ADVERTISEMENT

So, our football recruiting class is ranked 30th overall and 12th in the SEC.

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.
I responded just above.
 
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 p
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.
 
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.
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:
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.
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.
 
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.
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:
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
"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.
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.
 
Sometimes things align with the schedule and seasoned talent and they pleasantly surprise.
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.
 
The other thing about Dabo, he had a huge budget for top notch coordinators...js
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:
The other thing about Dabo, he had a huge budget for top notch coordinators...js

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?
 
Shane really benefited from a big in-state class last year and the while run we had to beat UT and Clemson. Unfortunately, all that momentum has dried up. The end is near.
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.
 
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.

Why do you believe the top coaching market works any differently than the top player market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: turncock
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecock stock
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?
 
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
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?

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecock stock
We lost 4 of our 5 best players from the 2022 season because of the new system. That's how we lost the momentum.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turncock
Beamer is doing 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.
"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.
 
"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.
 
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscwatson21
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Average coach with elite talent can win a Natty.

Name all the elite coaches with average talent that have won the NC.

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecock stock
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.

Agreed.

It honestly confuses me why some people insist that there is only ONE factor that can possibly impact success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecock stock
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?
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

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:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT