ADVERTISEMENT

You realize to even have any shot at a decent OC we are going to have to give Beamer a raise right?

robertfootball

GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
Gold Member
Sep 29, 2006
15,033
16,373
113
SC
Let’s be real, no good OC is coming here without a SERIOUS offer. And by serious I mean no less than $1.5 million guaranteed money with a minimum 3-4 year contract. Truth be told we might have to up it to 1.75-1.95 million. That’s where it gets tricky. Beamer only makes 2.3 something and you’d create a weird scenario where the OC makes almost as much money as they HC. That means we’d have to give Beamer a raise to 2.5-2.75 or so. He’s not worth 3 million or more to be honest. That’s the situation we are in. You want to fix your offensive woes? Better show you’re serious about it because you’re going to have to pay serious money to an experienced and sought after OC to convince them to come work with a HC going in his second year. That’s the reality of it. There are no short cuts.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: JoMo84 and usc1855
Let’s be real, no good OC is coming here without a SERIOUS offer. And by serious I mean no less than $1.5 million guaranteed money with a minimum 3-4 year contract. Truth be told we might have to up it to 1.75-1.95 million. That’s where it gets tricky. Beamer only makes 2.3 something and you’d create a weird scenario where the OC makes almost as much money as they HC. That means we’d have to give Beamer a raise to 2.5-2.75 or so. He’s not worth 3 million or more to be honest. That’s the situation we are in. You want to fix your offensive woes? Better show you’re serious about it because you’re going to have to pay serious money to an experienced and sought after OC to convince them to come work with a HC going in his second year. That’s the reality of it. There are no short cuts.
Dont forget the Beamer extension.
 
Let’s be real, no good OC is coming here without a SERIOUS offer. And by serious I mean no less than $1.5 million guaranteed money with a minimum 3-4 year contract. Truth be told we might have to up it to 1.75-1.95 million. That’s where it gets tricky. Beamer only makes 2.3 something and you’d create a weird scenario where the OC makes almost as much money as they HC. That means we’d have to give Beamer a raise to 2.5-2.75 or so. He’s not worth 3 million or more to be honest. That’s the situation we are in. You want to fix your offensive woes? Better show you’re serious about it because you’re going to have to pay serious money to an experienced and sought after OC to convince them to come work with a HC going in his second year. That’s the reality of it. There are no short cuts.
I alluded to this in another post. And you're right. I say let's do it. Pay the money for a real OC. If we have to up Beamer’s pay a little, so be it. BUT, do NOT -- under any circumstances -- raise the buyout AT ALL.

(I'm looking at YOU, Ray...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecock stock
It look like we’re going to have to find a diamond in the rough or promote a coach within which might not be a bad idea knowing we have a TE coach that’s also a offensive guru. We can’t mishandle Erik how we did Bobby
 
USC isn't going to pay for talent. If so, Shane Beamer wouldn't be the head coach. USC wants to run it on a dollar tree budget while enjoying cashing those SEC checks. They just want to make folks think they are serious about football. They aren't
 
Don't think the school will fork up the money. Beamer gonna have to take a chance on someone who is younger and without the long resume.
 
Terry Dean Phillips had it right when he hired Dabo. Paid assistants top money that could have gone to the head coach and Dabo bought in. That could work for us and it's exactly what I hope we do. This time Beamer has the luxury of time to get someone which he clearly didn't last year.
 
Let’s be real, no good OC is coming here without a SERIOUS offer. And by serious I mean no less than $1.5 million guaranteed money with a minimum 3-4 year contract. Truth be told we might have to up it to 1.75-1.95 million. That’s where it gets tricky. Beamer only makes 2.3 something and you’d create a weird scenario where the OC makes almost as much money as they HC. That means we’d have to give Beamer a raise to 2.5-2.75 or so. He’s not worth 3 million or more to be honest. That’s the situation we are in. You want to fix your offensive woes? Better show you’re serious about it because you’re going to have to pay serious money to an experienced and sought after OC to convince them to come work with a HC going in his second year. That’s the reality of it. There are no short cuts.
No, you don’t need to give CSB a raise. He’ll get a raise if he wins. He’ll win if he has the players and coaches. CSB would like to be here for a while and I don’t think he would be embarrassed if another coach made some money too.
 
Terry Dean Phillips had it right when he hired Dabo. Paid assistants top money that could have gone to the head coach and Dabo bought in. That could work for us and it's exactly what I hope we do. This time Beamer has the luxury of time to get someone which he clearly didn't last year.
The last statement is spot on. Hopefully he will use the time to get exactly what he wants.
 
Does Tanner have to add a year to Beamer's contract for recruiting reasons?
 
OC and/or DC making nearly as much as the HC? Horrors! We just can't do that . . . oh, wait didn't something like that happen with Dabo at Clem?
 
OC and/or DC making nearly as much as the HC? Horrors! We just can't do that . . . oh, wait didn't something like that happen with Dabo at Clem?
Yes, and with that success Dabo got a huge payday.

Hire the best, pay what you have to to get them. It all benefits you in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad
Let me ask a question, Do you think South Carolina wants to win? I mean really win.If they do, they will have to start paying big bucks to keep the coaches whomever they may be.If they don't want to pay now, what's makes them want to pay later? Just asking because some of the comments seem to say SC is a cheapskate school.If i was Beamer, I would want to hire the best I could, even if the money was close to mine.
 
Let me ask a question, Do you think South Carolina wants to win? I mean really win.If they do, they will have to start paying big bucks to keep the coaches whomever they may be.If they don't want to pay now, what's makes them want to pay later? Just asking because some of the comments seem to say SC is a cheapskate school.If i was Beamer, I would want to hire the best I could, even if the money was close to mine.
A very apropos question that I think some of our fans should be asking -- or answering.
 
USC isn't going to pay for talent. If so, Shane Beamer wouldn't be the head coach. USC wants to run it on a dollar tree budget while enjoying cashing those SEC checks. They just want to make folks think they are serious about football. They aren't
It certainly looks that way. That's why we need a new AD.
 
We paid Muschamp a huge buyout. Why doesn't that indicate that we are serious about football?
IMHO...

We have the money to spend on a winning football team. The money is not holding us back. What is holding us back is vision and being too "goody two shoes". We won't go after the Kiffen's, the Briles, the Freeze's. Other programs do, they have success. College FB is not a "goody two shoes" business, it's ruthless, and when in Rome...well you know the rest.

I love Beamer's attitude and how our team doesn't quit, but college FB is an offensive game. What about his hire (and his hires) indicated we were going to be dynamic on offense? Will he be willing to cut the dead weight after the season is over and go out and get us a dynamic playcaller? It doesn't have to be a huge name. I'm fine with someone like an offensive Clayton White from a smaller school, but it has to be someone that has had success with their system. What in Satterfield's past indicated future success? What about his hire indicated future success for the Gamecocks? It's head-scratching to say the least. We just aren't serious about having a dynamic offense...yet. Hopefully Beamer realizes this (I think/hope that he already has) and makes a good, PROVEN (even at the lower level) hire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidrobinski
What is holding us back is vision and being too "goody two shoes". We won't go after the Kiffen's, the Briles, the Freeze's. Other programs do, they have success. College FB is not a "goody two shoes" business, it's ruthless, and when in Rome...well you know the rest.
I had to chuckle at this, although you make a great point. I remember back to the days when we were in the ACC. South Carolina was the badass of the conference. The pariah. Football and basketball. They all hated us because we had the reputation as the dirty players. Seemed to work for basketball better than football, although in 1969 it did bring us our only conference championship ever.
 
We paid Muschamp a huge buyout. Why doesn't that indicate that we are serious about football?
Big donors told Tanner and caslen to fire Muschamp. They did. Then they tried to claw back some of that money by going cheap and telling potential coaches they were required to keep Bobo. Hard to see that as commitment winning.
 
ADVERTISEMENT