Dawn is the standard by which the men's coach should be judged

[18IsTheMan]

I really don't follow the women's team at all, other than what I pick up peripherally from following Gamecocks sports in general. That said, I know enough to know we were not terribly good before Dawn (though we weren't totally abysmal with 3 NITs in the three prior seasons, but it looks like we were getting worse, per Wiki) and now we're elite.

Some on here have consistently drawn a comparison between Dawn's start and Paris' start as justification to support Paris. If Dawn is the comparison, then she has to be the standard.

Looking at her Wiki page, it looks like it took her 4 seasons to turn the program COMPLETELY around. She had us in the top 25 in Season 4 with a Sweet 16 appearance, and has taken us to the Sweet 16 or better for 12 straight seasons, with the exception of '12-'13 when we were knocked in the second round. She showed steady and significant progress from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and then in Year 4 when the turnaround was complete. Progress was concretely shown in both win total and conference ranking. None of this vague "it doesn't show in the W/L column but we're playing more cohesive" or whatever gobledygook. Our win total under Dawn went from 10 to 14 to 18 to 25 (conference was 2, 7, 8, 10), and she has maintained us at that level or higher. Again, concrete metrics showing progress.

For me, that sets the bar for the men's team. You must show steady and significant progress each year and have us in the NCAAT in Year 4. Period. Progress has to be concretely demonstrated with steadily improving W/L records and conference rankings. Paris is starting out at roughly the same point as Dawn in terms of W/L and conference ranking. Dawn went from a .357 win percentage in Year 1 while Paris put up a slightly lower .344. In Year 2, Dawn jumped to .482, so I'd expect a comparable improvement from Paris next season.

If you can't hit the concrete metrics established by Dawn, you're not the guy. Cut bait and move on.

Some will object that it's unreasonable to expect a coach to live up to Dawn's exceptional standard. But isn't that what we're shooting for?

 

[Viennacock]

I really don't follow the women's team at all, other than what I pick up peripherally from following Gamecocks sports in general. That said, I know enough to

Some on here have consistently drawn a comparison between Dawn's start and Paris' start as justification to support Paris. If Dawn is the comparison, then she has to be the standard.

As usual, you have taken this out of context. People have used Dawn as justification to give Paris a CHANCE rather than judge him after one season.

If it were up to you and some others, Kingston would have been fired a few years back and Beamer and Paris would have been gone mid-season.

 

[18IsTheMan]

As usual, you have taken this out of context. People have used Dawn as justification to give Paris a CHANCE rather than judge him after one season.

If it were up to you and some others, Kingston would have been fired a few years back and Beamer and Paris would have been gone mid-season.

If Dawn is the comparison, she's the standard.

My post fully supported giving Paris the chance to meet the standard.

 

[Viennacock]

If Dawn is the comparison, she's the standard.

I never compared him to Dawn. Go ahead and make her the standard. None of our coaches will likely ever reach that standard but it does help you justify the complaining.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I never compared him to Dawn. Go ahead and make her the standard. None of our coaches will likely ever reach that standard but it does help you justify the complaining.

Without a standard, it's all vague and non-specific metrics. Frank got by on these for a LONG time.

I'm 100% in support of giving Paris more time. Why should we be opposed to having some concrete metrics by which to evaluate him?

 

[Viennacock]

Without a standard, it's all vague and non-specific metrics. Frank got by on these for a LONG time.

I have led a group for years. I am not stupid enough to put a metric in place such as, Jim needs to perform as well as Joe in year three or he's fired.

A reasonable metric would be. Jim needs to be .500 in year 3 of conf play and make the NCAA by year 5 (just an example).

I do agree we held on to Frank too long but I don't put that on Tanner. He tried but his hands were tied.

 

[will110]

If Dawn is the standard, Carolina will never have a basketball coach longer than 2 or 3 years. He would have no chance. That is an unreasonable and irrational standard to impose on a perpetually mediocre program that's had very little basketball success in five decades.

 

[18IsTheMan]

If Dawn is the standard, Carolina will never have a basketball coach longer than 2 or 3 years. He would have no chance. That is an unreasonable and irrational standard to impose on a perpetually mediocre program that's had very little basketball success in five decades.

Are you saying it's impossible for a coach to come in and show concrete improvement from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3?

I'd rather be perpetually mediocre because were aiming for a high standard than because we've just accepted being perpetually mediocre.

 

[18IsTheMan]

With Dawn, the cat's out of the bag. So much for there being a ceiling on success here for basketball or the old "it's just tougher here." It can be done. It can be done quickly. It can be sustained.

Shane, so far, is doing the same with the football program. I hope Paris is able to show the necessary improvement from Year 1 to Year 2 and following.

 

[will110]

Are you saying it's impossible for a coach to come in and show concrete improvement from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3?

I'd rather be perpetually mediocre because were aiming for a high standard than because we've just accepted being perpetually mediocre.

I'm saying it's impossible for a coach to come here and turn South Carolina into the premier school for men's college basketball, which is the standard Dawn set on the women's side.

I have no problem setting a standard that requires concrete improvement and regular NCAA tournament bids.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'm saying it's impossible for a coach to come here and turn South Carolina into the premier school for men's college basketball.

As I noted, I don't really follow the women's team, but for those who do, I have to imagine there was a similar sentiment for the lady's team 15 years ago.

And, yes, my reference to the Dawn standard is not that the men must become the premiere team in the land. My reference to Dawn is to support that you should show concrete improvement form Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and have the turnaround complete in Year 4. From that point on, it's about sustaining.

Yes, I know Dawn continued to improve after Year 4, but I would say the turnaround was complete at that point in terms of taking the team from the bottom all the way to the NCAAT.

 

[will110]

As I noted, I don't really follow the women's team, but for those who do, I have to imagine there was a similar sentiment for the lady's team 15 years ago.

And, yes, my reference to the Dawn standard is not that the men must become the premiere team in the land. My reference to Dawn is to support that you should show concrete improvement form Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and have the turnaround complete in Year 4. From that point on, it's about sustaining.

Yes, I know Dawn continued to improve after Year 4, but I would say the turnaround was complete at that point in terms of taking the team from the bottom all the way to the NCAAT.

From that perspective I definitely agree with you. Your original post seemed to insinuate that you expected the men's coach to achieve Dawn's success, which I really don't think is possible.

There are a lot of different factors specific to women's basketball and Dawn that allowed her to build the dynasty she's built, which don't translate to the men's side of things. First, there's just a whole lot fewer quality women's basketball programs. A handful of schools dominated women's basketball for years. Second, Dawn is one of the most well-known names in women's basketball. She had instant credibility to walk into any recruit's living room. Third, and probably most importantly, women's players stay four years. It allows real super teams to form - just look at Carolina this year!

 

[Deleted11512]

As I noted, I don't really follow the women's team, but for those who do, I have to imagine there was a similar sentiment for the lady's team 15 years ago.

And, yes, my reference to the Dawn standard is not that the men must become the premiere team in the land. My reference to Dawn is to support that you should show concrete improvement form Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and have the turnaround complete in Year 4. From that point on, it's about sustaining.

Yes, I know Dawn continued to improve after Year 4, but I would say the turnaround was complete at that point in terms of taking the team from the bottom all the way to the NCAAT.

Glad you clarified, b/c that's not what it looked like in your OP. I think most would agree. He needs to show improvement over the next 3 years. Dawn didn't make the tourny until year 4.

To put thing in perspective with DS, there has been one other HOF player/coach...John Wooden. Staley is already in as a player, is is a no brainer as a coach. That's rare air. Geno has 11 NCs, Wooden had 10, and Summitt had 8. Dawn should have 3 after this year. Can she catch them?

 

[GoCocksFight2021]

Nothing in women's sports sets a bar for anything in men's sport. Completely different animal.

 

[gamecock stock]

The comparison to Dawn was to only emphasize that you cannot draw conclusions on a coach by his first year. If so, Brad Scott would have gotten a lifetime contract after Year One and Lou Holtz would have gotten booted out after Year One here. It's not easy having patience. But you have to have it in sports, investing, building a home, painting, recovering from surgery (as I'm doing now).... just about all things in life. Spurrier's teams here were average in his first 5 years here before he got it rolling. Coach K at Duke was average in his first 3 years there before he got it rolling. And Coach K was coming into a program with great tradition under Vic Bubas and Bill Foster. Interestingly Foster was said to have said that he got sold a "bill of goods" to come to South Carolina. And even more interestingly, both Foster and Frank Martin landed Head Coaching jobs after being fired by South Carolina.

Improvement in the program is not unreasonable to expect. If one took a closer look at Lamont's time as Head Coach at UT-Chattanooga, they would have seen that both his conference record and total record improved every year there. We have to remember that Lamont did not inherit a program here on a roll, much less a program with years of big time success. In Martin's last 5 years here, he did not make the NIT, much less the Big Dance.

I don't believe any men's basketball coach at USC had immediate success. I believe it took several years to make any postseason tournament. Eddie Fogler made a comment that SC fans should not expect to make the Big Dance every year. I cannot remember his exact quote. Maybe someone else here can. My goal for all our teams is to win the national championship, not that I expect that. Of course, to quote Will Ferrel's "Ricky Bobby": "If you ain't first, your last": Evidently Fogler did not think much about our potential. But as a SC fan, I'm not willing to accept that.

So, what do I expect once Lamont gets it rolling? I would hope we'd make the NCAA Tournament at LEAST twice every 4 years. If you make the NCAA Tournament, then you have a chance to win it all. The bottom line is that I'm not concerned nor worried about our basketball program at this time. No one has made a cogent argument to convince me I should be.

 

[joeyamamaahoe]

Someone answer me this. How many years is he guaranteed?

 

[Viennacock]

Someone answer me this. How many years is he guaranteed?

Two if things are as bad next year as this year. Three if he shows any improvement / potential for improvement (very subjective).

 

[joeyamamaahoe]

Two if things are as bad next year as this year. Three if he shows any improvement / potential for improvement (very subjective).

Tanner will give him three. I have no doubt about that.

 

[Rogue Cock]

The comparison to Dawn was to only emphasize that you cannot draw conclusions on a coach by his first year. If so, Brad Scott would have gotten a lifetime contract after Year One and Lou Holtz would have gotten booted out after Year One here. It's not easy having patience. But you have to have it in sports, investing, building a home, painting, recovering from surgery (as I'm doing now).... just about all things in life. Spurrier's teams here were average in his first 5 years here before he got it rolling. Coach K at Duke was average in his first 3 years there before he got it rolling. And Coach K was coming into a program with great tradition under Vic Bubas and Bill Foster. Interestingly Foster was said to have said that he got sold a "bill of goods" to come to South Carolina. And even more interestingly, both Foster and Frank Martin landed Head Coaching jobs after being fired by South Carolina.

Improvement in the program is not unreasonable to expect. If one took a closer look at Lamont's time as Head Coach at UT-Chattanooga, they would have seen that both his conference record and total record improved every year there. We have to remember that Lamont did not inherit a program here on a roll, much less a program with years of big time success. In Martin's last 5 years here, he did not make the NIT, much less the Big Dance.

I don't believe any men's basketball coach at USC had immediate success. I believe it took several years to make any postseason tournament. Eddie Fogler made a comment that SC fans should not expect to make the Big Dance every year. I cannot remember his exact quote. Maybe someone else here can. My goal for all our teams is to win the national championship, not that I expect that. Of course, to quote Will Ferrel's "Ricky Bobby": "If you ain't first, your last": Evidently Fogler did not think much about our potential. But as a SC fan, I'm not willing to accept that.

So, what do I expect once Lamont gets it rolling? I would hope we'd make the NCAA Tournament at LEAST twice every 4 years. If you make the NCAA Tournament, then you have a chance to win it all. The bottom line is that I'm not concerned nor worried about our basketball program at this time. No one has made a cogent argument to convince me I should be.

Fogler’s comment is that we should expect to make the NCAAs once about every 4 year
Everyone seems to expect we can throw money at a coach and he will come, but any coach wants a decent opportunity to win. And we have large hurdles…we are an SEC school with ACC powers at our doorstep and we have shown little to no ability to recruit the better players from our own state…that is a tall order for any coach to overcome. Heck we can’t even lure a successful in-state coach. It ain’t all about the money.

 

[Deleted11512]

Two if things are as bad next year as this year. Three if he shows any improvement / potential for improvement (very subjective).

He’s not getting fired after 2 years.

 

[gamecock stock]

Fogler’s comment is that we should expect to make the NCAAs once about every 4 year
Everyone seems to expect we can throw money at a coach and he will come, but any coach wants a decent opportunity to win. And we have large hurdles…we are an SEC school with ACC powers at our doorstep and we have shown little to no ability to recruit the better players from our own state…that is a tall order for any coach to overcome. Heck we can’t even lure a successful in-state coach. It ain’t all about the money.

I vaguely recalled that Fogler said once every 4 years. But, I wasn't certain. The men's basketball job at South Carolina is a tough job. That was what I was alluding to when I said that Bill Foster and Frank Martin immediately got Head Coaching jobs after getting fired by us. Why is that? Could it be that other schools recognize what a tough job being Head Men's basketball coach is at South Carolina? Lamont Paris did a good job in his first year here in light of having to replace 70% of his team after getting here so late. Some may call that an "excuse". But it's a fact. He beat Kentucky and Clemson in his first year here. Some may call those "flukes". I call them "wins". And we did not finish last in the SEC as most predicted. We finished 12th (out of 14). And regarding his recruiting, he has right now two 4-stars coming in plus a 3rd player who is ranked pretty well. I am encouraged by the job Paris is doing.

 

[Rogue Cock]

I vaguely recalled that Fogler said once every 4 years. But, I wasn't certain. The men's basketball job at South Carolina is a tough job. That was what I was alluding to when I said that Bill Foster and Frank Martin immediately got Head Coaching jobs after getting fired by us. Why is that? Could it be that other schools recognize what a tough job being Head Men's basketball coach is at South Carolina? Lamont Paris did a good job in his first year here in light of having to replace 70% of his team after getting here so late. Some may call that an "excuse". But it's a fact. He beat Kentucky and Clemson in his first year here. Some may call those "flukes". I call them "wins". And we did not finish last in the SEC as most predicted. We finished 12th (out of 14). And regarding his recruiting, he has right now two 4-stars coming in plus a 3rd player who is ranked pretty well. I am encouraged by the job Paris is doing.

Completely agree!

 

[Deleted11512]

I vaguely recalled that Fogler said once every 4 years. But, I wasn't certain. The men's basketball job at South Carolina is a tough job. That was what I was alluding to when I said that Bill Foster and Frank Martin immediately got Head Coaching jobs after getting fired by us. Why is that? Could it be that other schools recognize what a tough job being Head Men's basketball coach is at South Carolina? Lamont Paris did a good job in his first year here in light of having to replace 70% of his team after getting here so late. Some may call that an "excuse". But it's a fact. He beat Kentucky and Clemson in his first year here. Some may call those "flukes". I call them "wins". And we did not finish last in the SEC as most predicted. We finished 12th (out of 14). And regarding his recruiting, he has right now two 4-stars coming in plus a 3rd player who is ranked pretty well. I am encouraged by the job Paris is doing.

Our bball job is no tougher than bama or auburn. But agree on everything else.

 

[GoCocksFight2021]

Only a handful of schools really GAS about winning at women's basketball. Much harder to win in men's sports. Not comparable in any sense.

 

[Jonesz2]

As usual, you have taken this out of context. People have used Dawn as justification to give Paris a CHANCE rather than judge him after one season.

If it were up to you and some others, Kingston would have been fired a few years back and Beamer and Paris would have been gone mid-season.

If Kingston don’t get us to the supers he should be fired

 

[Kawalski]

I really don't follow the women's team at all, other than what I pick up peripherally from following Gamecocks sports in general. That said, I know enough to know we were not terribly good before Dawn (though we weren't totally abysmal with 3 NITs in the three prior seasons, but it looks like we were getting worse, per Wiki) and now we're elite.

Some on here have consistently drawn a comparison between Dawn's start and Paris' start as justification to support Paris. If Dawn is the comparison, then she has to be the standard.

Looking at her Wiki page, it looks like it took her 4 seasons to turn the program COMPLETELY around. She had us in the top 25 in Season 4 with a Sweet 16 appearance, and has taken us to the Sweet 16 or better for 12 straight seasons, with the exception of '12-'13 when we were knocked in the second round. She showed steady and significant progress from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 and then in Year 4 when the turnaround was complete. Progress was concretely shown in both win total and conference ranking. None of this vague "it doesn't show in the W/L column but we're playing more cohesive" or whatever gobledygook. Our win total under Dawn went from 10 to 14 to 18 to 25 (conference was 2, 7, 8, 10), and she has maintained us at that level or higher. Again, concrete metrics showing progress.

For me, that sets the bar for the men's team. You must show steady and significant progress each year and have us in the NCAAT in Year 4. Period. Progress has to be concretely demonstrated with steadily improving W/L records and conference rankings. Paris is starting out at roughly the same point as Dawn in terms of W/L and conference ranking. Dawn went from a .357 win percentage in Year 1 while Paris put up a slightly lower .344. In Year 2, Dawn jumped to .482, so I'd expect a comparable improvement from Paris next season.

If you can't hit the concrete metrics established by Dawn, you're not the guy. Cut bait and move on.

Some will object that it's unreasonable to expect a coach to live up to Dawn's exceptional standard. But isn't that what we're shooting for?

The transfer portal totally negates everything you said. When things are bad, players bolt and to be able to build a program from the ground up like Paris has to do is going to be incredibly difficult unless he can recruit unheralded players and turn them in to premiere players to get the ball rolling. I dont see him being able to recruit program changing players with our current situation.

 

[gamecock stock]

Our bball job is no tougher than bama or auburn. But agree on everything else.

Oh yeah. I agree with you. I'm not saying it's the toughest job. I am saying it's not an easy job. We can win in Mens basketball with the right coach. And what Lamont Paris has done thus far on the court AND in recruiting is VERY encouraging to me. Martin's downfall was his inability to recruit. Paris is already showing he can recruit. I don't recall what was Foster's downfall. I remember going to some games with my boss, a good man, who was a big Gamecock fan, 40 years ago. I remember, to this day, him hollering at Duane Kitchens. That was a side of him I did not see on the job. It brings a smile to my face thinking about that.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Two if things are as bad next year as this year. Three if he shows any improvement / potential for improvement (very subjective).

He’s not getting fired after 2 years.

He absolutely has to show W/L progress next year. We need to come close to .500 overall. Pick up at least 4 more wins to get us to about 15-16. That's not a tall order for Year 2.

If he can get 4 wins, I say give him another. If not, hey, it was a worth a shot.

 

[Deleted11512]

He absolutely has to show W/L progress next year. We need to come close to .500 overall. Pick up at least 4 more wins to get us to about 15-16. That's not a tall order for Year 2.

If he can get 4 wins, I say give him another. If not, hey, it was a worth a shot.

I don't disagree with you, but he's going to get more than 2 years to show improvement.

 

[gamecock stock]

I don't disagree with you, but he's going to get more than 2 years to show improvement.

Yes, as I've said before, no USC basketball coach has gotten less than 4 years, except Steve Newton, who committed recruiting violations. And Holbrook and Muschamp, both Tanner hires, each got 5 seasons. And with Tanners recent contract extension, he won't be susceptible to fan pressure.

 

[Deleted11512]

Oh yeah. I agree with you. I'm not saying it's the toughest job. I am saying it's not an easy job. We can win in Mens basketball with the right coach. And what Lamont Paris has done thus far on the court AND in recruiting is VERY encouraging to me. Martin's downfall was his inability to recruit. Paris is already showing he can recruit. I don't recall what was Foster's downfall. I remember going to some games with my boss, a good man, who was a big Gamecock fan, 40 years ago. I remember, to this day, him hollering at Duane Kitchens. That was a side of him I did not see on the job. It brings a smile to my face thinking about that.

Truthfully, there is no such thing as an easy coaching job. And this isn't an attack on you, so don't take it that way. But that's a pet peeve of mine. I remember Muschamp talking about the unique challenges here...to me, it's no wonder he didn't win. Have you ever heard Beamer say anything other than "we have what we need to win a championship" about USC?? Nope. B/c that's what you need. HBC said "why not us?". He got us very close before he ran out of juice.

No coaching job is easy...doesn't matter the sport, doesn't matter the level. Bama went through 4 coaches in between Stallings and Saban, and they had a losing record in that time frame. Look at UK basketball...UNC basketball...Duke. The only thing that separates us is history. That's it. That's the challenge. And we share that challenge with about 90% of the rest of the country. Every program needs the right guy. Some are just better at finding it, or luckier in some cases. To me, it's just making an excuse for mediocrity. "Well it's hard to win here." No ****...it's hard everywhere. If it were easy they wouldn't make the money they do.

 

[gamecock stock]

Truthfully, there is no such thing as an easy coaching job. And this isn't an attack on you, so don't take it that way. But that's a pet peeve of mine. I remember Muschamp talking about the unique challenges here...to me, it's no wonder he didn't win. Have you ever heard Beamer say anything other than "we have what we need to win a championship" about USC?? Nope. B/c that's what you need. HBC said "why not us?". He got us very close before he ran out of juice.

No coaching job is easy...doesn't matter the sport, doesn't matter the level. Bama went through 4 coaches in between Stallings and Saban, and they had a losing record in that time frame. Look at UK basketball...UNC basketball...Duke. The only thing that separates us is history. That's it. That's the challenge. And we share that challenge with about 90% of the rest of the country. Every program needs the right guy. Some are just better at finding it, or luckier in some cases. To me, it's just making an excuse for mediocrity. "Well it's hard to win here." No ****...it's hard everywhere. If it were easy they wouldn't make the money they do.

I don't take it as an attack on me because I agree with your sentiment. Yet some jobs are harder than others, for a variety of reasons. We need success in basketball that's long-term. Unfortunately we have not got that yet. We have not yet had a coach to leave or retire on a happy note. Even McGuire was kind of pushed out. Fogler ended his tenure on down years. NIT Dave was pushed out. Paris looks promising. Maybe he's the one to finally give us long-term and big-time success. And maybe Beamer is the one to give us long-term success in football, something that we have lacked in that sport as well. Wouldn't it be a treat to have big-time success in the 2 major sports for the next 20 years? We long-time suffering Gamecock fans deserve that.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I don't disagree with you, but he's going to get more than 2 years to show improvement.

Tanner is very longsuffering

 

[Deleted11512]

Tanner is very longsuffering

I would agree with you, but I would also agree with Paris getting more than 2 years. Tanner held on too long with Muschamp, Martin, and the jury is out on King.

 

[gamecock stock]

Tanner held on too long with Muschamp, Martin, and the jury is out on King.

Should have never hired Muschamp. Whichever AD hired Martin, can't blame him because Martin came in here from Kansas State, having made the NCAA Tournament 4 out of 5 years, including the Elite 8 one year.

 

[Rogue Cock]

I would agree with you, but I would also agree with Paris getting more than 2 years. Tanner held on too long with Muschamp, Martin, and the jury is out on King.

From my understanding from reliable sources, Muschamp would’ve been here another year if it weren’t for Tanner….that Caslen wasn’t going to approve the buy out and Tanner had to raise the money from private donors (the latter I know for a fact).

Martin was here an extra year due to the fact that the BOTs liked him and some political pressure.

 

[atl-cock]

Only a handful of schools really GAS about winning at women's basketball. Much harder to win in men's sports. Not comparable in any sense.

More and more schools will GAS in the coming years.......

 

[atl-cock]

Oh yeah. I agree with you. I'm not saying it's the toughest job. I am saying it's not an easy job. We can win in Mens basketball with the right coach. And what Lamont Paris has done thus far on the court AND in recruiting is VERY encouraging to me. Martin's downfall was his inability to recruit. Paris is already showing he can recruit. I don't recall what was Foster's downfall. I remember going to some games with my boss, a good man, who was a big Gamecock fan, 40 years ago. I remember, to this day, him hollering at Duane Kitchens. That was a side of him I did not see on the job. It brings a smile to my face thinking about that.

Foster's downfall IMO for me was scratching the scheduled series with Dook. Yeah, I understand not wanting to play your former employer, but other than Clemron, NCSU in the NIT a few years back, and UnCarolina in the 1972 dance, we had not played any of our old conference rivals since leaving the ACC.

Of course the ACC today is not the same as the league we left 52 years ago.

 

[gamecock stock]

Foster's downfall IMO for me was scratching the scheduled series with Dook. Yeah, I understand not wanting to play your former employer, but other than Clemron, NCSU in the NIT a few years back, and UnCarolina in the 1972 dance, we had not played any of our old conference rivals since leaving the ACC.

Of course the ACC today is not the same as the league we left 52 years ago.

"Clemron".

 

[Deleted11512]

From my understanding from reliable sources, Muschamp would’ve been here another year if it weren’t for Tanner….that Caslen wasn’t going to approve the buy out and Tanner had to raise the money from private donors (the latter I know for a fact).

Martin was here an extra year due to the fact that the BOTs liked him and some political pressure.

I’ve heard the same. Should have been a moot point as RT shouldn’t have given that ridiculous extension.