Most have pointed the poor performance of men's athletics under Tanner's watch as reason that he needs to go. Frank seems decidedly optimistic about this year's team. If that turns out to be the case, does it get Ray off the hook for the lackluster performance of the football team?
Regarding Ray: Will a successful basketball season offset the disappointing football season
- Thread starter MIghtee
- Start date
Say we make the tourney and advance to the round of 32. Most would consider that a great season by our overall standards. Still not enough to validate Ray?
mUSCchamp was optimistic about this year as well. While the year is not over, I think the first third of the year has shown us where we are at.
Baseball, which I would have hoped that Tanner would know best, has been my test of his hiring prowless. 0-1 with the jury still out on the lastest.
Football is 0-2. He kept Spurrier and should have encouraged retirement and mUSChamp is a fail thus far (really hope that changes).
Baseball, which I would have hoped that Tanner would know best, has been my test of his hiring prowless. 0-1 with the jury still out on the lastest.
Football is 0-2. He kept Spurrier and should have encouraged retirement and mUSChamp is a fail thus far (really hope that changes).
Sorry, Ray lost all credibility as an effective Athletic Director when he painted himself into a corner with the Muschamp Buyout. THAT, in and of itself, displayed Ray's inability to be a savy, professional athletic director. Muschamp wasn't even an 'unknown risk'. He was unsuccessful in the most fertile recruiting ground in college football.
What was Ray thinking??? That Texas might come after him, again, after hiring Tom Herman??? (LOL, even Texas didn't re-consider their Head Coach in-waiting. LOL). That Florida saw the evil of their ways and realized Muschamp just needed more time??? Or maybe Kirby mentioned to Ray, that his first hire would a defensive coordinator named Muschamp.
It doesn't matter where the Basketball team ends up. Tanner is as BAD an Athletic Director as Muschamp is a head football coach. Both need to be replaced.... NOW!!!
An NCAA tournament appearance/run will make me feel better about Martin. It won't do much for my opinions of Tanner.
No - a thousand times. Every sport stands on its own and this is the SEC. In the SEC, if you ain't good in football, you ain't crap. We LEFT the conference in which basketball success meant league prominence, left it when we had hit our stride, a testament to the historical ineptitude of our leadership, which crosses generational lines.
It will not offset the failures od the football program since each program stand on its on merit. It will surely allow us to forget failures and get on the bandwagon of the two winning basketball programs. Yes, the Men's and Women's Basketball teams will be successful this season.
Should it? No. Will it? Yes.
That said, I am 100% confident we will have a men's basketball team we can all be proud of. Frank might be one of the best coaches we have when it comes to player development as the season goes along. Super excited to see him finally with a team he didnt have to piecemeal together.
That said, I am 100% confident we will have a men's basketball team we can all be proud of. Frank might be one of the best coaches we have when it comes to player development as the season goes along. Super excited to see him finally with a team he didnt have to piecemeal together.
Absolutely not. Football is 95% of the equation. I expect basketball to be a bubble team.
IMO, Yes always... But To suck at all three big mens programs, well that is intolerable.. Be really good in one or two, IMO sorta offsets the other. And in all fairness, Football is probably the hardest to really be good at.. (not much margin for error in Football)
Will was pretty optimistic about his team before the season too.
The jury on Tanner is already in.....SC needs better.
The Muschamp hire was a risky one. It gave a coach who had already failed in the SEC a second chance based on the idea that his experience at Florida was either unlucky, a bad fit, or both. Everybody knew all along that history would prove it to be either a genius move or a very dumb one. Tanner hitched his wagon to that decision. As Muschamp goes, so goes Tanner.
If they make a run deep into the tournament then it will distract some from the other issues. Not a lot, but some. However, once that shine comes off in the summer attention will shift back to baseball and football.
Basketball is my favorite sport and I'm expecting a big year, but the Muschamp bungle is an island to itself and one Ray is responsible for. He needs to fix it.
No. Reason being the SEC is a football conference and South Carolina is a football school. Also, an $18 million dollar buy out is simply outrageous for a coach with Muschamp’s track record at Florida.
Just because Coach Martin likes the team doesn't mean it translates into wins or any post season tourney. Muschamp said this was his best team and how's that working? In this case seeing is believing.
No, absolutely not. The athletic program will be mired in mediocrity (at best) as long as he is at the helm. Man doesn’t have the instincts nor the kahunas for the job.
I approve this message!
Frank is a good BB coach. Muschamp is not a good head FB coach.
Bingo. Frank is an outstanding basketball coach. I'm not a fan of all of his methods, but he is a phenomenal teacher of the game. He's not the world's best recruiter, but he has significant talent on this team.
I also remember a couple years ago Martin stating this was his best shooting team. We know how that turned out. Muschamp and Martin both Excel in coaches speak.
USCALUMNI
Some of you folks just don't get it.
Ray Tanner has nothing to do with the performance of the football team. Will Muschamp is. Ray hired Will, and up until this point there has been some decent, but not great success. Team was resurrected from 3-9 to three straight bowl games and good recruiting. This season has had some disappointment mostly because of how the team has played vs. UNC and Mizzou. Results matter, but again, I think the manner in which they lost (whole team not playing well) is what is most disappointing.That's on Muschamp, not Ray. Did Ray hire him, yes. Again, Muschamp isn't the greatest, but not the worst coach we've had (and you could argue he may have been the best we could get AT THE TIME he was hired (Herman and Smart weren't coming here as both landed dream jobs, and Fuente is taking Va. Tech downhill - those were the three hot names at the time).
Will should have had more success at Florida... but he went 7-6 and 11-2 his first two years after inheriting a mess by Urban Meyer (lots of off the field problems and Muschamp had to clean house). The next 2 years weren't good (one losing season and one more season of 1 game over .500, but in one of those seasons Muschamp was down to his 4th string QB at the end of the year) and Florida A.D. had gone public that he did not want to fire Muschamp but was pressured to do so.
As for the buyout - as reported. Will's buyout has to be approved by the Board of Trustees and ranks 5th or 6th in the SEC. That's just how it is done.
Some of you act like Muschamp took over a 12-0 team at USC and somehow turned it into 0-12. That's not the case. In the history of USC football heading into this year, the football program's winning percentage is .512. Not saying you should be happy about it, but facts are facts.
but we should not be getting worse
So do we think Muschamp is the 5th or 6th best coach in the SEC? That buyout may just be "how things are done," and i'm sure that is exactly how Will's agent convinced Ray and our genius BoT to look at it, but we had all the leverage and it seems like we just gave him exactly what he asked for instead of negotiating.
Those giant buyouts, like what A&M gave Jimbo, are a way to show your coach you are committed to them so that you can either get them to come to your school, or convince them not to leave. We hired a coach that nobody else wanted as anything but a DC, so why does it make sense to offer him that buyout clause? The buyouts should be reversed. It should cost him more to leave than it costs us to fire him. What was he going to do? Go take another head coaching job?
Ray made a disappointing hire that showed a total lack of imagination and then he backed it up by giving him a giant, undeserved buyout. To answer the original question, no, Frank wasn't hired by Tanner, so Tanner doesn't get credit for whatever Frank does. Tanner probably wanted to keep Horn.
Validate Ray? He is a TERRIBLE AD. Great baseball coach but arguably the worst AD (between him and King Dixon) that we have ever had. The entire board should fire themselves for approving that hire.
I think the original handling of Spurrier transition was a disaster led by RT, and put him in a hole while Clemson & GA improved significantly. From what I've heard, Spurrier was pretty vocal with athletic dept. about wanting to retire around 2012/13, it was on Ray's shoulders to have a clear succession plan. Administration talked Steve into staying another year when he didn't want to, but then he up and quit in the middle of the season. Spurrier gets a lot of flack for leaving the cupboard bare from the "2-3 years left" comment, but if you go to your boss THREE YEARS!!! before you retire or leave, don't you think they have a great opportunity to plan for your departure? And if a high ranking employee doesn't want to be a part of your organization, talking them into staying for another year is a big risk, especially when it comes to a head coach.
There is a huge difference between hiring a new coach when 1. previous coach retires (Lou Holtz retirement and transition was a factor in landing HBC) 2. previous coach is fired (which I think will happen to WM and put us in an uphill battle) or 3. previous coach QUITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON. Could HBC have handled it in a way that was better for USC? Yes, but he was 70 years old, was the most successful coach in school history, and made his desire to retire clear to admin and Ray. I think HBC's biggest fault was not having anyone on staff capable of taking over the reigns when he was gone, and the dynamic with SS Jr. made that difficult. However, I think the responsibility for stewarding the future of the program after SS falls mostly on the AD and the people that will actually be there.
Ok, so strike one against RT, let's chalk it up to inexperience, you learned your lesson right? The stove is hot if you touch it. Ray got burned by letting the future of the football program become unclear in the final days of HBC, won't let it happen again. Flash forward, you compensate so much and swing the pendulum in the other direction to avoid the same problem, that you give an under-performing, underwhelming, unsuccessful, undeserving WM an extension through 2024 following a 7-6 season, and a horrible bowl loss, in his 3rd season, where his recruits absolutely had an impact. Why not hold your horses for 2 seconds and see how he does in 2019 in year 4 before you blow your wad and make it rain $? AHHHHH this is so frustrating i can't talk about it. Just glad we beat Kentucky even though their QB was complete garbage. Best case scenario is that WM figures out how to win big games and we avoid paying a buyout. I just don't think it's going to happen, and the past decisions and debacles by RT cause me to question his judgment and trust in WM.
There is a huge difference between hiring a new coach when 1. previous coach retires (Lou Holtz retirement and transition was a factor in landing HBC) 2. previous coach is fired (which I think will happen to WM and put us in an uphill battle) or 3. previous coach QUITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON. Could HBC have handled it in a way that was better for USC? Yes, but he was 70 years old, was the most successful coach in school history, and made his desire to retire clear to admin and Ray. I think HBC's biggest fault was not having anyone on staff capable of taking over the reigns when he was gone, and the dynamic with SS Jr. made that difficult. However, I think the responsibility for stewarding the future of the program after SS falls mostly on the AD and the people that will actually be there.
Ok, so strike one against RT, let's chalk it up to inexperience, you learned your lesson right? The stove is hot if you touch it. Ray got burned by letting the future of the football program become unclear in the final days of HBC, won't let it happen again. Flash forward, you compensate so much and swing the pendulum in the other direction to avoid the same problem, that you give an under-performing, underwhelming, unsuccessful, undeserving WM an extension through 2024 following a 7-6 season, and a horrible bowl loss, in his 3rd season, where his recruits absolutely had an impact. Why not hold your horses for 2 seconds and see how he does in 2019 in year 4 before you blow your wad and make it rain $? AHHHHH this is so frustrating i can't talk about it. Just glad we beat Kentucky even though their QB was complete garbage. Best case scenario is that WM figures out how to win big games and we avoid paying a buyout. I just don't think it's going to happen, and the past decisions and debacles by RT cause me to question his judgment and trust in WM.
Did Tanner hire Martin? Why would the success of a guy he had nothing to do with change your thoughts?
To say Tanner probably wanted to keep Horn is just stupid. By the way, I know for a fact that Tanner is responsible for preventing Staley from taking an interview at another Power 5 school a few years back. So, be thankful for that!
Do I think he's the 5th or 6th best HC in the SEC? As of today, probably not. Probably have to put Saban and Smart and maybe Fisher at the top of the list. With the way their seasons are going THIS year, Orgeron, Mullen, and Malzahn are probably next, although Auburn fans are always looking to fire Malzahn, and let's face it, LSU fans weren't excited about Orgeron when he was hired, but it's looking like a good hire now! Mark Stoops is probably in the conversation in the next tier with Muschamp IMO. BTW, I believe Stoops had an $18 million dollar buyout prior to his 10-win season last year as well. Again, not saying I love it, but it IS how things are done now.
I think the way things went the first couple of years here for Muschamp, including a 9-win season in year two was good faith that the program was moving in the right direction, considering what a mess it was when he got here.
My point is, (for football) we are not a program now, nor have we ever been a program that can out-recruit or out-resource places like Georgia, Alabama, Florida and A&M. The in-state population and lack of endowments/big time donors is a detriment that will prevent USC from ever being a consistent national power in football. USC can certainly have years where in contends (like it did under Spurrier), but it's not sustainable due to those factors. And firing a coach right now would do more damage than good as you have to start all over in recruiting and such. I do believe that year 5 will be the hot-seat year for Muschamp and if the program doesn't appear to be moving in the right direction, as it had been the first three years, then he's gone.
If you didn't like the hire overall of Muschamp, that's fine. Of the coaches that were available AT THAT TIME, whom do you think USC should have got, that they could have got? I think many of you over-estimate how desirable the football job is here in terms of belief that you can have sustained success. I say this having lived in other states and having a family member that works national media covering college football. I do believe if UGA hadn't fired Richt, we would have gotten Kirby Smart, and it was wise of UGA to do so, because it was my understanding that he would have come here if that job hadn't opened.
Not buying the lack of resources being a detriment. Clemson is a good example. It's a hurdle at best, not a permanent impairment to consistent winning like you're suggesting. Our downfall in football was caused mostly by bad AD decisions and the mismanagement of HBC's exit, those had nothing to do with resources, it was an inexperienced AD. We did not lose our momentum in football following HBC because we ran out of resources relative to other schools. Just an ignorant argument.
We absolutely could've hired Dan Mullen. He is a very good football coach. If we let HBC leave in 2014 when he wanted and hired Mullen coming off his 10 win season, we'd be crushing it right now.
Season 3 was worse than season 2 and season 4 is worse than season 3. We're moving in the wrong direction and none of this changes that Muschamp coaches like a loser; he coaches not to close.
