The problem is that you can't put a price on losing your best players. The star system doesn't cut it when you're losing your top performers on the field because you can't pay them enough.
It sickens me when I realize Muschamp ran our program so far into the ground it's going to take
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
Missouri is having to publically dance around this single $62 million donation because of NIL regulations. I'm not sure we've received that amount collectively in over a decade. Anyone?
https://www.si.com/fannation/name-i...on-circles-62-million-missouri-donation-noah9
https://www.si.com/fannation/name-i...on-circles-62-million-missouri-donation-noah9
If you believe in the star rating system, this is literally just an accounting of how many 5, 4 and 3 stars you have on your team.
I know 3 stars can overachieve and 5 stars underachieve, but that's as close to objective as you can get. Certainly more objective than impressions about our loss or gain of talent vs other teams.
I get what you are saying, but I wonder if most of the teams out there don't feel the same way we do about the portal and their talent. Most of the non-elite teams that is.
He had a job. And if I remember correctly, instead of hitting the ground running recruiting wise for HIS team, he coached in a meaningless bowl game for another team. I can't remember if that was before or after the phone was blowing up with big names lie. I'm not sure other coaches have much respect for him.
That article basically says that zero dollars will go to NIL to buy players.
But you bring up a good point. I've often wanted to see a real comparison of NIL expenditures between schools. There are lots of rumors, but no real hard numbers.
We've passed around rankings before, but even those admitted to lack of good numbers backing them up.
What Lurker said this morning that I read at that time and, he re-posted for you this evening.
Let's hope that the 2023 season was an aberration and that the UT and Clemson games of 2022 were not.
Last edited:
Yeah, you would have thought after he rolled the dice on a failed SEC coach (Muschamp), he would not have rolled the dice on someone who has never been an OC nor DC, much less a Head Coach. Only at South Carolina. smh. I'm with you. I'm not sold.
Yeah, "wanting to be here" is never a good reason to hire someone. Pay someone $2.5 million annually starting off and, they'd then walk naked from Augusta, Georgia to Columbia for the job.
Last edited:
I don't know how Clemson is doing it. But their current class is rated 6th in the nation and have 8 four stars among their 11 commitments. And I have not heard of a lot of attrition over there. I know we have many, many thousands of more alumni than they do. Maybe they are graduating a boatload of Elon Musks and Bill Gates there to fund their NIL however much that might be. Whatever they are doing, we should copy.
Last edited:
Yeah, I already knew it was a bad hire from the start. The fact he stuck around to coach a meaningless bowl game for Oklahoma was all I need to confirm it was a terrible hire.
And you're right, it's probably really hard for a talented coordinator justify working for a coach that's less qualified for a HC job than they are.
Just going to keep sticking your head in the sand that everything is about money? How did we outbid Oregon for Harbor if we have no money?
I'm not sure why you can't grasp our issue is how we spend our money and who players actually want to play for.
Yep. I mentioned previously how no one wanted Beamer as a head coach. Hell, no one wanted him as a coordinator either. Tanner was apparently moved by all the support for Beamer from former players. While a feel good story, it doesn't mean you actually give the OU tight ends coach the head coaching job but of course Ray did. Shane was always a great cheerleader on the sidelines-and still is. Head coaching material? The jury's still out.
I hope Beamer succeeds here. If he doesn't, I hope that whoever does the hiring, brings in someone who has succeeded as a FBS Head Coach before. Of course that's no guarantee of success, but it improves the odds. Beamer's perceived strength is that of a recruiter. Go back 50 years. Every Head Coach we have hired here whose strength was perceived to be recruiting (Bell, Woods, Scott and Muschamp) were all unmitigated failures. The only Head Coaches who had decent success here (Carlen, Morrison, Holtz and Spurrier) were considered strong in the "coaching" part of the job description and "so-so" as recruiters (getting a sprinkling of blue-chippers surrounded by solid prospects). Of course, that later group had proven success as FBS Head Coaches elsewhere. History may not repeat but, it does rhyme. We will know by the 2025 season whether Beamer breaks that pattern of "strong recruiter, lousy coach".
"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it."
--- American philosopher George Santayana, "The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense" ---
Last edited:
I think what needed to happen was the story that was sold at his hire. He was a "ceo" cheerleader, etc. He needed to bring in quality hires as coordinators.
I think OC hires, if it happens, will be his downfall.
I still do not know what was in Loggains resume/background that hollered: "HIRE". If anyone can explain that one, do so.
Shane's unqualification to be a SEC head coach will be his downfall. And his downfall is our downfall. And totally unnecessary if we had a qualified AD. We're f'd I'm afraid.
Their agent is Jimmy Sexton so most of his clients don't struggle with finding work. But he found a good school willing to be suckered unfortunately.
Me sticking my head in the sand? If you haven't gotten the memo, almost any player who is worth a damn in the SEC is now getting paid. If teams have 5-10x the money you have to spend versus what you do, you're probably going to have a bad day.....and you're probably not going to be able to hang on to a good number of your players who are worth a damn.
They won a couple of championships recently. Do that and we will get some talent
They also had a whole defense line stay one year when they all could have went pro. We will never have that kind of commitment
I'm concluding that you feel Beamer is over his head. If so, you won't get any argument from me. I hope we are wrong. In situations like ours, you don't hire a failed Head Coach nor make our job someone's first "rodeo". What you should do is hire a young PROVEN Head Coach. Example: the basketball hire of Lamont Paris. He was not looked on at the time as a "home run hire" ( such as Sean Miller that many wanted at the time). No one now is complaining about the Paris hire. Does that always work? Of course not. But it at least gives you a fighting chance. Going into the SEC football wars with the kind of hires made the last 2 times is like going into a gun fight with a knife. If we are not wrong regarding Beamer, I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that I hope our hiring authorities learn from their mistakes.
Chadwell was literally on a platter for us and we botched it.
They have gone from competing in and winning national titles to struggling to beat Kentucky in a bowl game.
Which makes their recruiting even more perplexing.
2025 recruiting rankings at this point mean nothing. Doesn't mean much anyway with all the portal mess.
But last year Clemson signed 22. Average star rating 3.68. No five stars. First time they didn't sign a rivals 5 star since 2013. Some years, they signed 3, or even 5 or 6 rivals five stars. ZERO last year.
Last year we signed 16. Average star rating 3.69. One five star.
But last year Clemson signed 22. Average star rating 3.68. No five stars. First time they didn't sign a rivals 5 star since 2013. Some years, they signed 3, or even 5 or 6 rivals five stars. ZERO last year.
Last year we signed 16. Average star rating 3.69. One five star.
Gamecocks had their best quarterback in their history and went 5-7. Rattler doesn’t get the respect he deserves for his play. Gamecocks couldn’t run and had only one receiver that could stretch the field. Keeping Sellers upright and clean or the record doesn’t improve any from last year.
Well, at least you've realized the comment was about recruiting, and not on the field results.
I do agree that it's early to rely on 25 rankings.
Your comments on the 24 class were interesting though, as I've heard Tigers bragging about there 5 star LB and 5 star WR recruit from that class. But it's one of those things where you can pick different recruiting services that rank them differently.
Given the discrepancy, their class in rivals, which rated both those guys as 4 stars, still had them ranked as the number 10 overall class.
So all whining aside, stock's point stands. They are doing something to still recruit well. I know we've celebrated classes ranked lower than that "bad" class of theirs.
Last edited:
Not really. High school recruiting is only half the story. And since that is the only half they participate in, it's not surprising they are ranked higher than us because the number of signees heavily influences the score.
I doubt that Clemson is any better off NIL-wise than us. Thus, at the very least, they are leveraging their success in the past 10 years to recruiting gold this year. Beamer will have to somehow win on the field this season. If not, we will be left in the dust by our rival. Does Beamer have that in him? He better.
Crazy you weren't saying this last year at this time when we were recruiting well.
I don't believe that will fly. On another site where the stars are averaged out per recruit, Clemson is 5th whereas we are 20th.
So, with similar NIL, they can go out and sign more players than us? And get better rankings because of it. Leading us back to the question, how are they doing it IF they have similar NIL hurdles than us?
You also lead us to another question. They dont participate in the portal, so how are they retaining players IF they have similar NIL hurdles?
Gamecocks have lost 9 out of the last 10? Been left in the dust a decade ago.
Yes 9 out of the last 10. But only 1 of the last 2, with that one loss being fairly close. If you disagree with that, say so. But I don't know how you can. Like it or not, there really has not been much difference between the programs in the past 2 seasons when you consider that we play a SEC schedule while they play an ACC schedule. And that bewilders Clemson fans. There's a reason why Dabo does not want to go into the SEC.
