Look at how much Shane Beamer has aged
- Thread starter Gamecock Jacob
- Start date
Five years of being in over your head can do that to you! That said, he's been compensated many times over and beyond any stress levels he could be enduring.
This job will age you quickly. He's definitely losing more hair and greying up what is left. Guess the big money is worth it.
Are we to look it up ourselves or did you forget to attach it to the thread?
I noticed it last season for the first time. He was almost boyish when he got here.
There are two takes.
Take One: He's getting paid a lot for subpar results. It's true. For the amount of money he's getting, it's hard to have any sympathy.
Take Two: He's voluntarily putting himself through the meat grinder to try succeeding at a place where no coach has ever found sustained success.
There are two takes.
Take One: He's getting paid a lot for subpar results. It's true. For the amount of money he's getting, it's hard to have any sympathy.
Take Two: He's voluntarily putting himself through the meat grinder to try succeeding at a place where no coach has ever found sustained success.
This is the main, maybe only, reason to stick it out with him as long as we can. Yes, "he wants to be here" is a silly platitude, but it's also very much true. I am a faithful subscriber to Occam's Razor and it can somewhat be applied to our current situation. All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right answer.
- We have a history of mediocrity, speckled with a couple of really high moments and really low moments (more low than high).
- We have a guy who genuinely wants to be the head coach of this program and genuinely cares about the players and developing them in life.
- He has shown flashes of getting the program in a better shape than the historical norm.
- He has a gigantic buyout. The how's and why's are irrelevant at this point to the decision that needs to be made.
- Outside of Nicholas Lou Saban Jr. walking through the door, there really is no guarantee that Beamer's replacement would have any better on the field results.
The simplest answer, for now, is to retain Beamer, make any staff adjustments that need to be made and make another run at it. It makes no sense to fire him right now outside of a total collapse and him "losing the team".
If we end the season 2-10 with a blowout in Pickens County, it's all flipped on its head and I don't think Donati has any choice but to make a change, whether that's firing Beamer and promoting Briles or whatever. I don't think that's how it will go. This team is very talented and there are winnable games. The only "no shot" game we have left is UGA (watch us win that one haha), but I could see us pulling out four more wins, including upstate and another inappropriate condiment dump type of bowl game result. That would keep us at, and some would say above, our historical norm.
1-10 in last 11 SEC games. With a talented roster and top 16 NIL payroll in the country. In 6 years, he still can't win consistently. All the pieces in place and still fails. If they want somebody who wants to be there, will never leave, lose every SEC matchup and pay somebody considerably less, then hire me.
After his firing, he'll live the life of luxury & never have to work another day in his life. I do not feel one bit sorry for him.
I am sick and tired of hearing about our mediocre football history. We had people in charge for years that didn't value certain sports OR didn't recognize them for the money maker and uniter they COULD be.... fine.
That does not mean that the present group running things has to do the same. IF they are committed to bringing a top flight football program to USC, and they are actually incapable of doing a good job by putting USC in position to be an annual top 20 football program by scouring for top/innovative football coaching talent and ways to make the program competitive in normal and abnormal ways...then we need to find "new people".
What the real question is.....is that the vision (top 20 annual program) or not? I feel like when you hire a TE coach with no formal HC or coordinator experience....it is not.
PS- Marcus Satterfield is presently a TE coach.
That does not mean that the present group running things has to do the same. IF they are committed to bringing a top flight football program to USC, and they are actually incapable of doing a good job by putting USC in position to be an annual top 20 football program by scouring for top/innovative football coaching talent and ways to make the program competitive in normal and abnormal ways...then we need to find "new people".
What the real question is.....is that the vision (top 20 annual program) or not? I feel like when you hire a TE coach with no formal HC or coordinator experience....it is not.
PS- Marcus Satterfield is presently a TE coach.
Find new money that is. We should have won a few more games over this dry stretch (UK, A&M) but the reality at the moment is that we're losing the tight games we won in the past. Just the way the pendulum swings. We recruited well this year but prior years have been in the 2nd half of the conference and the schedule has been full of teams with far more talent.
Beamer to me is alot like Kingston. You can unload the coffers and get rid of him but you're likely going to get something very similar (or worse) as NIL college football is 90+% about talent and that has been statistical proven since its inception. Just need to wait for the pendulum to swing our direction again. The team is considerably better than last year. Just making dumb mistakes and not converting many key plays at the moment.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. My stance, though, relies on the answer to your real question. Is the goal to build a consistent Top 20 program or not. If it is not, then we should stay the course with Beamer, at least until it is not a financial hit to fire him.
I believe RT saw the success that team upstate had promoting a player favorite, non-coordinator like Dabo who had no HC experience either and thought "Shane has strong ties here, he led the most successful recruiting era while he was here, etc". Obviously, that hasn't turned out to be the case and while the portal era allowed him to do some really good work getting impact players into the program, it doesn't see that we have managed the NIL situation very well and the demeanor of this program completely changed after that Citrus Bowl.
We had 3 seasons in 35 years in the SEC where you could possibly claim we were a consistent Top 20 program. That happened because it was pre-NIL and we the found a big name and he was able to push recruiting up to Top 10 status for a few years. Then we started to compete with bigger names on our schedule for a stretch.
Not funny! Well, okay, and little funny.
It does remind me, Mrs Satterfield used to post on this board and its previous version, a lot. She was quite adamant that anyone who doubted the greatness of Shane Beamer was an idiot.
Wonder how that little meltdown is going.
Something always seems to be breaking around here. This year it is the secondary. The number of passing TDs we have given up, along with the yardage, is astounding.
Yep, and had better decisions been made both by Spurrier and our "AD" at the time, the stage was set for this program to carry that momentum forward in the right direction. Instead we all saw how the program rapidly descended back into its historical place in CFB.
Explain aTm's lack of success if money is the key to winning. UGA spends less than we do and they are doing quite well. The poor mouthing is silly and false. Lack of money is not the problem.
The reality is, top players want to play for proven winners. They don't want to go to a mediocre team and "be a part of building a program". SC rarely takes a recruit away from a big name program. If they do, it is generally because the kid has some connection to SC.
Classic "flash in the pan" program. After 2013, when Shaw, Lattimore, Clowney, Alshon, et al moved on, we went right back to 7-6 and 3-5 in the conference. When Spurrier couldn't win the SEC with the team he had from 2011 to 2013, he was a defeated man and was ready to hang it up. Gamecock football had claimed another HC victim.
We are what we are. Enjoy the social aspect and embrace the suck on the field.
This, 100%. I stated something similar to the following statement elsewhere a few days ago: We got plenty of "that sucks no matter what, it isn't going to go well" - IE Brad Scott. But there's also no shortage of just stupid decision making in Gamecock football. Something can be done about the latter moving forward if desired. Trying to explain that here is about useless.
It boils down to what you point out: what do the people who make the decisions really want football to be? Since football at this level is such a money maker then one could argue they are content with it just being just that. I lean towards that one, but it can be argued against as well. I don't know if Donati has the will or ability make football anything other than what it is. The BoT has been as culpable in all of this as Ray Tanner was and well before he was.
UGA is at $40mill according to CBS sports and it's been higher than that in previous seasons.
A&M is still coming off a Jimbo hangover and frviously spending $130mil around that program for a deadbest
Top players are not taking less than most of their market value to play for proven winners and for good reason.
"Building a program" worked when good players were more concerned with playing time than their paycheck.
Find a program in the SEC where a coaching staff has consistently outperformed it's recruiting worth for any length of time. It doesn't exist. The only one I can think was Franklin at Vandy pre-NIL and a big program gobbled him up pretty quickly.
Do a little research and you will see that you are wrong. UGA is spending around $31-34M, SC is spending $34-37M. aTm is third in the SEC spending $45-50M.
The UGA one kills me. Each time I see that we outspent them, I throw up a little in my mouth.
Last edited:
I did a little research and CBS has UGA at $40mil and us at $31mil.
The bottom line is that no one really knows what the exact figures are because they don't have to disclose.
However, common sense would tell you that 5-star talent isn't rushing to UGA and OSU because of reputation at this point.
The future is uncertain. They are getting paid in the present moment handsomely.
Also, this is our first season throwing some signifcant money at the issue. You need a pipeline.
Here's the deal: nobody knows the real numbers and no one WILL know the real numbers until some law requires an accounting. Every number out there is anecdotal speculation.
Yes. But what we can surmise is when 4 and 5-stars are coming in bulk to any particular school in this era, chances are they have a pretty big budget.
Players aren't going to pass up millions per year guaranteed with the hope they can be "coached up" and make more in the NFL at some point in time.
If everything was equal, we would have just as many 4-star players coming to USC versus UGA. And if it's a supply issue, we aren't spending the money they are because they get 3-4x the amount we do.
I was talking about reputation. You mentioned reputation as being a non-factor. Take Georgia for example. I just read on here that we outspend Georgia. I see 5*s streaming to Georgia but not us. Oh yeah, they have a reputation of winning.
The makes no sense at whatsoever, but virture-signalling Kirby loves people who buy into this.
"These are estimates of program-controlled roster spending (revenue sharing plus managed NIL), not official school disclosures, and they exclude purely independent national endorsement deals."
For starters, How many national deals do you think UGA has versus USC?
Good to hear from you Watson.
There's definitely something creepy wrong with you.
Ward Jr, Cobie, The Roo, doesn't matter. As soon as he starts talking we can tell by the smell.
HELL, you need to look at how much Beamer has aged me!! I went from looking like Clint Eastwood in "Fistful of Dollars" to looking like Clint Eastwood in "Gran Torino" during Beamer's tenure!!
Unfortunately the progression of the coaching acumen has not kept up with the physical aging. Maybe the genes from his mothers side are dominant.
Since Beamer's first coaching job was with the secondary, he should be totally embarrassed by the this year's product and learned nothing along the way he could contribute to correct things.
Since Beamer's first coaching job was with the secondary, he should be totally embarrassed by the this year's product and learned nothing along the way he could contribute to correct things.
Latest
-
01
GamecockCentral Football
An updated look at South Carolina football's top roster talent in the On3 Impact Rankings
-
02
GamecockCentral Football
Gamecocks in the NFL: Week 4 recap, Week 5 preview
-
03
GamecockCentral Womens Basketball
South Carolinan women's basketball: Notes from Big Ten media day
-
04
GamecockCentral Football
What South Carolina's defensive and special teams transfers have provided the Gamecocks in 2026
-
05
GamecockCentral Womens Basketball
South Carolina women's basketball: Tipoff times and TV information announced