Sadly...yes. Gamecock fan my whole life. Student Fall 78 through Spring 82. But, I didn't join this board until after I retired!If I interpret your handle correctly, you have witnessed that history, as have I.![]()
Sadly...yes. Gamecock fan my whole life. Student Fall 78 through Spring 82. But, I didn't join this board until after I retired!If I interpret your handle correctly, you have witnessed that history, as have I.![]()
Other than the Coliseum, which was McGuire's baby, Dietzel did do a good job with facilities. Otherwise, it was all talk with "Pepsodent Paul." Thank you for mentioning GROD. I still resent him pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and getting us out of the ACC.a-c, I totally understand. I was around back in 1974, as part of the GROD (Get Rid Of Dietzel) group. I included him because he won our only conference championship.
Some of us on here are pretty old.half a century ago?
Beamer is doing all that he can do. He got as much as he could from the portal. I think that whoever wrote that article is an idiot!!Warning: strong click-bait potential.
![]()
Mike Norvell Will Be the South Carolina Gamecocks Head Coach in 2025
When first taking over for the Florida State Seminoles, Mike Norvell came into a situation where the standards were high, but they werenāt being met. This included three straight consecutive years ā¦twsn.net
Yes. That is why I do not buy the "schedule excuse" for 2024. And I have posted numerous times why that schedule is not as difficult as some want to make it out to be. Let me just say this: we are not playing 12 opponents who have Georgia-like talent thus resulting in a wide gap of player-talent disadvantage for us.Some of us on here are pretty old.
If Morrison lived, would he have survived the steroid scandal?We got Spurrier and Holtz in the tail end of their careers. There is no telling what they would have accomplished if we got them in their 40s. Morrison died. If he had lived, the 1990s would have looked different than it did in the Woods/Scott eras. Jim Carlen was fired shortly after his 2nd 8-win season for non-football reasons. If they had left him alone, what he might have accomplished in the 1980s would have been interesting to see. Regarding Dietzel, I think he wanted to go full-time into administration. He did not coach after age 50, and certainly was young enough to do so. So, yes, success was brief and there was some mediocrity, especially in the beginning when you are building a program like South Carolina that has little good football tradition. So, in all cases, the coaches either retired from college coaching for good, died or fired for non-football reasons. The point is that a good, young coach can win at South Carolina. Being young means he can sustain the program for the long run. Beamer is young. But he hasn't been a successful Head Coach prior to coming here. I'm pulling for Beamer. That being said, I believe it's fair to say that the jury is still out on Beamer.
The schedule very well could turn out to be not as hard as it looks, but it is a really tough schedule. Playing at Bama and at OU back-to-back is brutal.Yes. That is why I do not buy the "schedule excuse" for 2024. And I have posted numerous times why that schedule is not as difficult as some want to make it out to be. Let me just say this: we are not playing 12 opponents who have Georgia-like talent thus resulting in a wide gap of player-talent disadvantage for us.
Consequently, Beamer better not produce similar results to 2023 this coming season. If he does, then 2025 will be a "make or break" season for him.
I thought about that too before I posted. We will never know. But after previously ushering out a winning coach (Carlen), my thinking is that we would have found a rational for keeping JoMo.If Morrison lived, would he have survived the steroid scandal?
That's how people are looking at the schedule: on paper. But if people took a deeper dive into our schedule, they would see that we play Ole Miss and Missouri at home. We play a first-year Head Coach-led Texas A&M team at home where we won 2 years ago. We beat Kentucky for each of the past 2 seasons. And we beat Clemson at their place 2 years ago. If Beamer produces a mediocre season in 2024 when most of the players will be his recruits in his 4th season, I believe he will have some explaining to do.The schedule very well could turn out to be not as hard as it looks, but it is a really tough schedule. Playing at Bama and at OU back-to-back is brutal.
7 of our 8 SEC opponents are ranked in ESPN's early top 25. Clemson is also ranked.
We'll see how it actually plays out, of course, but on paper it's a really tough schedule.
Still believe that he has until the 2026 season unless he loses the clubhouse like Muschamp did. They will want leave the decision to the new AD to select his own coach.Yes. That is why I do not buy the "schedule excuse" for 2024. And I have posted numerous times why that schedule is not as difficult as some want to make it out to be. Let me just say this: we are not playing 12 opponents who have Georgia-like talent thus resulting in a wide gap of player-talent disadvantage for us.
Consequently, Beamer better not produce similar results to 2023 this coming season. If he does, then 2025 will be a "make or break" season for him.
That would be a save and win for Beamer, for sure. If he proves to be a Nepo Baby, hired because of who his Dad is and accomplished, it will be a loss for the fans.Still believe that he has until the 2026 season unless he loses the clubhouse like Muschamp did. They will want leave the decision to the new AD to select his own coach.
Thank about 100 former players, Caslen and a couple of his Board cronies for that. Caslen didn't want to pay the buyouts of a couple of coaches already on staff, and didn't want to pay a lot for a more proven coach and the staff he would want to bring in. The player support solidified the decision for Beamer over Chadwell....both of which would have been cheap hires.That would be a save and win for Beamer, for sure. If he proves to be a Nepo Baby, hired because of who his Dad is and accomplished, it will be a loss for the fans.
Looking at what Chadwell has accomplished, winning big everywhere he has been, and that Beamer's recruiting has been no better (actually worse) than previous coaches, the Beamer hire might prove to be a monumental screw up for the ages. To paraphrase Don King: Only at South Carolina.Thank about 100 former players, Caslen and a couple of his Board cronies for that. Caslen didn't want to pay the buyouts of a couple of coaches already on staff, and didn't want to pay a lot for a more proven coach and the staff he would want to bring in. The player support solidified the decision for Beamer over Chadwell....both of which would have been cheap hires.
May be true. I've heard that Chadwell doesn't interview well....and his personality wouldn't seem to impress Caslen. Caslen had a huge ego and he and FM got along well.Looking at what Chadwell has accomplished, winning big everywhere he has been, and that Beamer's recruiting has been no better (actually worse) than previous coaches, the Beamer hire might prove to be a monumental screw up for the ages. To paraphrase Don King: Only at South Carolina.
Many a winning coach did not have good personalities. A couple of our past coaches, Carlen and Morrison, were lacking in that area. Bobby Knight was like that. Eddie Fogler was like that. Brad Scott on the other hand had a great personality. The best hires don't always check all the boxes. The won-loss record is always the bottom line to me.May be true. I've heard that Chadwell doesn't interview well....and his personality wouldn't seem to impress Caslen.
I don't disagree with you at all.Many a winning coach did not have good personalities. A couple of our past coaches, Carlen and Morrison, were lacking in that area. Bobby Knight was like that. Eddie Fogler was like that. Brad Scott on the other hand had a great personality. The best hires don't always check all the boxes. The won-loss record is always the bottom line to me.
I definitely don't disagree with you. At this point, though, all we can do is look at it on paper and speculate. The "experts" are ranking all of those teams well ahead of us at the moment.That's how people are looking at the schedule: on paper. But if people took a deeper dive into our schedule, they would see that we play Ole Miss and Missouri at home. We play a first-year Head Coach-led Texas A&M team at home where we won 2 years ago. We beat Kentucky for each of the past 2 seasons. And we beat Clemson at their place 2 years ago. If Beamer produces a mediocre season in 2024 when most of the players will be his recruits in his 4th season, I believe he will have some explaining to do.
I think we will surprise people. Maybe it's because I hope that Beamer is a "chip off the old block" and thus can outcoach the other guy. He is going to have to because he is not proving to be a strong recruiter.I definitely don't disagree with you. At this point, though, all we can do is look at it on paper and speculate. The "experts" are ranking all of those teams well ahead of us at the moment.
Personally I think LSU is very beatable, Missouri will not be as good, and we're even with Kentucky.
We have some strong recruiters though.....Lucas, Gray, Teasley and to a lesser extent White. Not sure about the new RB and WR coaches yet.I think we will surprise people. Maybe it's because I hope that Beamer is a "chip off the old block" and thus can outcoach the other guy. He is going to have to because he is not proving to be a strong recruiter.
I hope we can move up in the rankings because right now we are 12th in the 16-team SEC. That does not mean that the guys listed there are not strong recruiters. It might mean that the other teams have just as strong or stronger recruiters. Ranked 12th is not a good sign for the future. So we have to move up. If we don't, then we have to hope that Shane has the coaching chops of Frank. I don't think that Frank was a great recruiter. I think he was pretty good at that phase of the game, bringing in the occasional blue-chippers and surrounding them with solid players. I think that Frank though excelled in the coaching side of the game, kind of like Carlen, Morrison and Spurrier. Time will tell.We have some strong recruiters though.....Lucas, Gray, Teasley and to a lesser extent White. Not sure about the new RB and WR coaches yet.
Your first 2 sentences hardly sounds like a full endorsement. Comes off as apologetic.Beamer is doing all that he can do. He got as much as he could from the portal. I think that whoever wrote that article is an idiot!!
Has Beamer ever "outcoached" anybody? Maybe you can refresh my memory.I think we will surprise people. Maybe it's because I hope that Beamer is a "chip off the old block" and thus can outcoach the other guy. He is going to have to because he is not proving to be a strong recruiter.
I don't know. "Hope" is eternal.Has Beamer ever "outcoached" anybody? Maybe you can refresh my memory.
In the Mayo bowl he did catch UNC by surprise with the Joyner and Bell thing. I'll give him that. If that was his idea.I don't know. "Hope" is eternal.
Carlen and Morrison were winning coaches? They were slightly over .500.......Many a winning coach did not have good personalities. A couple of our past coaches, Carlen and Morrison, were lacking in that area. Bobby Knight was like that. Eddie Fogler was like that. Brad Scott on the other hand had a great personality. The best hires don't always check all the boxes. The won-loss record is always the bottom line to me.
Yeah, but if this job were a golf course, it'd have a course rating of about 75 and a slope of about 150, so .500 here is like .600 somewhere else.Carlen and Morrison were winning coaches? They were slightly over .500.......
Everyone here is always starting from scratch; we've never had one successful coach directly succeed another successful coach that I can recall.Yeah, but if this job were a golf course, it'd have a course rating of about 75 and a slope of about 150, so .500 here is like .600 somewhere else.![]()
I would guess some on here would mention Spurrier following Holtz, however the argument against that is that Holtz had a losing record at USC.Everyone here is always starting from scratch; we've never had one successful coach directly succeed another successful coach that I can recall.
Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is.We play more games now than when we played 10 and 11 games.
It is easier now to have a certain number of wins (say 8) now than it was then.Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is.
Yeah, that does not have anything to do with winning percentage.Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is.
Absolutely.It is easier now to have a certain number of wins (say 8) now than it was then.
Holtz was essentially done after Year Three, sad to say.I would guess some on here would mention Spurrier following Holtz, however the argument against that is that Holtz had a losing record at USC.