When we struggle in any sport....why is it ALWAYS with our fans the ADs fault.....I will say he has not done a great job but please tell me how you change the athletic director and things will all the sudden be better? there are schools that are great with marginal ADs and vice versa with proven ones with bad teams.
Something that is hard to understand....
- Thread starter cockymark
- Start date
Well, I think it comes down to this. He was basically allowed to name his successor for the baseball team in Holbrook. That didn't work out as planned. I guess the verdict is still out on Kingston, but the clock is ticking loudly. He hired Muschamp which turned into a dumpster fire. Many seem to be happy with Beamer, but USC isn't coming close in football recruiting to be able to compete with the teams you need to beat. The jack leg bowl in Charlotte was cause for celebration this year, but make it a yearly habit and folks will be howling. And finally, his tolerance for the ongoing mediocrity of Frank and the basketball program. Sometimes many wonder just how serious USC is about winning at the highest level, or if they are content to go through the motions and collect that SEC check. This could be a case of Ray just doing what he is told by the BOT, but he is the one on the watch.
Good question. I generally like Tanner but it's easy to understand why many are frustrated.
A few quick stabs:
+ The hiring, relationship and contract terms with Muschamp. Muschamp was a black eye for the entire program and set us back bigtime. Hiring a coach that failed at UF and signing him to an inflated deal with a large buyout was a bad look.
+ Timing. The football and baseball programs were peaking when Ray arrived and were fading fast within 2 years of him taking that role.
+ His AD demeanor has been nothing like his coaching demeanor. There have been interviews where he talks down fan expectations (but he still wants your money.) You don't hear the fire you used to when he was coaching.
Sure there's plenty more but that's a start.
Good points. To the OP, I told people in the past if we base our football history on successful AD'S, we have had very few if any 🤔😒
BOT controls the purse strings on coaching hires and fires. Can't do a damned thing without their approval. There were several articles on that regarding both Muschamp (a couple of years ago) and Martin last year.
Last edited:
Do they still do the "Sears Cup" or whatever it was called where all sports were combined and programs ranked overall? I know we used to finish near the top some years. Especially when baseball and men's basketball had decent seasons. Curious how we stack up nowadays to the rest of the country. I imagine that would be a way to compare AD's numbers. It would be really foolish to solely blame Tanner. Our BOT is terribly put together and they have more decision making power than Tanner. It's a group effort getting us to this point.
They do. it's called the "Directors Cup." After the Fall Sports USC was a very respectable 43 (ahead of UGA, Florida, Auburn, LSU). We'll see how that changes after the winter sports are calculated.
For 2020-21 USC finished 42 out of 293 Division I schools. So I'd say as a whole the department is in fairly decent shape but still room for improvement (we only beat 4 SEC schools - Mizzou, Auburn, Vandy and Miss St.
Tanner has a decade long pattern showing that he is a lousy A/D. The only thing hard to understand is why he wasn’t fired with Martin yesterday.
Last edited:
It’s a good question. Other posters have made great replies. It’s hard to know how much influence the BOT has had in all the debacles with hiring and extending Muschamp, the support or lack thereof MBB/Frank received. Every school in the country would have hired Holbrook and like others have said, the jury is still out on Kingston. The BOT has shown their innate ability to ruin everything they touch
Here's some more courtesy of Will Folks;
In keeping with Tanner’s abysmal management of the athletic department’s finances, the school will owe Martin a $3 million buyout after the results-challenged athletics director gave the 55-year-old coach a two-year contract extension last year – along with a raise that took his annual salary to $3.3 million.
Folks? LOL you can't be serious.
Here's the real story:
Yes but the AD does interviews and makes case to the board. When do they object to anything Ray does? AD has plenty of culpability. Stop constantly defending Tanner. He should have been canned when Muschamp got sent packing. Plenty of schools fire AD's and have more success with new ones. While I agree our good ole boy BOT are part of the problem, Ray falls right in line as well. Nobody including Ray cares as long as they're all getting fat checks.
Last edited:
Caslen vetoed paying Muschamp's buyout leaving Tanner to find alternate sources. How does an AD handle that? The BOT when threatened with losing funding for a large school project will do anything to prevent losing that funding.....and there is not a single AD in the country that can get around that. Their is a heirarchy and the AD is third on the list and has to have the approval of the two ahead of him....the president and the BOT. Those are the facts regardless if you like them or not.
Once again-nothing is ever Tanner's fault according to you. He hired Muschamp in '15 (pre Caslen) who set the football program back years. Ray only cares about Ray. That's why he refuses to do the respectable thing and retire. Too greedy to do that. You must be close friends or a relative of Ray's.
The hiring of Muschamp was fully on Tanner......never argued otherwise. You so plainly obviously know absolutely nothing about Tanner and I love the old you must be related to so-and-so attempt. I am not....have had the fortune to work with him on some funding issues and have had the pleasure to socialize with him a little bit at some fundraising events. You want to paint him as selfish.....go ahead, but that's not going to gain you any traction with larger donors, the administration or the BOT.
Last edited:
Just curious based on your knowledge bc you certainly are well connected to the university….was there any thought/conversation to keeping Frank until the GG decision.
I believe the kid was a program changer. He still could stay home, but it seemed like we had a legitimate shot.
I personally would have liked to have seen this play out before a decision was made….unless there is a big fish as a coach we have lined up and needed to get now.
But I have this feeling that whoever the coach is could have been had after the GG decision as well.
Not that I've heard....but my connections are basically donors and a couple of board members. I haven't talked to any of them in the past month or so....and only get details when we are sitting around talking and drinking bourbon.
But I would doubt they would wait on a player's decision....don't know many schools that would do that and with the new transfer rules it makes it almost moot. I am sure there was some discussion of waiting one more year due to the buyout and the support that Martin has on the board. Martin obviously, is very well liked. That I will eventually find out about.
Last edited:
Appreciate you letting me know when you find out.
I see a unique opportunity here for Gamecock basketball if we can land a coach that could land GG and then Cam Scott out of Lexington. Two guys in our backyard that if we have any chance of building a winner we really need to land both.
I will and completely agree. Frankly, I have always been a Marshall fan and would love to give him a look....albeit many years too late IMO. And, no, I don't have any clue as to who is being looked at for the position.
GG is not going to make us an elite program. We need to move fast and get the right man for us. With the transfer portal high school recruits are not as crucial.
Met him multiple times. Friendly and courteous. Do I think he loves Carolina? Sure. Do I think he wants us to fail? No. Do I think he deserves blame with the regression of mens major sports? Most definitely. Only problem is we have no accountability at Carolina and fans that staunchly defend mediocre leaders and results.
Last edited:
I don’t know. Zion Williamson would have been a huge haul and likely changed the trajectory of our program. GG may be a similar talent. Besides, most of the transfers we have been getting have been nothing of the caliber of a top recruit.
At the end of the day, SC is a very poor state. Sure, some people make a lot of money, but that is just a few comparatively speaking. It takes money these days to win, and I mean win big time. With Tanner, we are out of gas, and the fans are quitting as well.
Latest posts
-
-
5 Players Who Saw Their Stock Rise During The Spring: OFFENSE- Latest: Perry McCarty
-
-
