Yeah, I don't buy that either. We are his "home", but we're also his only. Lets see what happens when someone make a legit overture to him.
Having said that, I think he's definitely more bought in that Muschamp ever was.
Consistency
- Thread starter Deleted11512
- Start date
Having said that, I think he's definitely more bought in that Muschamp ever was.
Except that it was his second full year. And that losing season (was 6-6 but lost the bowl) followed his winning the division in his first year.
And he won the division with 10 and 11 win seasons his 3rd and 4th year. So one can easily see why someone would not be jumping to fire him.
But ignoring that success to focus on the one losing sesson, if we want to use him as an example, I would approve. Because after that second year, he fired an underachieving offensive coordinator and hired a guy that totally revamped his offense.
I think you would see a lot of people excited around here if Beamer did that.
Edit: I'll add that not many are asking for Beamerbto be fired now. Most that I have seen are speaking after next year, if it ends up as some fear. That would be 4 years. Imo, even with a losing season, he's going to be retained another year after that.
Last edited:
Every scenario is going to be apples to oranges. Tommy Bowden was fired after going 9-4 finishing 2nd in his division. Dabo took over a good team. Didn't have to deal with a roster overhaul. He was also the recruiting coordinator and associate HC. Their starting points to their HC careers are vastly different.
I do credit Dabo for making appropriate coaching changes in a timely fashion. But again, that's much easier to do when you have good players not performing to their potential.
I understand the premise of higher expectations at Michigan, we all agree to that.
I think the 3 win delta is more than a little arbitrary.
Irregardless of expectations, Harbaugh was doing better than his predecessors and repeated a feet 3 times they had only done once in the last decade.
He has roots in lots of other places, but I thought the "this is home" thing came from his kid(s) being born here? Something about wanting to raise them here.
But yes, that could be coachspeak too.
It's the average because a lot of CFB teams are on the coaching carousel. And nobody wants to try something different.
I don't know. Average to me means that as many people are under it as are over it. Meaning you're in the middle at 4 years, not short or long.
But again, is it worth the notion of just trying something different if you've evaluated the coach and found him wanting? A prime example is our last coach. Would more time have helped him?
I ask that because I feel like we all agree more time would not have helped him.
How many sons ever live up to what their dad did as a coach. If you base it on your father bring spurrier Jr back
Shane is off to a better start than Frank. Off the top of my head, Lane Kiffin and Jim Harbaugh.
He had coached 34 games at that point. so color at how you want, but he came off a losing season and many Clemson fans wanted him gone. It’s a good thing they didn’t. That’s the whole point. And yes, they are many people on here during the season wanting to get rid of Beamer. It’s the American way in football these days.
But if we don’t improve big time in the next year or two at the most, then sure a change may be needed.
I wonder how much of this is misremembering. He just won the division the year before the 6-6 year where he lost the bowl. I'm sure some were calling for his head, but I just can't see it being even a large minority.
As for Beamer? I think the wheels have to come off for anything to happen after next year. I think he will live or die on 2025. Jmo
That division was absolute dog crap and their fans knew it. BC came in second that year. GT beat them for the ACC championship, and they got their asses handed to them by the Gamecocks. After the 3rd year, plenty of people were done with him. Mickey Plyler was VERY critical and even called for a coaching change. That’s a long standing talk show host from their flagship radio station. He got called up to Dabo’s office, and was “all in” after that. lol.
It was a helluva gamble, and they knew it. Most were convinced it was stupid and we’re ready to move on after that 6-7 year. That’s the reality.
The difference between Clemson and us is Dabo did not hesitate to get rid of coordinators that weren’t productive. He did it quickly like he already had a plan. We drag our feet and make hires from left field no one sees coming.
That certainly sounds like the way you remember it. The ACC is always going to be garbage with what we are used to, but a division title was something they had never done before. So I don't think they dismissed it as easily as us.
But yes, it was a huge gamble. I just don't think the movement to fire him was that big in his second year, sandwiched between a division title and a conference title.
Last edited:
This, and he brought in someone innovative. He gambled on that, and it paid off. I found our similar situation to be less than encouraging.
Regardless, I can't point to Dabo or Harbaugh as examples of administrations showing an abundance of patience.
Last edited:
I don't know how big the movement was, but it was certainly alive. They went 8-4 that second year and fell into a division title. ESPN had gave that division the title of worst division in college football. When we played them that year, they didn't look like they deserved to be on the same field as us. We dominated them. No Clem fan I know was excited about the division, given they lost the championship game to GT. And I'm surrounded by them in my family, work, and friends. They were pissed that a 7-5 USC team whooped their *** up and down the field. Remember, Tommy owned us. And they got very used to that. It was a BIG deal to them.
They went 6-7 the next year. It was their first losing season since 1998. Bowden didn't have a losing season in his 9.5 years. That was a big deal. And that's when Plyler said it was a failed experiment and a mistake. And they need to go get someone who knows what their doing. About a week later he took to the airwaves to apologize for criticizing Dabo. It was a beautiful moment in sports talk radio.
EDIT: Having said all of that, I don't think it's a comparable situation at all to Beamer. And I don't think allowing him 4 years isn't necessarily showing patience. Guys that get fired less than 4 years always have something else going on other than on the field performance.
Last edited:
So we are all in agreement: Beamer should be extended through 2031.
Probably the best take on the subject. Who is going to take the job and do any better at this point? Let's be honest, Carolina isn't a very appealing job to a successful current head coach. Columbia has been the place where coaching legends go to see their legacies die. I still say the best course of action is to hire the next Chadwell (I don't think Chadwell would come here now, he knows he can probably get a job at a better place), whoever that might be. We need to find the next Spurrier at Duke situation and go after that guy.
I don't think Beamer is ever going to make us a consistent 10 win program but if he can lay the foundation for a consistent 8 win program a legit head coach would probably be interested in the job.
I still believe you can judge a coach before 7 or 8 years.
And if you've judged him lacking, there is no gain in keeping him "just to try something different".
None of us really think it would be beneficial to have kept Muschamp longer, right?
I agree with you completely. I think you pretty well know what you've got in a coach after year 3. He may have some better seasons ahead but he pretty much is what you see after his third season, definitely his fourth. Giving a coach a big raise and extension after year 2 is silly unless they have won a championship or shown that the program is completely transformed.
It seems obvious that being a "nice guy" and "loving Carolina and wanting to be here" are enough for a lot of fans right now.
Except there are plenty of guys in college football who took longer than 3 years to get things going.
Each situation would be different, and i bet a lot of thise guys had at least had forward momentum. But you'd have to weigh those situations against the number of guys who failed at 3, 4 and 5 years but then didn't succeed.
In other words, I think we're highlighting outliers.
Agreed. Plus I think a couple different scenarios are being thrown around.
Someone mentioned 6-8 wins a year. You can argue for sticking with a guy a lot easier than a guy nit getting to a bowl.
And as an aside, I do think some are already chalking up this year as going to be much like last year. And they (myself included) may be coming from a place where we're anticipating two losing seasons in a row.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us believe Beamer has shown enough promise to warrant more than 3 years. Some don't. For example, Beamer's 8-4 year was MUCH different than Muschamp's. We didn't beat a ranked team in 2017. Beamer beat 3, including 2 top 6 teams...2 of them on the road.
Muschamp's program had gone completely off the rails. We ended the 2019 season 4-8, losing to App St, then A&M/Clem by a combined 68-9 score to close the year. That RB room had Rico Dowdle, Deshawn Fenwick, and Kevin Harris. We had Shi Smith, Bryan Edwards, and Josh Vann at WR. Defense was loaded with NFL players.
2020 was an abomination. He really tried to convince us that Collin Hill was a SEC calibur QB. We had lost @ LSU by 30, then vs A&M at home by 45. Probably the single worst performance I've seen in my life. He was fired after losing 59-42 to an average Ole Miss team. I was nervous that he would get a covid do over. I'm glad RT didn't give him that excuse.
When it's clear you're not competitive, and you're trotting guys like Collin Hill out there for QB, you're cooked.
But, again, I come at this with our history in mind.
We've been playing the game for 130+ years and, with the exception of a handful of seasons, have never risen above mediocrity. Nobody has answered my question: What is there to lose by just giving Beamer 10 years?
Obviously, if he's putting up 2 and 3 wins seasons, that's a different story, but if he's performing about like he has for the first 3 years, what's the harm in seeing if he can build something long-term? Truly, what do we have to lose?
I agree he's warranted more than 3 years. I've said the rails would have to come off for him to even be let go next year.
With that in mind, I think we can judge a coach 4 or 5 years in.
Even the guy I was responding to didn't call for him to be fired. He said you pretty much know what you have after 3 years, and definitely after 4.
There's a lot to lose by giving a coach 10 years who is producing losing seasons. And in my previous post, a lot of people are holding their breath, worried that we're about to have two in a row.
The answer to your question is, why give a coach 10 years if you know he's not going to be successful after 5? You're just wasting time there.
I think it is one thing to give a coach 10 years if he is being paid appropriately for 6 win seasons. I don't think you pay a coach $6million a year for 10 years to see if he can do better than 6-8 wins a year.
I guess the harm is throwing piles of money at a coach for mediocrity. I think you could get a $1-2 million a year coach to win 6-8 games. Use the salary money you save to enhance the fan/game day experience so games become a fun event for a Saturday and the fans aren't focused on the record as much as on having fun.
You seem to be fully latched on the notion that he's overpaid. He's the 11th ranked salary in the SEC in 2023. The only ones below him were Drink, Lea, and Arnett. Drink just got a massive increase, so he'll drop to 12th. When you factor in TX/OU, it's 14th. Lea and Arnett made $3M. Lebby will start at $4M. I believe your issue is more with the ridiculous contracts CFB head coaches are getting across the board. In 2014 HBC got an increase to $4M/yr. That put him in the top 10 NATIONALLY. The inflations of these contracts is out of control.
The answer is how do you know he's not going to be successful and you're wasting time if it is never tried?
Assumption without history or experience!
The history or experience would be the 4 or 5 years he's already been coaching the team. That is what you use to determine if it's a waste of time or not.
Ill ask again, no one seems to want to answer. Would you have kept Muschamp for 10 years?
Right. You're assuming he cannot be successful if he has not been after 5 years. Why?
I am generally in favor of cutting bait if the writing is on the wall, which is why I qualified my position by saying if he's winning 2 or 3 games a year, that changes things. But, short of the bottom falling out, I see little to no risk of just letting him have it for a decade. We have always been bad-to-mediocre (with anomalous excursions to pretty good). Like for 130+ years. Giving him until 2031 would be 5 years extra. What is 5 years in the big picture? If it doesn't end up working, we'll hire someone else and probably be right about where we always have been.
In 130+ years, with all the coaches we've had, we are basically a .500 team. I don't suspect that changes much by giving Beamer 5 extra years. I suspect if we had retained Muschamp, we would have ended up continuing at about our historic pace.
Last edited:
No. Muschamp was not a Gamecock at heart, lacked energy and personality as a recruiter, never exceeded expectations and gave the impression he really did not want to be here.