For clarification a HC (and staff)is not in charge of, or the administer of NIL monies in any capacity. In simple terms NIL deals are made between A) person/company and B) athlete for endorsements.
Last edited:
When Do We Get Rid of Franks' BOY ????
- Thread starter Southern Fried Chicken
- Start date
Yeah. This was my first thought on reading this. Technically correct.
But in my humble opinion, it's like saying we weren't paying players before NIL.
haha. sure.
This is one of the bigger issues with the fan sites running the NIL funds is that it's created a stronger bond with the coaches and why they basically don't allow any negative posts about Beamer.
Schools were cheating before we'd ever heard of NIL. Why stop now?
This is all a moot point beginning next year. The schools have been approved to pay athletes directly.
You might see a team like Vandy go wild as they have one of the largest endowment funds in the SEC.
A good part of the game is no longer being played on the field.
Last edited:
Yes, using your own words. "Created a bond". Not administrative
Per NCAA rules Coaches and AD's can't be involved in NIL deals.
Even if they could no one could really believe that any acting HC could have the time or the acumen to administer or negotiate . multiple NIL deals.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you, Harvard. That is the official, by the rules status.
I just think that people aren't playing by the rules. As Jacque said, schools were cheating before NIL. I just assume they are now too.
The question is to what degree.
You can stick your head in the sand but you will still be wrong. It's literally what the HC are doing now. That's why Jaden Rasahada sued Billy Napier directly.
Very few of these NIL deals are legitimate, they're almost exclusively pay for play.
Ray Tanner's administrative forte is fund-raising. I have no doubt that Ray has contacted corporations and weAlthy Gamecock fans to fund our NIL. That's why I am sure we are fine NIL- wise. The proof is in the Pudding. Our mens basketball coach, Lamont Paris is bringing in 5 new players for next season. ALL 5 are rated 4 Stars by at least one of the 4 recruiting Services. And Dawn Staley continues to recruit at a high Level. Is Beamer making as wise use of NIL money as our other coaches? Time will tell.
In our case with Wells it was pay to not play.
The basketball teams are funded with less than what we paid Rattler in a year.
Last edited:
Then even more impressed with Paris' and Staley's recruiting hauls.
Tanner is a great fundraiser, according to his supporters.
Tanner is a great fundraiser, according to his supporters.
$1.3 mil for the Baseball coach. Twice what they were paying. Someone is ponying up.
You call them good coaches (and they were) and we still didn't win anything of importance, and in the long run they failed just like every other coach that has taken the reigns at SC.
You are missing the point of the argument. I am fine with them being fired for not meeting expectations, but I also know a new coach won't change anything. That has been proven over and over again. I wonder what would happen if they were given more time? Hiring a new coach doesn't work so what would be the harm is basically my point.
The crazy thing is you think a new coach will solve anything you just said. Look at history......hiring and firing doesn't work.
Are any of the coaches better than Spurrier? I doubt it, so if Spurrier couldn't win consistently here, what makes you want these people?
Maybe they can make us bowl eligible more consistently? At this point, isn't that what you are saying is our ceiling?
Hiring a new coach who hasn't worked here is a chance. I don't believe it is a guaranteed failure, as you do.
Sticking with a known loser coach is much closer to a guaranteed failure,imo. By this logic, you are seriously arguing that we should still have Muschamp.
Yet, football was much more fun under them. It’s not always about winning championships. It’s about being competitive. And outside two week stretch, we’ve looked completely outclassed under Beamer.
Precisely. A new coach isn’t going to guarantee success. It just gives us an opportunity for success. Beamer has already shown he’s not capable of being successful.
You can't say that things wouldn't have gotten better....you can assume but nobody will ever know.
I don't see it....Beamer's games have been overwhelmingly competitive for the most part. When his teams are healthy for the most part he can compete and win.
I'm trying to say the same to you.
Edit: Perhaps if I put it another way. Taking the first name on watsons list, for example. You come across as guaranteeing that Rhett Lashlee will fail here, because muschamp and Scott were failures. I would argue that Lashlee has never coached here, so you can't say he's a guaranteed failure.
Last edited:
No they haven't. I did the math awhile back. He's lost by more than two touchdowns like 2.5 times the rate Muschamp did.
Just a quick reminder that all of the coaches for USC football throughout history have looked about the same (or worse) as what Beamer is doing over time.
The only real exception is Spurrier and that was primarily because he was a magnet for some top recruits.
The reason he was a magnet is because of his work at UF where top recruits flocked.
It's all about recruiting and always has been.
Now it's about coming up with enough money buy those recruits.
We'll probably never get close to $30mil (below), but at least Spurrier is now discussing the absolutely absurdity of no universal budget limit.
This quote also provides some insight as to what the top teams are actually spending at the moment.
Just wait until schools can officially jump into the fray next season.
“They’ve (the NCAA) gotta do something about it. I think they’ve got to come up with a budget. The Power Five teams, you’ve got $30 million to spend. If you want to give it all to the quarterback, that’s your business, but put a limit and let them spread it out and go from there. It will help even out things a little bit as far as getting recruiting back into the game,” Spurrier said on 95.3 WDAE (Tampa).
The only real exception is Spurrier and that was primarily because he was a magnet for some top recruits.
The reason he was a magnet is because of his work at UF where top recruits flocked.
It's all about recruiting and always has been.
Now it's about coming up with enough money buy those recruits.
We'll probably never get close to $30mil (below), but at least Spurrier is now discussing the absolutely absurdity of no universal budget limit.
This quote also provides some insight as to what the top teams are actually spending at the moment.
Just wait until schools can officially jump into the fray next season.
“They’ve (the NCAA) gotta do something about it. I think they’ve got to come up with a budget. The Power Five teams, you’ve got $30 million to spend. If you want to give it all to the quarterback, that’s your business, but put a limit and let them spread it out and go from there. It will help even out things a little bit as far as getting recruiting back into the game,” Spurrier said on 95.3 WDAE (Tampa).
Last edited:
I think everyone realizes the current model is unsustainable. It's just surviving it until it figures out the solution.
Agree. Why aren't you baking that into the equation with Beamer though? There's no historical comparative.
He's got a limited budget for recruits on the front end. Leaking top talent on the backend because of funding. And playing some of the toughest schedules we've seen to date.
Because that isn’t what is making Beamer fail.
Beamer wouldn’t be successful under any system. He’s a career TE coach that is only in the game because of his Father. You’ve seen it multiple times in this thread. The only selling point for him is that his dad was successful.
He’s just not a talented coach. That’s why no one even trusted him to call plays in a nearly 20 year career.
He has had everything handed to him as a favor to Frank but never stayed in any job long at all. And he was handed his current position. We're not serious about winning. Or even looking competent.
This is the story you tell yourself because you can't stand his face and weird energy.
He is 2 wins from our best after 3 seasons and dealing with this crazy new system.
Based on your analysis, we would have to assume you believe pretty much all of our coaches sucked throughout history outside of Spurrier.
Soon the two wins away will be 7 wins away. And I like how you keep comparing Beamer to one of the worst head coaches we've had in my lifetime.
If/When that happens, he'll be closer to the door. Right now, all you have is hyperbole.
I'm comparing him to every single coach we've ever had after three seasons.
Muschamp's best years were with Spurrier's players. Beamers best years were with Muschamp's players. It was all downhill after that with Chump. I'm afraid I'm seeing a repeat of that scenario now. But I did say that I thought the odds of Beamer being a failure were probably 90% or better. NO OTHER AD IN THE SEC would have played those odds. Ours did.
