This sums up recruiting in the NIL era

[18IsTheMan]

5* OL Josh Petty spoke on his decision to commit to Ga Tech.

It starts good enough: “Georgia Tech is feeling like home and is my home. They’ve got guys over there that make it feel authentic. They’ve got everything over there that’s been amazing. Staying in Atlanta is huge. It’ll definitely help with that feeling-at-home piece, but the friendly faces and the smiles and everything that goes on inside that building is more important to me as far as the home factor.”

Sounds good and traditional. Then he added:

"NIL was a factor for sure. I feel like around this time, if you’re an athlete, you should be entitled to your money, and you should get what you can out of that. I’ve worked with my agency, Cali Power and Power Athletics, and they’ve done a huge part in that. They’ve been fighting for me and making sure I do right, and they do right by me. Tech’s been very easy, Tech’s been very cooperative and efficient with working on that. It’s been very easy. It played a factor for it and I needed that number to be fair. Tech went beyond and above and really have taken care of me.”

Some love it. I hate it. I wonder if Ga Tech will still feel like home if OSU comes along with a few hundred thousand more dollars to offer.

College Football Player Josh Petty Is Set To Earn At Least $800K Yearly With A Roster Value NIL Deal At Georgia Tech, Report Says - AfroTech

Josh Petty has received a significant name, image, and likeness (NIL) deal that was hard to pass up. Petty is an offensive lineman from Fellowship Christian School in Roswell, GA, and was a No. 8 prospect for Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), according to data released by...

afrotech.com

 

[kidrobinski]

Precisely why its silly to come on here or anywhere else to throw shade and posit ad nauseum that Beamer was "supposed to be an elite recruiter". This is South Carolina; people from northern states sell or reverse mortgage their homes and come down here to buy what we consider mansions and/or beach homes. Didn't have to be a (upfront anyway) player in the money game when Beamer was hired.

 

[gamecock stock]

Here is a fact: if we are not going to be a Player in the recruiting game, for whatever reason, we need to overachieve with the cards dealt. We can still be a Top 20 program without being a recruiting juggernaut.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

Here is a fact: if we are not going to be a Player in the recruiting game, for whatever reason, we need to overachieve with the cards dealt. We can still be a Top 20 program without being a recruiting juggernaut.

Not with the current staff.

 

[Surfcock]

Not with the current staff.

So who do you go get????

Time and again - this staff sucks.
SC doesn’t have the $$$ to compete in a $$$ driven market. You also have to find a coach and staff that WANT , say again , WANT to be here.

Tell us who do you go after , who has the chops to play against the big boys. The big name that draws the talent. The high winning profile that no other big name school wants. The star power to excite the fans.

Who is it???

5 names so everyone can know the history, background, recruiting knowledge and winning percentage to get us excited

 

[gamecock stock]

Not with the current staff.

The hiring authorities here, whether it be a faction on the Board or just Tanner, I'm sure, envisioned Shane to be like his Dad Frank. People identify Frank with his success at Virginia Tech. But, what they don't know, is that Frank had success as a Head Coach prior to going to Virginia Tech at lower level Murray State. In 6 years at that school, PRIOR to going to Virginia Tech, Frank produced 2 Top 20 teams, 1 Top 15 and 1 Top 10 team. So, Frank was a proven winner prior to coaching at VT. We, on the other hand, rolled the dice on someone who had never even been a OC nor DC, much less a proven Head Coach to coach in the toughest football conference in the nation. Who could we get if Shane fails? For $6 million +/year, I suspect we could find a proven winner at a lower tier FBS school who would "want" to be here for that kind of starting money. Who? Who knows? Here is what I do know: I like Shane and am pulling for him. But, no one, not even Shane Beamer gets an indefinite period to prove they are worthy. I believe in the next 2 seasons, we will know whether the gamble pays off.

 

[Uscg1984]

The hiring authorities here, whether it be a faction on the Board or just Tanner, I'm sure, envisioned Shane to be like his Dad Frank. People identify Frank with his success at Virginia Tech. But, what they don't know, is that Frank had success as a Head Coach prior to going to Virginia Tech at lower level Murray State. In 6 years at that school, PRIOR to going to Virginia Tech, Frank produced 2 Top 20 teams, 1 Top 15 and 1 Top 10 team. So, Frank was a proven winner prior to coaching at VT. We, on the other hand, rolled the dice on someone who had never even been a OC nor DC, much less a proven Head Coach to coach in the toughest football conference in the nation. Who could we get if Shane fails? For $6 million +/year, I suspect we could find a proven winner at a lower tier FBS school who would "want" to be here for that kind of starting money. Who? Who knows? Here is what I do know: I like Shane and am pulling for him. But, no one, not even Shane Beamer gets an indefinite period to prove they are worthy. I believe in the next 2 seasons, we will know whether the gamble pays off.

On the flip side, in his first 6 years at Virginia Tech, Frank went 24-40-2. It's hard to imagine we would have that kind of patience around here. I doubt VT would have that much patience in the current era of college football.

I'm not saying I have the answers either - I'm as frustrated and as pessimistic about the future of our program as anybody. But if it's our goal to stop doing what we've always done and always getting the same results, we're probably going to have to give Shane a pretty long leash to build something. Probably something like 7 years instead of 4 years to determine if he's the guy. I'm not suggesting he'll succeed in 7 years, but I don't think we'll see the results in 4 years to know for sure either way. I'm not sure anybody will give us those results in 4 years.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

On the flip side, in his first 6 years at Virginia Tech, Frank went 24-40-2. It's hard to imagine we would have that kind of patience around here. I doubt VT would have that much patience in the current era of college football.

I'm not saying I have the answers either - I'm as frustrated and as pessimistic about the future of our program as anybody. But if it's our goal to stop doing what we've always done and always getting the same results, we're probably going to have to give Shane a pretty long leash to build something. Probably something like 7 years instead of 4 years to determine if he's the guy. I'm not suggesting he'll succeed in 7 years, but I don't think we'll see the results in 4 years to know for sure either way. I'm not sure anybody will give us those results in 4 years.

A misleading statistic. The lack of success was a direct result of VT being put on a severe scholarship reduction. Only 85 were allowed for 1988 and 1989 (and of the 85 only 17 for 1989). In fact Beamer was hired due to Dooley being forced to resign due to NCAA violations.
With those circumstances, even today I would think most fan bases would be more forgiving.

 

[gamecock stock]

On the flip side, in his first 6 years at Virginia Tech, Frank went 24-40-2. It's hard to imagine we would have that kind of patience around here. I doubt VT would have that much patience in the current era of college football.

I'm not saying I have the answers either - I'm as frustrated and as pessimistic about the future of our program as anybody. But if it's our goal to stop doing what we've always done and always getting the same results, we're probably going to have to give Shane a pretty long leash to build something. Probably something like 7 years instead of 4 years to determine if he's the guy. I'm not suggesting he'll succeed in 7 years, but I don't think we'll see the results in 4 years to know for sure either way. I'm not sure anybody will give us those results in 4 years.

I'm thinking 5 years. We are never going to get it done recruiting-wise. The only way to get respectability is to show "coaching chops". These days, coaches will not get 7 years. I don't think that's realistic. I really believe we will know whether Shane can coach after 5 seasons.

The problem with hiring someone unproven like Shane is that if you give him too long a rope, he could end up burying the program to depths that it will take ages to find.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I'm thinking 5 years. We are never going to get it done recruiting-wise. The only way to get respectability is to show "coaching chops". These days, coaches will not get 7 years. I don't think that's realistic. I really believe we will know whether Shane can coach after 5 seasons.

The problem with hiring someone unproven like Shane is that if you give him too long a rope, he could end up burying the program to depths that it will take ages to find.

If he is actually given 10 years as some on here suggest, and no marked improvement has occurred, then there is a good to excellent chance what you say would become truth.

 

[gamecock stock]

If he is actually given 10 years as some on here suggest, and no marked improvement has occurred, then there is a good to excellent chance what you say would become truth.

No program serious about its football program would ever think of giving someone with no proven track record more than 5 years. If our only goal is to be a peg above Vanderbilt, then give the man a lifetime contract and be done with it.

 

[kidrobinski]

'Coaching chops'.

Lou Holtz.
Steve Spurrier.

Notre Dame.
Florida.
South Carolina. Meh.

Jimmys and Joes is what gets it done. The coaching chops that work at a at Murray State won't work in the SEC if you're South Carolina. Only Jimmys and Joes.

 

[gamecock stock]

'Coaching chops'.

Lou Holtz.
Steve Spurrier.

Notre Dame.
Florida.
South Carolina. Meh.

Jimmys and Joes is what gets it done. The coaching chops that work at a at Murray State won't work in the SEC if your South Carolina. Only Jimmys and Joes.

"Meh", yes. But, we also unquestionably got Holtz and Spurrier AFTER their peak years. But, even then Holtz produced one Top 15 team and one Top 20 team here. Spurrier produced 3 Top 10 teams here. Neither Beamer, Muschamp, Scott nor Woods have been able to do that here.

On another thread I said, we, Carolina fans, need to adjust our expectations for football here. We are never going to win the national championship nor the SEC. Even the College football playoff POSSIBLY could be out of our reach. Prior to NIL, we were not a recruiting juggernaut. And now with NIL, we certainly won't be. The ceiling for our program is to be a Top 20 program. Maybe, just maybe, we can sneak into an occasional playoff berth. Those expectations need to be adjusted by Gamecock football fans. If not, you are going to be annually frustrated.

The stupid thing that the hiring authorities did was hire Shane Beamer with the expectation he could change our recruiting fortunes. If you take a look at our history since joining the SEC, our most successful football Head Coaches, Holtz and Spurrier, built their reputations more based on their coaching prowess, not recruiting abilities. Here, at South Carolina, they were solid recruiters, but nothing special. Spurrier, our most successful coach, had an average SEC recruiting ranking of number 8 in the then 12 and 14-team conference. Yet, he produced 3 Top 10 teams here. Even prior to joining the SEC, our most successful Head football Coaches, Carlen (won 8 games twice in a season when that was never previously done here) and Morrison (produced our first national ranked teams here at numbers 11 and 15), were, too, known for their coaching prowess. Oh, yes, Carlen and JoMo recruited the occasional stud. But their recruiting classes were mostly solid. I remember Jim Carlen at a Gamecock Club meeting telling us we would never have great recruiting classes because he was not willing to buy a recruit even a cup of coffee.

Think back to what our supposedly great recruiters (Woods, Scott, Muschamp) have done here. All were fired after 5 seasons. Muschamp used to brag what a great recruiter he was. When Scott was hired, one national recruiting guru said, "Brad Scott is the best recruiter in the nation".

Gamecock football fans need to get it through their heads that we are located in a relatively small state and share that state with a national football power (Clemson) which is a "brand name" nationally. And we are no more than a 6 hour drive from traditional national powers Georgia, Tennessee and Florida. (Anyone can make that drive without stopping to use the restroom ). We are never going to recruit our way to national respectability. I don't care who the coach is. Our best chance is to have a Head Coach who "can do more with less". I hope Shane Beamer proves to be that coach. Time will tell.

 

[Uscg1984]

A misleading statistic. The lack of success was a direct result of VT being put on a severe scholarship reduction. Only 85 were allowed for 1988 and 1989 (and of the 85 only 17 for 1989). In fact Beamer was hired due to Dooley being forced to resign due to NCAA violations.
With those circumstances, even today I would think most fan bases would be more forgiving.

I don't think a coach today who won 2 games in his sixth season would still be around for a 7th season, no matter how many scholarship reductions he had to deal with in years 1 and 2.

 

[kidrobinski]

"Meh", yes. But, we also unquestionably got Holtz and Spurrier AFTER their peak years. But, even then Holtz produced one Top 15 team and one Top 20 team here. Spurrier produced 3 Top 10 teams here. Neither Beamer, Muschamp, Scott nor Woods have been able to do that here.

On another thread I said, we, Carolina fans, need to adjust our expectations for football here. We are never going to win the national championship nor the SEC. Even the College football playoff POSSIBLY could be out of our reach. Prior to NIL, we were not a recruiting juggernaut. And now with NIL, we certainly won't be. The ceiling for our program is to be a Top 20 program. Maybe, just maybe, we can sneak into an occasional playoff berth. Those expectations need to be adjusted by Gamecock football fans. If not, you are going to be annually frustrated.

The stupid thing that the hiring authorities did was hire Shane Beamer with the expectation he could change our recruiting fortunes. If you take a look at our history since joining the SEC, our most successful football Head Coaches, Holtz and Spurrier, built their reputations more based on their coaching prowess, not recruiting abilities. Here, at South Carolina, they were solid recruiters, but nothing special. Spurrier, our most successful coach, had an average SEC recruiting ranking of number 8 in the then 12 and 14-team conference. Yet, he produced 3 Top 10 teams here. Even prior to joining the SEC, our most successful Head football Coaches, Carlen (won 8 games twice in a season when that was never previously done here) and Morrison (produced our first national ranked teams here at numbers 11 and 15), were, too, known for their coaching prowess. Oh, yes, Carlen and JoMo recruited the occasional stud. But their recruiting classes were mostly solid. I remember Jim Carlen at a Gamecock Club meeting telling us we would never have great recruiting classes because he was not willing to buy a recruit even a cup of coffee.

Think back to what our supposedly great recruiters (Woods, Scott, Muschamp) have done here. All were fired after 5 seasons. Muschamp used to brag what a great recruiter he was. When Scott was hired, one national recruiting guru said, "Brad Scott is the best recruiter in the nation".

Gamecock football fans need to get it through their heads that we are located in a relatively small state and share that state with a national football power (Clemson) which is a "brand name" nationally. And we are no more than a 6 hour drive from traditional national powers Georgia, Tennessee and Florida. (Anyone can make that drive without stopping to use the restroom ). We are never going to recruit our way to national respectability. I don't care who the coach is. Our best chance is to have a Head Coach who "can do more with less". I hope Shane Beamer proves to be that coach. Time will tell.

If Spurrier couldn't 'chops' his way to glory it is very likely no one else will either, particularly with nil.

Expectations? I saw us win the ACC in 69 so I don't count, but you're right about most.

Jimmys and Joes, and that takes dollars. Joe Frazier couldn't coach Marvis Frazier into a George Foreman.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

On the flip side, in his first 6 years at Virginia Tech, Frank went 24-40-2. It's hard to imagine we would have that kind of patience around here. I doubt VT would have that much patience in the current era of college football.

I'm not saying I have the answers either - I'm as frustrated and as pessimistic about the future of our program as anybody. But if it's our goal to stop doing what we've always done and always getting the same results, we're probably going to have to give Shane a pretty long leash to build something. Probably something like 7 years instead of 4 years to determine if he's the guy. I'm not suggesting he'll succeed in 7 years, but I don't think we'll see the results in 4 years to know for sure either way. I'm not sure anybody will give us those results in 4 years.

My issue with Beamer isn’t so much his recruiting. He’s about average for any coach we’ve had here. Spurrier had a couple of stellar recruiting classes, but overall even he recruited about as others. The difference is coaching. Spurrier could coach. Beaner can’t.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

'Coaching chops'.

Lou Holtz.
Steve Spurrier.

Notre Dame.
Florida.
South Carolina. Meh.

Jimmys and Joes is what gets it done. The coaching chops that work at a at Murray State won't work in the SEC if you're South Carolina. Only Jimmys and Joes.

Only if the J&Js are a ton of 4 and 5 star players. Like they have had at Clemp. But you have to have coaching. Again, Clemp proves that.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

So who do you go get????

Time and again - this staff sucks.
SC doesn’t have the $$$ to compete in a $$$ driven market. You also have to find a coach and staff that WANT , say again , WANT to be here.

Tell us who do you go after , who has the chops to play against the big boys. The big name that draws the talent. The high winning profile that no other big name school wants. The star power to excite the fans.

Who is it???

5 names so everyone can know the history, background, recruiting knowledge and winning percentage to get us excited

I’ve posted more than once to go get a sharp, young, cocky HC who has already had success in the Mid America conf. That’s who.

 

[gamecock stock]

If Spurrier couldn't 'chops' his way to glory it is very likely no one else will either, particularly with nil.

Expectations? I saw us win the ACC in 69 so I don't count, but you're right about most.

Jimmys and Joes, and that takes dollars. Joe Frazier couldn't coach Marvis Frazier into a George Foreman.

Remember I said "expectations need to be adjusted". Yes, we can all dream of winning the SEC and the national championship. But how likely is that even under the best of circumstances? Now we are in the NIL era, the WORST of circumstances. Are we going to have dollars falling from the sky to us? That has not happened since NIL started 2 or 3 years ago. Why will that change? And when the NCAA increases the number of scholarships a school can carry, it will make the rich richer, to our disadvantage.

Let's not confuse the ACC back then, and even today, with the SEC. The ACC was and still is minor league compared to the SEC. I was around in the 1960s. So, I KNOW that.

As I said previously, our ceiling is to be a Top 20 program. That is our potential "glory". If we become that, then maybe we can at times sneak into the playoffs. Spurrier did that 3 times and Holtz did it twice. And even pre-SEC era, we did that twice under Morrison. Thus being a Top 20 program is realistic and doable. And I believe most Carolina fans would admit that being a Top 20 program is our ceiling, not winning the SEC or national championship. Based on our history, we have been able to accomplish that (Top 20) with Head Coaches who were "proven" able to get the job done, NOT with coaches who were purported to be recruiting extraordinaires. Hopefully, Shane Beamer will be proven to have that coaching skill. I believe we can all agree that he is not the recruiting magician that his supporters said he would be when he was pushed to be hired.

 

[gamecock stock]

Only if the J&Js are a ton of 4 and 5 star players. Like they have had at Clemp. But you have to have coaching. Again, Clemp proves that.

Jimbo Fisher at Texas A&M proved that all the 4 and 5 star players in the world means nothing if you can't coach.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I don't think a coach today who won 2 games in his sixth season would still be around for a 7th season, no matter how many scholarship reductions he had to deal with in years 1 and 2.

After reading the built in excuses for the 4-5 expected wins for this season, and the arguments as to why Muschamp should have been given more time (just before his firing), I'm not so sure I can agree with your assessment.
Now, any other fanbase ?

 

[gamecock stock]

As I said yesterday, recruiting to the University of South Carolina football program is a tough place to recruit to. Richard Bell, Sparky Woods, Brad Scott and Will Muschamp all had the reputation of being very strong recruiters. But, they were unmitigated failures as a Head Coach here because they were poor "coaches".

Look at Mike Elko, the Head Coach at Texas A&M. His last recruiting class at Duke finished 10th in the 14-team ACC and 60th in the nation. His current recruiting class at Texas A&M is ranked 6th in the 16-school SEC and 8th in the nation. Why the difference? Did Elko suddenly learn how to recruit? Or is he now in a larger state, a football first conference, a more accommodating academic situation, etc? I know what I think.

Hopefully, Shane Beamer will prove to have the coaching skills of his dad. Frank Beamer was never considered a great recruiter, solid, but not great. He made his reputation as a great coach, who hired well, hiring coaches who got the most out of the players on the roster. I hope Shane is more Frank's boy than Cheryl's when it comes to football.

 

[Surfcock]

I’ve posted more than once to go get a sharp, young, cocky HC who has already had success in the Mid America conf. That’s who.

Cool - looking forward to this same type of posts in 5yrs

 

[USCEE82]

Doesn't matter if you have a great recruiter for a coach in the NIL environment. Money talks louder.

 

[Lurker123]

Cool - looking forward to this same type of posts in 5yrs

I'd rather be repeating that than "let's hire some position coach who really wants to be here" in 2 years.

 

[Forkcock]

I drove up to Duncan, SC (from Charleston) to be at the church when Lattimore made his commitment to play for us. Wake me when we have another commitment of that magnitude.

 

[Surfcock]

I'd rather be repeating that than "let's hire some position coach who really wants to be here" in 2 years.

Tomato Tomahto - I am listening to the guys who played for SC. They have been through the grind. Garcia, Demarco, Strickland…etc they say there is improvement

You guys wanted changes with the coaches. Beamer made the changes but you guys want to quit before you even see the results. I don’t understand that

Maybe the next guy should only get two years.
Next coach after that, fire them after the spring game. That will show everyone we want a winner…..for Spring Practice

 

[Lurker123]

Tomato Tomahto - I am listening to the guys who played for SC. They have been through the grind. Garcia, Demarco, Strickland…etc they say there is improvement

You guys wanted changes with the coaches. Beamer made the changes but you guys want to quit before you even see the results. I don’t understand that

Maybe the next guy should only get two years.
Next coach after that, fire them after the spring game. That will show everyone we want a winner…..for Spring Practice

Two years? Spring game? I don't think the over exaggeration really works.

Yes, some wanted coaching changes, and he tried. Dunping Satterfield was a HUGE step, but I was underwhelmed with his replacement.

No one is giving up yet. There is still a season to play, and any talk of decisions after this season are purely Hypothetical.

But the comment stands, I'd rather be complaining about trying yet another coach who was successful at a lower level than complaining about why we hired another position coach that no one else would hire.

 

[gamecock stock]

The complaint I have seen regarding Beamer, including from me, is that he had no track record of proven success as a FBS Head Coach. That is not an unreasonable criticism. That's especially true in light of the fact that the only football Head Coaches who have had anything resembling success over at least a couple of years since we have been a SEC member, had prior success as Head Coaches at other FBS schools. Only 2 coaches fit that bill: Holtz and Spurrier. And they were well past their prime when we hired them. I think Beamer fit the bill of being a young coach, but without the proven track record. I know some point to Dabo's background. But coaching, at what's in essence a SEC-type school in a basketball-first conference, is nowhere near close to coaching in the SEC, the strongest college football conference in the nation. Look at Sam Pittman at Arkansas. His seat is blazing, with this season being a "make or break" year for him. Pittman's background is similar to Beamer's (in fact, both were assistants at Georgia at the same time).

All that being said, all Gamecock fans want Beamer to succeed here. None of us want to go through another hire.

 

[Tmac061]

The hiring authorities here, whether it be a faction on the Board or just Tanner, I'm sure, envisioned Shane to be like his Dad Frank. People identify Frank with his success at Virginia Tech. But, what they don't know, is that Frank had success as a Head Coach prior to going to Virginia Tech at lower level Murray State. In 6 years at that school, PRIOR to going to Virginia Tech, Frank produced 2 Top 20 teams, 1 Top 15 and 1 Top 10 team. So, Frank was a proven winner prior to coaching at VT. We, on the other hand, rolled the dice on someone who had never even been a OC nor DC, much less a proven Head Coach to coach in the toughest football conference in the nation. Who could we get if Shane fails? For $6 million +/year, I suspect we could find a proven winner at a lower tier FBS school who would "want" to be here for that kind of starting money. Who? Who knows? Here is what I do know: I like Shane and am pulling for him. But, no one, not even Shane Beamer gets an indefinite period to prove they are worthy. I believe in the next 2 seasons, we will know whether the gamble pays off.

Still believe Chadwell was the correct hire!! But what do I know!!

 

[will110]

A misleading statistic. The lack of success was a direct result of VT being put on a severe scholarship reduction. Only 85 were allowed for 1988 and 1989 (and of the 85 only 17 for 1989). In fact Beamer was hired due to Dooley being forced to resign due to NCAA violations.
With those circumstances, even today I would think most fan bases would be more forgiving.

I honestly doubt it. College football fans aren't known for rationality.

 

[Snake006]

Sadly, it's gotten to the point of not really caring who your head or position coach is or what offensive or defensive scheme a school runs. or even if you feel good about a going to a particular university. It is ALL about "Show me the Money" and I will come.
Hell even in the NFL you get drafted and are somewhat obligated to a certain team. Sorry, just an old man rant.

 

[Patriot321]

Not with the current staff.

Having top notch coaches and recruiting used to be the two things that would win championships in the SEC. With NIL, recruiting is all that matters, and it requires big $$ that we don't have. Not saying you can put terrible coaches in place, put great coaches in the NIL world still doesn't get you championships. I believe Beamer would fare pretty well at Bama.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Having top notch coaches and recruiting used to be the two things that would win championships in the SEC. With NIL, recruiting is all that matters, and it requires big $$ that we don't have. Not saying you can put terrible coaches in place, put great coaches in the NIL world still doesn't get you championships. I believe Beamer would fare pretty well at Bama.

I guess we'll never know.

 

[Tngamecock]

When Beamer was hired there was no NIL.

Also, I find it comical that the whole NIL thing was not allowing the school administration to be involved or directly handing out money or in the negotiating. Apparently no one cares and it’s pro ball without a draft order

 

[JoeMorrisonLives]

The hiring authorities here, whether it be a faction on the Board or just Tanner, I'm sure, envisioned Shane to be like his Dad Frank. People identify Frank with his success at Virginia Tech. But, what they don't know, is that Frank had success as a Head Coach prior to going to Virginia Tech at lower level Murray State. In 6 years at that school, PRIOR to going to Virginia Tech, Frank produced 2 Top 20 teams, 1 Top 15 and 1 Top 10 team. So, Frank was a proven winner prior to coaching at VT. We, on the other hand, rolled the dice on someone who had never even been a OC nor DC, much less a proven Head Coach to coach in the toughest football conference in the nation. Who could we get if Shane fails? For $6 million +/year, I suspect we could find a proven winner at a lower tier FBS school who would "want" to be here for that kind of starting money. Who? Who knows? Here is what I do know: I like Shane and am pulling for him. But, no one, not even Shane Beamer gets an indefinite period to prove they are worthy. I believe in the next 2 seasons, we will know whether the gamble pays off.

Stopped reading after the sentences, because of how clueless what I read was. Frank Beamer was 24-40-2 through his first 6 seasons; that's what you don't realize. He's worked for a slew of great coaches and was a vital part of Spurrier's success here. He's here not because of his last name but because he's good. He's picked his jobs to learn under greats, coached almost every position, had been the RC at a few spots, had a great reputation everywhere he's been, and is one of the best Special Teams minds in the game. And he sold the AD on his plan to win, which involved mining the DMV. Heard of Tree, Stewart and Harbor? He's following through.

 

[JoeMorrisonLives]

A misleading statistic. The lack of success was a direct result of VT being put on a severe scholarship reduction. Only 85 were allowed for 1988 and 1989 (and of the 85 only 17 for 1989). In fact Beamer was hired due to Dooley being forced to resign due to NCAA violations.
With those circumstances, even today I would think most fan bases would be more forgiving.

And Shane had one bad season in which he had 1 proven OT, had to rely on underclassmen after he got hurt, and had to go to the portal for the least portal friendly position.

 

[gamecock stock]

Stopped reading after the sentences, because of how clueless what I read was. Frank Beamer was 24-40-2 through his first 6 seasons; that's what you don't realize. He's worked for a slew of great coaches and was a vital part of Spurrier's success here. He's here not because of his last name but because he's good. He's picked his jobs to learn under greats, coached almost every position, had been the RC at a few spots, had a great reputation everywhere he's been, and is one of the best Special Teams minds in the game. And he sold the AD on his plan to win, which involved mining the DMV. Heard of Tree, Stewart and Harbor? He's following through.

I hope you are right. Of course, Frank Beamer was inheriting a program on probation, unlike Shane here. I suspect that was clueless not to know that. Of course I know the coaches Shane coached under (don't make the assumption I did not know that; you know what they say about those who "assume"). I hope he is "good". Is he "good" as a Head Coach? Who knows for sure? He never has been a Head Coach prior to coming here and I'm not aware of anyone offering him other than us to be a Head Coach. How often do coaches who have not been a Head Coach , OC or DC get their first Head Coaching jobs in the SEC? It's not often. Picking out 2 or 3 recruit names does not mean he is "following through". You have to look at the entire recruiting class. You can look at his conference recruiting rankings and see what I am saying. As I said, I hope you are right. This is a site to give pro and con opinions. It's not a site to always give "Attaboys". I am pulling for him.

 

[JoeMorrisonLives]

I hope you are right. Of course, Frank Beamer was inheriting a program on probation, unlike Shane here. I suspect that was clueless not to know that. Of course I know the coaches Shane coached under (don't make the assumption I did not know that; you know what they say about those who "assume"). I hope he is "good". Is he "good" as a Head Coach? Who knows for sure? He never has been a Head Coach prior to coming here and I'm not aware of anyone offering him other than us to be a Head Coach. How often do coaches who have not been a Head Coach , OC or DC get their first Head Coaching jobs in the SEC? It's not often. Picking out 2 or 3 recruit names does not mean he is "following through". You have to look at the entire recruiting class. You can look at his conference recruiting rankings and see what I am saying. As I said, I hope you are right. This is a site to give pro and con opinions. It's not a site to always give "Attaboys". I am pulling for him.

I'm gonna let you in on something that's not very secret, coaches have realized you're better off getting your first job in power 5, and Saban even told Smart not to go G5 first. He is following through. Name another class other than 2024 that was majority blue- chip, I'll wait. We never do that! And I did know that, and he didn't have a winning record any of the first 6 years. Beamer couldn't scout or recruit when be came in, was sick with busts in the OL classes from 2018 until 2022. That's what happened, we had two DEs transfer we had no replacement for, we lost Lloyd, and we ran out of upperclassmen OL. We were a year out at one position group, couldn't afford a single injury on the OL, and lost the most irreplaceable guy in the Spring Game. You can beat anyone even you can win up front is something Frank Beamer has been saying since before I was born; the inverse is you can't win while getting dominated. Beamer inherited an OL that has been mostly bust recruited since 2018, and his better players were too young to be ready. He had a majority 4 and 5* HS class and the number 10 recruiting class in the nation. He had recruited the two best OL classes we've ever had in back to back years. He's backing it up. You just don't understand we were run through at the most important position. OL is the most important position, make no mistake. QBs can only thrive when protected. Outside of running out of upperclassmen on the OL, the most heavily developmental group, Beamer exceeded expectations by 6 wins the first two years, won 7 upsets, for second beat in the country, only lost one game he was favored in, won back to back top-10 games, recruited or beat QB ever, recruited 1/3rd of the 5*s we've ever had, fielded the best Special Teams unit 2 of 3 seasons, fielded the second leading team for turnovers in the SEC in 2 of 3 seasons, while having no difference makers at pass rush and wise LBs than we have going into this year. His teams have been at their best at the end if the season all three years. Even Saban said we weren't far off last year. We were second in the country in snaps played by Freshmen, so you think they won't be better next season? Going into this season, we have what should be our best DL since 2013, and I'm counting EDGE, because DT alone would have to go back to probably 2011, when fracturing depth. We have our best LB room since probably 2009 (Eric Norwood was the last Gamecock LB who was 1st team SEC before Debo Williams). We have what should be our best OL since at least 2018. We have our best RB room since at least 2019, but probably going back to 2012. DB is our most consistent position over the years, and that'll hold true again. I don't think you realize how much better we got in the portal this off-season, or just how good some of our freshmen to 3rd year players are gonna be.

Only real question marks on this team are WR and just how far along Sellers is in his development, because there are no questions about his ceiling.

 

[gamecock stock]

I'm gonna let you in on something that's not very secret, coaches have realized you're better off getting your first job in power 5, and Saban even told Smart not to go G5 first. He is following through. Name another class other than 2024 that was majority blue- chip, I'll wait. We never do that! And I did know that, and he didn't have a winning record any of the first 6 years. Beamer couldn't scout or recruit when be came in, was sick with busts in the OL classes from 2018 until 2022. That's what happened, we had two DEs transfer we had no replacement for, we lost Lloyd, and we ran out of upperclassmen OL. We were a year out at one position group, couldn't afford a single injury on the OL, and lost the most irreplaceable guy in the Spring Game. You can beat anyone even you can win up front is something Frank Beamer has been saying since before I was born; the inverse is you can't win while getting dominated. Beamer inherited an OL that has been mostly bust recruited since 2018, and his better players were too young to be ready. He had a majority 4 and 5* HS class and the number 10 recruiting class in the nation. He had recruited the two best OL classes we've ever had in back to back years. He's backing it up. You just don't understand we were run through at the most important position. OL is the most important position, make no mistake. QBs can only thrive when protected. Outside of running out of upperclassmen on the OL, the most heavily developmental group, Beamer exceeded expectations by 6 wins the first two years, won 7 upsets, for second beat in the country, only lost one game he was favored in, won back to back top-10 games, recruited or beat QB ever, recruited 1/3rd of the 5*s we've ever had, fielded the best Special Teams unit 2 of 3 seasons, fielded the second leading team for turnovers in the SEC in 2 of 3 seasons, while having no difference makers at pass rush and wise LBs than we have going into this year. His teams have been at their best at the end if the season all three years. Even Saban said we weren't far off last year. We were second in the country in snaps played by Freshmen, so you think they won't be better next season? Going into this season, we have what should be our best DL since 2013, and I'm counting EDGE, because DT alone would have to go back to probably 2011, when fracturing depth. We have our best LB room since probably 2009 (Eric Norwood was the last Gamecock LB who was 1st team SEC before Debo Williams). We have what should be our best OL since at least 2018. We have our best RB room since at least 2019, but probably going back to 2012. DB is our most consistent position over the years, and that'll hold true again. I don't think you realize how much better we got in the portal this off-season, or just how good some of our freshmen to 3rd year players are gonna be.

Only real question marks on this team are WR and just how far along Sellers is in his development, because there are no questions about his ceiling.

Joe, give it a rest. We are all pulling for him. Is he above criticism? No. Very few, if any, are. If we are critical, does that mean we want him to fail? Of course not. We want him to improve and win. It's good to have fans like you to give him encouragement along the way. But, it's also good to have fans like me to be constructively critical, and skeptical so that he does not get complacent.