With regards to all these articles proclaiming Holbrook is safe:

[gamecock_07]

I understand that, Rogue. And I would think there is some matter of performance clause included in the contract of most college head coaches. And the termination of that contract when the performance clause is consistently not met to satisfaction would not be defined as a failure of the institution to honor the contact.

My point to the other poster is that terminating the contract of a consistently underperforming coach, past or present, does not suggest that the terms of the contact weren't honored by the institution.

and you obviously think that a clearly downward trending success path that has taken us from the CWS to completely out of the NCAA tournament doesn't satisfy this performance clause that you have absolutely no clue about.

Got it. Glad you were able to explain and teach us so much.

 

[rogue cock]

I understand that, Rogue. And I would think there is some matter of performance clause included in the contract of most college head coaches. And the termination of that contract when the performance clause is consistently not met to satisfaction would not be defined as a failure of the institution to honor the contact.

My point to the other poster is that terminating the contract of a consistently underperforming coach, past or present, does not suggest that the terms of the contact weren't honored by the institution.

Performance clauses in coaching contracts are generally, if not exclusively, limited to bonus pay (i.e. bonuses for making a bowl, winning a division, etc.). I haven't seen a contract that provided a termination for failing to win x number of games. That is why most, if not all, have buyout provisions.

 

[ReadR00ster]

YES the dude has consistently underperformed. He hasn't done anything BUT underperform as a heach coach. The contact is not the reason Tanner is not firing Holbrook. Holbrook is keeping his job because his is Tanner's buddy. End of Story. If Tanner wanted him gone yesterday he would not be the coach today.

 

[Cock_Donor]

Wrong again, Bongsummers. None of the coaches you mentioned were fired for a single bad season, as you and others suggest CH should be. Scott, Horn, Woods, and Odom had multiple losing or underperforming seasons that lead to their firing or resignation. And your story about Carlen falls far short from the complete conditions under which he left. Much more complicated than what you've implied, but I will not discuss that on social media. Don't come at me until you have your facts straight. My point regarding integrity is, if you terminate a contract without just cause, you do so with a loss of integrity, and good luck attracting quality candidates for a replacement. Not to mention the financial impacts of a multiyear contract buyout.

No, YOU'RE wrong, as usual. He didn't say any of those coaches were fired for having a single bad season. He just said disappointing seasons.

 

[searooster]

You're dissembling and completely wrong and like a child not willing to admit it. You can be as patronizing as you like, but the facts are facts. Even if you're completely specious and logically ridiculous redefinition of honoring contracts were true, CH would presumably also have a "consistently under performs" clause in his contract (we all know he doesn't) and could be terminated before his three year contract ended. So, no matter how you skin this cat, your argument doesn't hold up.

The higher your blood alcohol rises, the less sense your posts make. I should know better than to try to explain a complex subject to a mandrill baboon.
Good night, Bongsummers.

 

[pecock1]

He will get 1 more yr. If he wallows in the mud next yr he is gone. Was told this by 1 of the biggest donors the school has

 

[Chris Clark]

Too many media boys covering Gamecock baseball, the author of the since deleted linked article from a rival website included, have become too buddy buddy with the coaches and that now includes the administration since Tanner is there- they had such fun times bonding with them during the wild rides we had in Omaha- and now instead of asking the hard questions they write articles with quotes thrown in from so-called experts lecturing us fans on what is best.
First grade math- or whatever elementary school grade that teaches line graph charts- is all you need to interpret the steep downward trend that has clearly occurred over the last 3 years in a once proud program.
I'm afraid odds are just as high if not higher that the trend keeps going father down than going up.
if so then Holbrook would have pulled a Darrin Horn on our baseball program while administrators and reporters he is buddy buddy with watched.

Regarding your first paragraph...

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but...

It's not fair to lump everyone in the media together, so it's hard for me to tell who/what you're talking about specifically . Everyone that covers South Carolina that knows anything about the athletics programs knows that Holbrook is safe. It's not because they think Holbrook is a good guy, have had a laugh with Tanner, or whatever it may be. It's just reality. We try to pass on reality here in our reporting.

I've said on our website that Holbrook is not getting fired at the University of South Carolina following this season. Me saying that has nothing to do with my opinion of Holbrook's coaching/recruiting ability, him as a person, his outfit, the way he acts, or any of it. It simply has to do with gathering facts, doing my job, and giving the information to our readers and subscribers. I haven't written anything regarding Holbrook/USC baseball in terms of stories because it's not my beat, but I do know he's safe and I've passed that on.

If a certain expert or experts or of the opinion that USC is better of with Holbrook, that's the person's opinion just like you have yours as a fan, whatever it may be. I will tell you that I don't believe anyone in the USC media has written puff pieces about Holbrook or the program. At least, nobody that I've seen or respect. It's almost as if some want people to write stories saying he's in danger (when he's not) or that he should be fired (when that's not typically a media person's job - we're not talking about columnists here). Some of the people that you are seemingly accusing of puffing up the program have also been critical of the program when its been warranted.

As for so-called tough questions that you feel should have been asked, you would need to be more specific with what you think has not been asked. A lot of times fans want questions asked (I'm not lumping you in this category, just giving an example) these pointed questions asked of coaches or ADs when we as media members that have been around for a while know the answers we would get back.

I can't address your concerns with anyone else but GamecockCentral.com really, so if you have something you want to discuss with our staff I'll be glad to do it.

 

[coxman]

...someone who violates University policy (Jim Carlen)...

what University policy? Give Holderman money?

 

[gamecock_07]

The higher your blood alcohol rises, the less sense your posts make. I should know better than to try to explain a complex subject to a mandrill baboon.
Good night, Bongsummers.

you cant even make an accurate dig at someone. guys name is bongsummers and the best you could offer was a bac reference. its probably time to realize that you aren't as smart or clever as you think you are.