The empty cupboard myth shattered

While the pundits heap praise upon Ron Zook for the success the Illini are having (against a very weak schedule thus far), a story is developing far away from Champaign-Urbana. It's the unraveling of the empty cupboard myth that Ron Zook and his supporters created at Florida. But the unraveling is not happening in Gainesville, it's happening in Columbia, South Carolina. Confused yet? Well let me enlighten you.

By now we all know that when Ron Zook was hired to coach the Gators before the 2002 season, that lines were immediately drawn between those that supported the decision and those who shook their collective head and said "huh?". Over time many of us who were on the fence, joined those became more and more vocal about the need to rid ourselves the scourge that was Zook.

At the same time Zook's supporters among the Gator faithful became more and more stubborn in their support, to the point that they unquestioningly bought Zook's explanation that he inherited a Gator team that was devoid of talent. They clung to this myth, even after Zook was finally fired and even attempted to give Zook credit for the Gators BCS championship in the 2006 season.

Now we will see the myth for what it was and what it is: merely a myth.

In order to believe in the proposition that the Gator squad Zook inherited was lacking in talent, you have to believe that Steve Spurrier's recruiting had been going down hill for at least a couple of years. Believers of the myth will say that Spurrier had lost interest in recruiting and in college football. In fact, they'll say he was never really a good recruiter to begin with. They will say that Ron Zook was the secret to Spurrier's success while he was an assistant at Florida. The Florida Gators were headed toward hard times, they will say, whether Spurrier had left or not.

Now let the myth busting begin.

First of all, I am a big believer that the best indicator of future performance is past performance. And by that measure we have no reason to believe (and no evidence to support) the idea that Spurrier had lost his edge, recruiting or otherwise. It's fortunate for the believers of the myth that recruiting records at places like scout.com and rivals.com don't go back far enough to see what Spurrier's recruiting classes looked like in the late 90s and and in 2000.

But let's look at what we do know. Spurrier takes over a hapless Duke team and turns it around, winning an ACC title. He then takes over a mediocre Florida program that is on probation and turns it around, winning several SEC titles and a national title. His last season at Florida (2001), the Gators went 10-2. In his penultimate year (2000) he won an SEC title. So if we are to believe that the 2002 Gators were talentless then we must believe that something happened abruptly which caused Steve Spurrier to completely change his make-up. Show me the evidence, I say.

Spurrier's Cocks were 4-1 and ranked 11th going into tonights game against undefeated and 8th ranked Kentucky. And guess what? Ron Zook didn't recruit a single player on this team. So who did? Spurrier, of course.

South Carolina's recruiting class for 2006 was ranked 33rd in the country by Scout.com. The class included (3) 4-star recruits and (13) 3-star recruits. In contrast, the "master recruiter" Ron Zook had the 28th ranked recruiting class. "Aha!" you say, "it's better than Spurrier." But I quote Lee Corso and say "Not so fast my friend!" Ron Zook's class that year also consisted of (3) 4-star recruits and (13) 3-star recruits. And, in fact, the average rating for Zook's class (2.70) was marginally lower than Spurrier's (2.79). The difference in that ranking lies in the fact that Illinois had 3 more commits than South Carolina. So the idea that Spurrier couldn't recruit without Zook, or somehow lost his recruiting touch takes a serious blow.

Now if you look at the 2007 recruiting classes you'll see that Spurrier managed to bring in the 7th ranked class in the country with (1) 5-star, (13) 4-stars and (13) 3-stars. The average rating was 3.35. Zook on the other hand was much ballyhooed for bringing in the countries 20th ranked class with (2) 5-stars, (5) 4-stars and (8) 3-stars for an average rating of 3.14.

Bang, bang. Another nail in the coffin.

And one thing that I haven't mentioned yet is something that is very important in this whole argument. And that's coaching. You know, what coaches are supposed to do when they aren't recruiting.

Spurrier took a bad team and improved its record in his first year. He improved again in his second year and in his third year he is giving teams in the SEC nightmares. Meanwhile Zook took Florida down a couple of notches and despite his many claims to the contrary, never improved the club. At least not where it counts, in the win column.

The Illini likewise went backward under Zook. Ron Turner won 4 games in his last season at Illinois before he got shitcanned and Zook needed two seasons to win that many. Which brings us to 2007. Yes Illinois is 4-1 Yes they beat Penn State. But to that I say, "so what?" The Big 10 is proving to be terrible again this year. Penn State lost to the team (Michigan) that lost to a 1AA school (Appalachian State).

If the folks at Illinois are happy with the Zooker then I'm happy for them. But please, for the love of God stop peddling the myth that Spurrier didn't or couldn't recruit at the end of his time at Florida. You're embarrassing yourselves.