I'm still behind Beamer

[Deleted11512]

Then you'd rather Muschamp was still our coach?

We were no longer competitive when we fired Muschamp. And it wasn't like there was a plethora of 4-5* help coming. And he was on his third OC. He clearly had no idea how to correct it. Beamer is still recruiting at a high level, we're competing, got over the UK hump. O wasn't great, but there were signs of life with depleted OL/RB rooms. We had massive issues on O, and Muschamp's answer was BMac when he could have hired Drink.

Sometimes it's not about where you are, sometimes it's about confidence that you can get it back on track. There was just nothing indicating Muschamp was capable of it. And really, it looked to me like he couldn't care less about getting it fixed.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Beamer is still recruiting at a high level

That's not borne out by the recruiting rankings

 

[Lurker123]

We were no longer competitive when we fired Muschamp. And it wasn't like there was a plethora of 4-5* help coming. And he was on his third OC. He clearly had no idea how to correct it. Beamer is still recruiting at a high level, we're competing, got over the UK hump. O wasn't great, but there were signs of life with depleted OL/RB rooms. We had massive issues on O, and Muschamp's answer was BMac when he could have hired Drink.

Sometimes it's not about where you are, sometimes it's about confidence that you can get it back on track. There was just nothing indicating Muschamp was capable of it. And really, it looked to me like he couldn't care less about getting it fixed.

I don't think the recruiting is that much different. And other than that, by year 5 Beamer could be on his 3rd OC too. His first two choices have definitely been questionable.

But the main point of the question was the time. In the end, 5 years was enough to judge Muschamp on. It should be enough to judge others on too.

 

[Deleted11512]

Gosh, we're definitely doomed to mediocrity if Muschamp is the standard.

He is the picture of failure, not the measure of success. That would be HBC at this fine institution. He provided the baseline. Hover around bowl eligibility for 5 years, provided you're recruiting in the 15-25 range. Go through one round of crap assistants before hitting your stride. We're in the middle of that process.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I don't think the recruiting is that much different. And other than that, by year 5 Beamer could be on his 3rd OC too. His first two choices have definitely been questionable.

But the main point of the question was the time. In the end, 5 years was enough to judge Muschamp on. It should be enough to judge others on too.

I don't really see the fuss over Beamer's recruiting. It's about on par with what we have always done.

 

[Deleted11512]

I don't really see the fuss over Beamer's recruiting. It's about on par with what we have always done.

Total rankings can be tricky. It's just a total of all the scores. Sign bigger classes, get a bigger score with higher rankings. There's a blue chip theory our that you cannot compete for a NC unless at least 50% of the roster is blue chip recruits. Chump never hit that mark. Last year Beamer was at 50%, and 56% so far this class. Chumps classes were also top heavy, with little quality depth. Chump also never had 2 5*s in the same class. Chump also never signed a 5* from out of state, or didn't grow up a USC fan.

 

[accock]

Then you'd rather Muschamp was still our coach?

Then you'd rather Muschamp was still our coach?

I'm just saying it will take more than 4/5 years. I was in the Gamecock Club over 33 years and saw 8 HC's come and go with an average of 4.1 years

 

[ToddFlanders]

Those wrinkles were new to everybody who was coaching at their inception. Beamer wasn't the lone ranger on that one.

Very true, but while everyone figures out what the portal/NIL is going to look like long-term, in the short term the teams with the most money have been able to "win" recruiting. I still think Beamer is doing a fine job in high school recruiting - but portal recruiting (without a huge bankroll) is what will eventually define Beamer and USC football. And that includes keeping players that you need to keep.

 

[Lurker123]

I'm just saying it will take more than 4/5 years. I was in the Gamecock Club over 33 years and saw 8 HC's come and go with an average of 4.1 years

I understand what you're saying, but as dabosits pointed out, we knew it was time to get rid of Muschamp. We ALL saw it, and that was at the start of year 5.

I don't want to extend the career of a waffling coach simply so we can say we waited more than an arbitrary number of years.

 

[Deleted11512]

I understand what you're saying, but as dabosits pointed out, we knew it was time to get rid of Muschamp. We ALL saw it, and that was at the start of year 5.

I don't want to extend the career of a waffling coach simply so we can say we waited more than an arbitrary number of years.

I will agree here. It shouldn't be arbitrary. If a team is still fighting, still competing, and you're still recruiting in that 15-23 range, that's fine. At some point, you'll have to have a talk about expectations. If those things are still happening, I say give him 6, just like it took HBC.

 

[accock]

I will agree here. It shouldn't be arbitrary. If a team is still fighting, still competing, and you're still recruiting in that 15-23 range, that's fine. At some point, you'll have to have a talk about expectations. If those things are still happening, I say give him 6, just like it took HBC.

6 would be enough

 

[Psycock]

Absolutely. We need someone to build a program which is what he’s attempting to do. Look at Dabo, Stoops, etc. Then look at our schedule and be realistic which I know is not in some people’s thought processes. Give him time - lots of it.

 

[gamecock stock]

I'm still behind Beamer too. Here's the thing: In his 4th season, Lane Kiffin has won 10 games twice and finished 2nd in the West twice. Eli Drinkwitz won 10 games in season 4 and finished 2nd in the East in his 4th season. That's at Ole Miss and Missouri, not programs drooling with talent. Tough schedule or not, Beamer needs to show progress, not underachieve next season. his 4th here.

By the way, I love this quote by a Texas A&M fan at the prospect of them hiring Mark Stoops:
"Never underestimate the ability of the administration at our beloved university to dry up a wet dream".

 

[Deleted11512]

I'm still behind Beamer too. Here's the thing: In his 4th season, Lane Kiffin has won 10 games twice and finished 2nd in the West twice. Eli Drinkwitz won 10 games in season 4 and finished 2nd in the East in his 4th season. That's at Ole Miss and Missouri, not programs drooling with talent. Tough schedule or not, Beamer needs to show progress, not underachieve next season. his 4th here.

By the way, I love this quote by a Texas A&M fan at the prospect of them hiring Mark Stoops:
"Never underestimate the ability of the administration at our beloved university to dry up a wet dream".

Kiffin had 4 different HC jobs before this one. He was also OC under Saban and Carrol. He's doing well now, but his path wasn't a short one.

This is Drink's second HC gig. And a lot of people wanted to run him out of town after last year. People laughed at the Mizzou admin for giving him an extension.

 

[gamecock stock]

Kiffin had 4 different HC jobs before this one. He was also OC under Saban and Carrol. He's doing well now, but his path wasn't a short one.

This is Drink's second HC gig. And a lot of people wanted to run him out of town after last year. People laughed at the Mizzou admin for giving him an extension.

Well, first of all, I'm not reading lots of "fire Shane" posts, certainly not from me.

Kiffin was a successful Head Coach before going to Ole Miss. He finished 2nd in the East that one year at UT, 2nd in his division in the PAC 10 the year before his inexplicable mid-season firing and finished 6th in the nation the year before that. And at Florida Atlantic, won 2 conference championships in 3 seasons. He is a proven winner throughout those paths.

Drinkwitz has now produced big at 2 different schools. Whether he can continue that success, remains to be seen.

My point is that Kiffin and Drinkwitz did not exactly produce at rink-a-dink conferences. I realize the schedule is not easy next season. But Beamer needs to show progress, not steps backwards.

 

[KingWard]

Very true, but while everyone figures out what the portal/NIL is going to look like long-term, in the short term the teams with the most money have been able to "win" recruiting. I still think Beamer is doing a fine job in high school recruiting - but portal recruiting (without a huge bankroll) is what will eventually define Beamer and USC football. And that includes keeping players that you need to keep.

Nothing that really good counterfeiting wouldn't fix.

 

[KingWard]

I don't think we are disagreeing because I did say we got some very good players. But from top to bottom, we were not bringing in TOP 10 classes to translate to 3 straight Top 10 finishes. It took superior coaching.

It took coaching that didn't suck.

 

[KingWard]

What did Einstein say?? The definition is stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? All we've ever done is fire guys after 4-5 years. Clearly, it's not the measure of success here. The ONLY measure of success here wasn't successful until year 6. Yet here we are...talking about 4-5 years.

The one you're talking about was a special case, as you very well know. A place like us was never going to be in a position to fire a personage like him. Same with Holtz.

 

[kidrobinski]

Well, first of all, I'm not reading lots of "fire Shane" posts, certainly not from me.

Kiffin was a successful Head Coach before going to Ole Miss. He finished 2nd in the East that one year at UT, 2nd in his division in the PAC 10 the year before his inexplicable mid-season firing and finished 6th in the nation the year before that. And at Florida Atlantic, won 2 conference championships in 3 seasons. He is a proven winner throughout those paths.

Drinkwitz has now produced big at 2 different schools. Whether he can continue that success, remains to be seen.

My point is that Kiffin and Drinkwitz did not exactly produce at rink-a-dink conferences. I realize the schedule is not easy next season. But Beamer needs to show progress, not steps backwards.

The coach when my family moved here and I became a Carolina fan was Paul Dietzel. Tommy Suggs was the QB. I saw us win the ACC championship in 1969.

NO ONE not named Spurrier has ever ‘shown progress’ at South Carolina.

Spurrier didn’t show you could win at South Carolina; he showed that HE could win anywhere.

College football is not affected by a business model; it’s run by something more like an old boys club. We have a BOAT LOAD of things working against us in that regard; rattling sabres at coaches that don’t produce like we’re LSU will never work. Never has, never will.

 

[KingWard]

I'll tell you what...if Beamer wins 1 or 2 games next year, fire his ***. As long as he's right around that bowl mark for 5-6 years that's OK. We afforded that patience to a HOF coach. We have to do the same for a 1st time coach.

That doesn't follow whatsoever.

 

[KingWard]

It begs the question: should a coach with a track record of success get a shorter or longer leash than a new coach? On the one had, you can say he gets a longer leash b/c he's shown he can get the job done. On the other hand, you can say he gets a shorter leash because expectations are higher.

To me, that question doesn't even arise. Leverage goes along with proven success.

 

[Deleted11512]

The one you're talking about was a special case, as you very well know. A place like us was never going to be in a position to fire a personage like him. Same with Holtz.

Nor should we have. Doesn't change the fact that we've had one successful coach here, and it took him 6 years to achieve any success. We're going to expect a guy that's never even been a coordinator before to do it quicker than a HOF guy??

 

[KingWard]

Juice would be NFL bound if it weren't for NIL. Can you imagine this WR core next year without him??

Can you imagine this year without Ratt? It was bad enough. Thanks to NIL, he was able to come back.

I've heard some things that lead me to believe we're going to VERY active in the portal, and throwing some NIL money around. Lets just let this one play out a little.

NIL is a lot more than collective coffers...A LOT more.

It needs to totally OTHER THAN collective coffers.

 

[Deleted11512]

To me, that question doesn't even arise. Leverage goes along with proven success.

If we fired Beamer and threw $15M to get Urbs in here, I would expect him competing for a SEC championship within 4 years...not still fighting for bowl eligibility.

 

[Deleted11512]

That doesn't follow whatsoever.

I think you said you're retired. But when you were working, if you went to hire a manager....and choice A was a guy with 15 years of experience, double the salary, solid track record vs a guy with little experience, but good plan and vision for the department. Are you telling me you wouldn't have a little bigger learning curve for the guy with little experience? You'd hold him to the same standard as the seasoned vet?

 

[KingWard]

If we fired Beamer and threw $15M to get Urbs in here, I would expect him competing for a SEC championship within 4 years...not still fighting for bowl eligibility.

But you would give him the time as long as you saw he still had the fire in his belly. At five years, Spurrier still had the fire. After nine years, he clearly didn't.

I think you said you're retired. But when you were working, if you went to hire a manager....and choice A was a guy with 15 years of experience, double the salary, solid track record vs a guy with little experience, but good plan and vision for the department. Are you telling me you wouldn't have a little bigger learning curve for the guy with little experience? You'd hold him to the same standard as the seasoned vet?

If I could get the first one, I'd never hire the second one. If I had to settle for the second one, I wouldn't put my neck in a noose to save him if improvement were not measurable. In the business I was in, I would not have had the luxury of giving the second one more than three years, if that.

 

[Deleted11512]

But you would give him the time as long as you saw he still had the fire in his belly. At five years, Spurrier still had the fire. After nine years, he clearly didn't.

If I could get the first one, I'd never hire the second one. If I had to settle for the second one, I wouldn't put my neck in a noose to save him if improvement were not measurable. In the business I was in, I would not have had the luxury of giving the second one more than three years, if that.

Yeah, we're saying the same thing. If Beamer's still engaged, hasn't lost the team, still hovering around bowl eligibility he should get the same treatment HBC did.

Well, Tanner did. haha

 

[KingWard]

Yeah, we're saying the same thing. If Beamer's still engaged, hasn't lost the team, still hovering around bowl eligibility he should get the same treatment HBC did.

Well, Tanner did. haha

Well, another issue arises. In today's environment, does the program of such a man struggling to break through hold on to its credibility in the player marketplace? I think it's doubtful.

 

[StormblessedGamecock]

We will never build a winning program by hiring a new coach every 4-5 years, it has to be long term. It takes at least 4 years to get the kind of players that you need in the program to field a good team and then recruit better after that. That's the way I look at it.

Then hire someone who has proven they can do it. Will Muschamp proved he could NOT do it at Florida. Shane has not even proved in his career he can merit an on the field coaching role. Lets try hiring coaches that proved they can win THEN give them time. That worked pretty well for Spurrier and Holtz and they were way past their prime. Imagine if we actually hired an up and coming Head Coach with experience. What a wonderful experiment that would be. Instead. We have The Clapper.

 

[KingWard]

Then hire someone who has proven they can do it. Will Muschamp proved he could NOT do it at Florida. Shane has not even proved in his career he can merit an on the field coaching role. Lets try hiring coaches that proved they can win THEN give them time. That worked pretty well for Spurrier and Holtz and they were way past their prime. Imagine if we actually hired an up and coming Head Coach with experience. What a wonderful experiment that would be. Instead. We have The Clapper.

That boy at Liberty looks better to me all the time. I would say the boy at JMU, but he's pushing the age limit and he's less Southern.

 

[Deleted11512]

Then hire someone who has proven they can do it. Will Muschamp proved he could NOT do it at Florida. Shane has not even proved in his career he can merit an on the field coaching role. Lets try hiring coaches that proved they can win THEN give them time. That worked pretty well for Spurrier and Holtz and they were way past their prime. Imagine if we actually hired an up and coming Head Coach with experience. What a wonderful experiment that would be. Instead. We have The Clapper.

That's the underlying issue. Sparky was the last young guy we hired that had any success. Someone older than me will have to chime in as to whether or not there were other things going on that lead to his demise. Tanner went after Herman, but that fell apart at the last minute.

 

[Prestonyte]

That's the underlying issue. Sparky was the last young guy we hired that had any success. Someone older than me will have to chime in as to whether or not there were other things going on that lead to his demise. Tanner went after Herman, but that fell apart at the last minute.

That was blessing

 

[KingWard]

That was blessing

The road not taken can never be assessed with certitude.

 

[mickray]

That boy at Liberty looks better to me all the time. I would say the boy at JMU, but he's pushing the age limit and he's less Southern.

Better not to hire a boy. Even better to not call him/them a boy.

 

[mickray]

The road not taken can never be assessed with certitude.

"The road goes on forever and the party never ends"....

 

[KingWard]

Better not to hire a boy. Even better to not call him/them a boy.

When you're as old as I am, they're all boys to me. There are some people to whom I would not apply that characterization for sensibility reasons. I'm under no such constraints in this instance.

 

[KingWard]

"The road goes on forever and the party never ends"....

Well, it could go that way as long as you're willing to see beyond this realm.