"Hit the road, Lamont" . . . agree or disagree?
- Thread starter rockingamecock
- Start date
Next season will be like a new team that will have setbacks. I would give Coach Paris at least two more seasons to show steady improvement in the win column.
Next years team might get 2 or 3 SEC wins. I agree it might be a awful year next year as well.
How many awful years does he get?
I'd be willing to bet (if I bet) that Martin will have a bunch more NCAA wins here than Paris ever will and I thought Martin was awful.
If we really want him to "build " might as well give him 5 more years because because we aren't going back to the tournament this year or next year and probably not in 27 either.
Okay, but that's not the gist of my responses. What I meant is that a true Gamecock fan wants all sports the school sponsors to be good, regardless of whether or not the individual fan follows or does not follow a specific sport or sports.I'm not very fond of women's field hockey. I'm sure someone out there would think that's a shame.
I'm sure we all want all our teams to be good. We're Gamecock fans. I'm not the one saying it's a shame that you don't watch equestrian.
I've never understood what many GK fans definition of respectability is. We are 12th in the SEC in NIL, several have more than double what we have, and well below Clemson ($15.2M to our $9.5M). So you are saying NIL has no impact on winning, it's just the coaches?
That's the problem now, it's all about who can spend the most $, it's a race to the top of the spending hill, but it's a race we will never win, and especially not in football. Seems like the better chance to reach the top would be in basketball, much cheaper.
If he shows improvement, say they mange to win 15 - 16 games, he will get another year. It's the GK way, at least under Tanner it was.
Agreed.
My comment was just based on the idea that I don't care to watch either bball team. I would end both just for one extra win a year in football.
I'm the one saying that it's shameful to only care how one sport performs.I'm sure we all want all our teams to be good. We're Gamecock fans. I'm not the one saying it's a shame that you don't watch equestrian.
To be clear, if one only follows equestrain or football, that's fine. Just don't actively dismiss the sports you don't follow.
Might as well disband all varsity sports except football. How come nobody has done that?
No one was actively dismissing the other sports programs. They were prompted to give their opinions. So they did. You just didn't like their opinions.
I would end womens basketball for an extra win in football. I like watching mens basketball, at least when we're good at it.
Football is the only Gamecocks sport that I intentionally set aside time to watch every game these days. I have to pick and choose what I spend my limited time on with a job, a wife, and three kids.
Because we can't disband one sport and guarantee additional wins in another. I was speaking about an impossible hypothetical to illustrate the different levels of interest.
That is the case for 90% or more of the Gamecock fan base. Football is the sport we need to be good at it, and the pursuit of success in football trumps every other sport combined.
In a hypothetical world where we could only field a team in one sport, based on voting by the fan base, football would win with the biggest landslide in the history of landslides. Probably greater than 95%. Those who voted for something other than football, would be doing so just to prove a point b/c they know their vote wouldn't matter, not because they actually wouldn't want football to be the one sport we kept.
It's nice to be good in the other sports, but in the end, they don't matter. Some might take your statement about ending WBB to get an extra win in football as hyperbole, but I don't think it is. WBB just isn't important. How unimportant is it? So unimportant that our MBB coach, who was 4-14 in the SEC his first season and is currently 0-10 in the SEC in his 3rd season makes the same money as our WBB coach who just won 57 SEC games in a row and has won 3 national titles.
Last edited:
To make the comparison even more jarring, Dawn Staley is the highest paid WBB coach in America.
And our roughly .500 football coach (sub-.500 in the SEC) makes more than 2x as much.
WBB just isn't important.
Yet, some around here act as if WBB is something a lot of people care about. The truth is; no one cares about women's sports in general on any level, from high school to the pros.
I've never really enjoyed WBB but used to love men's at one time. Tough years wore me down and Frank Martin did me in!
I always enjoyed the girls sports in high school, but mainly because you tend to know the kids and families. Couldn't care less about the WBB or most women's sports in college.
This isn't going to be popular, but bring out the checkbook and get the guy in the upstate. If we don't someone will. Like it or not he is figuring it out two years in a row (yes, I know they lost to us but, other than bragging rights, what is that worth).
You don't "aw shucks" your way to 0-10 in conference play. If we'd come out this year and gone 7-11 or 6-12, you could chalk it up to the talent lost from last year's team and a few tough losses that didn't go your way and hope to regroup for next year.
0-10 is an irrefutable indictment. Frankly, odds are there's no coming back from it. Yes, we're in a situation where he's obviously going to be brought back next season, but the writing is on the wall.
0-10 is an irrefutable indictment. Frankly, odds are there's no coming back from it. Yes, we're in a situation where he's obviously going to be brought back next season, but the writing is on the wall.
No - schools offer a variety of sports because they have to.
Sponsoring only football would save many schools lots of $$$. But they don't.
Don't disagree with that.
As i said, it was an impossible hypothetical, I admit that going in. It was merely to show the vast difference in interest level.
You're fortunate. Our WBB program has beguiled me to care about the sport to the extent that we are successful in it. Seeing our current plight in the frontcourt versus other programs at the very top has engendered a tension I don't enjoy.
Absolutely agree with the interest level. But don't diss the programs that don't interest you. Wish them well and move on.
Girls HS sports are pretty much followed by close friends and families of the players. The "crowd" at a HS girls Bball game might be a total of 40 people, maybe 60-75 if it is some sort of "big rival" game.
We have to take our respectability wherever we can find it. We are in no position to be picky, especially since we aren't as dominant riding horses as we were a few years back.
Every school should take respectablility wherever they can find it, including Pickens Tech (yeah, I know that's an oxymoron
).
I suspect we'll beat Texas and then split UGA/Arkansas to get 2 wins on the season and instill absurd hope in a portion of the fan base
Disagree….Lamont is a good coach. We had a player from the portal that we were counting on but is more of a project than we anticipated. Pringle is developing as a low post player but he is not there yet. I really appreciate Jacoby Wright sticking with us but he is not enough of a scoring presence at 2 guard. Zach Davis is also not a consistent scorer but he has become more agressive on the offensive end. There is young talent that gives me hope for next year (if they come back). Once we lost Stute we became really young at wing and guard. If there is any change needed, i think it is the strength coach. Maybe they are just young but our wing players do not seem as strong as our opponents.
"Paris is a good coach, as evidenced by this list of crappy players he brought on board."
I thought Pringle was a Senior?
There are no game changers on the bench at all.
If they all stick around i can see us have a shot at the tournament in 2
years but absolutely not next year.
Portal is the wild card . There is not near enough talent coming in to make this a tournament (or even a .500) team. Need to get a A+ in the portal.
Unfortunately, in today's game, player development is not nearly as much of a factor. It may be becoming non-existent. So I don't know if it's even really possible to say any longer "if these players stay and develop we can be a tournament team in X years." Rick Pitino just said he's not recruiting any high school players this year b/c the players he's losing from this year's team can't be replaced by high schoolers.
When other coaches adopt that strategy, it makes it extremely difficult for coaches at other programs to take the slower player development approach.
What we've seen from Lamont seems to support this as well. His second team looked dramatically different from his first team and his third team looks dramatically different from his second team. Maybe he'll settle into something with more continuity, but so far it seems like a year-to-year proposition and every year is going to stand on its own. But that's becoming the norm.