What defines success at UofSC?

[Cockish]

I keep hearing that Beamer can be successful at CAROLINA by the sporting pundits. BUT what does that mean exactly? As an alumnus and fan, for the longest time (prior to our three 11 win seasons), I believed success meant 7 or more wins, an occasional win over our rival and a bowl bid. However, success to me now means winning the SEC and beating our rival more often than not.

So if you define success as just 7 or more wins, I believe Coach Beamer will eventually be successful. Is that what the pundits mean because not winning the SEC every year is not success at a school like Alabama.

 

[statelinecock]

7-5, 8-4-, 9-3- 7-5. A coach does this every 4 years he's got a lifetime job.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

Winning= success here

Winning records, bowl trips, occasionally fielding a team that challenges for/wins the East. Historically that is success.

I think we all want and hope for more...

 

[coolcock2001]

Carolina football fans care about two things:

• Beat Clemson
• Get to Atlanta

You can say 7 wins is pretty good here but it doesn't make anyone happy. If you aren't doing the above after a couple years people will be ready to look for someone who can

 

[MScott64]

 

[midline]

Apparently, mediocrity is more than acceptable

 

[SpurrierWalkedOnBeer]

Job #1 for any & all coaches, & I've screamed for years that major bonus clauses should be in all contracts for beating those buttholes.

 

[AnCRooster]

Winning the East. If there was ever a time we did that with any frequency what so ever, then the definition of success would be what it's supposed to be and that's win the conference.

 

[AnCRooster]

Sorry, but that's small minded Carolina logic right there. We HAVE beaten them, over 40 times. Obviously they've beaten us a lot more, but those 40 something times still have us seen as a laughingstock of college football. Had we been to Atlanta 4 or 5 times since joining the conference and by great fortune won the SEC, we would be looked at A LOT differently.

 

[TheReelEss]

The way I see it, this should be a perennial 8 or so-win team. Decent bowls should be the norm here, with the occasional very good season and once or twice a decade, at least sniff the SECC game. Of course, I don't expect Beamer's tenure to begin with an 8 win season. 4 might be good for next season at this point.

 

[SpurrierWalkedOnBeer]

Sorry, but that's small minded Carolina logic right there. We HAVE beaten them, over 40 times. Obviously they've beaten us a lot more, but those 40 something times still have us seen as a laughingstock of college football. Had we been to Atlanta 4 or 5 times since joining the conference and by great fortune won the SEC, we would be looked at A LOT differently.

Do you live way out of state, by chance?

 

[AnCRooster]

Do you live way out of state, by chance?

Nope, I'm just not stupid.

 

[robertfootball]

Finishing in the top 3 in the East every year, beating Clemson regularly (that shipped sailed but we had our chance), not just getting to bowl genes but WINNING those bowl games and most importantly.....CONSISTENCY within the program. Year in and year out we should be competitive and in the hunt for the SEC East. No reason why that’s unreasonable.

 

[Carolina Doc]

Finishing in the top 3 in the East every year, beating Clemson regularly (that shipped sailed but we had our chance), not just getting to bowl genes but WINNING those bowl games and most importantly.....CONSISTENCY within the program. Year in and year out we should be competitive and in the hunt for the SEC East. No reason why that’s unreasonable.

I think this is most reasonable and realistic. At least being in the hunt for SEC-E every season.

 

[SpurrierWalkedOnBeer]

Nope, I'm just not stupid.

 

[CtownNat1ve]

Apparently, mediocrity is more than acceptable

Im learning that more and more on this board

 

[The Doctors Back]

This is why Carolina will never be truly great. When beating your rival is the pinnacle of greatness your sights are set way too low. Anything less than hoping/expecting national championship contention is settling for a lifetime of mediocrity.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

There is no UofSC. Just USC

 

[ExpatCarolinian]

To me, success would start with calling ourselves USC instead of UofSC. We are the original, no need to change to accommodate the new guys.

 

[75CarolinaFan]

What I'm looking for in a coach isn't necessarily a win/loss record. I want to see that we are getting the most out of our players. If we land two 5-star defensive linemen I want to see that they play like it. If we recruit multiple 4-star QBs I want them to play like it. If we have 20 olinemen to choose from, I want to see that a few of them can pass protect. These are general statements as there will be busts and sleepers that pan out. But if you recruit top 25 you should play like it generally speaking.

So for me success is winning the most with what you have. We should average close to 8 wins per year. Some years will be more and some years will be less, but with top 25 recruiting classes every year we should win about that many if our coaching staff gets the most out of their talent.

If our aspirations are more than that, you've got to start paying recruits. If you don't, complaining about not being better in football is silly.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

Success here, given our history, would be consistent 9-10 win seasons, with a trip to ATL every few years, and the very occasional trip to the CFP.

 

[midline]

Im learning that more and more on this board

You don't need to learn it from the board. The field of play speaks louder.

 

[kidrobinski]

Apparently, mediocrity is more than acceptable

Don’t know about that, but it IS historically normal.

 

[PalmettoG27]

An SEC Championship. 10 to 12 win seasons on a regular basis.... Of course I’ll settle for less for a few years building up to that. No Losses that makes us National Embarrassments. The UVA game, the LSU game, the app state game or the most recent Kentucky game to give a few examples of what I mean...... we need some actual “trophies” to our trophy case. Make a history to be proud of. Be ranked in the top 25 all the top of not top 10 or top 4..... stuff like that.

 

[Holy City Cock]

Before Spurrier arrived success at Carolina was win enough to go to a bowl, and occasionally beat Clemson. A 6-5 or 7-4 was considered a successful season. Call that the "Old Carolina". After Spurrier or the "New Carolina" success was winning at least 10 games, going to a New Year's bowl, always beating Clemson and contending for SEC East crowns every year. I think success now would be somewhere between the Old and the New Carolina. Consistently win 7, 8 or 9 games, beat Clemson at least 50% of the time and go to good bowl games. Also, it's to get the maximum effort from your players. Like someone mentioned, have a 5 star play like a 5 star. Hopefully contend for the East and SEC titles every 4 or 5 years.

 

[Balwiles]

I keep hearing that Beamer can be successful at CAROLINA by the sporting pundits. BUT what does that mean exactly? As an alumnus and fan, for the longest time (prior to our three 11 win seasons), I believed success meant 7 or more wins, an occasional win over our rival and a bowl bid. However, success to me now means winning the SEC and beating our rival more often than not.

So if you define success as just 7 or more wins, I believe Coach Beamer will eventually be successful. Is that what the pundits mean because not winning the SEC every year is not success at a school like Alabama.

There's never true homeostasis, but with that said:

SEC
Regularly finishing at least 3rd in the SEC East with a realistic push at the {East} Title every 3-4 years.

CU
Have a pulse. Win a game every few years. It's your rival. These games should be competitive and messy to spite any record. Not mind-numbing blowouts to close the season which make you wonder if we should continue the football program as a whole.

 

[JasonScottinSC]

I keep hearing that Beamer can be successful at CAROLINA by the sporting pundits. BUT what does that mean exactly? As an alumnus and fan, for the longest time (prior to our three 11 win seasons), I believed success meant 7 or more wins, an occasional win over our rival and a bowl bid. However, success to me now means winning the SEC and beating our rival more often than not.

So if you define success as just 7 or more wins, I believe Coach Beamer will eventually be successful. Is that what the pundits mean because not winning the SEC every year is not success at a school like Alabama.

For USC...it is possible to compete for SEC titles in football occasionally, but not likely to do it every year simply because schools such as GA and FL will always have more resources and more in-state talent. That being said, the right coach can do the following:
1) Get the program to the point where it is regularly beating the other non-powerhouses in the East: Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt. That is potential for 3 wins in most years.
2) Get to the point where you are beating TN more often than not. They used to be a power, but are not anymore.
3) Beat the 3 nonconference teams not named Clemson.

If you get the program to that level, it is reasonable to get 6-7 wins most years, which puts you in a bowl game.

Then....
1) If you get fortunate and play a crappy team from the SEC West, that could be another win.
2) Every year, GA, FL and Texas A&M will be games where USC will likely be underdogs, and for the foreseeable future, Clemson is there, too.

So maybe you get lucky and pull off an upset once in a while and all the other 50-50 games or games against equal or lesser teams go your way, it is reasonable to get the program to where it can win 8-9 games in many years. You pull off an upset in one of those years, and boom! You're a 10-win team. A lot has to happen, but it's not unreasonable to get to that level.

That being said.... in 115+ years of USC football, the only coach who really got USC there with consistency was Spurrier and it took him about 5 years to get there.

 

[vacock#]

Not being called U of SC.

 

[kidrobinski]

That being said.... in 115+ years of USC football, the only coach who really got USC there with consistency was Spurrier and it took him about 5 years to get there.

It still upsets me at the cavalier way this statement is thrown out.

Getting Spurrier as OUR coach still blows my mind; it was EVERY BIT the equivalent of getting Urban Meyer, and I'm not entirely sure it wasn't even more remarkable. Meyer aside from BG won big at Florida and Ohio State; not particularly unheard of. Spurrier won big at Duke and South Carolina in addition to Florida.

When it comes to defining "success" at USC, the fact that it took STEVE SPURRIER five years to get anything going here "speaks volumes" as message board writers like to say.

 

[DibbleDee]

It still upsets me at the cavalier way this statement is thrown out.

Getting Spurrier as OUR coach still blows my mind; it was EVERY BIT the equivalent of getting Urban Meyer, and I'm not entirely sure it wasn't even more remarkable. Meyer aside from BG won big at Florida and Ohio State; not particularly unheard of. Spurrier won big at Duke and South Carolina in addition to Florida.

When it comes to defining "success" at USC, the fact that it took STEVE SPURRIER five years to get anything going here "speaks volumes" as message board writers like to say.

Eh, I wouldn't go quite that far. Spurrier's reputation was dinged up from his disastrous stint in Washington. He needed to rehab his image a bit.

 

[uscg1984]

This is why Carolina will never be truly great. When beating your rival is the pinnacle of greatness your sights are set way too low.

Nobody said it was the pinnacle of greatness. We can all acknowledg there are different degrees of success, no? In the opinion of many die-hard Gamecock fans, beating Clemson is the minimum bar necessary for success. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

Nobody said it was the pinnacle of greatness. We can all acknowledg there are different degrees of success, no? In the opinion of many die-hard Gamecock fans, beating Clemson is the minimum bar necessary for success. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As someone once said, if you're good enough to win consistently in the SEC, the Clemson game will fall into place.

This does not change the fact that I want to beat them in EVERYTHING.

 

[kidrobinski]

Eh, I wouldn't go quite that far. Spurrier's reputation was dinged up from his disastrous stint in Washington. He needed to rehab his image a bit.

Thats not my recollection. I think Dan Snyder came out on the short end of that stick. Alabama went after him; indeed there were less "dings", if any. with Spurrier than there are with Meyer.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

Thats not my recollection. I think Dan Snyder came out on the short end of that stick. Alabama went after him; indeed there were less "dings", if any. with Spurrier than there are with Meyer.

The worst thing ever was having Daniel Snyder and SOS in the same facility. Those two personalities together is a recipe for disaster. #HTTR

 

[SpurrierWalkedOnBeer]

Not being called U of SC.

This should have a thousand likes.

 

[Goose cock]

Beat Clemson, win the sec

 

[ExpatCarolinian]

Beat Clemson, win the sec

Easy enough! Get to work Coach Beamer, make this happen.

 

[TheMuleCock]

Successful by our standards is winning 6 games a year. It’s like we’re comfortable at the mediocre - decent level and don’t expect more that that. I’m ready to become a contender for the SEC East every year. Beamer might work out, but he was a huge gamble. There is no evidence that he can get us there. Hope I’m wrong.

 

[kidrobinski]

The worst thing ever was having Daniel Snyder and SOS in the same facility. Those two personalities together is a recipe for disaster. #HTTR

The Redskins winning percentage since Snyder bought the team is 26%. He’s been through 8 coaches in his 17 years of ownership.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

The Redskins winning percentage since Snyder bought the team is 26%. He’s been through 8 coaches in his 17 years of ownership.

I'm well aware.