How many of you guys/gals think Beamer needs more time? If so, explain why. *
- Thread starter rockingamecock
- Start date
Well, there's no question he needs more time. The real question is: does he deserve more time?
We're no better off now than we were when Muschamp was fired. So my answer is no.
Here we go again.
The 5-year horse is out of the barn. Are we going to saddle-up again or try something different?
The 5-year horse is out of the barn. Are we going to saddle-up again or try something different?
More time because you can't keep changing horses midstream. He's young. I believe he has potential and he will get there. It's a rare coach that inherits a team in shambles and turns it around in 4 years.
Vandy just beat Bama. Lea started in 2021.
Beamer may have potential but it is foolish to pay him $6+ million a year to develop that potential.
Yes. Beamer needs until the end of the 2024 season, then evaluate his performance.
Mississippi was an abysmal performance, but not one that warrants him being fired in the middle of the season. There's still over half a season left.
Mississippi was an abysmal performance, but not one that warrants him being fired in the middle of the season. There's still over half a season left.
He's young-ish, 47. Kirby is 48 and has 2 titles under his belt. Dabo had 2 titles by age 48. Kalen DeBoer is 49. Beamer's career trajectory, if it is going up, is just far behind those guys.
As much as I don't love where we are now, I think he has shown some signs here and there of potentially being a good head coach. He's also shown plenty of signs of being inexperienced. I, along with a few others on here, have advocated that we just need to double down and give him a long-term contract/commitment. One thing that helps a program is stability. It helps with hiring assistants and with recruiting. If there were a true long-term commitment on our part, I think that could work. Say a 10 year contract. If it doesn't work, we really have nothing to lose.
I'd say the long term contract idea had some merit if he were making a much smaller salary and had a contract with performance based bonuses.
Yes, he need more time, and its simple, new AD is not here yet, new AD should be allowed to sink or swim based on what he does with the football program.
I would think unless the wheels fall completely off this season, the new AD gives Beamer 2025, since he has the built in excuse, I didn't hire him, that guy that hired WIll Muschamp did, I inherited him and if things are not progressing, we have new coach for 2026. That is the safe play for the new AD and if Beamer gets going then he is the smart new AD that knew not to make a change.
I would think unless the wheels fall completely off this season, the new AD gives Beamer 2025, since he has the built in excuse, I didn't hire him, that guy that hired WIll Muschamp did, I inherited him and if things are not progressing, we have new coach for 2026. That is the safe play for the new AD and if Beamer gets going then he is the smart new AD that knew not to make a change.
Last edited:
It almost boils down to whether or not you can get a real game changer at QB through the portal. That's a big crap shoot. But honestly, with NIL and all the transfers, you can go from not making a bowl to 7-8 wins in an offseason. You can also go the other way.
I like King's idea below from a previous thread of creating our own new path and set a new standard.
We have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
We have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
I agree with all of this except *maybe* characterizing him as young-ish. He's not young-ish. He's prime career age. He wasn't young when he got the job and he's not young now. He's just relatively unaccomplished plus gives off boyish / immature vibes much of the time.
I agree somewhat, and posted a long time ago that we should give Beamer a 10 year deal. The problem I see with an mostly incentive-laden contract is that Beamer's agent is Jimmy Sexton. I can't see him going along with that. However, given Beamer's largely mediocre results, maybe he would jump at the chance to get one of less attractive clients locked into a long-term deal.
As I said in my thread advocating for a long-term deal, we really have nothing to lose. If it doesn't end up working out, we most likely will be about where we have always been.
Well, yeah, that was my implication. 47 isn't technically old, but in the coaching ranks, if you haven't shown something by that age, that's a bit of a red flag.
I'll take 'what's the same question that's been asked about the south carolina football coach since I moved here in 1968' for $500 Alex.
And yet here we are.
Whether its Paul Dietzel, Lou Holtz, Steve Spurrier, or Sparky Woods, Brad Scott, Muschamp, Beamer.
And yet here we are. 56 years. And people STILL think all it takes is a coach.
And yet here we are.
Whether its Paul Dietzel, Lou Holtz, Steve Spurrier, or Sparky Woods, Brad Scott, Muschamp, Beamer.
And yet here we are. 56 years. And people STILL think all it takes is a coach.
Sexton doesn't really have a lot of leverage in negotiating for Beamer. It isn't like he is a hot commodity and Sexton can claim there are other programs vying for his services. If Sexton tried that the AD could say "well, good luck to him at his new job" and not be giving up on a proven winner.
Dietzel pretty much got better as time went on... for the most part.
Sparky's best years were his first two with a footnote that he didn't sign up to play in the SEC later.
Needless to say both Spurrier and Holtz best years was not their first or second years. Exactly what you want to see in a football coach right?
Brad Scott and Muschamp best years were their first or second year.
Shane Beamer is on track to year one and two being his best years in the mold of Scott and Muschamp.
I dont know why it's so hard to find a coach that is capable of winning with their own players but as far as I'm concerned once it becomes evident they can't, it's time to move on asap.
A lot of folks are frustrated with Beamer and I can understand that, at the same time we have tried this thing that if they don’t win in 4 or 5 years we’ll replace him with some big miracle coach that’s going to turn it around in 3 or 4 years, the only guy that’s done that was spurrier and it took him 5 years to get the ball really moving. Beamer wants to be here and while somewhat green, give him the reins for 2-3 years. With Okie and Texas coming in it’s going to take it.
Yes, I think the fact that we bothered to hire him the first place, being as thoroughly inexperienced as he was, and given the state of our program at the time, necessitates giving him more time. As disappointed as we were with last season's results and the returns so far this year, what could have reasonably been expected? In some ways I think we're obligated to see this thing through and see whether it can eventually produce results.
Now, that doesn't answer the question of "should we have hired him?" That ship has sailed. We did.
Of course, as noted above, the major wild card is the new AD.
One thing that worries me about Beamer more than the record is when he says after a bad loss that he really didn't see it coming and that we really had a fantastic week of practices leading up to the game. This is pretty standard for him. And he's usually overly emphatic in describing how great the week of practice was.
I know as a coach/player you always go into the game expecting and planning to win. But surely we could not have had a fantastic week of practices leading up to what we saw on the field against ODU or Ole Miss.
It concerns me about his ability to really discern where the team is in terms of preparation and development.
I know as a coach/player you always go into the game expecting and planning to win. But surely we could not have had a fantastic week of practices leading up to what we saw on the field against ODU or Ole Miss.
It concerns me about his ability to really discern where the team is in terms of preparation and development.
No, it's year 4. It's highly likely we win only 4 games. We were whipped last week, and it's highly likely we'll be thrashed by everyone except WoCo. That's unacceptable.
I've seen no evidence he is improving. If anything, he's even more stubborn and prickly.
I would genuinely like to know how many of those seniors (excluding Gilber Edmond since he played here before) are seniors who transferred in as seniors. IMO, that changes things a little if a significant number of the seniors are from the portal.
I saw someone else post the "recruiting rankings" for Spurrier, Muschamp, and Beamer.... and Beamers were either = to, or slightly worse than Muschamps classes so far.....and we fired him, so.... there's that.
I don’t post a lot, but stop by to read a lot. I was never a fan of the Beamer hire. We went the cheap route on the Beamer. I will preface this By saying I like Beamer as a person. He seems to have a strong faith, loves his family, and I truly believe he loves this place. What’s not to like? 6-6 is an accomplishment. We have been conditioned to be happy/ecstatic to be .500 or better and going bowling, even though these lower tier bowls mean nothing.
what bothered me during the hiring process was how much emphasis was given to ex-players opinions. I know he’s a likable guy, and it’s obvious the players loved him. He was one of the “boys” coaching special teams and recruiting coordinator. A legit hiring process should have not put so much credence in a bunch of ex players. Now we all know the lack of HC experience, but to me you judge who he assembles as his staff. And that’s been nothing to excite me. I know in the past you needed to give a coach 5 years to judge his whole body of work. That doesn’t apply anymore. With the portal, you can build a team immediately, and get experienced players to fill voids from the previous year, instead of relying on a freshman or RS freshman.
my point is you can win immediately…if you have the right coaches. I think Beamer will have a win or two each year that he shouldn’t wind but that will be offset by bad losses like last weeks game vs Ole Miss. if you’re satisfied with that, then give him more time. I just don’t think he has the nucleus or the experience to get guys to play at a high level in this league. And my honest opinion, the AD and Board are happy collecting the $80M per year so they can enhance fan experience. My fan experience rest solely on win/losses and how we play, not the pregame festivities.
just my two cents
what bothered me during the hiring process was how much emphasis was given to ex-players opinions. I know he’s a likable guy, and it’s obvious the players loved him. He was one of the “boys” coaching special teams and recruiting coordinator. A legit hiring process should have not put so much credence in a bunch of ex players. Now we all know the lack of HC experience, but to me you judge who he assembles as his staff. And that’s been nothing to excite me. I know in the past you needed to give a coach 5 years to judge his whole body of work. That doesn’t apply anymore. With the portal, you can build a team immediately, and get experienced players to fill voids from the previous year, instead of relying on a freshman or RS freshman.
my point is you can win immediately…if you have the right coaches. I think Beamer will have a win or two each year that he shouldn’t wind but that will be offset by bad losses like last weeks game vs Ole Miss. if you’re satisfied with that, then give him more time. I just don’t think he has the nucleus or the experience to get guys to play at a high level in this league. And my honest opinion, the AD and Board are happy collecting the $80M per year so they can enhance fan experience. My fan experience rest solely on win/losses and how we play, not the pregame festivities.
just my two cents
Only Georgia and Oklahoma have had fewer head coaches since 1999 than South Carolina in the SEC. This idea that we fire coaches all the time is just not true.
He gets this season. The new AD will have to decide if the time is right for a change. Beamer will likely change some assistants to keep his job. The problem is getting good assistants when the HC seat is hot. Same with good recruits. It is not always that a school wants to fire a coach. But when the coach can't get the recruits or good staff then it is time. By that time the donors are raising hell.
Hypothetically, if we fail to make a bowl this year, it'll be two years in a row.
Isn't that already sinking?
We're barely staying afloat, as the case has been since the Spurrier days.
I’m torn.
On one hand, we have no identity, have not improved in some aspects, and are all over the place in others. He gripes like a child sometimes. After 4 years, I don’t know how much, if any, better we are.
On the other hand, fact is, the culture around the program was in the dumpster. We all knew that. You can’t fix that quickly. Sure you can go to the portal and pick up a few wins that way, but you’ll never fix the underlying culture issue that way. Your foundation has to be your HS recruits with a few portal guys just as icing.
I am inclined to say give him more time. I don’t think you become consistently good when you fire your coach every 4-5 years (unless you were already an established winner). However for me to retain any faith in him, he must takes steps to get better, starting with the OL. If we weredecent upfront (don’t have to be great), I don’t think we are having this conversation. If he is unwilling to make the changes, then it is time.
On one hand, we have no identity, have not improved in some aspects, and are all over the place in others. He gripes like a child sometimes. After 4 years, I don’t know how much, if any, better we are.
On the other hand, fact is, the culture around the program was in the dumpster. We all knew that. You can’t fix that quickly. Sure you can go to the portal and pick up a few wins that way, but you’ll never fix the underlying culture issue that way. Your foundation has to be your HS recruits with a few portal guys just as icing.
I am inclined to say give him more time. I don’t think you become consistently good when you fire your coach every 4-5 years (unless you were already an established winner). However for me to retain any faith in him, he must takes steps to get better, starting with the OL. If we weredecent upfront (don’t have to be great), I don’t think we are having this conversation. If he is unwilling to make the changes, then it is time.
While I don't subscribe to the "he needs more time" narrative, I think your post will be the most likely scenario. After 2025 if Beamer can not produce a result better than 6-6, then we can declare the experiment failed.
Yes, but I'm trying to find a way not to pay him unless miracles happen.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Scott Davis brilliantly sums up the Beamer era- Latest: Slim Chickens Gamecock
-
Get unlimited access today.