Had some thoughts I wanted to get out there today...bear with me as they're fairly lengthy.
- USC needed to rebound in many ways from a 2014 season that saw the football program slip to seven wins, and in many ways. That has not happened.
The Gamecocks were coming off the best years in program history: an SEC championship game appearance in 2010 followed by three straight 11-win seasons from 2011-2013. The slip was something that, while it certainly would have made folks unhappy regardless, could have been tolerated more if it was not for the manner in which USC lost last season and how the issues created in the program projected forward. If there were reasons to believe that things would turn around quickly and get back on the right path for the future, folks would have felt better. Right now though, it’s hard to feel that way for most.
USC needed to recruit better and get back to the type of classes that led to the 2010-2013 years. There have been some good prospects signed, but many of them are young, others have not panned out for one reason or another (miss or development) and one other thing: everybody in the SEC just about signs classes that range from good to great every single cycle. In college football, if you want to win you need great players and a lot of them. Once you do that you have to develop those guys and put them in position to win.
Even a team that projected to be excellent this season could look at USC’s schedule and gulp. It’s tough. Getting to seven wins or around it for the Gamecocks would have been a strong accomplishment in my mind, but that’s going to be extraordinarily difficult now and would require a huge turnaround on the field. Just about everyone around the Gamecocks that they play on the field and recruit against is getting better and upping their game in both departments. Georgia. Florida could be back, if not soon then now it appears. Tennessee may not be there or may not get there, but they’re definitely more talented than the past two seasons when USC lost to them. Vanderbilt can play defense. Kentucky has more talent than they’ve ever had and just beat USC twice in a row. Missouri is always tough. Clemson? Well, you’ve seen.
It is not all bad, to be sure. There are good players with talent on the South Carolina roster, although USC needs more difference-makers and for other ones to be on the field and producing. The 2015 class suffered a rash of decommitments for various reasons, but there are also many players that are “hits” from the class or will turn out to be “hits” in the future. USC is in the Southeastern Conference. Columbia is in a great location. The facilities are very good and can compete with many of the other programs that USC has to recruit against on a daily basis. USC’s administration is in a good place and will do what it takes from a financial standpoint or other commitments to make USC competitive and keep USC competitive. They care, and they're watching. The fan base is in place and still hungry. They also care, and are also watching. There's every reason to believe that USC can succeed, and those in key positions have that mindset.
For some reason, there is this notion that USC’s administration and decision-makers are not aware of the state of the football program and its perception and not willing/able to do anything about it. Let me assure you, that notion is incorrect.
I find it odd that Ray Tanner has drawn criticism from a segment of the fan base that for some reason perceives that he has done nothing, is doing nothing, and will do nothing about South Carolina’s football program. I could not disagree more and I'm not just taking a wild guess on that. My suggestion to everyone is to let the remainder of this season play out and see what happens in the offseason. There is not an athletic director in the country that would have fired or forced out a legendary head coach that led the program to its best ever success in football after one 7-6 season (coming right after 33-6 in three years), nor should there be. I’m not just saying “wait and see” as a copout; every single person I’ve talked to associated with the University of South Carolina and the football program expects change next season. The question is essentially how much at this stage.
Not too long ago, we just saw Tennessee, with a much richer football tradition than USC, be spurned very publicly by numerous candidates prior to hiring Butch Jones. Things have to be done to make your job as attractive as possible, and right now South Carolina’s football job is one that will be coveted by many. Would forcing Spurrier out last season have helped with the attractiveness of the job? You would be surprised at some of the folks that have remarked about the attractiveness of the job once it comes open. So my suggestion is this: hold tight.
Side note: Spurrier’s decision to return last season was his and those close to him. Spurrier’s decision was made in consultation with his family, and he decided to return. It did not look as likely for sure immediately following the loss to Clemson last November. Remember that in the days after the Clemson game last year I remarked that Spurrier was back in the office after taking some time off and that he entered on a Monday and made recruiting calls. There was substantial wondering on the part of many leading up to that, and for good reason. Yes, Ray Tanner did remark during the season that he hoped to see Spurrier the sidelines in 2015 and beyond, which is an understandable public statement to make at that time. In my mind and in the mind of many others, he absolutely deserved the chance to be back this season based on what he's done at South Carolina.
There has also been a lot of talk about why the USC administration has or has not forced Steve Spurrier to do this or that. For the most part, athletic directors aren’t walking into the film room with coaches and they’re sure not (and shouldn’t have to) telling a football coach what he does or doesn’t need to do throughout the course of a season on the recruiting trail or on the field. They hire them and keep them on staff to do a job, a job that encompasses a lot of different things in order to run a program. If they do the job well they generally keep it and if they don’t do it well they generally don’t keep it. The good news for USC is that their athletic director is a former and recent national championship winning coach who understands personnel and coaching. Insinuating that Spurrier is “bigger than the program” or something of that nature is just untrue and not grounded in any sort of fact or reality. Saying that Ray Tanner won’t do this or that because of Spurrier's stature is just untrue and likewise not founded in fact or reality. Did anyone take note that aside from Jon Hoke’s initial contract when he was hired, that there were no other extensions or changes to current assistant coach contracts? Contracts that happen to expire at the end of January, 2016? Even when Steve Spurrier and assistants would have preferred it that way? USC will ultimately do what’s best for the program one way or another.
Another example: there has been a lot of talk about the recruiting budget and some folks have even blamed Ray Tanner for that. The money is there for USC to spend a lot more on recruiting, but it has to be something that’s driven by the football program and what they do. If Steve Spurrier asked to expand staff further, it would be done. If USC wanted to spend more money on mailings or technology or travel, it would be done. Any deficiencies in USC’s recruiting is not because some big-wig at USC is putting his foot down on writing a check for recruiting expenses.
When I read that Ray Tanner “isn’t doing his job” or “won’t make a move”, I always laugh and shake my head. It's a wild guess that has no basis in fact. Now, if nothing is done after this season if USC goes 4-8 and nobody wants to make any changes? I could understand. But I wouldn’t anticipate that. If Ray Tanner has to hire a new football coach at some point and said new coach fails? We could question that hire But now? Give it time, and see what shakes out.
I know that leads to your next question: what will those changes be that I referred to earlier? Nobody knows for sure. We can speculate and we can say what’s most likely, but it’s not set. Just feel confident that there is a strong recognition that the current trajectory is not going to work, and that will drive change. It depends in large part on how this season ends, which is why I said above that folks need to let it play out. I cannot rule out Spurrier returning, but I would be very surprised (if it's even a possibility at the end of the season) if that scenario would not require significant other changes within the program of numerous types. That begs the question then: would those potential changes be viewed as significant enough to rectify the program by those in the administration as well as key supporters of the program, or would a different direction need to be taken altogether? Would Spurrier be interested in making those changes that would be required and would he even be given the chance to make them? One way or another, something is giving here.
Spurrier had the offseason and this season, at the bare minimum, to rectify the situation. I think it could certainly be argued that he deserved the opportunity to do that at the time. We’ve now seen the early stages of the results on that front, which appears to be a poorer season than the one before and an outlook that is not inspiring supporters of the program. While South Carolina has some strong prospects (again, you need more than some)in the 2016 recruiting class, some are tenuous. Overall, there are still concerns about the overall recruiting operation that have to be addressed. The on-field performance is not what it needs to be. Improvement in multiple areas is needed, and don’t think for a second that it is going unnoticed by decision makers. If Spurrier were to have another chance at the end of the season to fix things (and again, the playing out of this season will likely dictate that), who could USC attract? What would he address? Will that chance even be there? And here's another one: what if USC did what something unexpected and went on a run this season? Even in that case, I don't see status quo in 2016 on the whole.
Finally, there are major road blocks on the recruiting trail for South Carolina this cycle. Those obstacles would make it tough even if the staff were jam-packed with the country's best recruiters and go-getters. Every single one of USC’s assistant coaches except for Jon Hoke and Lorenzo Ward are working on the aforementioned contracts that I spoke of and the Gamecocks are in the midst of a potentially very poor season. The head coach is perceived on being at or towards the end of his career and is not extremely involved in recruiting. The recruiting support staff has an uphill battle because it’s one of the smaller groups from a numbers standpoint in the conference and smaller than many schools USC competes against directly, among other things. Will the situation get any better with the current situation in place? That will be part of the evaluation. Personnel wins in athletics, and that will be front and center in the discussions and evaluation.
- USC needed to rebound in many ways from a 2014 season that saw the football program slip to seven wins, and in many ways. That has not happened.
The Gamecocks were coming off the best years in program history: an SEC championship game appearance in 2010 followed by three straight 11-win seasons from 2011-2013. The slip was something that, while it certainly would have made folks unhappy regardless, could have been tolerated more if it was not for the manner in which USC lost last season and how the issues created in the program projected forward. If there were reasons to believe that things would turn around quickly and get back on the right path for the future, folks would have felt better. Right now though, it’s hard to feel that way for most.
USC needed to recruit better and get back to the type of classes that led to the 2010-2013 years. There have been some good prospects signed, but many of them are young, others have not panned out for one reason or another (miss or development) and one other thing: everybody in the SEC just about signs classes that range from good to great every single cycle. In college football, if you want to win you need great players and a lot of them. Once you do that you have to develop those guys and put them in position to win.
Even a team that projected to be excellent this season could look at USC’s schedule and gulp. It’s tough. Getting to seven wins or around it for the Gamecocks would have been a strong accomplishment in my mind, but that’s going to be extraordinarily difficult now and would require a huge turnaround on the field. Just about everyone around the Gamecocks that they play on the field and recruit against is getting better and upping their game in both departments. Georgia. Florida could be back, if not soon then now it appears. Tennessee may not be there or may not get there, but they’re definitely more talented than the past two seasons when USC lost to them. Vanderbilt can play defense. Kentucky has more talent than they’ve ever had and just beat USC twice in a row. Missouri is always tough. Clemson? Well, you’ve seen.
It is not all bad, to be sure. There are good players with talent on the South Carolina roster, although USC needs more difference-makers and for other ones to be on the field and producing. The 2015 class suffered a rash of decommitments for various reasons, but there are also many players that are “hits” from the class or will turn out to be “hits” in the future. USC is in the Southeastern Conference. Columbia is in a great location. The facilities are very good and can compete with many of the other programs that USC has to recruit against on a daily basis. USC’s administration is in a good place and will do what it takes from a financial standpoint or other commitments to make USC competitive and keep USC competitive. They care, and they're watching. The fan base is in place and still hungry. They also care, and are also watching. There's every reason to believe that USC can succeed, and those in key positions have that mindset.
For some reason, there is this notion that USC’s administration and decision-makers are not aware of the state of the football program and its perception and not willing/able to do anything about it. Let me assure you, that notion is incorrect.
I find it odd that Ray Tanner has drawn criticism from a segment of the fan base that for some reason perceives that he has done nothing, is doing nothing, and will do nothing about South Carolina’s football program. I could not disagree more and I'm not just taking a wild guess on that. My suggestion to everyone is to let the remainder of this season play out and see what happens in the offseason. There is not an athletic director in the country that would have fired or forced out a legendary head coach that led the program to its best ever success in football after one 7-6 season (coming right after 33-6 in three years), nor should there be. I’m not just saying “wait and see” as a copout; every single person I’ve talked to associated with the University of South Carolina and the football program expects change next season. The question is essentially how much at this stage.
Not too long ago, we just saw Tennessee, with a much richer football tradition than USC, be spurned very publicly by numerous candidates prior to hiring Butch Jones. Things have to be done to make your job as attractive as possible, and right now South Carolina’s football job is one that will be coveted by many. Would forcing Spurrier out last season have helped with the attractiveness of the job? You would be surprised at some of the folks that have remarked about the attractiveness of the job once it comes open. So my suggestion is this: hold tight.
Side note: Spurrier’s decision to return last season was his and those close to him. Spurrier’s decision was made in consultation with his family, and he decided to return. It did not look as likely for sure immediately following the loss to Clemson last November. Remember that in the days after the Clemson game last year I remarked that Spurrier was back in the office after taking some time off and that he entered on a Monday and made recruiting calls. There was substantial wondering on the part of many leading up to that, and for good reason. Yes, Ray Tanner did remark during the season that he hoped to see Spurrier the sidelines in 2015 and beyond, which is an understandable public statement to make at that time. In my mind and in the mind of many others, he absolutely deserved the chance to be back this season based on what he's done at South Carolina.
There has also been a lot of talk about why the USC administration has or has not forced Steve Spurrier to do this or that. For the most part, athletic directors aren’t walking into the film room with coaches and they’re sure not (and shouldn’t have to) telling a football coach what he does or doesn’t need to do throughout the course of a season on the recruiting trail or on the field. They hire them and keep them on staff to do a job, a job that encompasses a lot of different things in order to run a program. If they do the job well they generally keep it and if they don’t do it well they generally don’t keep it. The good news for USC is that their athletic director is a former and recent national championship winning coach who understands personnel and coaching. Insinuating that Spurrier is “bigger than the program” or something of that nature is just untrue and not grounded in any sort of fact or reality. Saying that Ray Tanner won’t do this or that because of Spurrier's stature is just untrue and likewise not founded in fact or reality. Did anyone take note that aside from Jon Hoke’s initial contract when he was hired, that there were no other extensions or changes to current assistant coach contracts? Contracts that happen to expire at the end of January, 2016? Even when Steve Spurrier and assistants would have preferred it that way? USC will ultimately do what’s best for the program one way or another.
Another example: there has been a lot of talk about the recruiting budget and some folks have even blamed Ray Tanner for that. The money is there for USC to spend a lot more on recruiting, but it has to be something that’s driven by the football program and what they do. If Steve Spurrier asked to expand staff further, it would be done. If USC wanted to spend more money on mailings or technology or travel, it would be done. Any deficiencies in USC’s recruiting is not because some big-wig at USC is putting his foot down on writing a check for recruiting expenses.
When I read that Ray Tanner “isn’t doing his job” or “won’t make a move”, I always laugh and shake my head. It's a wild guess that has no basis in fact. Now, if nothing is done after this season if USC goes 4-8 and nobody wants to make any changes? I could understand. But I wouldn’t anticipate that. If Ray Tanner has to hire a new football coach at some point and said new coach fails? We could question that hire But now? Give it time, and see what shakes out.
I know that leads to your next question: what will those changes be that I referred to earlier? Nobody knows for sure. We can speculate and we can say what’s most likely, but it’s not set. Just feel confident that there is a strong recognition that the current trajectory is not going to work, and that will drive change. It depends in large part on how this season ends, which is why I said above that folks need to let it play out. I cannot rule out Spurrier returning, but I would be very surprised (if it's even a possibility at the end of the season) if that scenario would not require significant other changes within the program of numerous types. That begs the question then: would those potential changes be viewed as significant enough to rectify the program by those in the administration as well as key supporters of the program, or would a different direction need to be taken altogether? Would Spurrier be interested in making those changes that would be required and would he even be given the chance to make them? One way or another, something is giving here.
Spurrier had the offseason and this season, at the bare minimum, to rectify the situation. I think it could certainly be argued that he deserved the opportunity to do that at the time. We’ve now seen the early stages of the results on that front, which appears to be a poorer season than the one before and an outlook that is not inspiring supporters of the program. While South Carolina has some strong prospects (again, you need more than some)in the 2016 recruiting class, some are tenuous. Overall, there are still concerns about the overall recruiting operation that have to be addressed. The on-field performance is not what it needs to be. Improvement in multiple areas is needed, and don’t think for a second that it is going unnoticed by decision makers. If Spurrier were to have another chance at the end of the season to fix things (and again, the playing out of this season will likely dictate that), who could USC attract? What would he address? Will that chance even be there? And here's another one: what if USC did what something unexpected and went on a run this season? Even in that case, I don't see status quo in 2016 on the whole.
Finally, there are major road blocks on the recruiting trail for South Carolina this cycle. Those obstacles would make it tough even if the staff were jam-packed with the country's best recruiters and go-getters. Every single one of USC’s assistant coaches except for Jon Hoke and Lorenzo Ward are working on the aforementioned contracts that I spoke of and the Gamecocks are in the midst of a potentially very poor season. The head coach is perceived on being at or towards the end of his career and is not extremely involved in recruiting. The recruiting support staff has an uphill battle because it’s one of the smaller groups from a numbers standpoint in the conference and smaller than many schools USC competes against directly, among other things. Will the situation get any better with the current situation in place? That will be part of the evaluation. Personnel wins in athletics, and that will be front and center in the discussions and evaluation.
Last edited:
