When Does Ray Get Credit?

[Gradstudent]

We need consistency in all sports, regardless of gender, and regardless of how many of us follow any one sport.

Sure, but I cant break down every sport, but I like reading the posts and posters that can.

My post was not attended to be specifically in response not to any individual poster since the thread started but geared more to the OP's original question, when does Ray get credit? and as you correctly stated not all sports are followed the same. And mine was more of a typical fan viewpoint, as I agree and believe he mostly receives his criticism or credit based on how certain men sports go, that most fans follow, so I referenced those in my response. If I get time I can certainly expand but I admit I don't follow all sports with the same attention and can't remember all the failures and successes during his tenure like some posters certainly can on all sports.

 

[18IsTheMan]

As posted in earlier discussions....rookie move, as was the insane buyout.
Mike McGee hired fat Brad.....then hired Lou & Steve.
I wouldn't trade Ray right now.

Brad was least as bad as, if not worse than, the Muschamp hire.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Typical fan comment. ADs do much more than simply hire coaches. In fact, among the major sports most ADs rarely get the chance to hire 2 coaches, especially in football in the SEC. I can’t think of a single idea or plan that was his that he implemented that most feel was “smart.”

I can’t think of a real money maker that he dreamt up. He has benefited entirely from Hyman’s plan and SEC money. He’s lucky like a Kennedy or Hilton grandchild.

I’m not aware of a single improvement at one of our major venues that wasn’t initially part of Hyman’s plan.

He may be the nicest guy around, but he is way out over his skis as an AD at a major program. Unless we higher his 2nd in command, we will instantly be much better when he’s gone. As stated previously, he’s the Buttigieg of ADs.

You know how I know that you know little about how long-term financing on a state level works and how those debts are serviced as well as managing the bidding process and managing the contractors, as well as everything necessary to get plans built into actual facilities.

 

[atl-cock]

Sure, but I cant break down every sport, but I like reading the posts and posters that can.

My post was not attended to be specifically in response not to any individual poster since the thread started but geared more to the OP's original question, when does Ray get credit? and as you correctly stated not all sports are followed the same. And mine was more of a typical fan viewpoint, as I agree and believe he mostly receives his criticism or credit based on how certain men sports go, that most fans follow, so I referenced those in my response. If I get time I can certainly expand but I admit I don't follow all sports with the same attention and can't remember all the failures and successes during his tenure like some posters certainly can on all sports.

I get the feeling that many people don't understand what the actual duties of an AD are, especially at a P5 school. Many posters have enlightened me, and others are frustrated due to the lack of instant success in their favourite sport and take it out on the AD.

 

[Lurker123]

Brad was least as bad as, if not worse than, the Muschamp hire.

I don't know, they both ended badly.

But when Brad was hired, there was at least hope. When Muschamp was hired, some friends and I just sighed and said that maybe he'd recruit good players for his replacement.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I don't know, they both ended badly.

But when Brad was hired, there was at least hope. When Muschamp was hired, some friends and I just sighed and said that maybe he'd recruit good players for his replacement.

Yeah, both were abysmal and left the program in shambles. I think Brad inherited a somewhat better situation than Muschamp, though. We at least had Taneyhill.

 

[Lurker123]

Yeah, both were abysmal and left the program in shambles. I think Brad inherited a somewhat better situation than Muschamp, though. We at least had Taneyhill.

Yes, I'm not arguing against either being abysmally failures. My thought was that one hire wasn't immediately a mistake, he just proved to be. (Brad)

The other was a known mistake before he walked in the door.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Yes, I'm not arguing against either being abysmally failures. My thought was that one hire wasn't immediately a mistake, he just proved to be. (Brad)

The other was a known mistake before he walked in the door.

True about Brad. Some on here have revisionist history and say they knew it was a bad hire at the time, but that's obviously a memory tainted by history. It was universally considered to be a slam dunk hire at the time, It was a coup. Lowly South Carolina got the OC from the most prolific offense in college football which was on the pre-eminent team in college football at the time. That view was only strengthened after he took us to our first ever bowl win in his first season after beating Clemson handily at Clemson. I don't care what anyone says now, optimism was nearly at an all-time high. Of course, now we know he peaked in his first season.

I would say the hiring of Brad equates to the hiring of Holbrook. Both were slam-dunk moves that didn't pan out.

 

[THEGARNETWAVE]

Why bring this up? I think he’s terrible, and there’s nothing you can point to that would ever change my mind. At best, he’s executing the last guy’s plan, and the cash cones from being in the SEC. At worst, he’s come up with zero new plans, ideas or concepts. Beamer hasn’t done anything yet. Neither has Kingston. Everyone else was hired by others.

Show me where he’s improved gameday atmosphere or experience at any venue, but especially W-B and the basketball arena. Concessions are the same. Bathrooms are the same. Not knocking them, but there’s nothing unique about either when compared to competitors who often boast of better concessions and cool attractions and exhibits to visit in addition to seeing the game.

He’s the Pete Buttigieg of ADs with a worse accent.

On ignore too negative

 

[Go Gamecocks]

But when Brad was hired, there was at least hope.

Yea...including a few of us dumb enough to believe he was going to be a great coach for us.

Lesson learned...that's why Mike McGee insisted on hiring someone "proven".

 

[Go Gamecocks]

To a degree how you finish is important, but really careers are measured by a body of work, not the end. (Which is why Spurrier is the best ever at USC even if he tailed off at the end.)

Speaking of dead horses ^.

Fair to say that Steve took his lumps. His coach hires around '09-'10 were huge going forward.

 

[Spinal Tap]

True about Brad. Some on here have revisionist history and say they knew it was a bad hire at the time, but that's obviously a memory tainted by history. It was universally considered to be a slam dunk hire at the time, It was a coup. Lowly South Carolina got the OC from the most prolific offense in college football which was on the pre-eminent team in college football at the time. That view was only strengthened after he took us to our first ever bowl win in his first season after beating Clemson handily at Clemson. I don't care what anyone says now, optimism was nearly at an all-time high. Of course, now we know he peaked in his first season.

I would say the hiring of Brad equates to the hiring of Holbrook. Both were slam-dunk moves that didn't pan out.

I, along with every fan I knew at the time were ecstatic about Brad's hire. Got my first season tickets then. And then....

 

[Rogue Cock]

I, along with every fan I knew at the time were ecstatic about Brad's hire. Got my first season tickets then. And then....

Wouldn’t let go of Wally Burnham.

 

[ToddFlanders]

True about Brad. Some on here have revisionist history and say they knew it was a bad hire at the time, but that's obviously a memory tainted by history. It was universally considered to be a slam dunk hire at the time, It was a coup. Lowly South Carolina got the OC from the most prolific offense in college football which was on the pre-eminent team in college football at the time. That view was only strengthened after he took us to our first ever bowl win in his first season after beating Clemson handily at Clemson. I don't care what anyone says now, optimism was nearly at an all-time high. Of course, now we know he peaked in his first season.

I would say the hiring of Brad equates to the hiring of Holbrook. Both were slam-dunk moves that didn't pan out.

These mental gymnastics are actually revisionist history. "Slam dunks" pan out. Bad hires do not. Scott and Holbrook were simply bad hires, no matter their petigree. The proof is in the pudding, not in fan excitement on the date of the hire. I repeat, there's no such thing as a slam dunk hire that ends in failure.

The AD's are supposed to hire good coaches - if the coaches aren't good, who cares what the fans thought at the time? At the end of the day the AD did his job poorly.

 

[KingWard]

These mental gymnastics are actually revisionist history. "Slam dunks" pan out. Bad hires do not. Scott and Holbrook were simply bad hires, no matter their petigree. The proof is in the pudding, not in fan excitement on the date of the hire. I repeat, there's no such thing as a slam dunk hire that ends in failure.

The AD's are supposed to hire good coaches - if the coaches aren't good, who cares what the fans thought at the time? At the end of the day the AD did his job poorly.

Abysmally. Calamitously.

 

[Prestonyte]

1. Nearly everyone said he was lazy and cheap for choosing Beamer.

2. Nearly everyone wanted Kingston gone — yet Ray has stuck with him for 5 years. The baseball team is now clearly in the top 3 in the country.

3. He let Frank go and has brought in someone who will build a foundation with the right culture to make basketball truly competitive on a consistent basis. (This is another long term work in progress).

4. Women’s basketball is truly elite.

5. Facilities in virtually all sports are among the best in the country.

6. USC has won Palmetto Trophy five years in a row.

7. Attendance at all sporting events is sky high.

8. USC is finally becoming a national brand — “2001”, “Sandstorm”, “Williams Brice — Loudest Stadium in America”;

9. Top 5 in recruiting for football

10. Landing 5 star recruits

11. Recruiting is now coast to coast

12. Large number of alums doing well in all the professional leagues

13. Justin King Media gives USC the best media presence in the country

14. We are out-recruiting (on occasion) Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State

15. We now own recruiting in the Palmetto State

I for one am thankful that we have Ray Tanner as the AD.

To answer the question - When Beamer delivers something the majority of the fan base recognizes as success.

 

[atl-cock]

These mental gymnastics are actually revisionist history. "Slam dunks" pan out. Bad hires do not. Scott and Holbrook were simply bad hires, no matter their petigree. The proof is in the pudding, not in fan excitement on the date of the hire. I repeat, there's no such thing as a slam dunk hire that ends in failure.

The AD's are supposed to hire good coaches - if the coaches aren't good, who cares what the fans thought at the time? At the end of the day the AD did his job poorly.

Bad hires in retrospect, but looked to be a good hire at the time of hiring.

Ya'll mean the same thing, but use different terms to mean different things.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Bad hires in retrospect, but looked to be a good hire at the time of hiring.

Ya'll mean the same thing, but use different terms to mean different things.

But we’re not. They may have seemed like good hires to the fans one day 1, but that’s because it’s not their job. It’s irrelevant what the fans think (look at Beamer for example). When it’s all said and done, winning the press conference is a fleeting thing that stops being important at the end of the press conference. Good hires are judged by results on the field, not good vibes at an introductory press conference.

 

[atl-cock]

But we’re not. They may have seemed like good hires to the fans one day 1, but that’s because it’s not their job. It’s irrelevant what the fans think (look at Beamer for example). When it’s all said and done, winning the press conference is a fleeting thing that stops being important at the end of the press conference. Good hires are judged by results on the field, not good vibes at an introductory press conference.

Of course, it's irrelevant what we think. Much of what is posted on FGF is opinion/speculation.

What qualities does an employer look for when hiring to fill a position? A candidate may look good on paper with various accomplishments, but not pan out after time on the job. I think that what others mean by "slam dunk hire" is that the candidate/new hire looks good on paper. You, on the other hand, wait for results in the workplace to use the term. I agree with you re: press conferences. But a coach has to have a positive image to help with recruiting. And a candidate has to interview well enough. Maybe the goal should be not so much to "win" the introductory press conference, but to "not lose it."

What Holbrook brought to the table when hired by RT as head coach-in-waiting looked good on paper to many of us at the time, and obviously to RT as well.

When RT hired Holbrook as head coach-in-waiting, did you think it was a bad move on RT's part at the time? What about when RT became AD and hired Hobrook as HC? Tanner was unquestionably done in the dugout. What was your opinion in July 2012 of hiring Holbrook as HC? If you didn't have one at the time, that's okay.

To me, at the time of hiring, Holbrook looked like a great hire/no-brainer on paper, but he trended downward and ultimately ended up being a bad hire.
At the time of Beamer's hiring, he didn't look as good to me on paper as Holbrook but seems to be trending upward. And of course, the jury is still out.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Of course, it's irrelevant what we think. Much of what is posted on FGF is opinion/speculation.

What qualities does an employer look for when hiring to fill a position? A candidate may look good on paper with various accomplishments, but not pan out after time on the job. I think that what others mean by "slam dunk hire" is that the candidate/new hire looks good on paper. You, on the other hand, wait for results in the workplace to use the term. I agree with you re: press conferences. But a coach has to have a positive image to help with recruiting. And a candidate has to interview well enough. Maybe the goal should be not so much to "win" the introductory press conference, but to "not lose it."

What Holbrook brought to the table when hired by RT as head coach-in-waiting looked good on paper to many of us at the time, and obviously to RT as well.

When RT hired Holbrook as head coach-in-waiting, did you think it was a bad move on RT's part at the time? What about when RT became AD and hired Hobrook as HC? Tanner was unquestionably done in the dugout. What was your opinion in July 2012 of hiring Holbrook as HC? If you didn't have one at the time, that's okay.

To me, at the time of hiring, Holbrook looked like a great hire/no-brainer on paper, but he trended downward and ultimately ended up being a bad hire.
At the time of Beamer's hiring, he didn't look as good to me on paper as Holbrook but seems to be trending upward. And of course, the jury is still out.

100% hiring a coach as the “coach in waiting” is a horrible idea that has never worked. More than anything it locks in a candidate at a time where circumstances of the position may still change (including how you feel about the candidate as a head coach).

But again, that’s an AD’s job. To hire coaches. Some are great at it, understanding the right balance on both sides (the school’s culture and resources vs the coaches personality and skill set). Some guys have it, some guys look at a resume and think a “slam dunk“ for the fans is a slam dunk for the school.

 

[atl-cock]

100% hiring a coach as the “coach in waiting” is a horrible idea that has never worked. More than anything it locks in a candidate at a time where circumstances of the position may still change (including how you feel about the candidate as a head coach).

But again, that’s an AD’s job. To hire coaches. Some are great at it, understanding the right balance on both sides (the school’s culture and resources vs the coaches personality and skill set). Some guys have it, some guys look at a resume and think a “slam dunk“ for the fans is a slam dunk for the school.

I liked your reply because it was cogent and did not attack any person. Interesting take on the “coach in waiting.” It's a convincing argument.

To elaborate on the AD's job responsibilities. Some are good at interviewing/hiring good employees, e.g., head coaches, high-level administrative staff, etc. Some are good at hobnobbing with large donors and are good at fundraising. Some are good at facilities design, management, etc. All these skills are mutually exclusive.

If an AD is good at all of the aforementioned and (to somewhat quote you) understands the school’s culture and resources, and is a good fit him/herself, the school has a gem on their hands.