Better question than whether we should leave the SEC

[LazyIslander]

SEC should add FSU, CU and GT and OSU... making in-state rivalry games that are already scheduled conference games. This frees up all teams (except UK) with existing in-state rivalries to more easily move to a 9 game conference schedule. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee (and now Texas) Schools already enjoy this luxury. Make UM-UK and Ark-LSU similar annual rivalries. The SEC can then feature these rivalry games as a unique characteristic of the conference.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

SEC should add FSU, CU and GT and OSU... making in-state rivalry games that are already scheduled conference games. This frees up all teams (except UK) with existing in-state rivalries to more easily move to a 9 game conference schedule. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee (and now Texas) Schools already enjoy this luxury. Make UM-UK and Ark-LSU similar annual rivalries. The SEC can then feature these rivalry games as a unique characteristic of the conference.

You’re looking at this from the fan’s perspective. It quit being about that long ago.

 

[Carolina Doc]

Let the ACC kick out everybody except UNC, NCST, Duke, Wake, UVA, and Clemson. The have USC leave the SEC and Maryland leave the BiG and join the others to reunite the old ACC.

 

[Scuba_do]

If “they” don’t stop jerking around with NIL, conference re-alignment, transfer portal, etc,, I may just lose interest in all of it and go fishing.

 

[Pepsicock]

Silly question

 

[Atlanta Cock]

If “they” don’t stop jerking around with NIL, conference re-alignment, transfer portal, etc,, I may just lose interest in all of it and go fishing.

I already did. Didn't watch many games last year and plan to watch less this year. The program seems pointed in the wrong direction, and we're at a huge disadvantage in this new era. Beamer isn't the guy, but Tanner is the last guy we want to hire the next guy.

 

[Thunderstick]

Let the ACC kick out everybody except UNC, NCST, Duke, Wake, UVA, and Clemson. The have USC leave the SEC and Maryland leave the BiG and join the others to reunite the old ACC.

If we could capture the all encompassing hatred that pervaded the ACC (in the 60s and early 70s) I'm in for it. It would require the all-important craziness of colorful coaches, however.

 

[GCJerryUSC]

Let the ACC kick out everybody except UNC, NCST, Duke, Wake, UVA, and Clemson. The have USC leave the SEC and Maryland leave the BiG and join the others to reunite the old ACC.

If we could capture the all encompassing hatred that pervaded the ACC (in the 60s and early 70s) I'm in for it. It would require the all-important craziness of colorful coaches, however.

I would be all for that. It was great having conference foes I hated.

 

[Carolina Doc]

I would be all for that. It was great having conference foes I hated.

Well, I mean, now that the playoff has been expanded - and it's possible it might be expanded even further - there's no reason not to. Why beat our brains out year after year to go nowhere? (I know. The money is better in the SEC.)

 

[atl-cock]

Let the ACC kick out everybody except UNC, NCST, Duke, Wake, UVA, and Clemson. The have USC leave the SEC and Maryland leave the BiG and join the others to reunite the old ACC.

The way to do it would be for the charter member4s still in the ACC + UVA to leave the conference, and somehow convine USC and UMD to reunite the band in a new league. You don't kick out members in good standing "just 'cause.".

 

[atl-cock]

Well, I mean, now that the playoff has been expanded - and it's possible it might be expanded even further - there's no reason not to. Why beat our brains out year after year to go nowhere? (I know. The money is better in the SEC.)

I don't like it, but it's true.

 

[gamecock stock]

The program seems pointed in the wrong direction, and we're at a huge disadvantage in this new era. Beamer isn't the guy, but Tanner is the last guy we want to hire the next guy.

What a gamble Tanner took to hire Frank's boy. One would have thought after gambling on hiring a proven loser in Muschamp, the replacement would have been a proven winner. But instead, the hire was of a Nepotism Baby. smh

 

[Carolina Doc]

What a gamble Tanner took to hire Frank's boy. One would have thought after gambling on hiring a proven loser in Muschamp, the replacement would have been a proven winner. But instead, the hire was of a Nepotism Baby. smh

"Nepotism"?

 

[18IsTheMan]

What a gamble Tanner took to hire Frank's boy. One would have thought after gambling on hiring a proven loser in Muschamp, the replacement would have been a proven winner. But instead, the hire was of a Nepotism Baby. smh

It's really hard to argue nepotism in the case of Shane here. If he was hired at VaTech as head coach, there would obviously be that concern. However we may feel about the hire, he spent a couple decades as an assistant across several programs. I can assure you Kirby and Lincoln didn't hire him because of his last name. So, he's paid his dues in coaching in that respect, particularly starting out as a GA at a school different from the one where he played and where his father coached. I'm sure his last name helped him break into coaching as an assistant, but so what? He started at the bottom.

The most likely explanation is simply that he was a former coach here under our most successful head coach and came highly recommended by former players. It's arguable whether that rationale was sufficient justification for the hire and we'll have a concrete answer in about 4 months or so.

I don't really see the nepotism angle here, though.

 

[gamecock stock]

"Nepotism"?

In Hollywood these days, there's a controversy called "Nepo Babies". That term refers to actors and actresses who get roles, not due to talent, but because their parent(s) are famous actors or actresses. I hope I'm making better sense now.

I'm convinced that's why we hired Beamer, thinking he is a "chip off the old block".

 

[gamecock stock]

It's hard to argue nepotism in the case of Shane here. If he was hired at VaTech, there would be that concern. However we may feel about the hire, he spent a couple decades as an assistant across several programs. I can assure you Kirby and Lincoln didn't hire him because of his last name. He paid his dues in that respect. I'm sure his last name helped him break into coaching as an assistant, but so what?

The most likely explanation is simply that he was a former coach here under our most successful head coach and came highly recommended by former players. We can argue whether that rationale was sufficient justification for the hire.

I don't really see nepotism here, though.

I am not saying none of that is not true. What I am saying is that the thought in the minds of the hiring authorities is that he would produce like the old man. There's no way that did not pass through their minds.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I am not saying none of that is not true. What I am saying is that the thought in the minds of the hiring authorities is that he would produce like the old man. There's no way that did not pass through their minds.

I don't know. Skip Holtz ain't Lou. Steve Spurrier Jr ain't Steve Spurrier. There's simply no historical justification that a son will be as good of a coach as his father who was a successful head coach.

I really think they hired him on his own merits, which, again, is arguable as to that justification.

 

[gamecock stock]

It's really hard to argue nepotism in the case of Shane here. If he was hired at VaTech as head coach, there would obviously be that concern. However we may feel about the hire, he spent a couple decades as an assistant across several programs. I can assure you Kirby and Lincoln didn't hire him because of his last name. So, he's paid his dues in coaching in that respect, particularly starting out as a GA at a school different from the one where he played and where his father coached. I'm sure his last name helped him break into coaching as an assistant, but so what? He started at the bottom.

The most likely explanation is simply that he was a former coach here under our most successful head coach and came highly recommended by former players. It's arguable whether that rationale was sufficient justification for the hire and we'll have a concrete answer in about 4 months or so.

I don't really see the nepotism angle here, though.

There's simply no historical justification that a son will be as good of a coach as his father who was a successful head coach.

I have said that as well about children of legendary coaches.

Does anyone know who the former players are who stuck their necks out for Beamer? I'm sure Beamer contacted them to push for him. I don't think they would have all gotten together and said, 'What about Beamer?" LOL. That would have been unbelievable. Who knows, maybe it will work out. I hope so. We will know more at the end of this season about Beamer.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I have said that as well about children of legendary coaches.

Does anyone know who the former players are who stuck their necks out for Beamer? I'm sure Beamer contacted them to push for him. I don't think they would have all gotten together and said, 'What about Beamer?" LOL. That would have been unbelievable. Who knows, maybe it will work out. I hope so. We will know more at the end of this season about Beamer.

I can't recall if any names were actually mentioned. Maybe it was never confirmed.

To clarify, I'm not defending the Beamer hire. I like the guy well enough and hope he succeeds here, but I wasn't not convinced at the time of his hiring. I honestly think the admin hired him because of his connection here.

 

[gamecock stock]

To clarify, I'm not defending the Beamer hire. I like the guy well enough and hope he succeeds here, but I wasn't not convinced at the time of his hiring.

Oh I knew that. You felt the same as I did at the time.