Continue the story: You walk into a diner & there sits Will Muschamp, Brad Scott, & Sparky Woods.........
- Thread starter Rhode Island Dork
- Start date
Good afternoon you bunch of losers....
Sparky was alright. Just over his head. I'd tell Sparky to keep an eye on his biscuit.
Sparky was a nice guy. He's the "aw shucks" type. That's all I'll give him.
Impossible to speculate how things may have gone, but he didn't get the most support. Indicative of that, as noted in the bowl game thread, our AD declined bowl invites in '89 and '90.
Well he probably would have been fired after the '92 season if not for Taneyhill. The team revolted against Sparky after starting out 0-5. Taneyhill stepped up at qb as a freshman and led to us to a respectable season. Sparky was on the sideline but he had pretty much become a spectator.
After another losing season in '93, Sparky was gone.
I seem to recall hearing that frustration grew on the team after getting bowl eligible in consecutive seasons, Sparky's first two seasons, but having higher ups decline the invites for logistic/financial reasons. That's back when getting a bowl invite was still meaningful and players would have loved to go bowling. Things spiraled from there, but he was kind of hamstrung as a new coach, getting bowl games taken away from you.
Brad is wearing a moo moo from my big fat life as he scarfs down the entire buffet table in one gulp
Sparky has his foot caught in the table and is being pulled into Brad's mouth as he frantically tries to free himself
Muschamp is walking slowly snd silently up behind Ray Tanner then scares him into a 100 million dollar buyout
Sparky has his foot caught in the table and is being pulled into Brad's mouth as he frantically tries to free himself
Muschamp is walking slowly snd silently up behind Ray Tanner then scares him into a 100 million dollar buyout
Sparky had 3 losing seasons his last 3 years (12 combined wins). He had to go. That '91 team was bad-3 wins. I went to the LA Tech game that year where we tied them. Just bad football. His best record teams were his first and second season. His first year in '89 was all Morrison players because Joe had died earlier that year. He had bad luck because that team was looking at a great year with Eliis and Green until Todd went down for the year with an injury against NC State (I was at that game too). King Dixon turned down two years of bowl bids due to the steroid scandal-fair or not fair.
I guess I'm sorta following your argument that Sparky had a hard time recruiting and/or dealing with disgruntled players because of the bowl declines due to the steroid scandal that occurred before his tenure. I think Sparky was a nice guy and average coach and he made a good career coaching at many different gigs. But if he was some diamond in the rough you think it would have shown after 30+ years. He did have success at App State before we hired him and was at VMI for a few years (poor record) but has pretty much been a position coach at many different schools in the last 20+ years (nothing wrong with that).
Last edited:
I’m not arguing that he should not have been fired. I am just wondering about how an alternate reality might’ve looked had we accepted those bowl invitations in 89 and 90. Tough start for a coach to get your team bowl eligible and have the A.D. hamstring you.
‘91 SEC champs is how that would have looked. I know that’s a year early but that’s just how dramatic the effect.
…I’m not sure what I would do at such a scene. But if I am Ray Tanner I am trying to offer them retroactive extensions.
Ha! If only.
Just have to wonder. You had a new coach coming in replacing what was at the time, for us, a legendary coach and a beloved coach. He's already got the burden of replacing Morrison. Best case scenario, maybe we go to and win those bowls and who knows how the trajectory might have changed? As it is, the administration declined the bowls and it adds to the "he's no Morrison" feeling. Oh well. Just doesn't seem like the administration really gave him the best chance to succeed (and I'm not saying he would have, but he didn't get much help).
Really, Woods doesn't look all that awful historically. He ushered us into the SEC and we went 5-6 both seasons (3-5, 2-6). Considering the massive leap from independent to the SEC, that's really not all that bad. HOF coach Holtz was 5-7 his 4th and 5th seasons (3-5, 2-6). HOF coach Spurrier was only a smidge better in years 4 and 5 going 7-6 both seasons (4-4, 3-5). He beat UT in 1992, which was something we wouldn't accomplish again until 2005 (yes, I know it was a bad UT team).
Woods was a classic "place holder" hire. The steroid and academic scandal ensured that no good coach was going to take the job so Dixon found a guy who would take the job for a few years until the heat blew over and was expendable. In '89 and '90, there were only 19 total bowl games so, going to bowl actually meant something. Woods should have seen the writing on the wall when Dixon declined the '89 bowl invitation. Woods should have known he was being set up for failure and termination.
The Brad Scott hire made perfect sense. Scott was OC at FSU and had coached Charlie Ward when FSU was a true national power. He did win the first bowl game in program history but he never had much success after that. The fact he became OC at Clemson indicates he must be a pretty good offensive coach.
Muschamp was a mistake but a logical mistake. I think Tanner and the BOT thought they were getting Kirby 2.0 when they missed on Kirby. Muschamp was a well regarded DC at Texas, actually named head coach in waiting under Mack Brown. He wasn't a disaster right out of the gate at UF. He had a decent early career there, went 7-6 winning a bowl game in year one, 11-2 in year 2 with a loss to UGA in the regular season keeping UF out of the SECCG and a bowl loss, 4-8 in year three used up all of his goodwill and the loss to SC in year 4 with a 6-5 record pretty well sealed his fate. He had rehabbed his image and reputation at Auburn as DC and having HC experience, he was sort of a logical candidate. Spurrier quitting on the team mid season didn't make the South Carolina job particularly appealing to the top candidates either, so Muschamp actually looked like a good hire.
Beamer is still the one where I don't know what they were thinking.
The Brad Scott hire made perfect sense. Scott was OC at FSU and had coached Charlie Ward when FSU was a true national power. He did win the first bowl game in program history but he never had much success after that. The fact he became OC at Clemson indicates he must be a pretty good offensive coach.
Muschamp was a mistake but a logical mistake. I think Tanner and the BOT thought they were getting Kirby 2.0 when they missed on Kirby. Muschamp was a well regarded DC at Texas, actually named head coach in waiting under Mack Brown. He wasn't a disaster right out of the gate at UF. He had a decent early career there, went 7-6 winning a bowl game in year one, 11-2 in year 2 with a loss to UGA in the regular season keeping UF out of the SECCG and a bowl loss, 4-8 in year three used up all of his goodwill and the loss to SC in year 4 with a 6-5 record pretty well sealed his fate. He had rehabbed his image and reputation at Auburn as DC and having HC experience, he was sort of a logical candidate. Spurrier quitting on the team mid season didn't make the South Carolina job particularly appealing to the top candidates either, so Muschamp actually looked like a good hire.
Beamer is still the one where I don't know what they were thinking.
Last edited:
I buy Sparky a cup of coffee.
I'd tell Brad and Sparky to order whatever they wanted and Muschamp will pick up the tab.
Tanner would pay their bill, tip and all without the slit bit of negotiations.