Should USC follow the Kentucky sports model?

[Big JC]

Kentucky is a well known basketball school. They are considered a blue blood elite basketball program and enjoy the benefits of being such. Their football program, while competitive, is not and never really has been considered anything special. Their other sports are good but not great but basketball keeps them on the college sports front page every year.

The state of Kentucky is rural, has two relatively large cities, has a population of 4.5 million and has 2 major universities (Louisville and UK). The state of SC is mostly rural with 2, maybe 3, larger urban areas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg), has a population of 5.1 million and two major universities. The similarities in the states are pretty close.

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball and the football program is historically mediocre at best. If USC became known as a major power in basketball the entire athletic program would be lifted to a level never before experienced. Chasing football greatness seems to be a fool's errand, it is probably never going to happen as long as we are surrounded by Clemson and UGA. Neither Clemson nor UGA is anything special in basketball so we would have a pretty easy time recruiting talent from the area to USC if our program was a top national program.

Is it time to play to our strength and stop beating our heads against the wall chasing football success?

 

[18IsTheMan]

We are a potent power in women's basketball, but that's really a non-factor in the big picture. We are far, far, far, far from a potent power in men's basketball. We should fully enjoy this season for what it is, but it's just one season so far.

To the overall question, it's not really a decision for the administration to make. Football is, far and away, the #1 sport for the vast majority of the fan base (and, yes, there are a few posters who will chime in saying that basketball is their favorite sport, but they are the minority). That will likely never change.

We are very similar to UK in that, for them, what they really care about basketball. If they happen to be good at football, that's icing on the cake. If they aren't good at football, oh well, they always have basketball. For us, it's much the same, with a twist. If we happen to be good at both sports, then basketball is the icing on the cake. More often than not, we look to basketball as a consolation prize after a disappointing football season. Again, this is for the majority of the fan base. I full well acknowledge there is a minority of the fan base who prioritizes other sports besides football.

Even though we aren't very good at it, football will almost certainly always be our #1 pursuit. It is a cruel mistress. Now, could this change over time? Hard to say. Let's say Lamont turns us into a perennial NCAAT team and maybe even shocks the world and wins a title or gets us to the title game. If we are a consistent winner in basketball for 15-20 seasons and continue to underachieve in football, could you see the fan loyalty shift? I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

I don't aspire to be a Kentucky sports model. I would rather follow the other more successful programs in the SEC.

 

[Big JC]

I don't aspire to be a Kentucky sports model. I would rather follow the other more successful programs in the SEC.

Kentucky has 3 SEC championships in football, 27 in basketball, 2 SEC championships in baseball and 8 national championships in basketball. They aren't totally a one trick pony.

 

[Uscg1984]

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball. . .

 

[gamecock stock]

Kentucky is a well known basketball school. They are considered a blue blood elite basketball program and enjoy the benefits of being such. Their football program, while competitive, is not and never really has been considered anything special. Their other sports are good but not great but basketball keeps them on the college sports front page every year.

The state of Kentucky is rural, has two relatively large cities, has a population of 4.5 million and has 2 major universities (Louisville and UK). The state of SC is mostly rural with 2, maybe 3, larger urban areas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg), has a population of 5.1 million and two major universities. The similarities in the states are pretty close.

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball and the football program is historically mediocre at best. If USC became known as a major power in basketball the entire athletic program would be lifted to a level never before experienced. Chasing football greatness seems to be a fool's errand, it is probably never going to happen as long as we are surrounded by Clemson and UGA. Neither Clemson nor UGA is anything special in basketball so we would have a pretty easy time recruiting talent from the area to USC if our program was a top national program.

Is it time to play to our strength and stop beating our heads against the wall chasing football success?

NO. Let me tell you the model we should follow:

Going back 60 years, we had some unprecedented success (for us) in football under:
Paul Dietzel
Jim Carlen
Joe Morrison
Lou Holtz and
Steve Spurrier

What did all the above have in common? Previous, successful Head Coaching success at the FBS level.

During that 60 year period, we hired as Head Coaches:
Richard Bell
Sparky Woods
Brad Scott
Will Muschamp and
Shane Beamer.
Except for Muschamp, South Carolina was their first FBS Head Coaching job. Bell, Woods and Scott were all unmitigated failures who were fired. Muschamp was a previously failed Head Coach at Florida prior to being hired and fired here. The jury is still out on Beamer.

There is a model to be followed for success in football at South Carolina. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But it has worked for us. It boggles my mind as to what the hiring authorities (the BOT or Tanner or both) were thinking in the past 9 years to deviate from that model, not once, BUT TWICE.

 

[gamecock stock]

Let me add one thing: don't let the end of Holtz and Spurrier's tenures here fool you. Both wanted to retire earlier for good here but were talked out of it.

 

[Deleted11512]

NO. Let me tell you the model we should follow:

Going back 60 years, we had some unprecedented success (for us) in football under:
Paul Dietzel
Jim Carlen
Joe Morrison
Lou Holtz and
Steve Spurrier

What did all the above have in common? Previous, successful Head Coaching success at the FBS level.

During that 60 year period, we hired as Head Coaches:
Richard Bell
Sparky Woods
Brad Scott
Will Muschamp and
Shane Beamer.
Except for Muschamp, South Carolina was their first FBS Head Coaching job. Bell, Woods and Scott were all unmitigated failures who were fired. Muschamp was a previously failed Head Coach at Florida prior to being hired and fired here. The jury is still out on Beamer.

There is a model to be followed for success in football at South Carolina. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But it has worked for us. It boggles my mind as to what the hiring authorities (the BOT or Tanner or both) were thinking in the past 9 years to deviate from that model, not once, BUT TWICE.

lol...winning %:

Dietzel - .443
Carlen - .555
JoMo - .580
Holtz - .471
HBC - .637

HBC is the ONLY coach to have any kind of sustained success, and it spanned a grand total of 4 years with a SEC East championship and 3 straight 11 win seasons. Sparky had a better % than Dietzel and Holtz.

 

[18IsTheMan]

lol...winning %:

Dietzel - .443
Carlen - .555
JoMo - .580
Holtz - .471
HBC - .637

HBC is the ONLY coach to have any kind of sustained success, and it spanned a grand total of 4 years with a SEC East championship and 3 straight 11 win seasons. Sparky had a better % than Dietzel and Holtz.

haha, yeaaaaaaah, I didn't follow that train of thought.

 

[Deleted11512]

haha, yeaaaaaaah, I didn't follow that train of thought.

we don't have a model.

 

[upstategc]

Back when Frank McGuire came - we did not necessarily aspire to become a basketball school - it happened the way things should happen... naturally by McGuire's method/model: Recruit, Recruit and Recruit.

Both Paul Dietzel and Frank McGuire historically were coming from recent National Championships (Dietzel at LSU, 1958; McGuire UNC, 1957) - so the enthusiasm was there for the Gamecock fans in both sports. BUT... nothing compared to the enthusiasm that occurred when we began winning consistently in basketball.

What's exciting about Lamont Paris (beside his obvious recruiting) is that he is showing some possible hidden attributes of being a great "X's & O's" strategy Basketball Coach.

 

[Uscg1984]

How about we follow the model of Alabama, which, as a state, is more similar to SC than Kentucky:

Population of Alabama: 5.04m
Population of SC: 5.2m
Both with three primary population centers
Both in the deep south
Both have similar demographics
Both have 2 P5 athletic programs

 

[Big JC]

How about we follow the model of Alabama, which, as a state, is more similar to SC than Kentucky:

Population of Alabama: 5.04m
Population of SC: 5.2m
Both with three primary population centers
Both in the deep south
Both have similar demographics
Both have 2 P5 athletic programs

LOL; good one.

 

[gamecock stock]

lol...winning %:

Dietzel - .443
Carlen - .555
JoMo - .580
Holtz - .471
HBC - .637

HBC is the ONLY coach to have any kind of sustained success, and it spanned a grand total of 4 years with a SEC East championship and 3 straight 11 win seasons. Sparky had a better % than Dietzel and Holtz.

lol...winning %:

Dietzel - .443
Carlen - .555
JoMo - .580
Holtz - .471
HBC - .637

HBC is the ONLY coach to have any kind of sustained success, and it spanned a grand total of 4 years with a SEC East championship and 3 straight 11 win seasons. Sparky had a better % than Dietzel and Holtz.

LOL. Why did you skip over the word "SOME" unprecedented success? LOL Read a little more closely next time.

The bottom line is take a look at the entire time of each of the coaches who had prior FBS Head Coaching experience and compare them to those who coached here without that. Now tell me which group had more success here and you'd prefer. Hmmmmm? LOL

 

[gamecock stock]

Just going by memory:

Dietzel won a conference championship
Carlen was the first SC coach to win 8 games in one season (did it twice
Morrison was the first coach to produce top 15 teams here (did it twice I believe)
Holtz produced 1 Top 20 team and 1 Top 15 team, if memory serves. He also beat traditional power Ohio State twice in a row in bowls
Spurrier produced 3 Top 10 teams.

Now how did Bell, Woods, Muschamp's and Beamers (thus far ) careers compare? Which group's accomplishments would you rather have? Hmmmmm?

The bottom line is that we have had the most success with coaches who had prior successful FBS Head Coaching experience. Guys, it "ain't" even close.

The proven hires finished their careers:
Dietzel was forced to give up the AD position for Carlen
Carlen was fired for a private scandal and because he openly opposed President Jim Holderman
Morrison died.
Holtz and Spurrier were talked out of retiring earlier and sleep-walked in their final years. But both left to retire.

Bell fired after only one season and a 4-7 record when he refused to fire some assistants.
Woods, Scott and Muschamp fired by their season 5 for poor performance.
The jury is still out on Beamer.

The only coaches fired for poor performance on the field were Bell, Woods, Scott and Muschamp. The others either retired, died or forced out for a non-football reason.

We all support Shane. The record though is crystal clear: South Carolina football has had its most success with Head Coaches who had prior successful Head Coaching experience.

 

[Deleted11512]

Just going by memory:

Dietzel won a conference championship
Carlen was the first SC coach to win 8 games in one season (did it twice
Morrison was the first coach to produce top 15 teams here (did it twice I believe)
Holtz produced 1 Top 20 team and 1 Top 15 team, if memory serves. He also beat traditional power Ohio State twice in a row in bowls
Spurrier produced 3 Top 10 teams.

Now how did Bell, Woods, Muschamp's and Beamers (thus far ) careers compare? Which group's accomplishments would you rather have? Hmmmmm?

The bottom line is that we have had the most success with coaches who had prior successful FBS Head Coaching experience. Guys, it "ain't" even close.

The proven hires finished their careers:
Dietzel was forced to give up the AD position for Carlen
Carlen was fired for a private scandal and because he openly opposed President Jim Holderman
Morrison died.
Holtz and Spurrier were talked out of retiring earlier and sleep-walked in their final years. But both left to retire.

Bell fired after only one season and a 4-7 record when he refused to fire some assistants.
Woods, Scott and Muschamp fired by their season 5 for poor performance.
The jury is still out on Beamer.

The only coaches fired for poor performance on the field were Bell, Woods, Scott and Muschamp. The others either retired, died or forced out for a non-football reason.

We all support Shane. The record though is crystal clear: South Carolina football has had its most success with Head Coaches who had prior successful Head Coaching experience.

So Dietzel gets credit for winning in a bball conference, but not Dabo? Got it.
Beamer won 8 games.
Beamer currently has an overall winning record. Which is more than Dietzel or Holtz can say. Our history is certainly not an indicator that prior experience will lead to success....b/c we've never had success. It's an exercise in futility. Brad f'n Scott won our first bowl game ever. Dieztel won a NC at LSU, came here and had a losing record. It's a crapshoot.

 

[USCEE82]

Kentucky is a well known basketball school. They are considered a blue blood elite basketball program and enjoy the benefits of being such. Their football program, while competitive, is not and never really has been considered anything special. Their other sports are good but not great but basketball keeps them on the college sports front page every year.

The state of Kentucky is rural, has two relatively large cities, has a population of 4.5 million and has 2 major universities (Louisville and UK). The state of SC is mostly rural with 2, maybe 3, larger urban areas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg), has a population of 5.1 million and two major universities. The similarities in the states are pretty close.

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball and the football program is historically mediocre at best. If USC became known as a major power in basketball the entire athletic program would be lifted to a level never before experienced. Chasing football greatness seems to be a fool's errand, it is probably never going to happen as long as we are surrounded by Clemson and UGA. Neither Clemson nor UGA is anything special in basketball so we would have a pretty easy time recruiting talent from the area to USC if our program was a top national program.

Is it time to play to our strength and stop beating our heads against the wall chasing football success?

Maybe, but only after decades of great success in basketball and at the same time a prolonged lack of success in football.

 

[will110]

Kentucky is a well known basketball school. They are considered a blue blood elite basketball program and enjoy the benefits of being such. Their football program, while competitive, is not and never really has been considered anything special. Their other sports are good but not great but basketball keeps them on the college sports front page every year.

The state of Kentucky is rural, has two relatively large cities, has a population of 4.5 million and has 2 major universities (Louisville and UK). The state of SC is mostly rural with 2, maybe 3, larger urban areas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg), has a population of 5.1 million and two major universities. The similarities in the states are pretty close.

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball and the football program is historically mediocre at best. If USC became known as a major power in basketball the entire athletic program would be lifted to a level never before experienced. Chasing football greatness seems to be a fool's errand, it is probably never going to happen as long as we are surrounded by Clemson and UGA. Neither Clemson nor UGA is anything special in basketball so we would have a pretty easy time recruiting talent from the area to USC if our program was a top national program.

Is it time to play to our strength and stop beating our heads against the wall chasing football success?

Saying USC has become a "pretty potent power in basketball" after one successful season is an interesting definition of the phrase. We're a LONG way from being a power in basketball (unless you're talking about WBB).

To answer your question though, I think we should be able to do both. Invest in football AND basketball.

 

[gamecock stock]

So Dietzel gets credit for winning in a bball conference, but not Dabo? Got it.
Beamer won 8 games.
Beamer currently has an overall winning record. Which is more than Dietzel or Holtz can say. Our history is certainly not an indicator that prior experience will lead to success....b/c we've never had success. It's an exercise in futility. Brad f'n Scott won our first bowl game ever. Dieztel won a NC at LSU, came here and had a losing record. It's a crapshoot.

You are missing the point. Dietzel was our coach. He did what he did at USC. Dabo did what he did at Clemson.
Beamer won 8 games in a 12-game season schedule. Carlen did it twice in 11-game schedules.
Dietzel won a conference championship. Beamer has not. Holtz produced one Top 20 and one Top 15 team. Beamer has not.
What success we have had that has been unprecedented for USC was done by those who had prior FBS Head Coaching experience prior to coming here. (Scott was the exception but was fired after 5 seasons for overall poor performance beyond his bowl win) Those coaches with prior successful FBS Head Coaching experience either retired, died or forced out for personal scandal. The others all were fired for poor performance on the field.

 

[Blues man]

NO. Let me tell you the model we should follow:

Going back 60 years, we had some unprecedented success (for us) in football under:
Paul Dietzel
Jim Carlen
Joe Morrison
Lou Holtz and
Steve Spurrier

What did all the above have in common? Previous, successful Head Coaching success at the FBS level.

During that 60 year period, we hired as Head Coaches:
Richard Bell
Sparky Woods
Brad Scott
Will Muschamp and
Shane Beamer.
Except for Muschamp, South Carolina was their first FBS Head Coaching job. Bell, Woods and Scott were all unmitigated failures who were fired. Muschamp was a previously failed Head Coach at Florida prior to being hired and fired here. The jury is still out on Beamer.

There is a model to be followed for success in football at South Carolina. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But it has worked for us. It boggles my mind as to what the hiring authorities (the BOT or Tanner or both) were thinking in the past 9 years to deviate from that model, not once, BUT TWICE.

I don't know, bottom line is none of those previously successful guys were able to build something lasting here. I'd rather follow a model that is looking for that diamond in the rough such as someone like Beamer. That said, I don't know if Beamer is the guy or not. But just because we haven't found that diamond in the past doesn't mean we wont hit the jackpot at some point. My model would also include a faster moving revolving door in that search tho... especially in this day and age of the portal.

 

[gamecock stock]

I don't know, bottom line is none of those previously successful guys were able to build something lasting here. I'd rather follow a model that is looking for that diamond in the rough such as someone like Beamer. That said, I don't know if Beamer is the guy or not. But just because we haven't found that diamond in the past doesn't mean we wont hit the jackpot at some point. My model would also include a faster moving revolving door in that search tho... especially in this day and age of the portal.

It's unfortunate that Spurrier and Holtz were past their prime, ready to retire, and did so (but had success here), Morrison died and Carlen was fired for a private affair and for his disagreement with Holderman.

If Carlen had kept it in his pants and obeyed Holderman and Morrison had not died, they were on their way to producing sustained success. Of course Holtz and Spurrier, if only they had been much younger, could have also. But Holtz and Spurrier gave us a taste of success while here.

I am 100% behind Beamer. if... If.....IF Beamer fails, I hope we hire a younger guy like him or Muschamp. But also a guy who has shown and proven to have the ability to be a successful Head Coach. There is never any guarantee. But as our ex-Athletic Director Eric Hyman said after he hired Dawn Staley....hiring someone who has been successful at the job increases your chance for future success.

 

[Deleted11512]

It's unfortunate that Spurrier and Holtz were past their prime, ready to retire, and did so (but had success here), Morrison died and Carlen was fired for a private affair and for his disagreement with Holderman.

If Carlen had kept it in his pants and obeyed Holderman and Morrison had not died, they were on their way to producing sustained success. Of course Holtz and Spurrier, if only they had been much younger, could have also. But Holtz and Spurrier gave us a taste of success while here.

I am 100% behind Beamer. if... If.....IF Beamer fails, I hope we hire a younger guy like him or Muschamp. But also a guy who has shown and proven to have the ability to be a successful Head Coach. There is never any guarantee. But as our ex-Athletic Director Eric Hyman said after he hired Dawn Staley....hiring someone who has been successful at the job increases your chance for future success.

I think everyone would rather hire a proven commodity. But the unemployment line is full of those guys as well.

Now, I'm gonna start getting ready to watch us whoop the piss out of UT!!

 

[gamecock stock]

I think everyone would rather hire a proven commodity. But the unemployment line is full of those guys as well.

Now, I'm gonna start getting ready to watch us whoop the piss out of UT!!

I agree with you. But as Eric Hyman, our ex-AD who hired Dawn Staley said, after hiring her: You improve your chances for future success when you hire someone who has done it before.

 

[Uscg1984]

Beamer currently has an overall winning record. Which is more than Dietzel or Holtz can say.

In all fairness to Lou, his overall record is unfairly skewed downward with that 0-11 first season, which makes his SEC Coach of the year award the following year even more impressive.

He did peter out, but he should have been allowed to retire after he had "fixed" us.

 

[mickray]

Lately Clemson is winning against us in all sports.

 

[KingWard]

Kentucky is a well known basketball school. They are considered a blue blood elite basketball program and enjoy the benefits of being such. Their football program, while competitive, is not and never really has been considered anything special. Their other sports are good but not great but basketball keeps them on the college sports front page every year.

The state of Kentucky is rural, has two relatively large cities, has a population of 4.5 million and has 2 major universities (Louisville and UK). The state of SC is mostly rural with 2, maybe 3, larger urban areas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg), has a population of 5.1 million and two major universities. The similarities in the states are pretty close.

USC has become a pretty potent power in basketball and the football program is historically mediocre at best. If USC became known as a major power in basketball the entire athletic program would be lifted to a level never before experienced. Chasing football greatness seems to be a fool's errand, it is probably never going to happen as long as we are surrounded by Clemson and UGA. Neither Clemson nor UGA is anything special in basketball so we would have a pretty easy time recruiting talent from the area to USC if our program was a top national program.

Is it time to play to our strength and stop beating our heads against the wall chasing football success?

Yes, we should definitely not obsess any longer over football. Fans should enroll immediately in aversion therapy.

 

[mickray]

Enrolled.

 

[gamecock stock]

I remember going to a Gamecock sports event when McGuire was the coach here. He, in essence, said that Carolina is a "football first" school. When it's all said and done, the fans here will always have football first in their hearts, no matter what.

 

[Deleted11512]

In all fairness to Lou, his overall record is unfairly skewed downward with that 0-11 first season, which makes his SEC Coach of the year award the following year even more impressive.

He did peter out, but he should have been allowed to retire after he had "fixed" us.

Unfair? Nah, he needs to wear that one. Nobody forced him to stay 2 years too long.

 

[KingWard]

Unfair? Nah, he needs to wear that one. Nobody forced him to stay 2 years too long.

The naked truth is that he was done for from the time Petty graduated and Lou decided to reinvent his 1983 ND Tony Rice offense using Jenkins - basically taking over the offense from Skip. It never was really right after the second Ohio State win.

 

[Uscg1984]

Unfair? Nah, he needs to wear that one. Nobody forced him to stay 2 years too long.

My "unfair" comment was speaking to his record being weighed down by the 0-11 season. Of course he has to own everything after that.

He was hired to turn around a dismal program and he succeeded at that. And quickly.

 

[Big JC]

My "unfair" comment was speaking to his record being weighed down by the 0-11 season. Of course he has to own everything after that.

He was hired to turn around a dismal program and he succeeded at that. And quickly.

Take away the 0-11 season and Holtz would have been 33-26 overall and 19-21 in SEC play. I guess he took us from dismal to mediocre.

 

[Deleted11512]

My "unfair" comment was speaking to his record being weighed down by the 0-11 season. Of course he has to own everything after that.

He was hired to turn around a dismal program and he succeeded at that. And quickly.

No, he needs to own that too. As many great things as Holtz provided, he also provided three of the most embarrassing moments in our program's history: 0-11, 63-17, and the brawl. I guess you could probably add in Penkins as QB1.

Lou Holtz earned that 0-11 season.