I agree with you here. I have no problem with the guys having fun, they just need to have respect for business when Shane has to get real with them.
Beamer's Boys under the lights tonight.
- Thread starter LCD1
- Start date
Have you any idea of what you are saying?? How can I make a point when you take 2 occurrences (Northwestern and Clemson) and try to suggest that this is the norm. You call that a statistical underpinning? What about the hundreds of other coordinators who have gone on to HC success?
You observation suggests that I should not engage in this conversation because you flout the a, b, c of stats.
Go look at his post Pundit. He looks at Dabo and tries to say that Ray hired a Dabo clone. So it follows that we should have success. This is silly and I am being polite. Clemson got lucky. Us? We will have to get super lucky, I want that. But I doubt it.
We have Ray pulling the levers and that tells me we are likely to be in more trouble win wise.
Urbsn Meyer took the unconventional route. The vast majority of HCs take the conventional route via the coordinator position.
Absolutely! It is good to have fun. But it has to translate to good coaching and good practices. That is where the rubber meets the road. Some coaches cannot make that switch.
From what I hear the players are having fun. That is good. Some alums are also involved. That is good. But the key to sll this is good practices where fundamentals are taught and more innovative plays are practiced over and over again. If fun takes over much then that balance could be lost.
So what statistics were you referring to earlier
I am going by success rate. You are saying because the traditional path of coordinator to HC has been done 1000x more (at a much smaller success rate) that it is better because it has been done more times?
I agree with you. I think we wait for another 5 years with no expectations.
I played 3 full and one half season. I tore my abductor muscle and had to retire.
I will do it this one time. A post earlier went like this and I post below my reply.
" bdblack said: Well, speaking of Clemson, didn't they hire a guy named Dabo 13 years ago with even much less experience in those areas than Shane Beamer? Now how's that working out for ya?
Reply: Oh! Stop it. You take an isolated example and try to make it a norm. Don't violate basic statistics. And you in your hypothetical is setting Beamer = Swinney. Damn! "
The point - Clemson hiring Dabo is that a blueprint for our success?
So we hire Beamer (some posts here liken that to the Dabo hiring, like the post above). That is not just insane, it is infantile. One or two hires like that (Northwester and Clemson) don't make a rule. It has no statistical bearing. BS. These are exceptions to the rule. Ray is not the type of AD who can find that "acorn". But, only Ray falls for the" cloning of Dabo" type hire. The fact that Ray hired Muschamp and kept him for 5 years tells me how good Ray is at hiring. When you have evidence that a coach cannot do it at a better-resourced U, I must suspend reality to hire that coach. To say that I missed on my first and second choice in that hiring process and then go to my ....nth choice with hiring Muschamp also says that I am clueless and flailing in the wind. Ray does not have the temperament to be an AD. With that said, I like the fact that former players like Shane. To me that is huge ++.
When you hire, you are hiring probabilities of success. We must hire where those probabilities are high (e.g., Mac Brown). Dabo at hiring had a low probability of success, but he did it. Shane might do the same, but I doubt it, given that we play in the SEC and not in the ACC. Dabo was able to cover up his early SEC lossess with ACC championships. An AD can live with that. Dabo also took over mid season and then gave Radokovich time to evalaute. So when he was made permanent there was evidence about his prowess. Shane is an absolute unknown. I hope it works out, but in my books such an outcome is tenuous to say the least.
.
Well Beamer is 1-0 as an interim HC. He has a much better resume than Dabo did, and he has the ability to let coaches do their job. All signs point to him doing well at SC.
Is this the old "I played the game back in the day, so I know...." angle?
No it’s called sharing my experience. It’s like if I was talking hockey and I never played the game before I would “happily, take advice from someone who did. I’m not bragging on my playing days, I’m just not gonna let somebody try to make it sound like, I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I’ve got experience too. But I wasn’t there and dont have intimate knowledge of what’s presently going on. So I, for one, wouldn’t venture an opinion.
Well that’s what makes the world unique we don’t have to all think alike, or have the same opinions.
Are you kidding me? You can point to two hires from non-coordinator positions to HC as success stories (Northwestern and Clemson) and a poster said the statistics backs this up. That is BS. The vast majority of the hires that have had success are Coordinator to HC. You are wanting statistics on this? This is A, B, and C of stats. It is too obvious.
How about coaches like Paterno, Bryant and others who went from assistants to HC? Do they not count?
But they have a lower success rate. If there was the same amount of coaches hired from positions coach/AHC to head coach, do you think they would have a similar success rate as coordinator to head coach?
I would bet it would be the same if not better because it is a greater jump the people doing the hire have to be more sold on that individual than the lazy good coordinator = good head coach perspective which has shown to not be true (see Muschamp)
Since you’re big on stats, what’s the average lifespan of a HBC at a program at all levels of college football?
Since they basically followed your pathway to success, the answer might be enlightening.
Ed Orgeron was never a coordinator, neither was Sam Pittman though it's a bit early to judge him. Remember Jim Tressel? He was pretty successful at Youngstown St and Ohio ST, he was never a coordinator either. These are just a few off the top of my head not named Dabo Sweeney or Urban Meyer.
All I'm saying is that while being a coordinator is a normal stepping stone to head coaching it's not a guarantee for success and there are plenty of successful coaches that have never been coordinators.
Yes and those take time. When you have a recruiting drought in the SEC for a period you pay no exceptions. Those other programs are recruiting higher caliber athletes and developing them as well. So inevitably you fall behind.
There was a lot of energy, and lots of hype training videos when Muschamp took over. Never forget!
But the biggest problem (Muschamp) is gone. I think we will see much better classes with Beamer.
Pittman went from position coach to P5 HC, first year was a huge turn around, but we can't yet chain long term success
For the love of god...go find someone you can pull for. Because all you do here is spread your negative junk.
Interesting. So, are you saying that Beamer will be successful here? I am assuming you support the Beamer hire. Correct?
Why would he not be successful? He has hired a good staff, he will do a better job of recruiting than Muschamp and players will be developed better than under Muschamp.
And I am sure they will. He has to win them over, which he will. Once that happens you will see guys running through brick walls for him. The wins will come, maybe not so many this year but I bet the team will be more fundamentally sound and disciplined.
I have an idea what the answer is. You might too, which is why you’re dodging answering it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: Reacting To The Gamecocks' Spring Game- Latest: Caleb Alexander
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: Reacting To The Gamecocks' Spring Game
- Latest: Caleb Alexander
-
-