When Do We Get Rid of Franks' BOY ????

[gamecock stock]

Stock - The reason why the portal is such a big deal in this new era is because you can buy players. So now players bounce in and out of schools chasing the dollar. That wasn't the case during Muschamp. Comeon.

Ward , I know which era had the Portal. We have the use of the Portal as well. And in fact, have done well with the Portal.
Back in the Muschamp era, he recruited under the rules of that day, just like Beamer recruits under the rules of today. It's not a situation where our opponents have the Portal available to them but, we don't. We all have the Portal available.

 

[Ward Jr]

Nothing personal about it. I'm sure he's a good husband and father and a great guy. He's not head coach material.

Explain why.

 

[Ward Jr]

Ward , I know which era had the Portal. We have the use of the Portal as well. And in fact, have done well with the Portal.
Back in the Muschamp era, he recruited under the rules of that day, just like Beamer recruits under the rules of today. It's not a situation where our opponents have the Portal available to them but, we don't. We all have the Portal available.

Here's the punchline -- It's all dictated by money now and it wasn't during the Muschamp era.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Explain why.

You don't think we landed on the moon. Explain why.

 

[gamecock stock]

Explain why.

Be careful, Ward. Jacque is quoting The Godfather. LOL Would hate to see a horses head in your bed in the morning. LOL

 

[gamecock stock]

Here's the punchline -- It's all dictated by money now and it wasn't during the Muschamp era.

And the same rules apply to each team in their respective eras.

 

[Ward Jr]

You don't think we landed on the moon. Explain why.

I question it like many do and supported my position in that thread. This is a different thread.

The problem is that you, Stock, Lurker and all of the other usual suspects don't have an answer to that one basic question.

 

[uscwatson21]

Nothing personal about it. I'm sure he's a good husband and father and a great guy. He's not head coach material and we will suffer as a program because of it. Maybe bury us so low we'll never see daylight again.

That is the absolute worst part of all this. This is a time of enormous change and having an incapable coach can have serious long-term effects that weren't a risk 10-15 years ago.

 

[Ward Jr]

And the same rules apply to each team in their respective eras.

You sound like Watson. I have no idea what you're talking about.

In this era, if you have $3mil to spend on a team and another team has $12-15mil to spend on a team each and every year, how's that going to work out over time?

 

[uscwatson21]

You sound like Watson. I have no idea what you're talking about.

In this era, if you have $3mil to spend on a team and another team has $12-15mil to spend on a team each and every year, how's that going to work out over time?

But you don't even know how much each team has and you're using it as the excuse even though players have said they didn't leave just for money.

 

[Ward Jr]

But you don't even know how much each team has and you're using it as the excuse even though players have said they didn't leave just for money.

Watson - You've written the same lame one liners for years.

You're long on criticism and short on substance.

Let's do this again this season and see if you can come up with anything this time.

Explain to us all WHY Beamer is a poor coach as of today and why he should be switched out with another big bailout and new coach search.

 

[gamecock stock]

I question it like many do and supported my position in that thread. This is a different thread.

The problem is that you, Stock, Lurker and all of the other usual suspects don't have an answer to that one basic question.

Ward, I don't know how I can be more clear so that you can understand. I have an open mind. I want to see what he does this year. I was disappointed in Beamers inaction on at least 2 staff positions. And I'm still unsure about his hiring of Loggains the year before, who was called the worst OC in the NFL. And last year's offense did not give me confidence in Loggains. GoCocks...(.I can't remember his total handle), who was a huge supporter of Satterfield told us that Loggains offensive numbers were worse than Satterfields. Therefore, I want to wait to see how we do this season. I suspect I will conclude, he is the right man or will say that 2025 will determine his fate.

 

[gamecock stock]

You sound like Watson. I have no idea what you're talking about.

In this era, if you have $3mil to spend on a team and another team has $12-15mil to spend on a team each and every year, how's that going to work out over time?

I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up.

Let me put it this way, maybe you will understand, but I suspect not:

Let's say that in the Muschamp era, all teams could use knives, but only knives in a fight. No advantage or disadvantage to any team. Everybody can use knives.

In the Beamer era, knives are still available if you want to use them. But now, all teams can bring guns to the fight.

Different era, different rules, but rules that apply to all.

 

[uscwatson21]

I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up.

Let me put it this way, maybe you will understand, but I suspect not:

Let's say that in the Muschamp era, all teams could use knives, but only knives in a fight. No advantage or disadvantage to any team. Everybody can use knives.

In the Beamer era, knives are still available if you want to use them. But now, all teams can bring guns to the fight.

Different era, different rules, but rules that apply to all.

He's just arguing in bad faith...as always.

 

[Ward Jr]

I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up.

Let me put it this way, maybe you will understand, but I suspect not:

Let's say that in the Muschamp era, all teams could use knives, but only knives in a fight. No advantage or disadvantage to any team. Everybody can use knives.

In the Beamer era, knives are still available if you want to use them. But now, all teams can bring guns to the fight.

Different era, different rules, but rules that apply to all.

Ha. Yeah - I still don't get it. If this is a gun era, we've got a pea-shooter while other teams have a AK-15. Moneyball.

 

[gamecock stock]

Ha. Yeah - I still don't get it. If this is a gun era, we've got a pea-shooter while other teams have a AK-15. Moneyball.

At least your response gave me a good laugh. And laughter extends ones life.

 

[uscjunkie36]

Muschamp did a better job than Beamer.

You're the one that's terrible at this because your'e just going to always claim, "he wouldn't come here! we don't know he would do better!"

I've already given you someone that interviewed and would have done a better job than Beamer.

You state things as facts when clearly they are YOUR opinion. Do you not know the difference between fact and opinion?

 

[Lurker123]

Read what I'm saying.

Ward , I know which era had the Portal. We have the use of the Portal as well.

And the same rules apply to each team in their respective eras.

Ward, I don't know how I can be more clear so that you can understand.

I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up.

Interesting isn't it? Almost like he's pretending not to understand, only to drag the argument out longer. Like he's arguing as Watson says "in bad faith".

I think it's pretty obvious now.

 

[Lurker123]

You state things as facts when clearly they are YOUR opinion. Do you not know the difference between fact and opinion?

You know that Stock posted facts not opinion to back this up, right?

Muschamp record after 3 seasons: overall 22-17 and SEC 12-12

Beamer 20-18 and 10-14

Muschamp has done better in his first 3 seasons than Beamer, according to the numbers.

 

[Lurker123]

No, I have not. What I know is that Lurker has not posted that to me.

We're still waiting on quotes in that thread, aren't we?

 

[uscjunkie36]

Crazy you're not asking yourself why the 4 top players no longer wanted to play for Beamer.

Because it wasn't about Beamer,.......it was about CASH! Duh

 

[uscjunkie36]

Nothing personal about it. I'm sure he's a good husband and father and a great guy. He's not head coach material and we will suffer as a program because of it. Maybe bury us so low we'll never see daylight again.

If you think Beamer is that bad then you definitely haven't been a Carolina fan very long!

 

[Lurker123]

You don't think we landed on the moon. Explain why.

There are two options here. He honestly doesn't believe it, which is too ludicrous to accept.

Or he takes that stance to troll you and generate responses.

Which do you think is more likely?

 

[Ward Jr]

Interesting isn't it? Almost like he's pretending not to understand, only to drag the argument out longer. Like he's arguing as Watson says "in bad faith".

I think it's pretty obvious now.

Trolling. You make sense of this Lurker and let us know what it means. No cherrypicking lines. Please explain the entire interaction.

 

[uscjunkie36]

You know that Stock posted facts not opinion to back this up, right?

Muschamp record after 3 seasons: overall 22-17 and SEC 12-12

Beamer 20-18 and 10-14

Muschamp has done better in his first 3 seasons than Beamer, according to the numbers.

That is not what I was referring to....he keeps stating Chadwell would have been better than Beamer as if it is some kind of fact. Record doesn't always tell the whole story. Injuries on the O-line kept this team from reaching it's true potential (and a 🐱 receiver that refused to play) last year. That team was better than their final record but it is what it is.

 

[DeeDave]

Muschamp did a better job than Beamer.

You're the one that's terrible at this because your'e just going to always claim, "he wouldn't come here! we don't know he would do better!"

I've already given you someone that interviewed and would have done a better job than Beamer.

Muschamp was here for almost 5 seasons. Never beat Clemson.

I know you aren't interested in being fair but those of us who want to be fair realize comparing their tenure will make sense when Beamer has been here as long as Muschamp.

You provided a name of someone. That's all you did and call you could do. It's not proof of anything but your own opinion, which is worthless.

There is no evidence that Chadwell, or anyone else, would have done anything different/better (or worse) than Beamer at South Carolina. Being the head coach at Liberty for one season, or Coastal for 300 seasons doesn't mean someone is going to win at South Carolina.

 

[uscjunkie36]

That is the absolute worst part of all this. This is a time of enormous change and having an incapable coach can have serious long-term effects that weren't a risk 10-15 years ago.

Do you believe the stuff you say or do you just like to cause drama with hyperbolic rhetoric? With the transfer portal now the way it is, coaches have a better chance than ever to change things quickly and right their programs if things aren't going well.

 

[Lurker123]

That is not what I was referring to....he keeps stating Chadwell would have been better than Beamer as if it is some kind of fact. Record doesn't always tell the whole story. Injuries on the O-line kept this team from reaching it's true potential (and a 🐱 receiver that refused to play) last year. That team was better than their final record but it is what it is.

Ah, i see he had multiple statements , and i was incorrect about which one you were referring to.

Chadwell certainly had a much better resume than Beamerthough, right?

It is not a fact that Chadwell would have done better, but there's certainly evidence that he was/is better prepared at being a head coach.

I don't think it's really a stretch to believe it, but agree it's not a fact.

 

[Ward Jr]

Ah, i see he had multiple statements , and i was incorrect about which one you were referring to.

Chadwell certainly had a much better resume than Beamerthough, right?

It is not a fact that Chadwell would have done better, but there's certainly evidence that he was/is better prepared at being a head coach.

I don't think it's really a stretch to believe it, but agree it's not a fact.

Quite amazing you knuckleheads are going to recycle Chadwell for another season but here we are.

 

[uscwatson21]

You state things as facts when clearly they are YOUR opinion. Do you not know the difference between fact and opinion?

What? It's a fact that Muschamp did better than Beamer.

 

[uscjunkie36]

Ah, i see he had multiple statements , and i was incorrect about which one you were referring to.

Chadwell certainly had a much better resume than Beamerthough, right?

It is not a fact that Chadwell would have done better, but there's certainly evidence that he was/is better prepared at being a head coach.

I don't think it's really a stretch to believe it, but agree it's

Ah, i see he had multiple statements , and i was incorrect about which one you were referring to.

Chadwell certainly had a much better resume than Beamerthough, right?

It is not a fact that Chadwell would have done better, but there's certainly evidence that he was/is better prepared at being a head coach.

I don't think it's really a stretch to believe it, but agree it's not a fact.

I have seen way better coaches with way better resumes come to Carolina and fail, so to think Chadwell is the savior is laughable!

 

[Lurker123]

I have seen way better coaches with way better resumes come to Carolina and fail, so to think Chadwell is the savior is laughable!

That is certainly one opinion. I was referring to your comparison of Beamer to Chadwell though. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think Chadwell could have done just as well or better than Beamer.

 

[uscwatson21]

I have seen way better coaches with way better resumes come to Carolina and fail, so to think Chadwell is the savior is laughable!

Maybe so.

But I would rather fail with a coach that gives me hope, not one that was obviously going to be a failure from the beginning.

 

[Ward Jr]

That is certainly one opinion. I was referring to your comparison of Beamer to Chadwell though. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think Chadwell could have done just as well or better than Beamer.

OK. Now what?

I think Carrot Top would be a better OC than Loggains.

However, I don't have a good reason and $15m for the AD to run my muse.

You're arguing with the wind.

 

[uscjunkie36]

That is certainly one opinion. I was referring to your comparison of Beamer to Chadwell though. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think Chadwell could have done just as well or better than Beamer.

Oh I don't think he would have done any better or worse than Beamer has to this point. It is crazy that people are so critical of Beamer after only 2 years. To me that just shows a personal dislike for the man and having nothing to do with football.

 

[uscjunkie36]

Maybe so.

But I would rather fail with a coach that gives me hope, not one that was obviously going to be a failure from the beginning.

Once again with the opinions. I don't think you would have hope if Bear Bryant was the coach. No coach is a failure after just 2 seasons. You just don't like the guy.....just admit it.

 

[Lurker123]

Oh I don't think he would have done any better or worse than Beamer has to this point. It is crazy that people are so critical of Beamer after only 2 years. To me that just shows a personal dislike for the man and having nothing to do with football.

You know he's been a coach for 3 years, right?

But given the "out of left field" nature of his hire, you can understand why people are wanting a bit of proof before claiming him a success, right?

And I admit, I am making an assumption on the upcoming year being another missed bowl. He can certainly regain momentum by winning at least 6.

But what I'm assuming (and i know its an assumption) is that we are heading into his pivotal year 5 having missed two straight bowls, and facing the same schedule we are complaining about this year.

It's certainly speculation on my part, not fact. But it's also very likely.

 

[uscjunkie36]

You know he's been a coach for 3 years, right?

But given the "out of left field" nature of his hire, you can understand why people are wanting a bit of proof before claiming him a success, right?

And I admit, I am making an assumption on the upcoming year being another missed bowl. He can certainly regain momentum by winning at least 6.

But what I'm assuming (and i know its an assumption) is that we are heading into his pivotal year 5 having missed two straight bowls, and facing the same schedule we are complaining about this year.

It's certainly speculation on my part, not fact. But it's also very likely.

OK I don't disagree with anything you said, but do you really think firing him and starting new is going to make one bit of difference? History tells us the answer! If you fire Beamer, the players that love him leave and we start from scratch again with nothing. It just makes no sense!

 

[Lurker123]

OK I don't disagree with anything you said, but do you really think firing him and starting new is going to make one bit of difference? History tells us the answer! If you fire Beamer, the players that love him leave and we start from scratch again with nothing. It just makes no sense!

I think that if he isn't getting us to bowls, then 5 years is enough to judge him on and move on.

That means he has this year and next.

5 years is longer than the average tenure of college coaches, so I think it's a fair amount of time to judge.

I get what you are saying about starting over, and it's true. But at that point, you'd be debating the pain of starting over vs the pain of keeping a guy that you can reasonably say is not succeeding. Keeping a guy like that around can have it's own list of problems.

I'll add the caveat that I've stated many times. Beamer should get 5 years to prove his worth unless the wheels completely fall off this year. I don't think he'll succeed (different than the hope) but he is the coach, and deserves a shot. It'd have to be a total meltdown to bring that up a year.

 

[uscjunkie36]

I think that if he isn't getting us to bowls, then 5 years is enough to judge him on and move on.

That means he has this year and next.

5 years is longer than the average tenure of college coaches, so I think it's a fair amount of time to judge.

I get what you are saying about starting over, and it's true. But at that point, you'd be debating the pain of starting over vs the pain of keeping a guy that you can reasonably say is not succeeding. Keeping a guy like that around can have it's own list of problems.

I'll add the caveat that I've stated many times. Beamer should get 5 years to prove his worth unless the wheels completely fall off this year. I don't think he'll succeed (different than the hope) but he is the coach, and deserves a shot. It'd have to be a total meltdown to bring that up a year.

Yea 5 years is a good indicator, but I still say no matter who you go hire, in 5 years you'll be doing it again!