So we need a new AD?
- Thread starter jbouton
- Start date
I don't know what the president will do. I just know Ray Tanner isn't going anywhere.
Both of our last 2 AD's coaching hires had hits and misses.
On the toilet bowl end Mike McGee hired Buffet Brad and Susan Waviloss. On the other side he hired Lou Holtz who had a few good seasons.
On the toilet bowl end Eric Hymin hired Darren Horn. On the other side he hired Dawn Staley.
Other school AD's have their coaching hire hits and misses as well.
If we replaced Ray Tanner with a new AD that AD would probably have some hits and misses as well so I think we should just keep Tanner.
On the toilet bowl end Mike McGee hired Buffet Brad and Susan Waviloss. On the other side he hired Lou Holtz who had a few good seasons.
On the toilet bowl end Eric Hymin hired Darren Horn. On the other side he hired Dawn Staley.
Other school AD's have their coaching hire hits and misses as well.
If we replaced Ray Tanner with a new AD that AD would probably have some hits and misses as well so I think we should just keep Tanner.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
SC does not fire coaches like other schools. We hang on longer than we should in most cases. Frank Martin has been here 7 seasons and going on his 8th season. Spurrier was here 10 years - and clearly stayed too long. The only coaches we fired deserved to go - except George Felton and Richard Bell. (and Bell was fired for insubordination because he refused to fire assistants)
Unless you believe we should have kept Woods, Scott, Holbrook and Horn.
Okay, I assume that means the Board is planning on hiring a president that has no say in running the athletic dept. Otherwise you have no way of knowing what the new Prez will do.
The BOT gives the extensions, so it doesn't matter. Chances are the new president will not be that concerned with athletics anyway.
It's 200 million dollar organization and the most visible for the university. It's 100 percent something they care about.
Make Tanner the Vice President of Buildings and Grounds. Hindsight says that is what he should've been when we promoted him. It seems that his focus has been on this all along. He darn sure hasn't done anything with the athletics programs.
Sports exist because of the university, not the other way around. You think the tail wags the dog....not the case.
I've worked at a university for a long time, including years working in the the athletic dept. I know exactly how it works.
I'm posting from the perspective of someone that actually works in a university and deals with these same issues day to day. What about you?
Our old baseball coach was a legend, for instance. He's one of the most successful coaches in the last twenty years and everyone loved him. But guess what: He's bass fishing now. That's how it goes in the grown up world when you don't win.
Yes, I have worked at USC as a matter of fact. I wasn't born yesterday, and I didn't just start posting here either. I might just know a little bit about what I'm talking about also.
you cant argue with facts in here..the know it alls that think tanner is the problem will have none of that..matter of fact, they don't like tanner because he left the baseball program, they don't like Muschamp because he didn't win at florida and their Clemson buddies are ragging the hell out of them and they don't like Kingston because he aint tanner...does that about sum it up?
Same here, Spurrier had the program right where we wanted it to be. With the right hire to replace Spurrier, we were set up for a long time. That's when Tanner completely failed in his duties. He let a top ten program turn to crap. He should have been prepared. It's true that he couldn't fire the HBC but he should have convinced him to step down.
This is my biggest issue with Tanner. We appeared totally unprepared for post spurrier, as if that was never going to happen.
To quote a great saying in basketball; "Don't get caught watching the paint dry".
Tanner got caught watching the paint dry.
Major league mistake by a rookie AD.
Ray Tanner was the hire and still is. Holbrook had to get his shot because he deserved it and had proven himself to be a proven coach and recruiter. Holbrook's problem was he recruited players to play small ball and then didn't steal and obviously did not practice bunting. Two things that are needed for small ball.
True. Mike McGee was also not afraid to go to a coach and tell him to improve or hit the road. (like Fogler) All ADs make bad hires, but make too many and all ADs will lose fan and alumni support which will lead to their dismissal.
And Tanner basically did the same thing or very similar to our baseball program. Legit weak performances by the AD related to our two best mens programs.
Let's see. We wanted a homer A. D.. We've had 2. We did not like either and demanded they be fired.We wanted a professional AD. We had McGee a professional imo. We had the guy who went to A&M . Didn't like either one of them. Announcers. We had a professional after Bob. Did not like him. We wanted a homer many demanded. We have a homer. Few like him.
He convinced him not to. Spurrier wanted to leave the year before, but was begged to stay.
I'm a bit biased, but I'd love to see Brad Edwards walking around Columbia again.
He is not as young as you remember him....
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Gee, I hope he gives John Palms a call before he accepts the job:
"I wish I had known the importance of athletics (football) to a school like Carolina (SEC member)."
- John Palms
Palms was a very good president who happened to think that physics was more important than athletics. You know what, IT IS.
Your reasoning is very interesting. Tanner was the right hire and Holbrook deserved it. Very, very interesting.
Very insightful post. May come true because no one else would hire him as AD after his stellar performance here. It is not easy to sink almost all mens sports in one go.
We can have BOTH! Palms admitted he was wrong on the matter of putting more emphasis on sports (he didn't think he put ENOUGH emphasis). We have got to stop this nonsense of mismanaging athletics (particularly football) and get it done right!
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that colleges and universities find themselves painted into a corner because they have allowed athletics to get out of control. Now there is no way to put the tooth paste back into the tube. There is too much debt on facilities to rein athletics in. They have to pay the debt and the only way is to be successful and draw the crowds and donors to pay the debt. Also to try to draw back athletes now would bring public disapproval If there was ever a case of the tail wagging the dog this is it. The most important purpose of a university is not athletics but the truth of the matter now it is.
