Saw where Tanner received a contract extension....
- Thread starter NooNoo
- Start date
Dawn and Frank are taking good care of him...Muschamp will seal the deal for him in 2 years with a great football team...Holbrook is liable to chuck his ass in a dumpster fire
He obviously is not good at hiring a head baseball coach.
Why? It was a decent hire at the time. It hasn't worked out, but no one has a crystal ball.
I agree completely...Holbrook earned his shot...No one thought it would turn out like this..I honestly believed the program wouldn't miss a beat..Knew we wouldn't go to Omaha every year...Yet who would have believed we would would come up short 5 years in a row
Gamecock athletic program #14 in the country. That is what an AD is suppose to do. Make sure the STUDENT-athlete is doing the job in the classroom, and that each sport is in position to be competitive. Obviously, he is doing his job!
At the end of the day, he will be judged on the success of football program. Tanner's fate is tied to Muschamp.
I'd say that's true of most programs, especially in the SEC, Big Ten, and Big XII.
Why are we giving the AD a "contract" ? Are we afraid that another school is going to take our asset?
I understand the coaches getting contracts and extensions to help with recruiting and provide stability to a program. But I wouldn't give an AD a useless contract extension just like I wouldn't give a DMV employee a contract. Give him a bonus for each conference or national championship we win.
College sports are such reckless spending.
I understand the coaches getting contracts and extensions to help with recruiting and provide stability to a program. But I wouldn't give an AD a useless contract extension just like I wouldn't give a DMV employee a contract. Give him a bonus for each conference or national championship we win.
College sports are such reckless spending.
It was a "decent hire" at the time??? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Basically every college baseball coach wanted this job. It was a "STUPID" hire, jmo.
Football has been mismanaged since 2012-2013. Who presided over this? Oh.....
You're biased of course, but putting that aside, you are in the minority on that.
Football, no doubt, is very important, but no, he won't be judged just on that one aspect.
Correct. In the final analysis, it is FOOTBALL that decides whether or not an SEC school has a successful athletic program. Sure, I love the success we're enjoying in some of the 'other sports' but FOOTBALL is the 'glue' that holds the AD together.
Won't matter as much if we keep churning our WBB championships/ deep tourney runs and MBB keeps doing well. Especially if baseball comes around too... Football is the most important, but if the entire rest of the major programs in the athletics department are churning out winners, like we pretty much ARE right now- verdict still out on an underachieving baseball team this year obviously, but they hosted a Super last year, nothing to laugh at..- the AD will be just fine.
Well you are wrong, he was a continuity hire of one of the hottest names in college baseball coaching at the time. It made perfect sense to hire Holbrook, everyone knew it would happen, it was a slam dunk no brainer. Anybody who looks back and acts like they had a better idea at the time is lying to try to make themselves look good. Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of this hire it was the best hire any team made that year, he was the best candidate and it wasn't even close.
I definitely think in Tanner's place...we wouldn't have schools standing in line waiting for him. He has done a satisfactory job with what he inherited.
Lol. Let me use a different word. It wasn't a stupid hire, just the wrong hire. And I'm on record for saying this from day one. My hope was that he would prove me wrong, but to date, he hasn't. This program is going in the wrong direction. Something is wrong. Chad seems like a good guy, but I think we need new leadership.
It was a risk to hire an assistant and it hasn't worked out.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Folks conveniently forget that CCH was brought is as the defacto "coach in waiting".
It's funny how this is true yet his predecessor hired both of them. If Muschamp works out then he gets full credit but I don't like seeing him get the opportunity to soak up the basketball success. That's the way it goes though. Outsiders to USC athletics just assume that he's killing it even though his 2 major hires are still question marks.
You don't hire a guy with no head coaching experience for a position to coach a team like ours.
Didn't UNC hire Deams assistant for a few years. I think he took them
To the final four
That was more of a joke than the talk about CH.......his "biggie" was his football hire (while it may tunr out) and it was a disaster, getting our #4 guy.......
Nope, but football success will be one of many factors, just not the one and only factor.
Frank Martin was leaving last year, and he retained him. Why shouldn't he get credit for basketball success?
This is true. Tanner picked him for the job because he helped recruit lot of the players on the Omaha teams. And it would have been a smooth transition. But, it hasnt worked out and he needed to go if things dont turn around big time. But you always have the "i knew it the whole time "posters.
Bs, football lost 56-7 to our rivals and allowed to become a dumpster fire under him. At least you dig equestrian and bass fishing.
Even if we have success in other areas, presiding over a decline in FB culminating in 56-7 will get you fired if things don't turn around in the next 2-3 years. At the end of the day it is a financial decision, as more people donate more money for football than for any other sport by far.
