Serious question: What is the reasoning for believing in Ray Tanner as an AD?
- Thread starter Coq_de_Combat
- Start date
Sad thing is them good ole boys at the top ain’t pissed and are just happy to be in the gamecock country club. We got too many BOT and need a few on the BOT that are half the ave BOT age
No! Not even close. You said we expect things that few programs can ever hope to achieve which I just don’t think is the case.
Contract extensions and raises above market value. Signing a contract with Under Armour without negotiating. He literally just signed it and sent it back. UA said it was the first time that ever happened. Having a coach (and buddy hire) negotiating a contract with another college while he's still being paid for us. He had another coach resign but talked him into returning only to have that same coach bail midseason. His choice for interim coach was picked by the players (isn't that his job) and that coach went on to lose to the Cid. After months to find a replacement, he only had two picks to replace Spurrier. Both said no. The Muschamp hire was made by the BOT, which had to intervene to because he was caught with D flapping in the wind.
Lots of errors in your post. First off, the Muschamp hire was made by Tanner. It was completely his hire, and it was done on his own timetable. He never talked Spurrier into coming back, and that has been stated by Spurrier himself as well as being just plain message board misinformation. The Holbrook situation with the College of Charleston had absolutely nothing to do with Tanner or USC. The players were allowed to pick the interim coach because there were major locker room problems Spurrier left unaddressed. It was the only way to keep most of them from bailing for the rest of the season. That would have been much worse than a loss to the Citadel. The BOT decides whether to give raises or not and what the value will be, but go ahead make up some more reasons to bash Tanner.
The BOT stepped into the HC hiring situation after talking to Spurrier, who was the one (shaking my head) that recommended Muschamp. That's fact. Ask people who know. And the idea that Tanner's flop on the search was done on "his own time table" is Pravda level spin. It was a national embarrassment that included an interview with Rich Rod. Spurrier told Tanner he wanted to hang it up. That happened. The rest is history. The idea that Tanner's hire and friend, Hollbrook, was cutting a deal with CoC while he was dropping SEC series after SEC series while still being paid by USC has everything to do with Ray Tanner. I don't care about locker room problems. They are college kids, not the the athletic director. The idea that you'd let 19-22 year old kids pick a coach is absurd at face value and the result was a train wreck season that might've cost us our first choice for coach (granted, he would've bolted within a year). The BOT gave raises and extensions after the recommendation from Tanner. He's the athletic director. It would be a vote of no confidence to turn him down. And I don't need anymore reasons to "bash" Tanner. When he took over, we were kicking Clemson's ass in everything. Now we're talking about the Palmetto Cup. If he's going to ask fans to pay elite money to our coaches and pay for elite facilities, he needs to win some games. If you don't like my post, too bad.
I just did. The former President of the BOT in fact. He laughed and said "Hell no!"
As far as extensions and raises of coaches, I'll ask what I asked the last time this discussion occurred. Find me a coach of a P-5 school that doesn't get an extension and a raise annually....unless they are about to be fired. That is so common a practice, it's ridiculous to bring it up and complain about.
This is the biggest bunch of malarkey I have seen posted on this board, and that is saying something.
I know someone of the board now and he was the one that told me the story. Reconcile that how you like.
And you're right. 41% of coaching contracts are five years and roll over for recruiting reasons. But Muschamp's buyout is $18.5 million, which makes him one of the highest paid coaches in the country with one the biggest buyouts. Putting aside the $11.5k per day Muschamp makes, we also just gave another million in raises to our assistants just this year. We are spending money at elite levels. Frank is also making about $3 million a year and I'm sure he'll get another raise. Look, I'm all about paying the money to win. I just would like to see us break into the top 25 in something if we're shelling out all this money.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
If beating Clemson is the arbiter of how good or bad an AD is, then I'd say we've had our fair share of "bad" ADs over our history.
I believe that Muschamp was the only one left out there when Tanner hired him. I hope Muschamp is very successful, but he wasn't a "best pick of the litter" when we hired him. This whole Tanner as AD looks like a Skip Bertman at LSU repeat story. I hope not.
Ray Tanner is a fine man. They don't come any better. He is not, in my opinion, the caliber of AD that a major University like USC should have running their athletics programs.
He is continually being lambasted on this board for things that simply aren't true.
No one cares if you’re a good person. All that matters is winning
I can’t tell if this is a real comment? Tanner had nothing to do with Spurrier or Martin being here and having success. An AD is measured by the success of his coaching hires not taking credit for who the guy before him hired.
He has to manage and maintain the coaches whether he hired them or not. He kept Dawn Staley from leaving for Ohio State before the Wilson years. He didn't hire her either.
The root of all USC fan apathy is simple. We don't win enough games and we certainly don't win enough championships. We lose to Clemson far more than we should in baseball and basketball, two sports that we should dominate them in. No sense in even mentioning football.
This causes us to turn on each other, coaches and the AD. No other program like us in all of the NCAA.
And yet I love them!
This causes us to turn on each other, coaches and the AD. No other program like us in all of the NCAA.
And yet I love them!
A
anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7
Guest
Well, since Tanner gets the blame for any loss, it's only logical to give him credit for a win. Congrats Tanner on beating Clemson yesterday!
Yep. Issue is old lame duck BOT. Need less attorneys on BOT one more business leaders. They know has to run a business hello.
oh please..
Maybe you could give us a list of accomplishments that justify his million dollar a year salary.
Care to cite your sources for each of the dozen assertions you make here?
Preferably something verifiable. Thanks
Perhaps you could give us a list of yours that would justify your criticism of Tanner.
Have to disagree here. Muschamp's extension was ridiculous. We lose our last three meaningful games to close the season and somehow find a way to get shutout by UVA.
Many have questioned the extension and Tanner's explanation was even more abstract - schools might be jockeying for Champ? We lose to UNC (another ACC powerhouse) at the beginning of the season and the wheels could come completely off.
Overextended: Why schools rush to extend coach contracts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ools-rush-to-extend-coach-contracts/38160913/
"Some of the new contracts were more difficult to explain.
— South Carolina re-did Will Muschamp's original five-year deal that paid him $3.1 million last season and handed him to a six-year contract worth $28.2 million after the Gamecocks went 9-4 in his second year at the school."
Find me a P-5 school that did NOT extend the Head Football Coach's contract and was not on the hot seat. I've asked this question at least 10 times and no one has come up with one.
It is normal practice to extend the coaches contract annually. It you don't, it get used against you in recruiting...because that is a coach on the way out the door.
Even Clemson extended Bowden's contract the year before they fired him mid-year.
It's not an easy search.
But I'm sure it happens....Why would an article like that exist otherwise?
