• Gamecock Central is introducing a free text alert service later this year. ONLY the BIGGEST Gamecocks news sent to your cell phone.
    Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. 4 Msgs/Month. Msg & Data rates may apply.

    You have to agree on terms in order to proceed to the subscription.

     

    Close this note by clicking the X in the top-right corner.

A serious question for the pro-Frank crowd

funktavious

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2002
12,425
2,576
113
Who extends a coach with a 60% win record heading into his 10th year? The final 4 run was a complete fluke. They weren’t even ranked the entire regular season and he’s still using that as leverage 4 years later. This smells just like Muschamp’s renewed contract after a mediocre season. One thing is for sure. Winning games is not a prerequisite to coach at USC. Beamer loves this because he knows winning doesn’t really matter at USC.
Not sure why anyone would consider the Final 4 run a fluke. We were ranked as high as 16 in December, fell out of the rankings but climbed back up to 19 by February. We also had a stretch of games where Sin didn't play and it cost us a few wins as he was the heart and soul of that team. As for the tournament run, we got hot at the right moment and Sindarius Thornwell carried our team on his back. It's not like we were beating bad teams in the tournament. After we beat a decent Marquette team we went on to beat 2 seed Duke, 3 seed Baylor, and 4 seed Florida. Then we came close to beating #1 seed Gonzaga and had Sin not gotten sick we probably would have beat them too.
 

Harvard Gamecock

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2014
5,023
6,485
113
Not sure why anyone would consider the Final 4 run a fluke. We were ranked as high as 16 in December, fell out of the rankings but climbed back up to 19 by February. We also had a stretch of games where Sin didn't play and it cost us a few wins as he was the heart and soul of that team. As for the tournament run, we got hot at the right moment and Sindarius Thornwell carried our team on his back. It's not like we were beating bad teams in the tournament. After we beat a decent Marquette team we went on to beat 2 seed Duke, 3 seed Baylor, and 4 seed Florida. Then we came close to beating #1 seed Gonzaga and had Sin not gotten sick we probably would have beat them too.
In a way you have answered your own question. Yes, all the above did occur, however there were no tournament appearances with FM until his 4th year and that was the NIT. Year 5, Final Four appearance, Since then there have not been any tournament appearances. The lack of any consistency would lend one to define 2016/2017 as a fluke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atl-cock and 92Pony

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
4,424
4,314
113
Columbia
The team wasn’t a top 4 team....but whatever. If you think the program is headed in the right direction, then great. Evidently the administration believes so too. All I see is embraced mediocrity.
No! I don't think the program is headed in the right direction. Not at all. But the question I was responding to was whether 2017 was a fluke. It was not a fluke. But Frank has failed to capitalize on the momentum. Spurrier did the same thing. The difference is Spurrier had 4 years of high level success and Frank had 2.

I'm not sure why Frank blew up. It may be due to lazy recruiting, poor coaching, poor assistant hires or sheer arrogance. It is likely a combination of factors. Spurrier blew up for many of the same reasons.

In my opinion, it is too late for Frank at SC. We need a change. I am a lukewarm defender, and that only because I felt like this was the wrong time to fire him. (He had Covid twice.)

I'm 90% certain he will be gone after next season. There is a very slim chance he will be here in 2022-2023. For that to happen, he would need to at least make the NIT next season and bring in some high level (Dozier/Thornton type) recruits. The chances of that are almost non-existent.
 

funktavious

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2002
12,425
2,576
113
No! I don't think the program is headed in the right direction. Not at all. But the question I was responding to was whether 2017 was a fluke. It was not a fluke. But Frank has failed to capitalize on the momentum. Spurrier did the same thing. The difference is Spurrier had 4 years of high level success and Frank had 2.

I'm not sure why Frank blew up. It may be due to lazy recruiting, poor coaching, poor assistant hires or sheer arrogance. It is likely a combination of factors. Spurrier blew up for many of the same reasons.

In my opinion, it is too late for Frank at SC. We need a change. I am a lukewarm defender, and that only because I felt like this was the wrong time to fire him. (He had Covid twice.)

I'm 90% certain he will be gone after next season. There is a very slim chance he will be here in 2022-2023. For that to happen, he would need to at least make the NIT next season and bring in some high level (Dozier/Thornton type) recruits. The chances of that are almost non-existent.
I agree with all of this. Sindarius Thornwell was the catalyst on a team that improved each season he was here. He was the best player in the conference his senior season and had he not gotten sick before the Final 4 we would have faced the Tarholes for the NC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseCock

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,044
1,884
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
No! I don't think the program is headed in the right direction. Not at all. But the question I was responding to was whether 2017 was a fluke. It was not a fluke. But Frank has failed to capitalize on the momentum. Spurrier did the same thing. The difference is Spurrier had 4 years of high level success and Frank had 2.

I'm not sure why Frank blew up. It may be due to lazy recruiting, poor coaching, poor assistant hires or sheer arrogance. It is likely a combination of factors. Spurrier blew up for many of the same reasons.

In my opinion, it is too late for Frank at SC. We need a change. I am a lukewarm defender, and that only because I felt like this was the wrong time to fire him. (He had Covid twice.)

I'm 90% certain he will be gone after next season. There is a very slim chance he will be here in 2022-2023. For that to happen, he would need to at least make the NIT next season and bring in some high level (Dozier/Thornton type) recruits. The chances of that are almost non-existent.
Depends on how one defines fluke. It feels flukeish because we failed to capitalize on the success, notwithstanding the talent on that 2017 team.
 

funktavious

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2002
12,425
2,576
113
Depends on how one defines fluke. It feels flukeish because we failed to capitalize on the success, notwithstanding the talent on that 2017 team.
We definitely failed to capitalize on the success. We really did have a good team that year lead by a great college basketball player. It feels similar to the situation under Fogler when we went to back to back NCAA tournaments and have the program completely backslide afterward. It all comes down to recruiting. It is probably the most difficult job in the world to get basketball talent to come to USC on a consistent basis and it has been that way for every coach we've had here since we left the ACC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atl-cock

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,044
1,884
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
Depends on how one defines fluke. It feels flukeish because we failed to capitalize on the success, notwithstanding the talent on that 2017 team.

We definitely failed to capitalize on the success. We really did have a good team that year lead by a great college basketball player. It feels similar to the situation under Fogler when we went to back to back NCAA tournaments and have the program completely backslide afterward. It all comes down to recruiting. It is probably the most difficult job in the world to get basketball talent to come to USC on a consistent basis and it has been that way for every coach we've had here since we left the ACC.
And "every coach" includes Frank McGuire.

It continually bears repeating that a major reason why Roche & Owens signed with USC is because we were in the ACC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funktavious

funktavious

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2002
12,425
2,576
113
And "every coach" includes Frank McGuire.

It continually bears repeating that a major reason why Roche & Owens signed with USC is because we were in the ACC.
It's kinda sad to say but Vanderbilt is an easier coaching job than USC. Look at the success Fogler had in his limited time at Vanderbilt before he came to USC. Look at the changes in the coaches themselves from the time they came to USC to when they left. Fogler aged in front of our eyes as has Frank Martin. They get paid a ton of money but the stress from this job has to be something else.