Well CSB Has Chosen to Live (Succeed) or Sink(Fail) with His Crew(Coaches)
- Thread starter Crazy Cock 89
- Start date
It’s just sad we can’t have an honest conversation. But you wouldn’t be spouting your nonsense in an honest conversation.
Honest conversation? He's made the point that you were fine with Will Mucschamp after 3 years while you can't stop reaming Beamer even though he's done about the same while dealing with the NIL, the portal, and more difficult schedules. How is it not your serve?
I was wrong about Muschamp (and I’m sure you pro Beamer guys were too). We should have moved on earlier. What don’t you guys understand, you don’t give someone worse than Muschamp more time…
How is the Beamer situation different than any other football coach we've had other than Steve Spurrier? Spurrier was an abberation on so many levels, and as WJ has pointed out, he has been pretty vocal that the NIL is terrible for teams like us and he would be trying to latch on to big wallets. We don't really have that option at least at this point. College football is an embarrassing joke until they do something about the NIL and new age portal.
So your argument is we just shouldn’t try to win at football?
We are ok with Beamer being a bad coach because we will likely hire another bad coach?
Based on this position, we've had nothing but bad head coaches aside from Spurrier throughout our entire 100+ year history. And just for the record, Spurrier was no better after three years either. Your position is keep flipping coaches at $15-30 million a pop until something sticks even though you can provide no evidence or blueprint that things will be any different.
Think about players like Clowney. Do you honestly believe we would have ever landed him in the NIL era? Absolutely zero chance. He would have opted for the $10 million a year contract and played under the big lights in hopes to be headed to the playoffs. You give zero credence to the fact the landscape has changed dramatically since the inception of the NIL/Portal and we're on the short end of the stick as of today.
On the off chance that Sellers is a total stud, you'll see what happens when big money teams come knocking. We'll be forced to throw almost every dime at him and that still might not be enough. If we can scrape together the cash, we'll be a one-trick pony again like we were with Rattler.
This is the type consideration you don't give Beamer, whatsoever. He's dealing with an entirely different game and still holding serve with most every other head coach we've had. Give him a chance to fail first.
Maybe he's got a little point. Not that we shouldn't try, but that college football is a complete mess right now. With luck, it'll hit a boiling point and some corrective measures will take place.
If that takes a couple years, better those years were under Beamer, and not tearing down the next, and what might be the longer term, solution at coach.
Again, I'm assuming Beamer isn't let go after this coming year, even if we have a losing season. So we'd have two more years for people to wake up and get something done on the national level.
Or on the flip side, CFB is going through a major realignment and we're at risk of being left behind.
We're only going to lose $30 million because Tanner rushed to give an undeserved extension.
And yes, outside of Spurrier, Holtz, and Morrison our coaches have largely been underwhelming. Giving Muschamp and Brad Scott and Muschamp five years did nothing to build long term success. The idea we should just let Beamer ride out his contract without any regard to results is mind boggling. You would rather save money than hire a competent coach?
We just bought Harbor and Stewart. The idea our boosters wouldn't have ponied up to buy an instate prospect like Clowney is another nonsene argument. But all of your arguments rely on this type of logic. Beamer has actually benefitted from NIL but that doesn't help your argument so you'll just stick your hand in the sand.
Rattler, oh yeah another player we bought. But according to you us little ole gamecocks can never afford good players.
He's already failed. He's going to fail this coming year and you're already making excuses to give him 2025 to fail a third time.
Holtz had less wins than Beamer after three seasons. He then proceeded to go 5-7 in both Years 4 and 5. No NIL or portal.
Morrison had the same record as Beamer after 3. He was 5-6 in Year 3 and 3-6 in Year 4 -- all while operating in the ACC. No NIL or portal.
Now you're back to only Spurrier, He had the same record as Beamer after 3 seasons. No NIL or portal.
Collectively, we're not paying players $10 million a year. Probably about half of that. Clowney would have been a $10mil a year player if not more in today's NIL.
Last edited:
Holtz also took over a team that went 1-10. A real 1-10, not an all SEC schedule. Then managed to win almost as many games in 2 years as Beamer won in 3 years.
We weren't in the ACC in the 1980s. Simple mistakes like this highlight you have no idea what you're actually talking about.
So convenient. We didn't have enough money when we lose a player and the other teams didn't have enough money when we win a player.
What's your point with any of this? Beamer took over a team that won 2 games the year prior and is dealing with the NIL and portal.... something you try to avoid talking about at any cost even though it's all everyone is talking about in college football today.
Yeah, my ACC reference was definitely a gaffe in comparison to your Joe vs. Beamer nonsense.
You're either very slow or trolling. A player's NIL value is kind of relevant when you have a limited budget. Maybe ask DeeDave about salary caps.
You're the one who tries to ignore how Beamer has arguably benefitted as much as anyone in the transfer portal. Without NIL and the portal, there is no Rattler and without Rattler we would have just finished with back to back losing seasons.
This is ridiculous. Please refer to my previous post discussing paying for Rattler and losing most of the supporting talent to the NIL overnight.
The top teams are paying all of their players now. We are lucky to pay a few.
Maybe. Look at last season. Beamer was counting on a healthy Wells-Rattler combination to be money even with the loss of Bell and Lloyd to the NIL. Wells got hurt and couldn't go.
A Rattler-Wells-XL trifecta could have been lethal even with the lousy OL. For comparison, Oregon had a good QB and two dynamic WRs and lit it up. Their passing game opened up the running game and their offense flourished as a result.
Beamer lost that quick, explosive outlet in Wells and unfortunately we're not anti-fragile like a UGA with layers of talent. It's just the way to goes when you're paper thin. The only time we haven't been paper thin is under Spurrier during that recruiting push. All of the stars need to align for us to have a good season in the SEC.
It's a yes or no question and the fact you're unwilling to say yes or no is telling.
You want to reserve it for an excuse no matter what happens.
He has been successful already. We went 8-5 in the SEC and beat two top ten teams for the first time in history.
What happens tomorrow with a new QB and a bunch of new players remains a great unknown.
We could very well do better without the one-trick pony offensive of last season.
The defense turned it on the latter half of the season with a bunch of young talent.
If Sellers is even 70% of the passer Rattler is, defenses are also going to have to worry about a 250lb fleet-of-foot guy breaking loose.
Surround him with some playmakers and you might have something.
In terms of your "excuse" comment, please check our posts throughout this exchange.
There's only one of us providing context.
Perhaps. Maybe I'm thinking of what's to come as more of a reset. I think we'll tread water as a barely bowl eligible team from year to year under Beamer. We can go from there when/if someone settles cfb to reasonable level.
Most every year will probably be a reset until they do something about the portal situation and lack of cap. Maybe we somehow hang on to our core guys with what we have to spend. Still hard to believe we need to worry about that now.
If Beamer can get us into bowl games with schedules like next year and quality players bolting, that would be a bonus. I saw a stat the other day that was pretty wild. We've won 8 games in a regular season only 7 times since we entered the SEC. Spurrier had 4, Beamer 1, Muschamp 1 and Holtz 1. I believe that was 2nd worst next to Vandy. We're always in an uphill battle and the NIL stuff has complicated that by several orders of magnitude. Better just enjoy whatever the regular season brings and go from there unless something changes.
I may have worded it wrong. Doing something about about the NIL and open portal was what I meant by a reset. I'm wondering if people will get fed up, and instead of tweaks and minor fixes over time, I wonder if they won't make major moves soon.
The American Psycho, Gavin Newsom, made certain overturning his corrupt slop would be difficult.
The challenges in making quick changes to the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules and the no-wait transfer portal in college football (and college sports in general) are complex and multifaceted.
Some key reasons why these changes can be difficult and slow:
- Regulatory and Legal Complexities: The NIL rules are governed by a combination of NCAA policies, state laws, and federal legislation. Changing these rules requires navigating a complex legal landscape, which can be time-consuming and requires consensus among various stakeholders.
- Diverse Interests: The NCAA, colleges, athletes, coaches, and state and federal governments all have differing interests and perspectives on NIL and transfer rules. Finding a solution that satisfies all parties is challenging and often leads to prolonged negotiations and deliberations.
- State and Federal Legislation: In the U.S., different states have enacted their own NIL laws, leading to a patchwork of regulations. Aligning these with NCAA rules or developing a federal framework takes significant time and effort.
- Impact on Competitive Balance: Changes to NIL and transfer rules can significantly impact the competitive balance in college sports. Stakeholders are cautious about making changes that could further tip the balance in favor of certain teams or conferences.
- Fairness and Equity Concerns: Ensuring that changes to NIL and transfer rules are fair and equitable to all student-athletes, across all sports and divisions, is a complex task. This includes considering the impact on smaller programs and less popular sports.
- Institutional Policies and Compliance: Colleges and universities must also adapt their own policies to align with any changes in NIL and transfer rules. This internal process can be slow, involving legal review, administrative changes, and compliance training.
- Athlete Representation and Voice: Ensuring that the voices of student-athletes are heard and considered in these changes is crucial but can also slow down the process. Athletes, as a group, are diverse and may have varying opinions on what changes are needed.
- Financial Implications: The financial impact of NIL and transfer rules on both athletes and institutions is significant. Careful consideration is needed to ensure that any changes do not negatively impact the financial stability of athletic programs.
- Ongoing Legal Battles: Ongoing lawsuits and legal challenges related to NIL and athlete compensation add another layer of complexity to any potential changes.
- Historical Precedents and Traditions: College sports have a long history, and changes to longstanding practices and rules are often met with resistance from various factions within the sports community.
"Trump is President right now. The military was put in charge in 2018, when President Trump signed an order."
"So all that military equipment going to Ukraine, Trump is sending it?"
"uh, well, uh, no. there is a good military and a bad military"
Got to love the lack of brains from trumpers.
"So all that military equipment going to Ukraine, Trump is sending it?"
"uh, well, uh, no. there is a good military and a bad military"
Got to love the lack of brains from trumpers.
TDS Default Network. You're going to need a moment of clarity to lob something my way. I'm not stuck in the hamster wheel.
It's funny hearing the mind-numbingly stupid comments from actual Trump supporters who believe (and tell people) that Donald Trump is currently the President and is ordering the military around- except when he isn't of course.
It's hard to believe there are people walking around that look like normal people that actually believe Donald Trump signed an order in 2018 that put the military in charge of the country. The people that come out for Trump rallies have to be some of the dumbest humans ever created.
Worse- they think the military being in charge of the country would be a good thing and they like the idea.
Inside joke. When the recall attempt that failed occurred in California, some original signs and had his name spelled "Newsome" - so some Newsome fans (like me) make fun of that now sometimes by spelling his name Newsome.
The bio line is an accurate accusation from a fool.
Last edited:
The funny part to me is that the higher-ups and most important parts of the military are petrified of Trump winning the presidency because of how bad he was for military success in his last four years.
The funnier part is that they are now happily engaging in 3 wars under the current admin. Wonder why that is?
Fitting you guys would get us in an unneccessary war then be unwilling to fight the necessary ones.
On cue -- here's your new age liberal who would have gotten laughed/booed off stage even 10 years ago.
Last edited:
At least Beamer being fired would legitimately make my life more enjoyable. Not sure what your conspiracies do for you.
If that is the standard, then we need to count several Trump wars too. Can't have it both ways.
As we speak, it's Fox News "military experts" they keep putting on the air and Republicans in the Senate and quite a few in the House begging Biden to be more aggressive bombing Yemen.
A short list of those who have been encouraging Biden to bomb Yemen
1) General Jack Keane (Retired) -Frequent Fox News contributor (their main military expert)
2) Lindsey Graham
3) Republican Mitch McConnell. He said he "welcomed" the action and encouraged more.
4) Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson also "welcomed" the action
5) Republican Senator Tom Cotton said it was overdue
6)Republican Senator Roger Wicker said the bombing was a good first step
7) Republican Senator Todd Young said he welcomed the action
8) Republican Senator Susan Collins said she approved of the bombing actions
9) Democrat Rep Mark Pocan said Biden should have come to Congress first.
House Foreign Affairs Chair Mike McCaul (Republican-Texas) supported Biden's move to order bombing the rebels. He has also led a recent effort to draft an authorization for Biden to strike Hezbollah.
McCaul also stated that President Biden has the constitutional authority to go even further, such as striking Iranian ships.
Last edited:
The traditional swamp monsters are all the same, Dave. Haven't you figured this out yet? We've been talking about this for years now on this site.
They've joined forces to "maintain Democracy" because they believe they know best which is quite comical. Their new horse is Haley. So much so that Iowa run out of ballots from Dems switching to Rep to vote for her.
