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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
UGA is at $40mill according to CBS sports and it's been higher than that in previous seasons.
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.
I did a little research and CBS has UGA at $40mil and us at $31mil.
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.
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.
GamecockCentral Football
Wednesdays with Wes: The Bizarro World Gamecocks where everything is backwards
GamecockCentral Football
Clark's corner: Stewart and what can change on defense
GamecockCentral Football
Analytics Corner: Measuring South Carolina's 'intangible' issues
GamecockCentral Basketball
South Carolina basketball product signs NBA contract
GamecockCentral Football
Everything Clayton White said ahead of South Carolina's matchup with Florida
