UNC has always recruited Virginia hard, primarily the Tidelands. I believe they got Famous Amos from there (Norfolk), and the incomparable Lawrence Taylor was from Williamsburg.
Last edited:
Is There an Answer To The Real Issue
- Thread starter midline
- Start date
Yes it recruits but also coaching alongside an AD and BOT that know what the hell they are doing (i.e., clempson). However, SOS proved that despite an incompetent AD and good ole boy BO, good recruiting with decent coaching can even make a winner out of CAROLINA.
As much as we wish a top tier program could be built here, it can't happen because of the legislative structure of our BOT. Our structure is different than CU's and we will never have the BOT drive to win that CU or other top tier schools have. We have CU fans on our Board, but you won't find a single USC fan on CU's Board. Our BOT is about the prestige of being on the Board. CU's Board catches hell if the athletics dept. isn't winning. That doesn't happen at USC. The BOT is happy to be friends and not rock the boat with Tanner. He would have been run off years ago at CU.
It's not just a different attitude (there is one), but it is about the makeup and structure of the Board being different between the two schools and it will never change, no reason for the SC Legislature to change it. A run like Spurrier or Holtz had is as good as it will ever get here. It's just the difference between dogs and cats.
Thank you for making these points. You know to some level they are correct. However, it still does not negate the fact that these coaches are simply bad.
I thought Kirby Smart said it best four days ago: "There's no coach out there that can out-coach recruiting. I don't care who you are. The best coach to ever play the game better be a good recruiter because no coaching is going to out-coach players."
I disagree, I don’t think the staff is bad. Could it be improved? Sure.
But you can’t win the Kentucky Derby with a mule, doesn’t matter who the trainer is.
Tut! Tut! You commit mortal sin. Comparing our players to mules. Not good at all. Better to look at the million dollar coaches who are incompetent. Beamer is NOT good at all, why is that hard to see the obvious. You got it wrong!
Or there is the worse scenario. It's the Kentucky derby and this team is a mule with a teenage kid who's never ridden a horse as the jockey.
But seriously, instead of arguing if the players or the coaching needs upgrading, the answer might be both.
No hatred on my part. Even though he was nowhere close to my first choice, I have been supportive. Based on the schedule, I said 4 wins this season, maybe 5. Thus I am close to on the money. Beamer has to obviously learn on the job. Hopefully part of the learning curve is to realize when you make hiring mistskes. There is a huge difference from being a position coach to being THE MAN in charge. We have no choice but to give him time. I assume we will.
The fact is that Beamer needs to step up our recruiting from what he has thus far brought in. Who he has committed thus far is OK. But it is no better than what Muschamp brought in. That won't cut it.
With one exception I will agree that this staff is not bad. The problem is when your weakest point is one of your coordinators it makes everyone look bad.
I think this is true regardless of sport, but highlighted even more with fewer players per team on the field, pitch, court, etc.
Basketball is one such sport which comes to mind. Look at what Bill Bradley did for Princeton in the early 1960s.
Interesting. This entire comment could easily be directed toward Ray Tanner as well, as there are a lot of similarities between the Tanner hire and the Beamer hire.
Ray was nowhere near my first choice as AD. But, he inherited a lot better overall program than Beamer did with our football team. And, it is a fact that all of our men's programs have gone down hill since his hire.
Much like Beamer, Ray was well-liked within the program and by a lot of fans. But, the last I looked, being well-liked does not equate to success - in the short term or long term.
Both had tremendous support from their former players.
Much like Beamer, Ray had and still has to learn on the job.
Much like Beamer, Ray has been and will be judged not only by the mistakes he made, but how he learned from those mistakes.
The SEC is no place for 2 of your most important athletic staff members to be 'learning on the job'. We don't know if Ray has learned from his mistakes at this point. He hired Muschamp, which was clearly a mistake. And, now he hired Beamer who had ZERO prior experience as an OC or HC at any level. That may be another mistake. And he is probably going to retire within the next few years, without us really knowing for sure.
And, regarding your statement about Beamer: "We have no choice but to give him time'. You are probably right. Our choices are limited now because of the choice made by Ray Tanner back last December. Sure appears to me that we are always 'BUYING more time' when we should and could be investing our money more wisely.
Lakecock1,
Only a guess, but I speculate that Ray was given the job in appreciation for winning 2 national championships and coming close on a 3rd. I suspect that the thought on Beamer was that he would be like his Dad Frank. Nothing in his background qualified him to jump straight to being a Head Coach in the SEC without being either an OC or DC or a Head Coach elsewhere first. I would hope that the people (Board Of Trustees) entrusted to oversee a major university would not give the preponderance of weight to former players recommending a hire. How many sons of former Hall Of Fame coaches have come anywhere near replicating the success of their fathers? I can't think of one.
Regardless, Shane is our coach and we have to support him, hoping for the best.
Only a guess, but I speculate that Ray was given the job in appreciation for winning 2 national championships and coming close on a 3rd. I suspect that the thought on Beamer was that he would be like his Dad Frank. Nothing in his background qualified him to jump straight to being a Head Coach in the SEC without being either an OC or DC or a Head Coach elsewhere first. I would hope that the people (Board Of Trustees) entrusted to oversee a major university would not give the preponderance of weight to former players recommending a hire. How many sons of former Hall Of Fame coaches have come anywhere near replicating the success of their fathers? I can't think of one.
Regardless, Shane is our coach and we have to support him, hoping for the best.
That's a question our interim president probably could answer.....but won't. And understandably so, IMO.
Even if Pastides and the BOT did take that into consideration, RT wouldn't have gotten a first look if not for all the work he had done in the Athletic Departments for both USC & NCSU.
I am not saying this to be mean, but factual. Over the past 60 years, the average Clemson team has been better than the average USC team, and by a considerable margin. Of course there have been yearly exceptions, but that is a fact.
Time to do what? Continue bad coaching? You can ask your housekeeper to fix the engine in your car, but she's not going to be able to do it whether you give her 2 weeks or 10 years, because she simply doesn't know how.
I've experienced good coaching and I've experienced bad coaching. I know the difference. This staff is not good.
Similar threads
