The ONLY thing our fanbase needs to be better at is giving money. Period.
We are getting EXACTLY what we pay for. Everybody is a superfan that "expects" the world until it's time to open up the wallet.
On to 2024: Tougher schedule, younger team, less talent?
- Thread starter Bucs90
- Start date
The ONLY thing our fanbase needs to be better at is giving money. Period.
We are getting EXACTLY what we pay for. Everybody is a superfan that "expects" the world until it's time to open up the wallet.
Certainly not the only area that could use improvement, but any fanbase could increase really giving money. Not just pretending to on an anonymous message board.
Aren't you guys bragging signing Rocket Sanders? How can you complain about the NIL money right now?
Calm down. Just because you disagree with someone does not automatically make them a "tater". And is it really necessary to call someone a "liar"? To me, that's a fighting word. That person could have been mistaken or forgot or whatever. Points can be made in a civil way, I believe, that are convincing. I say all this respectfully. Have I ever been a "disagreeable " poster in the past? Yes I have. And I regret it, not something I am proud of.
Regarding how we will do next season, before any actual predictions can be made, would it not first be better to see what changes Shane makes on his staff, including the off-the-field personnel? Of course, he might not make any changes. Maybe we will know, for sure, shortly after signing date? Time will tell.
Because he's not making any changes. You don't sign kids then fire people. I'm not sure why anyone is pretending that's how anyone does or should operate.
Agreed.
Honestly, we may see some decent additions/subtractions in the portal in spring. (As will all teams)
Watson, to your point. I have read rumors that the changes are to be made after signing day. Personally, I think if ot was going to happen, it should ha e already. Especially with no bowl to worry about.
Nailed another "prediction". Although it's hard to take credit for the obvious.
You didn't "nail" anything. Probably never "nailed" anything in your life. That's why your worthless tater life revolves around trolling multiple Gamecock site 24/7/365.
Of course 5-7 isn't a "success". But it wouldn't be the end of the world either with that schedule. Or the end of Beamer.
So cry it out. Beamer ain't going nowhere for a while unless he completely Muschamps.
Of course 5-7 isn't a "success". But it wouldn't be the end of the world either with that schedule. Or the end of Beamer.
So cry it out. Beamer ain't going nowhere for a while unless he completely Muschamps.
Finally. We could cut entire pages out of threads if you didn't have to be badgered and humiliated into answering a simple question.
The hedging and waffling afterwards is expected too.
Only an idiot would need someone to tell them that missing a bowl is not a "success".
Sad I needed to spell that out for your stupid tater ass.
Troll on. Beamer is still our coach. Deal with it.
Sad I needed to spell that out for your stupid tater ass.
Troll on. Beamer is still our coach. Deal with it.
Last edited:
That would be true if someone didn't waffle about what a "success" was. Hell, your very next sentence starting waffling on the idea. You couldn't even wait till the next post.
It is good to know you're finally admitting this season was a failure though.
Lol. I needed to outright tell you that missing a bowl is a failure. NOBODY claimed it was a success.
And saying that Beamer won't be fired at 5-7 isn't "waffling". I'm telling the truth, as usual. Deal with it.
And saying that Beamer won't be fired at 5-7 isn't "waffling". I'm telling the truth, as usual. Deal with it.
Yet you had to be badgered into admitting it.
As for the "waffling"? That wasn't about firing Beamer at all. Can you really not read, or are you misreading on purpose?
And since you keep crying about Beamer not being fired, I have to wonder who your little hissy fit is directed at? I have repeatedly said he won't be fired after next year, even if we had a 5 win season. I have said that it would take a total meltdown for it to happen. Yet another reason I don't think you even read my posts. Just whine and cry no matter what.
Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?
Nobody had to be badgered....except you. Don't worry, it's the norm. I'm used to it. But of course you claim other people are idiots for needing you to be clear so you can't waffle around afterwards.
Wrong. I was asked "What is your definition of success?"
After laughing at the absurd 8 win ridiculousness, I clearly stated 6-6. Nobody asked my opinion on 5-7. YOU and your tater butt buddy circled jerked yourselves into claiming that I would somehow claim it was success. Then you did it again with imaginary "waffling" on an opinion that never existed. I never said or even suggested 5-7 would be a success. Just simply stated it wouldn't get Beamer fired like you crybabies want. It's a pattern with you two. You think you type something enough times and like each other enough, it somehow become real. Delusional.
So, when you two tater tots kept crying, I clearly stated it WASN'T as success, which should have been obvious to anybody with a brain. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.
After laughing at the absurd 8 win ridiculousness, I clearly stated 6-6. Nobody asked my opinion on 5-7. YOU and your tater butt buddy circled jerked yourselves into claiming that I would somehow claim it was success. Then you did it again with imaginary "waffling" on an opinion that never existed. I never said or even suggested 5-7 would be a success. Just simply stated it wouldn't get Beamer fired like you crybabies want. It's a pattern with you two. You think you type something enough times and like each other enough, it somehow become real. Delusional.
So, when you two tater tots kept crying, I clearly stated it WASN'T as success, which should have been obvious to anybody with a brain. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.
Last edited:
So weird that the difference between success and failure is just one game. Most reasonable people would think there would be somewhere in the middle where it may not be terrible but it's not good.
Example 4000 that you don't even bother to read posts between your crying and whining.
Pathetic troll.
The 4000th time you are wrong.
I was never asked my opinion of 5-7. You 2 stupid taters making up my opinion on 5-7 and then crying about it isn't me "waffling". It's nothing more than what you usually do. Circle jerk yourself into believing something that isn't reality, like White being fired. Of course, I told you that wouldn't happen, but you crybabies live in your own delusional world, yet somehow seem surprised when you are wrong.
I got NO reason to cry. I got NO reason to whine. Beamer is our coach, and I'm very happy about that. And all your crying and whining doesn't do a damn thing to change that.
Suck it up, buttercup. Nobody cares about your sandy vag.
I was never asked my opinion of 5-7. You 2 stupid taters making up my opinion on 5-7 and then crying about it isn't me "waffling". It's nothing more than what you usually do. Circle jerk yourself into believing something that isn't reality, like White being fired. Of course, I told you that wouldn't happen, but you crybabies live in your own delusional world, yet somehow seem surprised when you are wrong.
I got NO reason to cry. I got NO reason to whine. Beamer is our coach, and I'm very happy about that. And all your crying and whining doesn't do a damn thing to change that.
Suck it up, buttercup. Nobody cares about your sandy vag.
Wasn't bowl eligibility the first measure of success in Beamer's bonus structure? I may be wrong, but I thought I read he got $100k for going to a bowl last year.
You ask for it and you got it. Along with one of the reason why. Not to mention that getting to a bowl has been a benchmark for our program for most of it's history.
But, to your point, "success" and "failure" alone probably aren't precise enough to describe the outcome of a season, but if I had to draw a line, it would be at bowl eligibility.
But to your other question, do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach that had back to back losing seasons?
Example 4001 that you don't even bother to read posts between your crying and whining.
Pathetic troll.
Like I said, you never asked. I don't owe either you a response to some stupid fictional opinion you make up. You are lucky I respond to you at all.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I love how it absolutely eats at you that Beamer is our coach. Cry it out.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I love how it absolutely eats at you that Beamer is our coach. Cry it out.
"it depends" will only be his answer if he is smart. wait and see.
Because it actually does depend. On a lot of things.
Because it actually does depend. On a lot of things.
Yeah, me posting it over and over is good proof that it never happened. You die on that hill. I'll just keep laughing.
If you weren't so intent on flaming people constantly, and actually READ the posts you get so upset about, you might not dig yourself such a huge hole, and make yourself look so stupid.
"It depends" is what you say when you want to waffle on giving a simple yes or no answer.
Make no mistake, your waffling is no surprise. I am not complaining or debating it. I'm just laughing at you.
No, it’s not a good sign to stick with an unproven coach with back to back losing seasons in year 3 and 4. I hope we don’t learn the hard way the effects of doing that.
I think Wells was a product of Rattler. But, he definitely could @high-point” the ball and had great open field vision.
Well, Beamer's not unproven at this point based on his first 2 seasons, so that logic doesn't apply.
Beamer hasn't proven he can be a long term successful coach. He is still unproven.
But even with the given scenario, Beamer would be "proven" with two successful seasons followed by two failed seasons.
So, it started with a simple "to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons".
Then it went to "an unproven coach with back to back losing seasons"
Now "long term successful coach" as added as a qualifier.
Now you see why a vague, overly broad question warrants a "it depends". It's actually YOU TWO that are waffling on the criteria. Multiple times.
Then it went to "an unproven coach with back to back losing seasons"
Now "long term successful coach" as added as a qualifier.
Now you see why a vague, overly broad question warrants a "it depends". It's actually YOU TWO that are waffling on the criteria. Multiple times.
Not waffling at all.
You chose to argue over his descriptor "unproven" rather than addressing his answer. I think your nitpicking was incorrect on its face and pointed it out.
The answer is simple, but you want to argue over semantics, AGAIN. Big surprise.
There was NO descriptor "unproven" in the question.
"Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Highlight the part that talks about "proven", "unproven" or "long term success".
Hence, the "it depends" answer, since all questions can't be answered by a simple yes or no. And that's why you see the goalpost move in the responses.
"Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Highlight the part that talks about "proven", "unproven" or "long term success".
Hence, the "it depends" answer, since all questions can't be answered by a simple yes or no. And that's why you see the goalpost move in the responses.
