That my certainly be true. If hiring coaches was easy, so many wouldn't fail and be fired.
I guess I'm thinking, at that point, you're debating starting over with an unknown vs a proven (failed) commodity. At least, that is the way I look at it.
When Do We Get Rid of Franks' BOY ????
- Thread starter Southern Fried Chicken
- Start date
That my certainly be true. If hiring coaches was easy, so many wouldn't fail and be fired.
I guess I'm thinking, at that point, you're debating starting over with an unknown vs a proven (failed) commodity. At least, that is the way I look at it.
One of the topics has been NIL money. I still don't know how we compare NIL-wise to the other schools. But I got an eye-opener when I read that the new girls softball coach was talking about how she would use the NIL and Transfer Portal in building her program. Now I have no interest in women's softball. But her talking about NIL and the Transfer Portal in building her program ....WOMEN'S SOFTBALL.....tells me that we are not as NIL-poor as some try to make us out to be. I looked at the 5 new men's basketball signees. All 5 were rated a 4 star by at least one of the four recruiting services. And of course, the women won the national basketball championship. So, I don't buy that we are at a huge disadvantage NIL-wise to get players. If we are lacking vs other SEC programs, maybe we are not using NIL monies well. Our football recruiting is currently 11th in the 16-team SEC.
To me the difference having Beamer as head coach is simple. He WANTS to be here. Find me another coach anywhere that says Carolina is his dream job! Any coach that you would go out and replace Beamer with would use Carolina as a stepping stone at the first sign of success. If you don't believe that then you are fooling yourself!
This all sounds very familiar...as if someone else posted it originally?
You'll give him the 5 years because you have no choice in the matter.
In the meantime, you'll continue to bash and fawn over coaches we don't have.
So your argument is everything that hasn't already happened is just an opinion so nothing is worth ever projecting?
I hope you don't vote in elections.
My goodness, what did they start him off at, $2.5 million? Offer a position coach, which basically what he was, $2.5 million, he would crawl to Columbia for that job.
I don't think it's hard to disagree that we rolled the dice hiring someone who has never been a Head Coach. Hell, he has never even been OC nor DC. It will be obvious by his 5th season whether Beamer can get the job done. His career at SC thus far is eerily similar to Muschamp's year by year by year. Year 4 was not good. Then the bottom fell out in Year 5.
Your hope comes from the unknown. Maybe the next guy will be better than what we already have. How has that worked out in the past?
This is just a "white lie" he told to get the job. We were the only people dumb enough to actually hire him.
It's honestly sad people actually believe it.
It hasn't worked out very often because we fired Muschamp to hire a worse coach.
Doesn't mean that it wasn't time to move on from Muschamp.
Ok....then we fire him as usual and start the next 5 year clock. If Beamer's dad had started coaching in this day and time, he wouldn't be in the hall of fame today!
You are one unhappy dude! He works harder than any other coach I have seen at Carolina. Time will tell if he is a good coach but to call the man a liar when he has shown no examples of not giving Carolina his all is pitiful!
And now we've hit the only actual selling point for Beamer, his dad.
Why do you people keep talking about Muschamp? He was a proven loser at a school that it is hard to be a loser at and we hired him. That was just a dumb hire. To me Beamer was worth the shot.....Muschamp was a proven loser and never should have been hired, but think back to why he was hired. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THE JOB!!!
Only if it becomes obvious in 2025 that he cannot get the job done. We have no evidence that Shane is Head Coaching material. Virginia Tech had evidence that Frank was. In 5 years, Frank produced one Top 10 team, one Top 15 team and one Top 20 team at the Division 1-AA level.
I get the notion of him wanting to be here badly. It may even be true. It might also just be "coachspeak", or lip service, or any other name to describe him saying what he thinks we want to hear.
It was Stock who pointed out that we gave him a huge raise, and hired him for a position no o e else would have. It would. E easy for anyone to say the same as he did under those circumstances. But again, it may also be true. I don't think this being his dream job should change our opinion if he is "failing" though.
As for a guy that succeeds and moves on? That is certainly a risk. I tend to think that we would at least have that success though. Because someone would have to be more than a flash in the pan here for someone bigger to come snag hum. Imo. And that would be preferable to keeping someone who is failing. Again, imo.
Muschamp was hired because he was a tireless worker and competitor. As evidenced by how he recruited better than Beamer without the ability to directly pay players.
It's just so strange to me that people are literally arguing that we should just be content with losing and not care about results.
And yet Muschamp had done a better job through 3 years than Beamer. According to previously stated records.
OK that makes me know you are clueless....enjoy your misery my man. At least in your world, it makes you happy to believe that every 5 years a new savior is on the way. Gives you hope! LOL
You guys prove my point. These new hires come in and succeed with the previous coaches players. Then they go through a dip while their players gain experience. Then you impatient know it alls call for their firing before they can get their players in and gain experience and the cycle continues over and over and over again! It is insanity!
And evidentiary. If only we had that with Shane, there would be no concern about him. Now the only thing pushing for Shane is that "He WANTED the job". Now THAT is hilarious as well as worthy of shaking ones head and sad.
Tell me what coach in this country that could have won more games than Shane with the O-line he had after all the injuries. You call him a bad coach because of team injuries. That is ridiculous!
If Carolina hired a proven coach from the Div 1 AA level your heads would explode the first time he lost a game! Stop being so dishonest!
Last edited:
Can't agree with this. By year 5, the coach certainly has "their players" in.
Also, you're assumption means you think a coach who succeeded with the previous coach's players, then "dipped" with his own players will suddenly become a success given nothing but just more time.
Imo, if the coach fails through 5 years, that is ample time to determine if he will be a long term success.
Does anyone really think we should not have fired Woods, Scott and Muschamp? Seriously, those guys earned their dismissals. If Beamer has Muschamp-like 4th and 5th seasons, he will have earned his dismissal too.
Now you are talking like a crazy guy making up s_it. YOU are the one being dishonest. You know absolutely nothing about us. I'm willing to give Beamer a chance into Year 5. I have stated that on here. Why did you skate over that comment?
It is also your assumption that he won't succeed given more time. How is it these coaches come in and have a good year or two before taking a step back? Maybe it takes a little time to get them where they need to be.
I didn't skate over anything. It doesn't really matter what you are willing to give because in the grand scheme of things you and I don't matter. The hiring and firing will continue and you will go through your life as have I watching mediocre football until the day you die!
Where did I say he was a bad coach. I said I need to see more of what he does as coach. I'm shocked that you don't.
Let's say we're both making assumptions.
What are the odds though, that a failing coach will succeed given more than 5 years? Compared to the odds that a succeeding coach will succeed given more time?
Isn't one more likely?
I do agree about them needing more time, but I think 5 years is plenty of "more time" to make a judgement.
Hiring and then keeping coaches who prove to be over their heads does not work. Why keep a loser?
Isn't this proof that firing and hiring continuously doesn't work?[i/]
Does it? Or is it great examples of coaches that absolutely shouldn't have been kept on?
I think this falls back to what was said before. Is the risk of a new coach more than the risk of keeping a failing coach?
Does it? Or is it great examples of coaches that absolutely shouldn't have been kept on?
I think this falls back to what was said before. Is the risk of a new coach more than the risk of keeping a failing coach?
Exactly. 5 years is enough time to evaluate whether someone has the right stuff to be a Head Coach. Besides why would you want to give someone who has never proven to be Head Coaching material more than that?
I look at last year differently than most. With the O-line he had, I think it is a minor miracle that we beat UK, and should have beat Florida and played Clemson close. To me that was good coaching to keep that team together and playing hard until the very end. Nobody will give him credit for that though.
Yes You did. I said I was willing to give Beamer into Year 5. And you ignored that.
Well I said I was willing to go into a 5th season. How much more fair do you want us to be? It's not like I said fire him NOW.
Of course but the point that I am making and have been making the last hour is that NO coach has succeeded here long term so you have nothing to base your assumption. A coach clearly has more ways to change things fast today than at any other time in college football history, so maybe giving a coach some time and slack could work. Isn't that as good a theory as any?
Similar threads
