Which is the biggest ROOT PROBLEM with the state of athletics at USC, Ray Tanner or the BOT?

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

If it's the BOTs then firing Ray will only put a Band-Aid on our problems. I know several things have been discussed about how the BOT members are appointed but we need to get the politics out of the selection process (which is the biggest understatement of the year) LOL! But, the fact remains if changes aren't made to the BOT appointments, our great great great grandchildren will be on GCC complaining about the same thing.

 

[vacock#]

I’m not sure what politics has to do with being a trustee supporting a quality university and athletics. Isn’t it more of an individual approach? I agree that it’s the BOT.

 

[winloseortie]

YES

 

[GMCCK97nHTWN]

Magoo is symptomatic of the underlying disease.

You want to create meaningful, transformative change, then you start by dragging the good ‘ol boy system of establishing our BOT into the 21st century.

We are an institution of higher learning. Yet, when it comes to the powers that be, we never learn a damn thing.

 

[gamecock stock]

Not an easy question to answer.I think the Muschamp hire was more a Tanner decision. I think the Beamer hire found more BOT involvement. Since the BOT hired Ray, I would say they are the problem. But, I know little and claim less.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

For either Ray or the BOT to be the root of the problem, the problems would have had to start with them. The problems long pre-date Ray or the BOT.

 

[fowl_mood]

Settle in, here we go..

If the problem is the selection process...and it is for our staff and BOT, then we need a new approach.

Judging how the electorate chooses leaders, making the BOT selection process more political will do nothing. And, hiring staff starts with the hiring "individual." (No, not AI until the robots make us do it.)

Given these new realities, the BOT will always be a problem. It was because too few had input; it will be because too many will.
We missed our chance there.

Minimizing the BOT input in hiring interference is still the key.

Somehow, USC, and eventually all organizations must find a way to give the President/CEO more power and more ability to manage up against the board and undue outside influence.

Leadership can't function if it's being eroded by powerful outside forces from day 1. We see it everyday. Group leadership by its nature is inherently awful. We need to accept that, and we need a new model.

1. Insulate staff leadership from all civil liability and redirect any such grievance if it exists to the hiring entity. (The Board) All financial settlements paid by the State.)

2. Provide the President with an ongoing grievance process against individual board members.

3. Provide President with amnesty for non criminal indiscretions prior to hiring. Rather route that complaint to the Board, who can own it or dismiss it.

4. Change executive comp. Pay new Presidents a large signing bonus, then place a large portion of pay at risk, based solely on job performance and success of accountable functions. Provide a pay back of bonus portions for decisions which are criminal or negligent.

5. Board members should be fully compensated and fully accountable to whomever is choosing them. Who knows where that ends up, but they will be poor choices in any case.

6. Removal of the President requires full Board approval, two thirds legislative approval and Gubernatorial signoff.

The world is demanding stronger leadership while simultaneously ripping it to threads. Like it or not, we are heading toward more authoritarian leadership, or, none at all.

Where we are headed now, no one you want will want to lead.

 

[USC2USC]

If it's the BOTs then firing Ray will only put a Band-Aid on our problems. I know several things have been discussed about how the BOT members are appointed but we need to get the politics out of the selection process (which is the biggest understatement of the year) LOL! But, the fact remains if changes aren't made to the BOT appointments, our great great great grandchildren will be on GCC complaining about the same thing.

Regardless of the answer to your question, replacing Ray Tanner undoubtedly has the most potential of quick improvement.

 

[Cockish]

All I know is that clempson gets it and WE (the University powers that be) DON'T.

 

[GMCCK97nHTWN]

Settle in, here we go..

If the problem is the selection process...and it is for our staff and BOT, then we need a new approach.

Judging how the electorate chooses leaders, making the BOT selection process more political will do nothing. And, hiring staff starts with the hiring "individual." (No, not AI until the robots make us do it.)

Given these new realities, the BOT will always be a problem. It was because too few had input; it will be because too many will.
We missed our chance there.

Minimizing the BOT input in hiring interference is still the key.

Somehow, USC, and eventually all organizations must find a way to give the President/CEO more power and more ability to manage up against the board and undue outside influence.

Leadership can't function if it's being eroded by powerful outside forces from day 1. We see it everyday. Group leadership by its nature is inherently awful. We need to accept that, and we need a new model.

1. Insulate staff leadership from all civil liability and redirect any such grievance if it exists to the hiring entity. (The Board) All financial settlements paid by the State.)

2. Provide the President with an ongoing grievance process against individual board members.

3. Provide President with amnesty for non criminal indiscretions prior to hiring. Rather route that complaint to the Board, who can own it or dismiss it.

4. Change executive comp. Pay new Presidents a large signing bonus, then place a large portion of pay at risk, based solely on job performance and success of accountable functions. Provide a pay back of bonus portions for decisions which are criminal or negligent.

5. Board members should be fully compensated and fully accountable to whomever is choosing them. Who knows where that ends up, but they will be poor choices in any case.

6. Removal of the President requires full Board approval, two thirds legislative approval and Gubernatorial signoff.

The world is demanding stronger leadership while simultaneously ripping it to threads. Like it or not, we are heading toward more authoritarian leadership, or, none at all.

Where we are headed now, no one you want will want to lead.

Well thought out.

There should definitely be limits on service.

A far greater diversity in professional backgrounds and skillsets.

I’m not against having to be an alum, but can see the merits of not having that as a mandate for all. Still, a majority should be, and perhaps they usually are.

This assignment of seats by Circuit is asinine. That just invites political cronyism.

Again, as an institution of higher learning (flagship University no less), we sure do really stupid things.

 

[mrbigal#]

Settle in, here we go..

If the problem is the selection process...and it is for our staff and BOT, then we need a new approach.

Judging how the electorate chooses leaders, making the BOT selection process more political will do nothing. And, hiring staff starts with the hiring "individual." (No, not AI until the robots make us do it.)

Given these new realities, the BOT will always be a problem. It was because too few had input; it will be because too many will.
We missed our chance there.

Minimizing the BOT input in hiring interference is still the key.

Somehow, USC, and eventually all organizations must find a way to give the President/CEO more power and more ability to manage up against the board and undue outside influence.

Leadership can't function if it's being eroded by powerful outside forces from day 1. We see it everyday. Group leadership by its nature is inherently awful. We need to accept that, and we need a new model.

1. Insulate staff leadership from all civil liability and redirect any such grievance if it exists to the hiring entity. (The Board) All financial settlements paid by the State.)

2. Provide the President with an ongoing grievance process against individual board members.

3. Provide President with amnesty for non criminal indiscretions prior to hiring. Rather route that complaint to the Board, who can own it or dismiss it.

4. Change executive comp. Pay new Presidents a large signing bonus, then place a large portion of pay at risk, based solely on job performance and success of accountable functions. Provide a pay back of bonus portions for decisions which are criminal or negligent.

5. Board members should be fully compensated and fully accountable to whomever is choosing them. Who knows where that ends up, but they will be poor choices in any case.

6. Removal of the President requires full Board approval, two thirds legislative approval and Gubernatorial signoff.

The world is demanding stronger leadership while simultaneously ripping it to threads. Like it or not, we are heading toward more authoritarian leadership, or, none at all.

Where we are headed now, no one you want will want to lead.

Probably the most disturbing post I’ve read on this board since 1999.

 

[davidusc]

I think it’s fans asking questions like this. I mean WTF?

 

[Whiterockcock69]

Danny Ford said at a TD Club meeting that our University is not a place he would coach at until we made some changes, pointing from Seawell’s up toward the capitol building. I really don’t know details but I know some who do, or think they do.
On another note, our University and my Alma Mater don’t do the little things very well. And I’m not talking managing donor relations with some of our largest donors (Darla Moore), to the point of sheer embarrassment and loss of financial support. You don’t remove them from your board. You don’t not sign contracts. You don’t disappoint a bunch of talented baseball players by not showing up when you have scheduled a day camp…wet field, locked doors, etc You’ve got to do the “little things” right all the time. Clemson beats us to death on things like that.

 

[cockhornleghorn]

I think the root of the problem is the State Legislature manifested through the BOT.

 

[cockhornleghorn]

I’m not sure what politics has to do with being a trustee supporting a quality university and athletics. Isn’t it more of an individual approach? I agree that it’s the BOT.

They're appointed by the State Legislature and they're often people who have made large donations or raised a lot of money for politicians. They are frequently not even USC graduates.

 

[world famous 3rd base hecklers]

If it's the BOTs then firing Ray will only put a Band-Aid on our problems. I know several things have been discussed about how the BOT members are appointed but we need to get the politics out of the selection process (which is the biggest understatement of the year) LOL! But, the fact remains if changes aren't made to the BOT appointments, our great great great grandchildren will be on GCC complaining about the same thing.

Both...

 

[mrbigal#]

They're appointed by the State Legislature and they're often people who have made large donations or raised a lot of money for politicians. They are frequently not even USC graduates.

Agreed, except to say they’re elected by the Legislature.

 

[OldWiseCock]

The BOT has been what it is now for a long time, and every effort to change it has been thwarted. We need an AD and a University President with a backbone. When there is a leadership vacuum at the top the BOT and Governor tend to get more involved in operations than they should. That leads to mischief.

 

[USC2USC]

The BOT has been what it is now for a long time, and every effort to change it has been thwarted. We need an AD and a University President with a backbone. When there is a leadership vacuum at the top the BOT and Governor tend to get more involved in operations than they should. That leads to mischief.

What ^he^ said.

The Caslen thing was a total disaster for the university on many levels. Some of us knew it going in.

 

[polo-loco]

BOT. And increasingly the heehaws in the legislature. They provide 10% of the budget. They should get 10% of the say.

 

[turncock]

They're appointed by the State Legislature and they're often people who have made large donations or raised a lot of money for politicians. They are frequently not even USC graduates.

This. USC's issues are America's issues on a local scale. There are people who have been in power far too long due to inherent flaws in the system.

 

[CockofEarle]

If it's the BOTs then firing Ray will only put a Band-Aid on our problems. I know several things have been discussed about how the BOT members are appointed but we need to get the politics out of the selection process (which is the biggest understatement of the year) LOL! But, the fact remains if changes aren't made to the BOT appointments, our great great great grandchildren will be on GCC complaining about the same thing.

To paraphrase Jim Carlen, “I will not go to Barnwell“.

 

[Jbouton2]

To paraphrase Jim Carlen, “I will not go to Barnwell“.

Come on man, grew up in Barnwell 🤣. The "Barnwell Ring", many know about this.

 

[CockySC01]

Our problems are Ray and da’ board.

 

[rogue cock]

I find it interesting the number of posters who are willing to criticize the BOT for pissing off our largest donors to the University, YET are willing to chance the same result with our large athletic donors by firing Tanner. Especially since Tanner is supposed to retire at the end of his current contract in July 2024.

This board can definitely be schizophrenic.

 

[OldWiseCock]

I find it interesting the number of posters who are willing to criticize the BOT for pissing off our largest donors to the University, YET are willing to chance the same result with our large athletic donors by firing Tanner. Especially since Tanner is supposed to retire at the end of his current contract in July 2024.

This board can definitely be schizophrenic.

Do you think if Tanner were fired and a professional AD were brought in that those donors would stop giving money?

I don't.

 

[rogue cock]

Do you think if Tanner were fired and a professional AD were brought in that those donors would stop giving money?

I don't.

I know he's got a great relationship with several of them. Our former AD did not (same issue he had a TAMU). They like him a lot so it's hard to say how they would react. They probably wouldn't like him being fired....at all.

 

[RileyCock]

Do you think if Tanner were fired and a professional AD were brought in that those donors would stop giving money?

I don't.

Okay. Suppose they did fire Ray and bring in a "professional AD." What would change?

Y'all want to fire Beamer? I don't think so.

So, y'all want to fire Martin? Ray wanted to fire Martin last year and didn't have the authority to do it. The board said no to his recommendation. If Martin gets sacked after this season it will be because the Board is ready to move on and not because of anything anyone in the AD does.

So, in the end, a new AD means absolutely nothing unless there are some infrastructure projects or other day-to-day things that you think can be an improvement over what Ray does now.

 

[rogue cock]

Okay. Suppose they did fire Ray and bring in a "professional AD." What would change?

Y'all want to fire Beamer? I don't think so.

So, y'all want to fire Martin? Ray wanted to fire Martin last year and didn't have the authority to do it. The board said no to his recommendation. If Martin gets sacked after this season it will be because the Board is ready to move on and not because of anything anyone in the AD does.

So, in the end, a new AD means absolutely nothing unless there are some infrastructure projects or other day-to-day things that you think can be an improvement over what Ray does now.

Yep, the Board backed down because they didn't want to lose funding for the medical school improvements and Caslen couldn't address the issue when one or more legislators quizzed him about the prospective buyout. Questions he should have been able to answer.

Heck, per an artlcle in the P&C, Caslen vetoed the buyout for Muschamp, so Tanner had to raise the funds to do so privately.

 

[Horseshoe 04]

I trust Dawn, there’s a few definite maybes, maybe & other

 

[OldWiseCock]

Okay. Suppose they did fire Ray and bring in a "professional AD." What would change?

Y'all want to fire Beamer? I don't think so.

So, y'all want to fire Martin? Ray wanted to fire Martin last year and didn't have the authority to do it. The board said no to his recommendation. If Martin gets sacked after this season it will be because the Board is ready to move on and not because of anything anyone in the AD does.

So, in the end, a new AD means absolutely nothing unless there are some infrastructure projects or other day-to-day things that you think can be an improvement over what Ray does now.

Not right away, but a strong AD would make a difference in the longer term.

I'm not a fan of firing anyone so that would not be the reason. Certainly not Beamer. The man needs 4 years minimum.

 

[USCBIRDS]

BOTH…Ray Tanner has totally failed with Men’s sports at Carolina. BOT members that are not Carolina Grads is a joke. I call that a conflict of interests. They need to be “removed” from their position. We need to have a full BOT, that is looking out for the best interests of the University.

 

[RileyCock]

Not right away, but a strong AD would make a difference in the longer term.

I'm not a fan of firing anyone so that would not be the reason. Certainly not Beamer. The man needs 4 years minimum.

True. But without authority, a strong AD is not strong. I think this is the point most people miss.

 

[turncock]

Okay. Suppose they did fire Ray and bring in a "professional AD." What would change?

Y'all want to fire Beamer? I don't think so.

So, y'all want to fire Martin? Ray wanted to fire Martin last year and didn't have the authority to do it. The board said no to his recommendation. If Martin gets sacked after this season it will be because the Board is ready to move on and not because of anything anyone in the AD does.

So, in the end, a new AD means absolutely nothing unless there are some infrastructure projects or other day-to-day things that you think can be an improvement over what Ray does now.

100%. However, I do understand the lingering frustration over the Muschamp hire, contract, buyout and extensions.

 

[Kitchenlabs]

Tanner turns 64 in March. I think he will retire at the end of the fiscal year 2023. I also wouldn't be surprised to see him coaching baseball again outside of the SEC.

 

[Gaimcock]

Magoo is symptomatic of the underlying disease.

You want to create meaningful, transformative change, then you start by dragging the good ‘ol boy system of establishing our BOT into the 21st century.

We are an institution of higher learning. Yet, when it comes to the powers that be, we never learn a damn thing.

Dead on comment right there!!

Unfortunately, our history of state politics has been a total tragedy ever since the civil war, and that was before benjamin tillman became governor and then went on to become a U.S. Senator. His history speaks for itself, as the same speaks for our state.

Just sayin'. And I guarantee you, nothing will change in regards to South Carolina political BS.

 

[01fatboy]

it would be the bot and the politics they cant seem to get away from

 

[mannblack]

All I know is that clempson gets it and WE (the University powers that be) DON'T.

Yep

 

[PabloSC]

Danny Ford said at a TD Club meeting that our University is not a place he would coach at until we made some changes, pointing from Seawell’s up toward the capitol building. I really don’t know details but I know some who do, or think they do.
On another note, our University and my Alma Mater don’t do the little things very well. And I’m not talking managing donor relations with some of our largest donors (Darla Moore), to the point of sheer embarrassment and loss of financial support. You don’t remove them from your board. You don’t not sign contracts. You don’t disappoint a bunch of talented baseball players by not showing up when you have scheduled a day camp…wet field, locked doors, etc You’ve got to do the “little things” right all the time. Clemson beats us to death on things like that.

CU's leadership cares deeply about winning on the field. If you talk to any person in leadership at CU, they have this mindset. USC's leadership simply does not. I've spent one on one time with President's and BOT members and BOV members from both places and there are stark differences in the two schools leadership thought process. It's hard to put into words, but USC's leadership always sounds very politically correct in whatever they are talking about, and CU's leadership always sounds simply down to earth.

It's like CU is being represented by Donlad Trump and USC is being represented by (pick any Washington, DC insider).

So the answer to the question is, it's the BOT's fault, this far predates Tanner. The BOT hired Tanner.

 

[PabloSC]

BOTH…Ray Tanner has totally failed with Men’s sports at Carolina. BOT members that are not Carolina Grads is a joke. I call that a conflict of interests. They need to be “removed” from their position. We need to have a full BOT, that is looking out for the best interests of the University.

"We need to have a full BOT, that is looking out for the best interests of the University."
This will never happen, the SYSTEM will not let it happen.