I'm on to Cardinals baseball come spring. Once they're out of contention by late July I start Jonesing for Gamecock football really hard.
So, our football recruiting class is ranked 30th overall and 12th in the SEC.
- Thread starter gamecock stock
- Start date
"It's easy. All we've got to do is find a young, hungry coach who other teams haven't considered who can consistently overachieve in the SEC." 
What would you believe they were trying to do with both Muschamp and Beamer?
Our success has been the opposite. Find a seasoned coach with big media attention to help draw the big name recruits into a situation that isn't necessary ideal on paper.
Now that seasoned coach needs to also come with a bag of cash.
What would you believe they were trying to do with both Muschamp and Beamer?
Our success has been the opposite. Find a seasoned coach with big media attention to help draw the big name recruits into a situation that isn't necessary ideal on paper.
Now that seasoned coach needs to also come with a bag of cash.
"It's easy. All we've got to do is find a young, hungry coach who other teams haven't considered who can consistently overachieve in the SEC."
What would you believe they were trying to do with both Muschamp and Beamer?
Our success has been the opposite. Find a seasoned coach with big media attention to help draw the big name recruits into a situation that isn't necessary ideal on paper.
Now that seasoned coach needs to also come with a bag of cash.
Can you explain your opposition to hiring a better HC than Beamer?
Sure. Beamer's record is similar to the best we've had after 3 years. Even if it wasn't, the AD isn't going to pay another big buyout to a head coach when they could funnel that money to talent.
So you actually do want a coach better than Beamer you just don't think we will pay for a better coach?
Nope. The mere sight of Beamer doesn't turn my stomach like some. I think we need to let things play out and see which direction it goes. I want to see what the post-Rattler offense looks like after a year of play. Obviously, that's what is going to happen regardless of what we think/desire.
We are at a huge disadvantage regarding NIL. That's not changing. Does anyone think that Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, etc can't/won't match and exceed what we increase NIL to? And have we consistently ever out recruited those guys? If so, I'm not aware of such a period. We are at a disadvantage sharing a relatively small state with a traditional power. Clemson has got 2 four star commitments from in-state recruits for 2025. We need to be realistic as to how well we can recruit even under the best of circumstances.
To spite Dabo's yammering, Clemson is said to have a big NIL program. So now you get the cash and a much easier route to the new 12-team playoffs. We are up against it for sure.
One reason I don't oppose their entry into the SEC. But, that's me.
This football season is going to be a complete melt down when people realize how much Rattler masked.
I don't know what Clemson does re: NIL that South Carolina does not or cannot do. They surely do not have as many alumni as we do. Maybe they have richer alumni? Or maybe their fans are more rabid? Have we ever out recruited Dabo, even prior to NIL? As SOS used to say, it is what it is. I long ago have come to accept college football as it is. As someone earlier said, it's just entertainment.
Maybe. Though it could turn out to work the other way over time. Having a star player you lean on heavily can have it's disadvantages in terms of both play calling and development. Look at our situation with the basketball team and GG. Everyone thought we would finish last in the conference this season. It is different in basketball though.
I thought the young defense developed nicely last season in spite of the overall anemic offense. The anemic offense was in part due to losing all of the players who were instrumental in the 2022 finish. However, Beamer and Loggins didn't anticipate losing Wells for the season early in the 1st game and didn't adapt well to that issue. They also thought Joyner could be a multi-purpose fill-in for Lloyd and Bell which was wrong. They needed at least one more receiver to step up and take some of the spotlight off of XL didn't get it.
These next two seasons the staff will be coaching for their job security without the Rattler Show. We'll see how it plays out.
Let's see how the OL does. If we don't have an OL that can block, a young Tom Brady would do us no good.
There's many factors involved but Clemson always been known for its strong alumni engagement and financial support and ranks high among public universities for alumni participation. This engagement is reflected in the philanthropy towards the university.
I do believe Shawn Elliott will be a big help, throughout the team. Excited to have him back. Also, cannot help but like the guy.
Couldn't agree more.
I think the disconnect for some here, is that you and I, at least, are talking about what to do to compensate. Rather than simply throw out "more money" as the total depth of our understanding.
I hear the same NIL complaints out of Clemson fans that I do out of ours. I would be very interested to see actual numbers of NIL collectives from all sorts of teams.
We NEED that OL improvement, or Watson is right. Last years team, minis Rattler would have been scary to watch.
Maybe a couple portal RB's and a little improvement on our OL are enough to help the inexperience at qb? It feels like a lot of wishful thinking, and not much confidence when I say it out loud.
It's the sport I miss playing the most but only watch when the Cards are playing.
Are you sure? The disconnect is that your solution has been to pay another bailout and spin the coaching wheel again. "Find an up and coming coach" under a rock and hiding from the other schools and the InterWeb.
Again, it's very strange that you think we wouldn't be better off with a better HC.
If I was the AD and we were letting Beamer go, I might try to lure a successful, well-known likable, land-locked head coach close in the latter half of his career with the following.....
"We'll pay you $3 million a year to work a part time schedule and otherwise enjoy the warm weather and free time. Your role will be to lure recruits and lure national (and local) corporation collective money our way...." This potentially could be attractive to some who want to keep one foot in the pond but not have the grueling schedule of the typical HC at that point in their career.
The other $3mil that you would typically pay a head coach would be added to the salaries of OC/DC, etc. to bring in some of the best assistants possible. They would mostly run the show outside in terms of coaching and development. If Spurrier hadn't been burned out from dedicating himself to making us relevant, it might have been something that was attractive to him at the time.
Might not work...but it least it would be something different than following the same blueprint as the masses. When you do that, all you do is fall in line.
"We'll pay you $3 million a year to work a part time schedule and otherwise enjoy the warm weather and free time. Your role will be to lure recruits and lure national (and local) corporation collective money our way...." This potentially could be attractive to some who want to keep one foot in the pond but not have the grueling schedule of the typical HC at that point in their career.
The other $3mil that you would typically pay a head coach would be added to the salaries of OC/DC, etc. to bring in some of the best assistants possible. They would mostly run the show outside in terms of coaching and development. If Spurrier hadn't been burned out from dedicating himself to making us relevant, it might have been something that was attractive to him at the time.
Might not work...but it least it would be something different than following the same blueprint as the masses. When you do that, all you do is fall in line.
Last edited:
If "recruiting ability" alone was the answer, we would have done it a long time ago. No one is denying that player talent is the most important ingredient. But it's a tall order to have better talent than UGA, BAMA and programs like that. If we could play them at home all the time, that would help us compensate. But that's not possible. Having better coaching can be a constant and thus compensate. All player talent is not equal. Neither is all coaching talent. I hope people can now better understand what we are saying.
Again, I repeat that player talent is the most important ingredient. But coaching talent can compensate and close the gap where we are behind.
There's just no evidence of this in the SEC to speak of. The mid-to-lower tier SEC teams are capable of having a good season or two if their talent and schedule aligns. However, none of them have been able to do this on any consistent basis. It's simply too many big teams with far too big of an advantage on the front-end.
If we were in the ACC where moneyball is still a factor, coaching would be more important because it's not nearly as cut-throat from a talent perspective.
Where did I say that "coaching" is more important? I repeated myself to be certain that I was understood when I said that "player talent is the most important ingredient". But we are rarely, if ever, going to have better talent than the UGAs and Bamas of the world. Someone here said player talent is 80% while coaching is 20%. That 20% maybe be enough to compensate.
Agree. $2-3 million base, plus a cut of anything they bring in above and beyond what was previously achieved. A partial commission structure would provide extra incentive to bring in the needed NIL funding.
My point is that I wouldn't be burning money on spinning the coaching wheel again. I would try to funnel those funds to talent instead.
Good summation here.
I think after repeatedly stating it as plainly as we can, even the simplest mind should be able to understand. And anyone that doesn't, is misunderstanding on purpose.
Lurker, you guys have been all over the place. What exactly are you saying we should do? All I've seen is "go out and find an up and coming coach"....maybe I missed something?
I have repeatedly said that Beamer should be given as much time as Muschamp. I've said it here and elsewhere. So nowhere am I advocating firing Beamer today. We don't have a money advantage over most SEC teams. Whatever more money we put into NIL, others can match and exceed us. We need player talent. But history has proven repeatedly that we rarely do better in recruiting than most SEC teams. And with Oklahoma and Texas coming in now, that's even more so going to be the case. The only way to compensate is through better coaching. Yes. let's try to get the best players we can....ALWAYS. But, we are going to have to close the advantage they will have over us in player talent, somehow.
Thanks Stock. My point is how is this different than what we do every time? We're obviously always looking for the best coach during any coaching hunt who is willing to come to Columbia. What exactly are you suggesting?
I've covered this as well.
I also find it interesting that you can type this out in plain English, and I can repeatedly type out that Beamer should be given at least this upcoming year, and only be fired if the wheels come off. (Meaning he gets 5)
Yet it seems some people seem to think we want Beamer fired now. I think they see Watson type this, and take a short cut of just lumping anyone they argue with into the same boat.
Anyone who still thinks we want Beamer fired now is misunderstanding on purpose just to argue.
So what are you suggesting then? You're regularly complaining about Beamer and his decisions. You're constantly arguing that coaching has the ability to overcome talent issues. You're regularly rolling around in the mud with Watson. Now you're saying you're a passive guy who wants to give Beamer room to succeed given all of the challenges that face him? I just don't get it.
I believe it's pretty obvious what I'm saying. By all means, we want a super recruiter for when we next have a coaching vacancy. But take into consideration their coaching skills. We do not always do that. Muschamp failed at Florida. Brad Scott did not have Head Coaching experience, except in high school. Beamer did not have any Head Coaching experience, not even OC/DC experience.
So you don't agree with the AD hires? I'm not sure many ever do. It's very common among fanbases. Beamer wouldn't have been my first pick either but we're not privy to what is available and who wants to come. This is the Rolette Wheel of coaching and it's cost prohibitive to try coaches out like you would a pair of shoes.
I would have looked for someone with successful Head Coaching experience below, what was then, the P5 conferences. Quite a few of those would have crawled to Columbia for the chance.
As I've said many times here and elsewhere: Beamer was not my preferred hire. But, I support him 100% right now.
Similar threads
