Hayward no longer considering USC

[Lurker123]

Good thing I don’t pay attention to the worst recruiting site. According to ON3 and 247, SC last 3 recruiting classes were better than any other coach for a 3 year stretch. And if we’re talking about recruiting, you do know when we were at our best in football was when Beamer was our recruiting coordinator? Before he left the last player he brought in the fold was Clowney.

It's not generally a strong argument that has to start nitpicking on which recruiting service to use. I've found people pick between them whichever one is convenient for their discussion at the time.

But on3 has these rankings

2022: 27th
2023: 16th
2024: 19th

Those numbers don't back up your assertion either. (2012-2015 was 19, 19, 14 and 17) Instead of arguing "the best", which is provably false, maybe argue a general statement like "one of the best periods" or something.

As for Beamer being the recruiting coordinator? Do we think recruiting for Steve Spurrier vs Shane Beamer as the head coach had any impact on attracting recruits?

Edit: It should also be noted that the 2025 rank is in the mid 20's on on3 and 247 and 31 on rivals, with 19 commits. That is not a good sign trend wise.

 

[Lurker123]

Started looking back at other years. Rivals goes back, but on3 and 247 don't go back as far. (Makes history hard to search and judge)

But rivals had us at 8 and 11 in 2002 and 2003. No record for 2001.

 

[Maccmaine12]

It's not generally a strong argument that has to start nitpicking on which recruiting service to use. I've found people pick between them whichever one is convenient for their discussion at the time.

But on3 has these rankings

2022: 27th
2023: 16th
2024: 19th

Those numbers don't back up your assertion either. (2012-2015 was 19, 19, 14 and 17) Instead of arguing "the best", which is provably false, maybe argue a general statement like "one of the best periods" or something.

As for Beamer being the recruiting coordinator? Do we think recruiting for Steve Spurrier vs Shane Beamer as the head coach had any impact on attracting recruits?

Edit: It should also be noted that the 2025 rank is in the mid 20's on on3 and 247 and 31 on rivals, with 19 commits. That is not a good sign trend wise.

According to On3 rankings Shane Beamer’s last 3 class averaged to be 89.48 which is higher than any 3 years of the other 3 coaches. He also signed two classes which had a 90 or more ranking, which also is better than any of the other coaches classes. I can’t remember any time which the other coaches signed 7 blue chip OL in two classes.

 

[Maccmaine12]

Beamer's average in his first 3 years was; 11th out of 14 teams (behind 79% of the SEC teams). For the past 2 seasons, he was 10.5th out of 16 teams (behind 66th of the SEC teams).

Holtz' average was 7th out of 12 teams (behind 58% of the SEC teams).

Spurrier's average was 7.4th out of 12 teams (behind 62% of the SEC teams). You don't seriously think recruits were coming to South Carolina to play for Shane Beamer, rather than for Steve Spurrier, do you?

Muschamp's average was 8.4th out of 14 teams (behind 60% of the SEC teams)

The numbers show that Beamer's recruiting is actually WORSE than Holtz', Spurrier's and Muschamp's.

As far as my comment goes, Beamer averaged recruiting cycle the last 3 years was 89.48, which is higher than any 3 year stretch from any other coaches you named. He also signed two 90 overall ranking class which neither of the other 3 coaches done. Objectively looking at our current state of talent, we’re in a much better spot than we were the last 10 years.

 

[gamecock stock]

As far as my comment goes, Beamer averaged recruiting cycle the last 3 years was 89.48, which is higher than any 3 year stretch from any other coaches you named. He also signed two 90 overall ranking class which neither of the other 3 coaches done. Objectively looking at our current state of talent, we’re in a much better spot than we were the last 10 years.

You can go back and look at the years and rankings I provided. It's all on the On3 recruiting site. The numbers are what they are. They show that Beamer's recruiting lags those of Holtz, Spurrier and Muschamp within the conference (that is, compared to the other SEC TEAMS). You are making the mistake of looking at the recruiting "scores", comparing recruiting "scores". But we are not playing "scores". We are playing TEAMS. Beamer is doing worse against the other SEC TEAMS than Holtz, Spurrier and Muschamp did.

 

[Maccmaine12]

You can go back and look at the years and rankings I provided. It's all on the On3 recruiting site. The numbers are what they are. They show that Beamer's recruiting lags those of Holtz, Spurrier and Muschamp within the conference (that is, compared to the other SEC TEAMS). You are making the mistake of looking at the recruiting "scores", comparing recruiting "scores". But we are not playing "scores". We are playing TEAMS. Beamer is doing worse against the other SEC TEAMS than Holtz, Spurrier and Muschamp did.

The numbers are what they are, and according to the numbers that I provided indicates that Beamer recruited a better class in a 3 year stretch than the other coaches.

 

[gamecock stock]

The numbers are what they are, and according to the numbers that I provided indicates that Beamer recruited a better class in a 3 year stretch than the other coaches.

We are not playing the "numbers" (or what On3 calls the "scores"). We are playing the TEAMS. Compared to the other TEAMS, Beamer is recruiting worse than the others. What good does it do to bring in 2 or 3 more "four stars" than in previous years, when our conference rivals are bringing in 5 or 6 more "four stars" than in previous years. We are falling further behind our conference rivals. It's all "relative".

 

[Lurker123]

This is interesting.

The classes are ranked lower overall, and are ranked lower in the SEC. But they have a higher "score".

On3 doesn't go back far enough to compare to our early 2000's classes that were ranked in the top 10 though. So it's hard to claim as definitive.


So, both sides will claim to be correct. One with rankings and comparative rankings, one with an arbitrary "score".

But what I find interesting is that higher "scores" on classes end up being ranked lower than older classes. The math is what I'm questioning. A 90 was a top 10 class 10 years ago, but a top 15 class now. So class "scores" are increasing over the years?

 

[gamecock stock]

This is interesting.

The classes are ranked lower overall, and are ranked lower in the SEC. But they have a higher "score".

On3 doesn't go back far enough to compare to our early 2000's classes that were ranked in the top 10 though. So it's hard to claim as definitive.


So, both sides will claim to be correct. One with rankings and comparative rankings, one with an arbitrary "score".

But what I find interesting is that higher "scores" on classes end up being ranked lower than older classes. The math is what I'm questioning. A 90 was a top 10 class 10 years ago, but a top 15 class now. So class "scores" are increasing over the years?

It could be a situation where athletes are getting better over the years. So, there will be more 4 and 5 stars today than there were 10-20 years ago,

 

[Lurker123]

It could be a situation where athletes are getting better over the years. So, there will be more 4 and 5 stars today than there were 10-20 years ago,

Maybe. If scores are generally trending upward, can you draw a concrete conclusion from our classes having a slight upward trend in scores?

I understand your comment and agree. Ranking vs the teams we play is important. Who cares if we have a 100 score, if it's 12th in our conference vs a 20 score that's 5th?

 

[Maccmaine12]

We are not playing the "numbers" (or what On3 calls the "scores"). We are playing the TEAMS. Compared to the other TEAMS, Beamer is recruiting worse than the others. What good does it do to bring in 2 or 3 more "four stars" than in previous years, when our conference rivals are bringing in 5 or 6 more "four stars" than in previous years. We are falling further behind our conference rivals. It's all "relative".

The numbers that shows how good your recruits are? Are you trying to just be right even though you’re wrong? We’re talking about solely recruiting and the quality of players. If you want to say that the other 3 coaches recruited better because of where they ranked in the conference then fine, but if we’re talking about the quality of players then clearly 90 overall average recruit is better than 88 in a recruiting class. Have a nice night and go gamecocks!

 

[Maccmaine12]

Maybe. If scores are generally trending upward, can you draw a concrete conclusion from our classes having a slight upward trend in scores?

I understand your comment and agree. Ranking vs the teams we play is important. Who cares if we have a 100 score, if it's 12th in our conference vs a 20 score that's 5th?

Some of the rankings have to do with the number of recruits you signed as well. Beamer finished 16th in 2023 but his average recruits were top 15 in the country.

 

[Maccmaine12]

It could be a situation where athletes are getting better over the years. So, there will be more 4 and 5 stars today than there were 10-20 years ago,

If have a lot more to do with the parity in the sport in recruiting and sites have more access to evaluate talent as well. A lot of players 2013 wasn’t going to camps all over the world. I also looo at the type of blue chips Beamer is bringing in. I can’t remember seeing 7 blue chip OL come to SC in 2 years.

 

[gamecock stock]

The numbers that shows how good your recruits are? Are you trying to just be right even though you’re wrong? We’re talking about solely recruiting and the quality of players. If you want to say that the other 3 coaches recruited better because of where they ranked in the conference then fine, but if we’re talking about the quality of players then clearly 90 overall average recruit is better than 88 in a recruiting class. Have a nice night and go gamecocks!

Obviously, you do not understand and thus are wrong. We are not playing against numbers. AGAIN, we are playing against TEAMS. It has nothing to do with the quality of the Beamer recruits vs the past. We are falling behind a greater percentage of our SEC competitors today, under Beamer, than we did under Holtz, Spurrier and Muschamp. That later point is what I have been trying to explain to you.That is why our recruiting has gotten worse. Not because the quality of the recruit under Beamer is worse. But because we are falling behind a greater percentage of SEC teams. I don't know how I can be clearer than that so you can understand. I hope you have been trying to understand because it seems like you have been trying not to on purpose.

 

[gamecock stock]

If have a lot more to do with the parity in the sport in recruiting and sites have more access to evaluate talent as well. A lot of players 2013 wasn’t going to camps all over the world. I also looo at the type of blue chips Beamer is bringing in. I can’t remember seeing 7 blue chip OL come to SC in 2 years.

Again, if your competitors are bringing in a greater increase in number of blue chips than you are, you might be increasing the talent level on your team, but so is your competitor, but even more so than you are. We are not playing against USC football teams of 2002, 2010 or 2014. We are playing against the UGAs, UTs, Floridas, etc of TODAY. Sadly, the gap in talent is greater today than it was 10 and 20 years ago, to our detriment. Specifically and to the point, there are a greater percentage of SEC teams ahead of us in recruiting during this Beamer era, than there were during the Spurrier, Muschamp and Holtz eras. That is not good, no matter how much more talented our team is today than it was 10-20 years ago.

 

[Lurker123]

Again, if your competitors are bringing in a greater increase in number of blue chips than you are, you might be increasing the talent level on your team, but so is your competitor, but even more so than you are. We are not playing against USC football teams of 2002, 2010 or 2014. We are playing against the UGAs, UTs, Floridas, etc of TODAY.

I really don't know, so asking. Are the total number of 4 and 5 stars increasing, or is it held to a set number.

If it's set, than with population growth, you could have guys that were 5 stars before now ranked 4 stars.

If their talking that into account, and having more 5 and 4 star players, then that explains the trend for "scores" to be increasing across the board.

 

[gamecock stock]

I really don't know, so asking. Are the total number of 4 and 5 stars increasing, or is it held to a set number.

If it's set, than with population growth, you could have guys that were 5 stars before now ranked 4 stars.

If their talking that into account, and having more 5 and 4 star players, then that explains the trend for "scores" to be increasing across the board.

I don't know. I would think so. If there are more players, I would think so.

I'm looking at where do we fall within the conference. That's all that matters. Athletes today are stronger, faster and better than the players of 50 years ago. To me, that's irrelevant. If a greater percentage of conference teams are ahead of us in the recruiting rankings, than there were 5-10-15-20 years ago, that's not good. What do you think?

 

[Lurker123]

I don't know. I would think so. If there are more players, I would think so.

I'm looking at where do we fall within the conference. That's all that matters. Athletes today are stronger, faster and better than the players of 50 years ago. To me, that's irrelevant. If a greater percentage of conference teams are ahead of us in the recruiting rankings, than there were 5-10-15-20 years ago, that's not good. What do you think?

Agree completely. Doesn't matter much to me if an arbitrary score is 89 or 90. If we're falling further behind our opponents, then we have an issue.

 

[gamecock stock]

Agree completely. Doesn't matter much to me if an arbitrary score is 89 or 90. If we're falling further behind our opponents, then we have an issue.

If I could give you multiple "Likes", I would have. You said it well and to the point.

 

[gamecock stock]

If I could give you multiple "Likes", I would have. You said it well and to the point.

One other thing: I live near Augusta, Georgia. So obviously, I grew up reading the Augusta, Georgia newspaper sports pages. I recall reading about Benedictine High School, which is in Savannah, Georgia, when I was a kid. When one of the Augusta High School teams was going down there to play Benedictine, what they kept talking about was the "monster" offensive and defensive lines Benedictine had. They said that their huge linemen averaged 200 pounds per person. The point is, as I said earlier, players are getting bigger, stronger, faster all the time. So, certainly today's athletes are better than yesterday's. No one can doubt that. All this is "relative".