capped off with an utterly abysmal showing in the bowl game with an embarrassing defeat to UConn. Then in Year 6, it started to click.

 

[Lurker123]

I get the sarcasm, but the reality is, it's never going to happen here in 4 or 5 years. Spurrier was thoroughly average here for his first 5 years and had a losing conference record. His 5th year saw us finish 7-6 overall (going 2-5 down the stretch), 3-5 in conference play, and capped off with an utterly abysmal showing in the bowl game with an embarrassing defeat to UConn. Then in Year 6, it started to click.

Each coach is different though. Not all coaches have Spurriers "credit" built up, and therefore don't deserve leeway he received.

Surely we can see a trajectory, if not results, before 6 years, right? We did with Muschamp.

 

[Deleted11512]

I get the sarcasm, but the reality is, it's never going to happen here in 4 or 5 years. Spurrier was thoroughly average here for his first 5 years and had a losing conference record. His 5th year saw us finish 7-6 overall (going 2-5 down the stretch), 3-5 in conference play, and capped off with an utterly abysmal showing in the bowl game with an embarrassing defeat to UConn. Then in Year 6, it started to click.

Agree. The schedule makes it damn near impossible to have some kind of quick turnaround, as opposed to doing it in the ACC where literally any given year any team can play for the ACC championship. Just too many hurdles to overcome. And that's not just us.

Look at UF...same scenario. They're just running through coach after coach after 4 years. They'll do the same to Billy. He's about to lose 4 out of his last 5 to finish 6-6, again.

A lot of people are high on Heupel. His first year at UT was 7-6. Now last year was really good. But they've already lost 2 this year, with games @ UK, @ Mizzu, and UGA left on the schedule. Sure, they could win out. But I'm thinking 8-4 is the likely outcome, but wouldn't be surprised with 7-5. Butch was there for 5 years and had 2 9 win seasons and a 7 win season. Josh could be in a similar situation. We'll see.

At AU, Gus had 2 double digit win seasons out of 8. Harsin never got of the ground after 2 years. We'll see if Freeze can, but he's certainly not making the instant impact there that we saw with Beamer.

It is really, really difficult in the SEC, and it's not getting any easier.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Each coach is different though. Not all coaches have Spurriers "credit" built up, and therefore don't deserve leeway he received.

Surely we can see a trajectory, if not results, before 6 years, right? We did with Muschamp.

Well, yeah. I mean, if he goes 4-8 three years in a row, he's not getting a 6th year. My question is somewhat predicated on the understanding that we won't be a complete disaster the next 2 seasons.

Next year is looking rough, no matter how you slice it. Bama, OU, LSU and A&M for starters. I think he gets a 5 year no matter what...for the most part. If next year is a total debacle on the order of 1-11 and recruits start bailing and players hit the portal, then you can say he's lost the team and be forced to move on.

2025 looks to be a bounce-back year and 2026 needs to be the year when it all comes together. I know that sounds absurd to talk about Year 6 being the year when it comes together, but that is how long it took Spurrier, even with all his experience and knowledge.

I think the metrics for success next year should be: is he still recruiting well and keeping recruits committed, is he retaining the talented players on the roster, does he make necessary upgrades for assistants, are we drastically improved on the OL and on D. With next year's schedule, 6 wins is likely the absolute ceiling. We'll be more talented on paper but extremely young.

We should bounce back in 2025 with a better record, Needs 7 wins. All the young talent from this recruiting class will have a year under the belts. We'll have an experienced QB. There won't be many excuses for a poor showing in 2025.

Year 6 is the make-or-break. Anything less than 7 wins is automatic termination in my opinion. If he can win 8 or more, that's automatic retention. 7 wins and you have to start looking at the details. What was the conference record? What were the nature of the losses? How's the recruiting going? Etc.

 

[Deleted11512]

Each coach is different though. Not all coaches have Spurriers "credit" built up, and therefore don't deserve leeway he received.

Surely we can see a trajectory, if not results, before 6 years, right? We did with Muschamp.

Well, I would disagree with the first point whole heartedly. I would argue that his credit he built up should have put more pressure on him to win early. And I think it's short sighted to expect a guy who hasn't been a HC before to win more quickly than a HOF coach.

Agree with point two. We should see signs. We could all see signs with Muschamp in year 3 that the program was in decline. The in year 4 went 4-8 and lost to a bunch of 6-7 win teams, clem beat us by 5 TDs, and lost to App St in one of the worst games I've seen in my life.

 

[Lurker123]

Well, I would disagree with the first point whole heartedly. I would argue that his credit he built up should have put more pressure on him to win early. And I think it's short sighted to expect a guy who hasn't been a HC before to win more quickly than a HOF coach.

Agree with point two. We should see signs. We could all see signs with Muschamp in year 3 that the program was in decline. The in year 4 went 4-8 and lost to a bunch of 6-7 win teams, clem beat us by 5 TDs, and lost to App St in one of the worst games I've seen in my life.

To be fair, by the first paragraph, we should not have let Muschamp go when we did. But we were right to, because we could see, before 6 years, that he wasn't going to get it done. And his history had not earned any leeway.

The problem I see, like with 18's post above, is that we're all going to have different definitions of "progress".

Let's just assume it'll take the right guy 5 or 6 years, surely he'll show signs of progress before that? But then it becomes subjective, and years 3-5 get the same arguments, because everyone sees "progress" differently. Or we move the goalposts because of what we WANT to believe.

 

[Deleted11512]

It goes directly against my usual thinking, but we can show progress next year and not see that translate into wins and losses. The schedule is just that tough. I normally evaluate progress ONLY in terms of wins and losses. For me, 2025 is when we really need to see something. If he can get us back to 7 or 8 wins in 2025, then 2026 is when it needs to come together. What exactly does that mean for USC is the question.

Do we accept UK-like status and lock Beamer in long-term? If Beamer can win 7-8 games/year, is he golden? Or do we aspire for more?

All that said, I think he gets a pass next year due to the main factors of a breaking a young team from a very talent recruiting class and a brutal schedule. Again, unless it turns into a 1-10 kind of debacle. Coming off what will likely be a tough 2024, he absolutely needs 2025 to be a bounce-back year. The recruiting talent will have had time to develop and gel. 7 wins should be the expectation. I look at 2026 as his make-or-break year b/c I think that's the first season where we'll be able to say "this is what we can expect going forward long-term". His recruits will be entrenched by then. Talent and player development should no longer be still be in their infancy.

There's really no point in accepting 7-8 wins. The goal is championships. We're not curing cancer here. It's a game, it's entertainment. What is the point in playing if we're not trying to win big? We'd never go to our players and say "I want you guys to go 75-80%, bc we're comfortable at 7-8 wins".

 

[18IsTheMan]

There's really no point in accepting 7-8 wins. The goal is championships. We're not curing cancer here. It's a game, it's entertainment. What is the point in playing if we're not trying to win big? We'd never go to our players and say "I want you guys to go 75-80%, bc we're comfortable at 7-8 wins".

I don't disagree, but you can't deny 130+ years of history.

 

[Deleted11512]

To be fair, by the first paragraph, we should not have let Muschamp go when we did. But we were right to, because we could see, before 6 years, that he wasn't going to get it done. And his history had not earned any leeway.

The problem I see, like with 18's post above, is that we're all going to have different definitions of "progress".

Let's just assume it'll take the right guy 5 or 6 years, surely he'll show signs of progress before that? But then it becomes subjective, and years 3-5 get the same arguments, because everyone sees "progress" differently. Or we move the goalposts because of what we WANT to believe.

We shouldn't even be having the Muschamp discussion b/c he'd already proven to us that he's a failure of a coach. That one doesn't compute. The trajectory at USC was a mirror image of his time in UF. Should have fired him after the UVA beatdown, along with RT for hiring that clown.

Yeah, I agree. I always go back to, "are you at least competitive". If you can't find a way to be competitive, then you shouldn't be here. In year 4 Muschamp was getting his *** kicked by ever decent team we played (aside from UGA, which turned out to be a massive fluke). I think we are seeing that improve. It's not good enough, and needs to keep improving (see Mizzu). After 5 years if we're still having the competitive discussion, it's time to move on. Are we attacking areas of weakness in recruiting/portal? While we still need help at DT, I'd say this is a big yes so far.

 

[Deleted11512]

I don't disagree, but you can't deny 130+ years of history.

Yep. But I'd rather do it paying a green guy $4M/yr vs a veteran guy $9M/yr.