Spurrier, Muschamp and Beamer through 2 seasons
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
First two seasons don’t tell you much. Playing with somebody else’s players.
Brad Scott's first 2 seasons were 11-11-1.
Holtz's first 3 seasons were 17-18 (I'm giving him 3 seasons for obvious reasons. We all know what he took over).
It seems it's not terribly challenging to get off to a promising start here. Sustaining it is a different story. Each of our last 5 head coaches has done good things in their first couple seasons. Scott got us our first bowl win ever. Holtz engineered a historic turnaround in Year 2. Spurrier beat Florida right out of the gate. Muschamp popped to 9 wins in Year 2. And we know Beamer's exploits.
Each of our last 5 head coaches has given us reason for hope early in their tenure.
Holtz's first 3 seasons were 17-18 (I'm giving him 3 seasons for obvious reasons. We all know what he took over).
It seems it's not terribly challenging to get off to a promising start here. Sustaining it is a different story. Each of our last 5 head coaches has done good things in their first couple seasons. Scott got us our first bowl win ever. Holtz engineered a historic turnaround in Year 2. Spurrier beat Florida right out of the gate. Muschamp popped to 9 wins in Year 2. And we know Beamer's exploits.
Each of our last 5 head coaches has given us reason for hope early in their tenure.
It can sure tell you something. Beamer took someone else's players and turned a team that had won 6 games in 2 seasons into a bowl winner.
With the ton of loss of key personnel Beamer's 3rd year could be he his worst by far of the 3. Next year is all about roster retention after the season and hopefully getting things going again year 4.
Next year will be interesting for sure. Nobody was expecting much in Year 1 and he overachieved. A dip was expected in Year 2 and he overachieved. With our roster losses, things don't look great for Year 3. I hope the overachieving trend continues.
I agree with you ... it does not matter that it is "someone else's players" ... plus, they are not ALL the previous regimes players (Nick, DQ, etc.). Bill Parcells took a NY Jets team (many years ago) that was 1-15 the previous year and 9-7 in the first year and barely missed the playoffs ... the mindset change on these players (Muschamp coaching not to lose, Beamer coaching to win) makes a great deal of difference with any players ...
None of these coaches took over programs in an upward projectory. It would be very debatable about who had the most talent as there were glaring holes in all three. Beamer did have the advantage of the portal which the others didn’t. Rattler helped the QB room and Wells helped the WR room. Spurrier had the worse facilities by far. He had to sell his name more than USC. For Muschamp and Beamer year two was a good money year. Spurrier could have demanded more from the start but didn’t.
I'm sure I'll get blasted, but Scott probably had the best first season. Narrowly lost to UGA, but got us a 4-4 conference record. Hammered Clemson at Clemson. Earned a bowl game when there only 13 bowls to go around...we were one of only 26 teams to go bowling that year...and picked up the first bowl win in program history. Getting a bowl game in 1994 was still an accomplishment.
I might put him in a tie with Spurrier since that first season saw us go 5-3 in conference and we beat UT and UF in the same season, which was unthinkable. Lost to Clemson, though. Did earn a bowl, but by 2005 there were 28 games.
Hammering Clemson and getting the first bowl win ever, at a time when bowls still had meaning VS beating UT and UF in the same season. That's a tossup for me.
This is EXACTLY what I think. 2023 might be a tough year, 2024, unleash the Cock Commander.
Top 15 wins in first two seasons:
Steve Spurrier: 1
Will Muschamp: 0
Shane Beamer: 3
Steve Spurrier: 1
Will Muschamp: 0
Shane Beamer: 3
You can’t only look at our talent but the programs we play. There are a lot of winnable games on there. You always have to look at the West. TAM and Miss State look to be a pretty good draw.
That's certainly an important factor to consider.
Insert standard disclaimer about one of those years being the conference only year.
Feels different. And wins over Top 10 teams looks very different from other coaches first two years. Considering the personnel he had to work with, I'd call it one heck of a coaching and motivational success by Shane.
I could be wrong, but I have been watching Gamecock football since 1975. I have never felt this good before the Beamer hire. Something just feels like he is the one to take Gamecock Football to the next level. He wants to be here, has the energy, knowledge and enthusiasm to succeed. Like I said, I could be wrong but I feel great times are coming! Go Cocks !
Spurrier came in following a 6 win season, Muschamp came in filling a 3 win season, Shane came in following a 2 win season. The most improvement
The toughest thing for us to do in the history of the program at least for the last 50 years in my opinion is to compete and beat Top 10 teams. It's a mental thing with players and until they did it, it was almost an impenetrable barrier. Beamer did it twice this year and they were not flukes. Spurrier did it against Top Ranked Alabama and we are still talking about it over a decade later. That's how tough it has been for us to do it.
One key to Beamer's success so far is to convince players they can compete at the highest level following being practically humiliated by 2 mediocre teams. Another major accomplishment of Beamer over other USC coaches is his ability to recruit an elite QB. That was the catalyst for us beating 2 top 10 teams.
I love Connor Shaw and have the utmost respect for him. However, it has been discouraging that the best QB in our history was not really an elite QB from a talent perspective. We have failed miserably in recruiting elite QBs and to compete at the highest level, we need to continue bringing in top QB talent as we did with Rattler.
Beamer may not continue to succeed moving forward but so far he is doing some things that no other coach for USC has ever done.
One key to Beamer's success so far is to convince players they can compete at the highest level following being practically humiliated by 2 mediocre teams. Another major accomplishment of Beamer over other USC coaches is his ability to recruit an elite QB. That was the catalyst for us beating 2 top 10 teams.
I love Connor Shaw and have the utmost respect for him. However, it has been discouraging that the best QB in our history was not really an elite QB from a talent perspective. We have failed miserably in recruiting elite QBs and to compete at the highest level, we need to continue bringing in top QB talent as we did with Rattler.
Beamer may not continue to succeed moving forward but so far he is doing some things that no other coach for USC has ever done.
Totally agree, except we have recruited elite QB's - they just didn't live up to their elite status.
If Beamer goes 7-5 next year, it will beat Spurrier's 3rd year.
Now the differences between the three:
1) Spurrier did it for ego and to prove he could still do it.
2) Muschamp did it cause he had no other head coaching options that I'm aware and took the job to "stay afloat" if you will...
3) Beamer actually *WANTS* this job. He was here during Spurrier's run and he knows with good recruiting and hard work we can play with anyone in the country. Beamer will *NOT* voluntarily leave S. Carolina for a "bigger" named school. This is his dream job and I think we're lucky as hell (sorry) to have him. Of course he will have some growing pains to go through as a coach but I love that man for that reason...... he ain't going anywhere. He loves USC. I'm not sure we've ever had a coach like that and that passion shows and it's infectious. If he still has some of the fan base to win over into his corner ---- all I can do is scratch my head and shake my head at that. He's our guy. For a long, long, long time. I hope.
Who is left to win over? Are there really any fans left who still have doubts???? If so, they need to move along.
I completely concur and I don't know...... one comment (maybe not by you, I don't know) lead me to believe there may still be some small anti-Beamer fans and if there are, I think they're nuts. You can't grow up around a HOF coach as a father, learn about winning attitudes from another HOF coach and somehow magically not know anything about football.
Then throw in the fact that USC is actually Beamers dream job and ...... if you're a Gamecock fan and want more than that in a HC, you're just being greedy or dumb. Or both. It may have taken us 197 years but I believe we finally got lucky. I support Beamer for all the right reasons. We are dang lucky to not only have him but the fact that he actually wants to be here is just all kinds of icing on the cake.
You can't underestimate Shane.
And you are absolutely correct about elite QBs. Taters had a 6 yr run with Watson & Lawrence. 'Bama reloads with NFL prospects.
We need elite skill players.
I agree with everything except the "lucky" part. We've all been very critical of Ray, but if Beamer's career continues on the current trajectory, Ray will deserve tremendous credit for hiring a guy that wasn't really on anybody's radar at the time. I won't get into all the reasons the Beamer hire was risky - that was thoroughly debated on here - but let's just say there weren't many who considered it a "homerun" hire at the time. It was unconventional. So far, at least, it appears to be a very wise decision.
To "hit a home run" in the hiring process you have to use good judgement to evaluate the type, location, and velocity of the pitch and appropriately time the speed and angle of your swing and these things don't always fit the expected mold you've been taught or everyone is telling you to follow. Following this analogy, I think Tanner looked at Beamer's previous history at Carolina and other stops, his coaching pedigree, player's positive attitude towards him, his love/devotion to the Carolina job, and his youth and went outside his comfort level of hiring established coaches and hired an unproven but promising young coach. To make this kind of hire you have to take calculated risks and sometimes they pan out and other times they don't. So far, and I personally think for the long term, the decision was a good one. Win or lose, we are doing it with a true Gamecock as our coach which makes me a happy camper. 
Absolutley still a bad year. But 2 conference wins would probably be a 5-7 year in most years.
Edit: The difference is simply that the 2 win year sounds worse if we don't remember the odd circumstances. And that completely changes the point of this statement I was responding to:
Spurrier came in following a 6 win season, Muschamp came in filling a 3 win season, Shane came in following a 2 win season. The most improvement
Last edited:
Beamer still is growing in this job as head coach. I understand loyalty and having continuity with your staff, but he needs to learn to get rid of coaches that are not producing and replace them with proven replacements. Satterfield was as bad a hire as possible, for many reasons and his current replacement as oc is also a huge gamble. He had the money and opportunity to hire a top-flight oc, and once again chose to take a gamble. His sideline demeanor shows a need for maturity, as well as his fights with the press, but most important his blaming fans for things, along with his very thin skin comments. I hope we see him grow in his third year as the leader of this program, that is on the right tract to success.
Not actually. In the revised SEC schedule, we were 1-7 against all our originally-scheduled SEC opponents (East teams plus A&M and LSU), so we know that's what our SEC result would have been prior to the change for COVID. The other SEC win we picked up in 2020 was against Auburn who was not originally on our schedule.
We were also scheduled to play Coastal, and that would have been a loss for sure that year.
With our original schedule, it would have been a 3-8 campaign with wins over ECU, Vandy and Wofford.
In the end, though, we're only quibbling about how bad of a season it would have been.
Last edited:
Agreed except the coastal part. So we're bouncing between a 3 and 4 win season, obviously a crappy year.
But enough to alter the sentiment in the post being responded to:
Spurrier came in following a 6 win season, Muschamp came in filling a 3 win season, Shane came in following a 2 win season. The most improvement
Definitely disagree about fights with the press. What is the press? When our founding fathers established freedom of the press, I hardly think they were concerned about guys reporting on sporting events. He can spat with the press all he wants, for all I care. I encourage it actually.
As for his blaming the fans for things, I'm not sure what you're referencing. He did admonish the fans to find some joy, which I agree with. We have a whiny fan base.
What you see as thin skin, I see as someone just being honest.
Agree, I would say he learned a thing or two from Spurrier on dealing with the press!