So, our football recruiting class is ranked 30th overall and 12th in the SEC.
- Thread starter gamecock stock
- Start date
What is producing though? Beamer certainly produced in 2022. In 2023, we were tied for 8th with a very tough schedule and big player losses. That's still producing in relation to the talent we are bringing in and where we line up in the SEC.
The State of Tennessee currently has a lawsuit against the NCAA because UT was so brazen and reckless with their NIL handouts that they are on the brink of being suspended.
I think UT is going to be on the winning side of that suit though. Jmo, but the NCAA is toast.
I also would NOT call 2023 "producing". It was a losing season with no bowl. Imo
Although, that does relate a little to what I was going to add to the discussion.
The talent/coaching thing really boils down to this. If we are going to be outmanned due to recruiting or NIL, then we need a coach who can win with lesser talent. If our staff needs to out talent other teams, then we will not succeed.
Now, to your point about 2023 being "producing". If we can't compete in recruiting, or in NIL, then we either look for a coach that can overcome that, or we settle, and count losing seasons as acceptable.
I also would NOT call 2023 "producing". It was a losing season with no bowl. Imo
Although, that does relate a little to what I was going to add to the discussion.
The talent/coaching thing really boils down to this. If we are going to be outmanned due to recruiting or NIL, then we need a coach who can win with lesser talent. If our staff needs to out talent other teams, then we will not succeed.
Now, to your point about 2023 being "producing". If we can't compete in recruiting, or in NIL, then we either look for a coach that can overcome that, or we settle, and count losing seasons as acceptable.
Excuses can be made for any team that's winning, schedule, NIL, you name it. Louisville, Arizona, Washington , Ole Miss, Tennessee, Missouri... The fact is they did much better than their recruiting rankings.
I personally believe we have a ceiling. Will we ever win the national championship? No. Will we ever win the SEC? No. We finished 23rd in the nation in his 2nd season. If we had pulled off the upset over ND in the bowl (and we were underdogs), we would have easily cracked the Top 20. Producing is being a Top 20 program, with an occassional Top 15 appearance. That is reasonable, considering we nearly made it in Year 2. But it's not my call to decide what is producing. It's the AD.
Last edited:
The issue is that coaches in the cut-throat SEC as a whole perform on par with the talent they possess and the historical figures show just that. Sometimes things align with the schedule and seasoned talent and they pleasantly surprise. Other times, just the opposite. I'd much rather have a big boost in NIL funding than a flavor of the month football coach.
Lurker, you said it better than I did.
We are never going to consistently out recruit the Georgias, Alabamas, Floridas, etc, no matter what. For people to think we will, that's dreaming. That's why I asked in the beginning whether Beamer has the "coaching chops". Does he have the ability to "win more with less"? Beamer will need to have that ability, unfortunately.
We can wish for, until the cows come home, more NIL money. That won't change.
Last edited:
The other thing about Dabo, he had a huge budget for top notch coordinators...js
My advice, take college football for what it is.....pure entertainment and don't let losses ruin your day. Our teams have knack to letting the fans down. It's uncanny.
Then that's exactly what happened in 2011, 2012 and 2013 when we finished in the Top 10 each of those seasons including number 4 in the nation in 2013. I can assure you that if you went back and looked at the cumulative recruiting rankings back then, we did not average Top 10 rankings. Unfortunately, Spurrier was ready to retire after 2013 but was talked out of it. Not that I blame Spurrier. He earned his retirement. If he had been in his mid-40s, who knows what would have happened? Beamer is in his mid-40s. I'm hopeful he will show to at least have his Dad's coaching chops. If so, there will be golden years ahead for Gamecock football fans.
Also, we live in a relatively small state with a strong in-state rival. To think we can recruit our way to SEC football glory is just not being realistic. If that was the way, we would have gotten there with Sparky Woods, Brad Scott or Will Muschamp. I remember when Brad Scott was hired, one of the recruiting gurus (I forget who) called him the best recruiter in college football.
Shane really benefited from a big in-state class last year and the wild run we had to beat UT and Clemson. Unfortunately, all that momentum has dried up. The end is near.
Last edited:
And a weak conference plus recruits throwing around cash while athletes at other schools said they couldn't afford a cheeseburger.
Funny how they don't look so invincible now. I wonder what changed?
We'll see if the end is near. I'm not sure about that. It depends on whether Shane can coach them up. Holtz produced one Top 20 and one Top 15 team while here. Overall, he did not have that kind of talent here. Spurrier produced 3 Top 10 teams here, including number 4 in the nation.. You know that overall we did not have that kind of talent here. If Shane can coach up his players like Lou and Steve did, he will be OK.
Talking about Clemson, I see that their 2025 class is currently ranked number 3 in the nation. WTH is going on over there? It's hard to believe that they are that much more NIL rich than us.
Why do you believe the top coaching market works any differently than the top player market?
Both are needed. If one believes that either player talent or coaching are the end all, they will be disappointed. If we are fortunate, we will have both. Brad Scott was called the best recruiter in college football by one recruiting guru. How far did that take us with him? Dan Mullen is considered one of the best "coaching talents" around. But, for whatever reason, Florida was not pleased with his recruiting.
Correct. There are many factors. Talent and coaching are two big ones. If we are conceding one (talent), we can't afford to concede the other, unless we really are arguing that we need to just settle.
If I understand the meme queens question though, she's complaining that if we can't afford the best players, we can't expect to afford the best coaches. (I'm sure even if that's what she meant, she'll deny it just because I said it)
But that is a true point. We're not going to go out and buy the best coach. Imo, our best bet is identifying a good young/up and comer/innovative coach and ride their success till they are poached for a bigger program. Our position in the SEC should allow for a good stepping stone for coaches wanting to move up.
But then, I am "settling" on the notion that we are a stepping stone, and not a destination school.
The idea that we need to find the best coach possible because we don't have the most the spend is elementary thinking. There's no SEC school that's not trying to maximize everything all the time. As a result, there will be some highs and lows from year to year, but you end up about where you land in recruiting over time. The historical numbers tell the story. However, guys need to complain and point to something, so they refuse to accept it.
Also, I don't understand those talking about Carlen, Morrison, Scott, Holtz? That's like discussing the invention of TV. Nothing about college football is the same as in those eras. There was inefficiency in the system so finding a great coach to overcome your resource limitations was a possibility. Heck, it's dramatically different than even when Spurrier was here and he's said that directly many times. Just one example -- We've lost our best RBs the past two seasons to the portal because we can't afford to keep them. When has that happened before?
Also, I don't understand those talking about Carlen, Morrison, Scott, Holtz? That's like discussing the invention of TV. Nothing about college football is the same as in those eras. There was inefficiency in the system so finding a great coach to overcome your resource limitations was a possibility. Heck, it's dramatically different than even when Spurrier was here and he's said that directly many times. Just one example -- We've lost our best RBs the past two seasons to the portal because we can't afford to keep them. When has that happened before?
And Watson's point above is very important to note. He is saying that the season-ending (2022) victories over Clemson and Tennessee gave us recruiting momentum going into the 2023 season. But then, the disappointing performance of 2023 stopped it. That's where good coaching comes into play. An analogy is an employee coming in and asking for a raise. Well, you have to perform first before getting a raise. "A" comes before "B". Recruits saw our 2023 performance and that did not help our recruiting efforts.
The good news is I think that the additions of Coley, DeCamillis and Elliott will help. Blackwell, I'm not as sure of, but, can't be worse there. Time will tell.
We lost 4 of our 5 best players from the 2022 season because of the new system. That's how we lost the momentum.
But what makes you think that if we can't get the best players, that we can get the hottest coaches? Every team wants a coach that can do more with less talent. What makes you think those same teams won't get those coaches, just like they get those players?
As I said above, you need to have both coaching and recruiting ability. You have to HOPE that you have BOTH. One alone won't work, unless you are a SEC-type school in a basketball-first conference. We have always recruited at about the same level, TO THIS DAY. And that's something that some fail to acknowledge. Is NIL money important? Today it is. Is Clemson NIL-richer than us? I don't know. Maybe they are. One thing is for sure: they are "killing" it so far this year in recruiting.
Covered this above. Kudos for not changing the intent, as you usually do.
If I understand the meme queens question though, she's complaining that if we can't afford the best players, we can't expect to afford the best coaches. (I'm sure even if that's what she meant, she'll deny it just because I said it)
But that is a true point. We're not going to go out and buy the best coach. Imo, our best bet is identifying a good young/up and comer/innovative coach and ride their success till they are poached for a bigger program.
So, how do you make up for that? Coaching is the only way. And I believe that Beamer recognized that when considering some of the changes on the staff.
Beamer is exactly where Muschamp and Spurrier were in their tenures right now in terms of both recruiting and record. So what exactly are we discussing?
But Drinkwitz.....Drinkwitz was 6-7 and 3-5 in the conference in 2022. Where were those comparisons when we were 8-5 and beating top ten teams?
It's simple -- Try to find an SEC team who has consistently outperformed their recruiting over a 5-year period. You're going to have ups and downs in-between in terms of personnel and schedules. However, ultimately everything reverts to the mean and that mean is tethered to talent and money.
100%. Our previous coaching searches have proven that many of the hot coaches will even wait for a better opportunity. Not sure how many times people need to see it to understand it.
NIL is our way to get there because it's about talent on the field. Plenty of bad to average coaches have won titles with talented teams. Name all the great coaches that have won titles with average players. We've even seen that here too. Two legendary coaches. 1 SEC East title to show for it. And our legendary coach got destroyed in that SEC Championship against Gene f'ing Chizik because the talent on the field was superior.
Talent on the field is the way.
"What exactly are we discussing?" I started the thread by noting that we finished 30th nationally in recruiting and 12th in the SEC (14th if Texas and Oklahoma are counted). And I said I know we are at a disadvantage regarding NIL. And unless there's reform (that pleases the Supreme Court) or a source of money from somewhere, we will always be at a disadvantage. I then asked what is a fair and reasonable question: Does Shane have the coaching chops to take lesser talented teams to beat more talented teams? And that question does not come from someone anti-Beamer. If everything I have posted on this thread is read, it will be found that I have written some comments praising Shane.
I'm with you if that recruiting rank becomes a trend and we continue to operate sub-.500. However, we can't get hung up on a single year of anything.
Talent is the way, coaching is the way.... if people weren't so set on just being argumentative, they'd admit that both of these play a factor. Not to mention other factors.
Pretending something like coaching has no impact is just infantile, imo.
The question is what can be done. Some people whine constantly that NIL puts us at a disadvantage, using it as an excuse to argue against any change at coaching. They then turn around and pretend we're suddenly going to find a pot of gold that will turn NIL to our advantage, and let us start out-buying our opponents
Consistency would be nice.
If NIL, and therefore talent, is a weakness of our program, then other factors (like coaching) need to strengths.
As I said before, we may not hold onto a good coach, if we hire one, but we'll still be better of for it than throwing up our hands and pretending coaching doesn't matter.
I agree with you there. Still, I'm hoping that he can close the gap. If history is any indication, we will rarely be in the top half of the league in recruiting even without the NIL disadvantage. Texas and Oklahoma coming in did us no favor. Nothing in my question was trying to cause controversy. I'm a long-time Gamecock fan with 2 degrees from that school and want nothing but the best for both our athletics and academics. I'm hopeful, if nothing else, looking for confirmation.
Please provide evidence that we currently have poor coaching?
Please provide teams who have outperformed their recruiting/SEC conference positioning over any reasonable time period?
Both player talent and good coaching are needed. If that was not the case, Jimbo Fisher would not be sitting in the Bahamas or wherever living the life of Riley.
Nope. Gene Chizik. Ed Orgeron.
Both aren't needed. Average coach can get it done with elite talent. Name all the great coaches with average talent that won the National Championship?
If that is the case, we are sunk. Historically, we have usually been in the bottom half of the league in recruiting PRIOR To NIL. And I suspect that we are worse off in NIL money than most.
Yes, winning national titles requires VERY good talent. That has been shown with the average recruiting rankings of winners over the years.
But forget national titles. We're not in that realm, and really won't be. No one here is seriously talking about winning national titles anyway, so that's a moot point.
Think Spurrier at Duke, Chadwell at coastal, meyer at Utah, think any coach that has succeeded at a lower level (lesser talent).
One thing you should stop doing though, is arguing that coaching makes no difference. Is the concept of multiple factors really that far beyond your grasp? Must there really only be ONE thing that impacts success in your mind?
Agreed.
It honestly confuses me why some people insist that there is only ONE factor that can possibly impact success.
As I implied above, if we have to depend on recruiting alone, we might as well drop the sport. I do not know why that can't get through some people's heads.
Before you hold those up as average coaches, you should look at their OC's. Maybe you're arguing that head coaching can be mediocre if made up for with good coordinators.
I'd agree to that.
That reminds me of the talk when we hired Beamer. We went cheap on Beamer with the idea he could hire a great staff. I always wondered what those people think now.
We cannot outrecruit the top of our conference. NIL is consistently held up as a weakness for our program, so I'm confused why it's suddenly seen as our savior.
Perhaps the difference is, you and I are talking about the reality of the program, and it's weaknesses, and others are talking about what they wish would happen on order to make us this magical national title contender suddenly.
Last edited:
Similar threads
