Tanner’s excuse next year will be the schedule and “we are rebuilding after losing Rattler”.
Cocks vs Cocks game thread....
- Thread starter Cybercock
- Start date
In all honesty, there's no point in looking for a coaching change 7ntil Tanner is gone.
That NEEDS to happen first.
Otherwise we just get another hire that is "settling".
That NEEDS to happen first.
Otherwise we just get another hire that is "settling".
100% agree. It all starts there. If we had another football head coach opening, Tanner would probably watch Ted Lasso and hire a soccer coach to coach football.
They would win 3-4 games. Their last 3 bowls they beat Baylor, Louisville and Washington State, all teams we probably are 50/50 with. If they played all 14 teams Id say they beat Vandy, Miss State, Arkansas and would be 50/50 tossup vs us, Kentucky, Auburn and maybe even could catch Florida or A&M on a bad day. So depending on schedule they end up 3-5 or so in SEC play
Last edited:
Most every football coach in USC history has done five years before exiting stage left.
But we'll play our role and still call you clairvoyant at the end of 2025 if he departs.
Well, who is responsible for recruiting? In another thread, one of the arguments for Beamer who had no HC,OC, or DC experience, was that he was a good recruiter. Hiring his staff and recruiting are a HC's primary responsibilities. If we don't have talent, that's his responsibility.
With the exception of Spurrier, he's recruiting as well as any other coach in the history of the program.
Also, Spurrier's best recruiting years were deeper into his tenure.
No he's not. The results on the field show it. Recruiting is not about how many stars your players have assigned by some internet site. Recruiting is about EVALUATION of talent. Apparently this staff is not good at that. Would you rather have a 3* Deebo Samuel or a 4* Dakereon Joyner?
You're talking about player development - not recruiting. There's many outfits who rank talent. If they are getting it wrong, they are getting it wrong for everyone. The Deebo-Joyner comparison happens, but it's not the norm.
I do agree that the position coaches need to be thoroughly evaluated at the end of the year.
No, I'm talking about recruiting. They scout high school players and attend games in person. They also review extensive film of HS games. They also have summer camps where they evaluate potential talent of potential recruits. It's all about proper evaluation of the talent of players being recruited by the coaching staff, not stars.
When you good evaluations of talent like Spurrier you sign a 2* like Captain Munnerlyn who ended up in the NFL. It was not development, because he started as a freshman.
Dude I hope they fire Beamer just so you can say I told you so to everybody. Riddle me this though? Who in their right freaking mind would want to coach here that has his sanity?? There is no upside. Coaches go to end their careers here not start them. Name one who went from here to anywhere other than the unemployment line? We have nothing to sell. Like I said Spurrier was the first, last, best and only chance and he couldn't get it done in the perfect time when Bama, UGa, UCheat, and even Florida to some extent were down during his time here. I don't like these facts but acceptance is one of the more important stages of grieving.
That is not an advantage at all. Are you freaking kidding me??? We have less money to buy players than our competitors so its a huge disadvantage. Let's stick to reality at least.
Gotcha - Got to believe there's some of that. Although, I would think as a coach you can't go too far off the grid anymore.
The danger is -- If you're not winning AND you're recruiting classes are ranked significantly lower than your predecessors due to your curated picks, you're likely going to be on the hot seat quicker than usual.
That’s something I said also. We (Tanner) obviously didnt hire him for his head coaching or coordinator background bc he had neither. So his recruiting must have been elite. Otherwise WHY make the hire?
To be fair, our team is currently being carried by a player we "stole" from Oklahoma.
You are correct about this. Some coaches have an incredibly good eye for not just talent but fit, a kid could be less hyped but the coaches see things he does well that could amplify in their scheme. Boisie State was masterful at this. Theres some FCS programs that regularly beat FBS ones with lesser talent bc they relentlessly look for those kids who have 1-2 skills that fit perfectly in their system
Sure, diet coke. What in Chadwells track record makes you think he would be spiraling downward in year 3? He was a D2 success at NGU and they said he couldnt win in FCS, then he won big at CSU. In 24 months CSU went from 1-11 and losing to a D-3 team to 10 wins and beating App State and Coastal, then 2 BSC championsships. Soooo…..after continually losing to CSU, Coastal hires the guy for their FBS transition. And people said he couldnt win in FBS. He did it, again. Won SBC championship. Now Liberty hires him, and they are 9-0 in year 1, best start in school history and about to win C-USA.
We instead chose a recruiting coordinator/TE coach with no experience as a DC, OC or HC.
Someone was drinking hard stuff but it wasnt me.
Haha great point. The “we dont have money we cant recruit in NIL era” forget Rattler, Juice Wells, Mario Anderson, guys who saved this program from total collapse, came from elsewhere.
No, it's not a "great point". Nobody said we don't have ANY NIL money. Just not as much as most other teams.
Idiotic, but not surprising. Site is overrun by trolls and crybabies.
Agreed.
But it's much easier to just say "NIL" and pretend we don't benefit from it as well. At least for some.
Well, you cry about anyone who disagrees with you being a troll, so I guess we know which one that makes you.
Please explain your thought process.
The gap is SEC talent between the top teams in the conference and everyone else was already vast.
The gap between teams who consistently recruit in the Top 10 and everyone else was already vast.
The same schools who've out recruited us are now buying the best players from any D1 team who can't afford to pay an entire team like they can.
Teams who have recruited on par with us over the past decade, but have rich donors and/or a corporate honey hole because of their location, are now able to buy our players. (FSU, USC, Texas, etc_)
Rattler is at USC because of his relationship with Beamer. We threw the kitchen sink at him financially which is why we have a great QB with a very fragile supporting cast.
Last edited:
I believe I already have, more than once.
I'm starting to think this is like our conversation about whether the current Clemson team (or recent yeaes) is a national title contender. I will post, and you will ignore what you don't like.
Humor me and re-post why you believe the NIL/portal isn't a big net negative for USC.
I've never discussed with you whether the current Clemson team is a National contender.
Last edited:
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
southcarolina.forums.rivals.com
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
southcarolina.forums.rivals.com
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
southcarolina.forums.rivals.com
I said current or recent years.
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
Gamecocks vs Tennerr'see Game Thread
You could resurrect Bear Bryant and he wouldn't be successful if the money he had to pay players with was 10th in the SEC.
I said current or recent years.
My position was that Muschamp teams were horrible against Clemson to the point of no return.
Also discussed that we had to worse point spread of any team they faced over that same time period - including the ACC teams.
What am I missing?
And the counterpoint was that the clemson teams of recent years were nowhere near what those clemson teams were.
I don't believe you're "missing" anything. I think you're refusing to acknowledge a question because the answer didn't fit your current narrative.
If you still want to pretend you're "missing" something, just answer the question that I provided links to.
That was your point - not mine. I could care less what Clemson is doing. My point was that we beat a Top 10 ranked Clemson team in their stadium while Muschamp couldn't find a pulse against one for 5 years.
It doesn't matter how good Clemson was when we were the worst of the worst in terms of their competition at the time. Muschamp wasn't beating a Top 5, a Top 10 or a Top 50 Clemson team with the output in those games.
Last edited:
Yes, that was your point. And you continue to ignore anyone else's.
Claiming a win over Clemson without acknowledging that the clemson team of last year was NO WHERE near the team of several years ago is disingenuous at best.
And it's not lost on me that you STILL can't bring yourself to answer the simple question.
For all your butting heads with him I'm beginning to think you're just Watson's second handle that he uses to argue the other side of things. You too are so very similar.
Hmmmm.....I think you're the one not reading. I don't care how strong the Clemson Team Muschamp got slaughtered by for 5 straight years was - we were the worst competition they had during that period.
What exactly would be the point of sizing up how the two Clemson teams compared anyway? Beamer beat a Top 10 team on their homefield - a place they hadn't lost forever.
Why go to these extended lengths to try to depreciate that accomplishment? Moreover, why in the world would you use our games under Muschamp as some reference point to that end?
So what you’re saying is we face a recruiting hill thats too steep to truly overcome, no matter what, so we should seek out coaches who are Xs and Os gurus with proven history of being great coordinators or HCs at lower tier schools (bc we arent getting a HC from somewhere equal or above us)??? I agree. Which raises a big question
It was a great win, absolutely. We most likely had a major assist from Michigan. We literally knew their play calls before the snap.
And we cannot put blinders on and pretend the Clemson teams during Muschamps era werent different. Their 2018 squad is mentioned among possibly the greatest single season teams in history. 2 generational Heisman finalist QBs. Come on man. Being a 1-loss top 10 team is great but those teams Muschamp got slaughtered by? That was a national level dynasty run. We get blinded by the rivalry sometimes and cant admit things.
Every head coach we get is going to be a crapshoot given our limitations in resources and we can't continue to gamble house money over a role that isn't that important to the Xs and Os. Instead, do that at the position level and save yourself a fortune in contracts and buyouts.
You are not the first, or even second poster to try and get this point across. I assume you'll have the same "success".
I'm not putting blinders on. My point is that Muschamp's efforts against Clemson were so bad that we can't use them for any level of analysis.
If we're doing worse against them than the bottom half of the ACC, I would have to believe that Beamer did a better job than Muschamp ever did against a Clemson team by beating them on their homefield while they were in the Top 10. ...Something no other ACC team had done in many years.
How is that not logical?
We need the aggressive X and O coach, or a certain coach who will go out and hire those aggressive X and O coordinators.
Since we ha e a deficiency in one area, there's no need to compound it in another.
Or we just settle.
Nah I disagree. Holtz and Spurrier weren’t crapshoots. And I’ll admit, I was ok with giving Muschamp a shot, yes Florida was a flop, but he was/is an elite DC At several schools, a Saban trained coach, a great recruiter. Florida hired him for a reason, and Texas wanted to. For US, it was a reasonable risk.
But our HC job, at a mid tier SEC school, is a major job. I just cant fathom a hire with literally no experience as a HC or coordinator and that falls 100% on Ray.
