I guess here's the thing, knowing our history. Do you pay a veteran guy who you know can get you at least 7 wins and a bowl most years? Or do you keep chasing new coaches who most often flame out (as most coaching hires do)?
Should Beamer get at least 6 years?
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
I guess here's the thing, knowing our history. Do you pay a veteran guy who you know can get you at least 7 wins and a bowl most years? Or do you keep chasing new coaches who most often flame out (as most coaching hires do)?
Regarding SOS, the discussion is not WHY he was given so long to show results. The discussion is that it took him 6 years to show real progress.
Next year will mark 55 years since we won what may be the weakest conference championship in the history of conference championships and that is our only championship of any kind in football in over 130 yrs. Setting championships as a goal is akin to setting curing cancer as a goal for gamecock football unless something magical occurs. The new SEC scheduling format is going to make it even harder for us to win a championship because we will not get to play Vandy every year and Vandy is really the only SEC win we can realistically count on every year. In 131 years of football, we are 25 games over .500, that is less than 2 games per decade over .500. In 4 fewer seasons, Clemson has 160 more wins than we do and is 224 games over .500.
7 or 8 wins per season is plenty to hope for.
Enjoyed reading through this thread. Good discussion. Here's my two cents...
I don't think you should ever give any coach a guaranteed six years. It needs to be a yearly evaluation of the program. Is there steady improvement and growth? Is the program competitive? It's not just about wins and losses, but obviously that's the most important part of the game. 2023 isn't over, but the trajectory we're on would point towards a really poor season. If 2024 is also terrible, is there enough to justify bringing Beamer back for 2025? That's an analysis that requires actual facts, not just speculation.
I think, for South Carolina football in the new buzzsaw SEC, that realistic expectations have to be put in place. If you're in a championship or bust mentality with the staff, then you're going to be hiring a new coach every 3-4 years. South Carolina just isn't a place you can say win or else, especially once Texas and Oklahoma are added to Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc. It's going to be a slow build, no matter who is in charge. So I'd be perfectly satisfied with a coach who consistently wins 7-8 games every year and is competitive in the others. That means you've got a program that hopefully could break through and actually compete for a championship a couple times a decade.
I don't think you should ever give any coach a guaranteed six years. It needs to be a yearly evaluation of the program. Is there steady improvement and growth? Is the program competitive? It's not just about wins and losses, but obviously that's the most important part of the game. 2023 isn't over, but the trajectory we're on would point towards a really poor season. If 2024 is also terrible, is there enough to justify bringing Beamer back for 2025? That's an analysis that requires actual facts, not just speculation.
I think, for South Carolina football in the new buzzsaw SEC, that realistic expectations have to be put in place. If you're in a championship or bust mentality with the staff, then you're going to be hiring a new coach every 3-4 years. South Carolina just isn't a place you can say win or else, especially once Texas and Oklahoma are added to Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc. It's going to be a slow build, no matter who is in charge. So I'd be perfectly satisfied with a coach who consistently wins 7-8 games every year and is competitive in the others. That means you've got a program that hopefully could break through and actually compete for a championship a couple times a decade.
Good points. And the implication of the OP was not a guaranteed 6 years. All the factors you mentioned are accurate.
I know the landscape of the game has undergone a total overhaul since Shane's dad coached, but aside from SOS, most also compare it to how long VaTech gave Frank. It wasn't until Year 7 when he really started to show something. He had 4 losing seasons in his first 7 years. Then things took off for him. He was 5-6 in Year 6 and 2-8-1 in Year 7.
I don't have any idea how he avoided being fired, but he did, and VaTech never regretted it.
I just think at some point we have play the long game with a coach and see what happens. What do we really have to lose? If we give a guy 8, 9 or 10 years and he never really gets it going, that's just a tradeoff for hiring a couple other coaches who probably would have flamed out after 3 or 4 years like most do.
Last edited:
I understand the SOS worship, it isn't like there is much more to be really proud of, but, realistically, what did he win while he was here? He won the East with 3 losses, the ultimate "backing in" and then got beaten in record fashion in the SECCG. SOS had a few unicorn recruits that really changed the direction of gamecock football. Take away Shaw, Alshon, Lattimore and Clowney and those glory years teams may have been 7 or 8 win teams.
I think being in a position to compete for a championship once a decade would be a realistic goal. South Carolina is not a job that appeals to top level coaches or even the top rated coordinators in the prime of their careers. The best hope is to hire a Chadwell away from a Coastal type job and let him build his resume for a while at South Carolina before he moves on to one of the big boys.
I don't want to get into all that and the point is not to laud his tenure here. The main point is that it took 6 years to really get traction.
If he goes 4-8, 3 years in a row, that would put him at year 5. At that point it would seem extremely doubtful the fanbase would be willing to accept another year with him as HC.
That "traction" lasted all of three seasons and then SOS walked out on the team mid season two seasons later. The goal should be to find a coach who can build the program to a consistent 7-8 win team. If that happens, some 10 win seasons will happen.
I know. But the point is, it took him 6 years to get there in the first place. Hopefully, a younger coach would not struggle with the issues that plagued Spurrier down the stretch.
I'm not surenim willing to buy the notion that since it took Spurrier 5 years, it will take any coach that long.
I understand the reasoning, I'm just not sure I buy it completely.
If we're setting Kentucky as our standard, I'll guarantee you, people will soon tire of it. Is that why this man was hired? Younger generation fans will especially squirm. Then again, can that even be sustained with this man?
People ain't gonna want to wait very long to find out, and recruiting to a higher level will get tougher.
Our administration is maladroit but they do respond to sufficient pressure. Sparky and Muschamp were proof enough of that. Ditto Martin. Scott was easier so I won't include him.
Look, I'm not saying Beamer can't do it, but he won't get six years without the kind of improvement that delights people. Better play without a commensurate record won't tickle the fanbase.
Those observations won't hold sway here, especially if we get stuck in a mediocre or worse rut.
For historical context, though, in 130+ years of football, when have a head coach turn the program around in 3 or 4 years? Morrison seemed to in Year 2, but then slumped in Years 3-4. Again, things started to turn in Years 5 and 6.
Mediocrity is contextual. For Alabama, 9-3 is mediocre. For us, that's in the handful of our best seasons ever.
I don't care what our history is. If all we're striving for is 7-8 wins we should never hire an experienced coach, and never pay a coach more than $4M ever again. And nobody should complain when we hire a guy like Beamer instead of a guy like Hugh Freeze. We hired Holtz and Spurrier to win more than that. Fans are being asked to pay more and more for tickets, concessions, parking, and now NIL. To say we're paying all of that to settle on 7-8 wins is a slap in the face. Maybe it happens anyway, but if you take away the hope for a better way you're going to see support erode of the years and we'll be left with nothing. I think UK is going to start seeing that this year. This was supposed to be their year. Stoops making bank, got a "big time" QB in the portal. They're going to lose interest pretty quick.
We hired a guy like Beamer AND we're paying him $6 million a year, so I'm not sure what you do with that...
Anyway, if the coaching staff and players are satisfied with 7-8 wins they need to be fired today. 7-8 wins should never be the goal. But as a fan base, looking at our history and the reality of the conference we're part of, 7-8 wins a year while being competitive in the losses shouldn't be considered a failed season. Those are the kinds of seasons that can be building blocks to bigger and better things. We've got to start somewhere...
We've had 14 seasons with 8 or more wins in our entire 116 year history. FOURTEEN.
So? Are you saying this excuses the next guy? Maybe the problem is us. Between the lack of money, when compared to other programs, to the off campus stadium, to the fact there's nothing really special about Cola that sets it or the school apart, maybe we'll be relegated to Miss State status forever.
Austin, TX is every bit as hot as Cola. Probably hotter. But that hasn't held UT back. It also hasn't held back Austin from becoming one of the neatest cities in the country. They did something that we didn't.
Columbia isn't exactly a "happening" city. It is nice enough but nothing about it is special to a college age person. It doesn't have a great music scene, it isn't in a location with a beach or mountains or any sort of draw nearby. The campus, outside of the horseshoe, is a collection of random looking buildings sort of scattered around a downtown area without any real feel of continuity. The stadium is not a part of campus at all. Other than game days, most students never even see it. The heat isn't really any worse than Athens, Clemson, Auburn, LSU (Baton Rouge is probably hotter and more humid). Columbia doesn't have the Old South gentility and small college town charm of Oxford or the cache of being consistently ranked one of the best college towns in the country like Athens. Lexington has the horses, Knoxville has the river and mountains, Vandy has Nashville, Gainesville has Florida and nearby beaches, Auburn has that small college town feel and a big stadium on campus and Bama's football history is all they need to draw recruits. USC is sort of left comparing itself to Missouri and Miss State.
The lack of money and having a football history that is pretty well the definition of mediocre makes it really hard to attract a top coach and top recruits. I think setting 7-8 wins a season is a reasonable expectation and if we can do that consistently 10 win seasons will happen on occasion.
So we're going for Kirk Ferentz and not Nick Saban; I get it.
The fanbase will get restless. Mediocrity gets old, even here. People middle-aged or younger will not accept that it's never going to get better than that. They'll get off the bus before they'll voluntary take that ride.
Consequently, the program will become more bereft financially than it is now. You can bet your butt that Kentucky, even with their apparent ceiling, isn't hoping for better.
lol, if it hasn’t gotten old in 130+ years, I don’t know when it will.
We will always punctuate our mediocrity with just enough success to keep fans engaged. It’s tried and true.
Has it really though? How many coaches have been allowed to hang around and be mediocre? None that I know of. I don't think the issues is that we just accept it. Maybe it's just those that are chosen to be in control of the hiring and firing activities.
It has gotten old. People HAVEN'T been "satisfied". That dissatisfaction has accounted for the departures of Giese, Bass, Dietzel, arguably Carlen, Bell, Woods, Scott, and Muschamp in my lifetime. If any of them had been, you know, winning at a high level, those winners would not have been dispatched.
The guy at Utah wins. He didn't necessarily build it, Urban did. But I like him and he proves what a good coach can do. SLC isn't a college town; it's got mountains, but other than that it's a haul to go anywhere from there. And the lake smells.
Yep. Programs just don't keep winning with the winning coach leaves. He's done a helluva job there. And could have probably named his job a few times by now. But he's satisfied where he is. Quite refreshing.
I've thought about him. But he's 62. By the time we get around to it, it's going to matter.
Indeed, but I think we can recognize progress when we see it, even if it doesn't necessarily translate into a particular number of wins. We don't have to believe in moral victories to acknowledge there are losses that give you hope and there are losses that give you no hope. We could have lost to UNC and still been a pretty good team. But good teams don't give up 9 sacks to UNC. Good teams could lose to Tennessee, Florida, and Mizzou. But good teams probably aren't going to lose to all three of them and aren't going to make somebody on the opponent's offense look like a Heisman candidate EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
I agree with King. While I do normally believe that you are what your record says you are, I'm also smart enough to know that progress is more nuanced than that.
When’s the last time we fired a coach for being mediocre? Not Muschamp. He was worse than mediocre. Not Scott. Not Woods.
Giese was mediocre. Carlen was that as well. A few more wins would have saved both of them, even as prickly as Carlen was. You're trying to construct a theoretical tolerance for future mediocricy that will not materialize. Carolina fans want what all serious fans of major programs want.
Last edited:
No. You're trying to construct a narrative and attribute it to me. I simply said that if fans haven't bailed on the program after 130+ years of mediocrity, then I'm not that worried about fans jumping ship. Of course we're always "striving" for better, but can a tiger change it's stripes?
How long have you been a Carolina fan? In your lifetime, do you realistically see us ever consistently becoming more than what we have been over the course of our history? If you're honest, my guess is "no". Yet you remain a fan.
I'm speaking to the bigger picture, which is why I referenced our 130+ year history and not just a particular coach. When you're a fan of a program that has been mediocre for 130+ years, there is a sense in which you have accepted mediocrity. It doesn't mean you don't hope for more.
Year after mediocre year, decade after mediocre decade, coach after mediocre coach, fans still show up to games and cheer on the team.
Last edited:
The answer is "no". Hasn't been anything but "no" for a couple of decades. That answer does not affect anyone else's aspirations. But the patience you and others are counseling will not coalesce absent visible progress manifesting itself in the form of additional wins. And I haven't attempted to "use" you to construct any narrative. No need to.
6 years is not automatic - he's going to have to earn it through progress which will need to be obvious to Gamecock supporters without a lot of analysis.