I know, I know ....NIL...NIL. Well. I suspect we will always be at a disadvantage regarding NIL, unless there is reform. Question: does Shane have the coaching chops to take lesser talented teams to beat the more talented ones?
So, our football recruiting class is ranked 30th overall and 12th in the SEC.
- Thread starter gamecock stock
- Start date
Has nothing to do with NIL. I don't think you understand how the rankings work. It's not whether you met your needs as a team nor even necessarily the quality of those you signed. It is slanted toward how many bodies you signed. Since we only signed 16 in this cycle we are getting penalized in the rankings. Some teams with inferior talent are ranked ahead of us simply because they signed over 20 guys.
I realize that. But at some point, you need to have players to win. We started fast in recruiting, prior to the season starting. But we obviously struck out for players after the season began. The Rivals analyst mentioned that we are fewer in numbers, along with Arkansas. We both had disappointing seasons.
And it's not just this past recruiting cycle. The three previous recruiting cycles we finished 8th, 11th and 14th in the SEC. That's out of 14 teams. And now the SEC is adding traditional powers Texas and Oklahoma.
We have never been a recruiting powerhouse. And probably never will be. Beamer was hired because of some supposed recruiting prowess. But that skill has not materialized. That's not really a knock on Beamer, as I said we have never been a recruiting powerhouse. I suspect no one, including Kirby Smart and Nick Saban, could make South Carolina a recruiting powerhouse. So, the question remains and is relevant: Does Beamer have the coaching chops to take lesser talented teams to beat more talented teams?
Spurrier took control and recruited the heck out of SC. Beamer is owning the state. All is not lost.
That's fine. If only what one does within their state boundary was all that matters. Hopefully, Beamer will show to have the coaching chops of a Spurrier and Morrison and "do more with less".
In my opinion, John Garcia's assessment of Carolina's recruiting class was accurate and foreboding. I believe we will be seeing more losing seasons than winning seasons the next 5/6 years.
Since he's already had the BEST QB in Carolina's history, I don't see Beamer as being capable of doing 'more with less'.
Just FYI ... South Carolina is ranked 40th in state size.
Is Beamer owning the state? (Maybe it's just the upcoming class that doesn't feel that way)
Two things happened with Spurrier. He took over the state at the same time the state was pumping out better talent. At least, that has been a popular opinion in the years since.
I watched a funny movie last night, with Billy Bob Thornton, called The Smell of Success. It was about a company's Top Salesmen, who sold manure. A competitor referred to them as the Dung Beetles .... "you know, animals that push shit".
The only personality missing, that would have made that group complete, was Shane Beamer.
We all want Beamer to succeed. I was not pleased when he was hired. But I supported and support him. I felt that we needed to look at our history and seen what kind of coaches who had any kind of unprecedented success here. In the past 50 years or so there have been 4: Carlen, Morrison, Holtz and Spurrier. None had reputations as strong recruiters (that's not to say they did not bring in some "blue-chippers"). But, they were able to take the talent they had in hand and have some success. I recall that the selling point by Beamer supporters was that he was a "hell of a recruiter". Have we seen that from him? NO. Based on the hype from his supporters prior to his hire, I have been disappointed in his recruiting. I believe Garcia's article should open some eyes. I fear what you say is true.
Again, I support Beamer and am strongly supporting him. I just hope that he can "do more with less". If not, we will be in a world of hurt.
The 4 you mentioned also knew how to coach.
In fairness, Spurrier created a window of opportunity during his tenure and made the most of it. Let's not forget that Clemson began to surge on Spurrier's watch and that included out recruiting us in the state those last couple of years.
You got my point Jacque. IF Beamer fails, I hope that the hiring authorities at USC look for someone who has proven coaching skills. It will always be tough to recruit at the high level of the Georgias, Alabamas, Floridas and Tennessees of the world. Sparky Woods, Will Muschamp, and Brad Scott had the reputation of being strong recruiters. What did they get us? None lasted more than 4 or 5 years. That's why I ask does Beamer have the coaching chops? Based on his recruiting, he is going to need "coaching skills".
We're in a pickle with football. Especially with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma. When I look at the recruiting rankings for this season, it's hard to come up with any teams we should be in front of. All of those schools have traditional recruiting advantages and NIL budgets. Good coaching can only help so much in today's game. It's totally different than basketball in that regard.
https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/
https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/
"Good coaching" is the only thing that has ever worked for us. Beamer supposedly coming in was a "super duper" recruiter. He has yet to finish in the top half of the league in recruiting. That's why I asked if he has the "coaching chops". I think the hiring authorities were trying to duplicate Dabo. But they forgot that Dabo is in what's primarily a "basketball-first" league. Ideally we should have hired a young coach with proven coaching skills to come in and hopefully upset some teams to build up recruiting momentum. But instead, we decided to hire someone who was basically an "unknown" from a coaching standpoint, thinking he is going to kill it in recruiting against traditional powerhouses. That was "insane thinking".
I hope for the best. The good news is that it's only a game.
By the way, I'd disagree with that. The fewer players in a game, the more likely that a "stud" of a player can carry a team. The more players in a game, the more "coaching" is required. Thus "recruiting ability" is more valuable in basketball. "Coaching ability" is more valuable in football.
You'd be wrong here. Look at the congruence between recruiting and success in college football. It's heavily correlated. Not nearly as much in basketball. This is one of the big reasons we have difficulty landing a big name coach. They want to stay a big name coach so they go to schools with bigtime recruiting potential. We don't have that.
Last edited:
We just have to respectfully agree to disagree there.
Do you also disagree with what I wrote about 45 minutes ago that the hiring authorities were "insane" on their hiring approach of going for what they considered a recruiting guru over someone with proven coaching skills (to hopefully upset teams to provide recruiting momentum)? Their approach has proven to be an unmitigated disaster based on the recruiting rankings.
I was a fan before we joined the SEC. Anyone with reasonable objectivity had to realize what were getting into.
I wouldn't trade a thing, but our backs are against the wall now more than ever.
There are young FBS Head Football Coaches who are proven winners not in a Power 4 conference school. Such young Head Coaches would die for a chance to coach at a SEC school. Looks like we may have hired one heck of a Head Basketball Coach from a lower level school. We have not had consistent success in basketball in decades. A "Lamont Paris" is out there in the football world. If Beamer fails, I hope we take that hiring approach next time.
Everyone around here hates Drinkwitz. He fits your bill to a tee. Other school's ADs are different than ours.
I fall on this side of the debate.
The fewer the players, the more impact a single player can have.
The numbers don't lie Lurker. We also have homegrown examples. Spurrier's major success came with his recruiting push. Paris has a bunch of no-names and is on the brink of the Top 10.
Figure the historical numbers and correlation for a minute. Forget the fact that we've seen teams push themselves back into national prominence almost overnight purchasing players via NIL with the same exact coaching staffs as years prior.
In football, you have 53 active players and most of them see action during a game. In basketball, that's more like 7 players. If you have a good coach with a good system like we have with Paris, isn't it easier to get them all up to speed than something that's 7-8 times as large with multiple coaches that you are leaning on to all be in-sync?
The OL, WR, TE, DL, DB, RB, ST all are mini-teams and have to all be functioning at a high level within the same time frame to have real success. It's just common sense if you refuse to look at the actual data itself.
The Drinkwitz thing is ridiculous too. He's a good coach. He probably is better than Beamer but that's hard to determine at this point. Look that their schedule last year and this year. Doesn't it look alot like what we had in 2022? They have the easiest schedule in the SEC once again this year by a mile.
If you guys want to keep this folly alive to continue to bang on Beamer again this year, have at it. Just know that your core argument is totally incorrect. There's a reason Spurrier says to find the biggest wallet in town now -- because talent rules.
Last edited:
I will say this:
I feel certain that Drinkwitz is a better coach than Beamer. Just them going head-to-head in the past 3 seasons, alone, tells me that.
I asked at the start: Does Beamer have the coaching chops to win with less talent than some of the teams we will be facing? He is going to have to do that because I don't believe we have the talent (based on our recruiting) to match up with some of the other SEC teams. That may or may not be Beamer's fault. He may or may not bear any responsibility for that. But he is making over $6 million/year to produce, regardless. When I was working, I had to produce and make sure that my subordinates produce. And I was paid nowhere near $6 million/year.
As Flameout, above said, our back is against the wall with the current situation. We can either say, "Win anyway" or be satisfied that we are better than Mississippi State and Vanderbilt.
It's all about where we stack up against the other teams in our league from a talent perspective. With that said ---He's likely going to continue to beat some teams in WB who have more talent, and also probably lose to some on the road with lesser talent. That's kind of been par for the course with us in the SEC, and that's true of most teams without the big recruits/tradition and money backing. If we start losing to teams like ASU at home as Muschamp did, Beamer's seat will get warm quickly.
Last edited:
If SC and UGA switched coaching staffs tomorrow and had to start with a clean slate of recruits, who would you put your money on to make the playoffs first?
Maybe we should try to get into the Southern Conference. Since we were a charter member I bet they would welcome us back.
I believe we have the potential to be a VERY good football program. We have shown that potential in the past. Jim Carlen and Joe Morrison showed the way. Carlen was fired due to a combination of a personal scandal and a crooked egotistical University head. Morrison died. Holtz and Spurrier showed that potential again. But both were at the end of their careers. None of those 4 were Dabo Swinney-type strong recruiters. That was not their strength nor what they were known for. They were good X's and O's coaches who excelled at game strategy and tactics. Those are the kinds of coaches who have had success at Carolina. The recruiter extraordinaires (Bell, Woods, Scott and Muschamp) were all unmitigated failures and fired.
So regardless of NIL and our handicap with that, we can succeed if our Head Coach is of the Carlen/Morrison/Holtz/Spurrier model....a Head Coach who excels at X's and O's. Thus, my question: Does Beamer have the "coaching chops"? His Dad did. But Shane may be more his mother's son. I suppose we will find out over the next 1-2 years.
Think about it, Daren Horn, Chad Holbrook and Sparky (Young Turks) were coaching gambles that just didn't work out. George Felton, Eddie Fogler, Frank Martin and that white haired bastard, were their own worst enemies. Carlen, Morrison, Holtz and Spurrier..... experienced. Your Choice.
The bad news is that everything in life is a game.
Last edited:
To improve start with a Football only AD. Let Tanner handle equestrian and women's golf. Second have a football board that handles NIL and everything football related and has carte blanche control over the program. Then you may see improvement. Tanner bowed to ex players in hiring Beamer.
The problem with this type of viewpoint is that it assumes the college football landscape has remained static during these various eras. Most playcalling now is computer-based. Then you have the NIL and portal. It's primarily on corporate auto-pilot now. I think that's why we've seen a number of big name coaches bow out. They know the game is not the same and their roles have been diminished.
NIL and portal I believe are the reasons Elliott joined the Gamecocks, sadly, it's going to be disastrous for smaller schools and even lower tier SEC teams like us.
"Coaching" involves more than "play-calling". I think what has not changed is that you still have to develop players in practice. How is a computer going to address that? You still have to come up with the appropriate game plan and strategy/tactics during the week. You still have to make personnel adjustments during a game and at halftime. And "coaching" is more than coaching players. It requires coaching the coaches. Tell me how times have changed that. I don't believe they have.
Now you are right about NIL and the portal. That's my point. Even before NIL and portal, we were not a recruiting powerhouse. But coaches like Carlen, Morrison, Holtz and Spurrier were able to use their "coaching skills" to attain some success. And now, with NIL and portal, we will be at even a greater disadvantage talent-wise. That makes "coaching-skills" even more necessary than before, for OUR football program.
Last edited:
But aren't you describing an overall diminished role of coaching? I don't disagree that the position coaches still have an important role to play. However, when coaches like Saban and Spurrier are claiming that these things are killing the game and that it's all about the biggest pocketbook now, why would we question that idea when it certainly seems that way from the surface level too?
No, on the contrary. Good coaching is our only hope. Even play-calling was criticized when Satterfield was here. Loggains play-calling was criticized. I remember seeing Beamer's disgusted look on his face after a play-call and he was on the headphones talking to Satterfield. People were not criticizing the computers. They were criticizing the Offensive Coordinators. Our highest national ranking since 2017 is 16th, pre-NIL days. Beamer's recruiting classes have finished 26th, 17th and 30th. If Beamer cannot do "more with less", we will be in a world of hurt.
If you have any doubt that good coaching can make a difference in this day and age, just look at this past season's final national rankings. Washington and Missouri finished in the Top 10. Louisville, Arizona and Ole Miss all finished in the Top 15. Over the past several years, they did not have Top 15 recruiting classes. They did not have overall consistent recruiting success to suggest having the kind of seasons they had.
It would be nice to bring in highly recruited classes. But we don't have the money nor tradition to do it. Our only hope to close the gap is to have quality coaching. Washington, Missouri, Ole Miss, Louisville and Arizona proved this past season that good coaching can make the difference.
If you have any doubt that good coaching can make a difference in this day and age, just look at this past season's final national rankings. Washington and Missouri finished in the Top 10. Louisville, Arizona and Ole Miss all finished in the Top 15. Over the past several years, they did not have Top 15 recruiting classes. They did not have overall consistent recruiting success to suggest having the kind of seasons they had.
It would be nice to bring in highly recruited classes. But we don't have the money nor tradition to do it. Our only hope to close the gap is to have quality coaching. Washington, Missouri, Ole Miss, Louisville and Arizona proved this past season that good coaching can make the difference.
So do you believe we have bad coaching right now? Beamer was on the top coaches list before last season with the 2022 success. Last year, we finished tied for 8th in the league. How is that bad coaching given how we recruit and with many of our best players lost to the portal because of lack of NIL funding?
From those teams you mentioned, did you look at their NIL program, schedule, and whether it was sustained success or just something like we had in 2022? Ole Miss might have the best collective in the SEC and is not bashful about saying that. Washington has the Addidas collective. Missouri had one good year with a very favorable schedule. Also, their NIL program is believed to be head and shoulders above ours. Not sure about their NIL, but Arizona was 5-7 in 2022. It just seems to be a money thing or a favorable season schedule such as ours in 2022.
Last edited:
I have said, in the past, that we overachieved in each of his first 2 seasons here. I also said , shortly after this past season, that we underachieved in 2023. So, I try to be fair and consistent. I try to call them as I see them. I'm not going to call a beauty queen, a dog. And I'm not going to call a dog, a beauty queen. If one can't be consistent and fair, then that person lacks credibility.
The recruiting of those teams should not translate into such seasons. I can't go back and look at all those things you mention. I guess I could. But, it's not important enough for me to do so. But, their rankings are what they are. And I'm talking about rankings going back 4 or 5 years. You mention Missouri's schedule. I know they beat Ohio State and Tennessee, not trash. And I know they seem to beat us like a drum all the time. And I recall that Josh Heupel inherited a mess at Tennessee, kind of like Lamont Paris did here. They lost so many players when Heupel arrived that the running joke was that their mascot transferred too. Yet Heupel has produced a Top 10 and a Top 20 team in the past 2 years.
I like Beamer's hirings this season (as I said, I try to be fair).
The recruiting has not been stellar since he has arrived, certainly not as advertised prior to his hiring. So, he has to make up for it through quality coaching. Can it be done with quality coaching? Absolutely!!!!!
The bottom line is that Beamer has to produce...NIL or no NIL. No excuse. He gets paid $6 million/year. He better produce.
The recruiting of those teams should not translate into such seasons. I can't go back and look at all those things you mention. I guess I could. But, it's not important enough for me to do so. But, their rankings are what they are. And I'm talking about rankings going back 4 or 5 years. You mention Missouri's schedule. I know they beat Ohio State and Tennessee, not trash. And I know they seem to beat us like a drum all the time. And I recall that Josh Heupel inherited a mess at Tennessee, kind of like Lamont Paris did here. They lost so many players when Heupel arrived that the running joke was that their mascot transferred too. Yet Heupel has produced a Top 10 and a Top 20 team in the past 2 years.
I like Beamer's hirings this season (as I said, I try to be fair).
The recruiting has not been stellar since he has arrived, certainly not as advertised prior to his hiring. So, he has to make up for it through quality coaching. Can it be done with quality coaching? Absolutely!!!!!
The bottom line is that Beamer has to produce...NIL or no NIL. No excuse. He gets paid $6 million/year. He better produce.
Similar threads
