Why does that matter? OK you are onboard for 5 years before firing him....got it.
When Do We Get Rid of Franks' BOY ????
- Thread starter Southern Fried Chicken
- Start date
True, but why do I get the feeling a certain couple of posters will post links to this thread, claiming they PROVE that you and I said he should be fired now?
I don't think you are unfair...it is the Chadwell lover that I find ridiculous.
Fire him only if he shows to be over his head. This is not the United Way.....a charity.
Honeslty, if a coach has more ways to change things, that is an argument for not giv8ng him more time. Meaning, if he was going to succeed, he should be doing it sooner.
But that's just nit picking by me.
You are right that no one has succeeded long term. But to me, that is not a good argument for retaining a failing coach. Odds are, if a coach fails in 5 years, he's going to fail in 10 too.
I understand your logic and it makes sense, but I will leave you to ponder this. Has firing a coach after 5 years worked at any point in USC football history? It is just a repetitive cycle.
Stock my be repeating that because some posters read him and I saying "evaluate after 5 years" and then complain that we want him fired now.
Also, and not to put words in his mouth, but I feel pointing out that evaluation should take 5 years means that the evaluation is plenty of time to make a good evaluation of a coach.
But is keeping a failing coach a good idea just because it's different?
(To be intentionally lighthearted) No fire department throws gas on a fire, but should one try it because it's something different?
Firing him now would be ridiculous and unfair. The same could be said after this coming season. He could be the answer. I'm not sure either way. I hope he is the answer. That is my preference. But I honestly don't know. I will say this about this coming season. He does not need to lose to any of the 4 "gimmes". I don't think we will. If he does, pressure will be coming from way above my pay grade. Just say'in
If everyone in life had that mindset, it would be a really sad world. We'll I haven't succeeded in 5 years so I should just give up. That is harsh! We don't have any evidence that patience won't work but we have seen the 5 year firing cycle fail time and time again!
Here is why I am skeptical of the 5 year firing mark. When most coaches take over a program it is because it is in bad shape. That makes recruiting hard that first year, so you might get lower quality athletes. Then you have your first year on the field and you are mediocre or slightly above average. That still makes recruiting hard. So you got 2 years of recruits that are not the finest of the crop. I just believe 5 years is pushing it and my evidence for this is how a new coach comes in with a new voice and seems to get more out of his players that first year than the old coach did. Development takes time when you don't have a bench full of 5 star athletes like Georgia and Alabama waiting their turn.
Who did we unfairly fire after 5 years? Woods, after the player revolt, Scott after winning one game in his 5th season, Muschamp after losing to App State in Year 4, finishing 4-8 and then opening 2-5 in Year 5 ?Surely you were not in favor of keeping any of them. Or were you?
I think you know what happens when you throw gas on a fire. Nobody knows what patience will do for a football team. Not really comparing apples to apples here.
Muschamp recruited well here. He came in with a reputation of being a strong recruiter.
Oh I didn't mind any of them being fired, but I also have seen that firing the coach doesn't change a damn thing.
Exactly and his players are now thriving. That is my point. Patience might have solved the problem. Patience may have proven he was a terrible coach, but we won't know because he was fired and the cycle begins again.
I don't think firing underperformed people after 5 years makes for a sad world. If anything, I think that's generous given other professions.
And to be fair, the firing of coaches to try for something better has succeeded for teams before too.
I disagree (obviously). I think we can easily say that Muschamp has proven to be a failure of a coach.
Honestly, I think it is a disservice to your argument that applied earlier, means you think Muschamp should still be coaching here.
I did say I was being intentionally lighthearted. But the point stands in my mind, you don't do something stupid just because it hasn't been done before.
Not talking about other teams.... we are talking South Carolina. There is a history here that can't be ignored and firing and hiring coaches has never made one ounce of difference!
Last edited:
Muschamp in all honesty was a bad coach. His decision making was questionable on and off the field but I don't think it was because the quality of his players he brought in.
You are asserting it is stupid though to give a coach more time than what is common these days and that is where I disagree. It may be stupid to you but firing the coach and hiring the next best thing and failing every single time is stupid too!
I just can't buy the "chicken curse" for lack of a better description. Trying to hire a good coach should not be thought of as an impossibility, imo, just because of our school.
But keeping a failing coach will fail every single time too, right? Since he's already shown to be a failure?
The obvious difference I believe from your example is that I don't think hiring a new coach is a guaranteed failure.
I will give you this. It may be better to hold onto Beamer until Ray is gone. If Beamer goes the way I think he will, Ray should NOT be given another chance to hire a football coach.
Like I said earlier...if what you said was true, Beamer Sr would not be in the hall of fame today.
Thanks for the chat fellas. Hopefully Beamer proves all his naysayers wrong and USC football thrives. Only time will tell. Have a good evening.
But that was not a our school? Would I be too sarcastic to use your own comment about it not working here, even if it did somewhere else?
But to be fair, Beamer Sr. had success as a head coach prior to VT. I think that made him less of a gamble to keep around. But that is opinion.
I agree 36 it does not change a thing when the replacement decision is screwed. I hope that Beamer works out. You know why? Because they may end up making another poor hire. I was against the hiring of Muschamp and against the hiring of Beamer. Why in the world did they hire a "failed Head Coach" in Muschamp? After throwing the dice for Muschamp, why did they throw the dice again with someone who has never been a Head Coach nor a OC or DC? smh
I know you mean well and are a loyal Gamecock and want nothing but the best for them. Same here.
I will say one last thing before I hang it up. If Beamer fails, after hiring a failed Head Coach (Muschamp) and replacing him with someone (Beamer) who has never been a Head Coach, they won't roll the dice a 3rd straight time. They will look back at our history and hire the kind of coach who has had some success here over the course of some seasons: a proven, successful Head Coach from a FBS school, most likely a lower level FBS school. After all, as philosopher Edmund Burke said,
"Those who ignore history, are doomed and condemned to repeat it."
"Those who ignore history, are doomed and condemned to repeat it."
Or maybe we've just hired a lot of bad coaches outside of Spurrier, Holtz and Morrison?
This just shows your argument isn't genuine.
What about Beamer shows he's better than Muschamp? Literally nothing so far. But you were ok with firing Muschamp after 5 years (and he should have been fired after 4 years).
Can't compare Beamer's tenure with Muschamp's until he's been here just as long- not even counting the fact that Texas and OU will be in the league this year making the schedule even more daunting.
Coach Staley had 2 losing seasons in a row, and was barely above .500 her 3rd year before turning it around in year 4. I think most fans would say turning around a basketball team is easier than a football team given you can make significant progress in basketball with just 1-2 players.
Some of these comparisons are ludicrously silly and nothing said here matters and is a waste of time. Beamer could win 12 games and some of you are going to be mad at him and upset that he was hired. It's par for the course at this point.
Arguing about it like damn 3 year olds in June is idiiotic.
We'll see how this season goes, and then see how next year goes and then we will have a fair comparison.
We added Oklahoma and get to skip playing UGA, UF, and Tennessee. The schedule actually has gotten easier for Beamer
Dawn also didn't have NIL.
If he goes 5-7, you're excited about season 5?
I'd gladly take UF and Tennessee over playing Alabama, Oklahoma, LSU and Ole Miss- some of the hottest teams going right now, and we'll see how A & M goes- but they are always almost impossible for us.
Losing out on playing Florida is actually a bad thing given Florida's not exactly looking that impressive. We all know what we did to take Tenn apart last time in Columbia.
Even as great as Dawn was, we had 2 losing seasons with her and almost a 3rd before things turned.
Everyone has the NIL. Shane doesn't get to use NIL by himself. Our opponents do too.
So, your logic is silly.
Yes, I'm excited for every football season. When the promise and anticipation of a new season isn't exciting at all anymore, I'll quit following the sport.
Plus, my son is in the marching band. So, I'm excited regardless.
What I also know is arguing about it like a damn fool in June when you don't have a clue about what is going to happen is a waste of time.
Maybe you haven't looked at the schedule, but we ARE playing Alabama this year. We have basically replaced UGA, Tennessee, and Florida with Alabama, LSU, and Oklahoma. Pretty much a wash. With the lack of quality SEC caliber recruiting it doesn't matter whether it is year 3 or year 8, the results are fairly predictable.
Then why do you care if we replace our coach if the wins and losses are irrelevant to you?
You left out #9 Ole Miss. This is a very tough schedule. With UK also on the road, we won't be favored in any home SEC games this season. That will be a first.
Talking to you is like talking to someone whose brain is fried on drugs. Maybe that is it.
1) I never said wins and losses are irrelevant.
2) I didn't say anything about never replacing a coach. I don't have any reason to replace our current coach for the sake of replacing him. I want to give him a fair chance and that's what he's going to get no matter how much you whine and cry about it. I'm in agreement with that decision.
