I like Beamer. Let's keep him.

[18IsTheMan]

The more I think about, the more I think we should ride the Shane Train.

He runs a good program (results notwithstanding). The only thing to complain about is the on-field results (yeah, that's a pretty big complaint). But otherwise, he runs a good, clean program. He's very likable, unlike Muschamp. Less important, he likes it here. His family likes it here. Even if he did ever find success, he'd never leave.

The only option is to roll the dice on another coach who, with virtual certainty, will product comparable results.

If we accept that we are what we are (And after 130+ years, we simply have to. To do otherwise is delusion.), why not at least do it with a guy who is likable and loyal? At least then, we'll have some consistence and continuity. Let's end the frustration that comes with hiring a new coach, having hopes built up, only to see them come crashing down and starting the cycle over again 5 or 6 years later.

I know we're supposed to say we want to pursue greatness and all that, but, honestly, that's akin to me saying I'm going to pursue a career in the NBA. It just ain't happening.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Is this a troll? It has to be. Not tryna be difficult here either. Genuinely confused.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Is this a troll? It has to be.

I guess. If not being delusional makes me a troll. It is not possible to win consistently here. Can't be done. The most wildly, over-the-top successful coach we have ever had could only do it for 3 seasons, and then he left us 1.5 seasons later in far worse shape than he found us.

We have to come to grips with reality.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

 

[SouthernBelly]

How are you defining being delusional?

 

[18IsTheMan]

How are you defining being delusional?

Thinking we can fire Beamer and replace him with another coach who will be markedly better.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I can argue equally passionately for firing him or giving him a 10-year contract.

 

[Lurker123]

I guess. If not being delusional makes me a troll. It is not possible to win consistently here. Can't be done. The most wildly, over-the-top successful coach we have ever had could only do it for 3 seasons, and then he left us 1.5 seasons later in far worse shape than he found us.

We have to come to grips with reality.

Depends on expectations. "Win consistently" could mean different things. To me, winning consistently means a floor of .500. Losing seasons can happen, but if we have 3 of 4 years? Thats not performing well enough. Imo

 

[18IsTheMan]

Depends on expectations. "Win consistently" could mean different things. To me, winning consistently means a floor of .500. Losing seasons can happen, but if we have 3 of 4 years? Thats not performing well enough. Imo

Outside of Spurrier we have never had a coach who could produce like that.

And we've NEVER had a coach who left to here to be a HC anywhere else, which tells you that no coach here ever found success.

We're on a treadmill. We're working and spending and doing lots of activity but not getting anywhere.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Thinking we can fire Beamer and replace him with another coach who will be markedly better.

You want to anchor some of a “better coach” in the football history. Setting that aside- you are convinced there aren’t better options than Shane Beamer?

 

[18IsTheMan]

You want to anchor some of a “better coach” in the football history. Setting that aside- you are convinced there aren’t better options than Shane Beamer?

I am. Our history proves it. It's the old "it's not you, it's me". We've tried every conceivable approach to hiring a coach, and nothing works.

If we fire Beamer, the absolute best-case scenario is that the next coach has maybe 3 good seasons and then leaves for a better job. That's like utter euphoria best case. Then we'd be back in the same situation starting over the same cycle. Worst case, we end up with Brad Scott 2.0. Most likely case, we end being about what we always have been.

 

[SouthernBelly]

I am. Our history proves it. It's the old "it's not you, it's me". We've tried every conceivable approach to hiring a coach, and nothing works.

If we fire Beamer, the absolute best-case scenario is that the next coach has maybe 3 good seasons and then leaves for a better job. That's like utter euphoria best case. Then we'd be back in the same situation starting over the same cycle. Worst case, we end up with Brad Scott 2.0. Most likely case, we end being about what we always have been.

Again, don’t care about the history, you think there is not a better head coach that SC could hire than Shane Beamer?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Again, don’t care about the history, you think there is not a better head coach that SC could hire than Shane Beamer?

I do not think there is anyone we could hire who would come in and do substantially better over any prolonged period.

 

[Piscis]

Again, don’t care about the history, you think there is not a better head coach that SC could hire than Shane Beamer?

I think we need to be honest with ourselves about who we could realistically hire. We aren't going to convince a Kirby Smart, Steve Sarkasian, Mario Cristobal or Ryan Day type coach to come to SC, no matter how much we delude ourselves into thinking we can throw enough money at them to make them come here. As pointed out, no HC at SC has ever been hired away to be a HC somewhere else, or gone on to be a HC anywhere else. Like it or not, the SC head coaching job is a career graveyard and the good, established HCs know it and will not want any part of it.

I'm not sure there is a can't miss OC or DC or G6 HC out there that we could bring in and him do much better than Beamer. There might be, in fact, there probably is. Our problem is, we can't be certain we would hire that guy. We might end up hiring another Brad Scott or Sparky Woods.

Everyone loves to point at Cignetti, but let me ask you this. How many times has a coaching hire from a lower tier program to a higher tier program worked well and been very successful? Usually, those hires result in disappointment.

 

[Lurker123]

Outside of Spurrier we have never had a coach who could produce like that.

And we've NEVER had a coach who left to here to be a HC anywhere else, which tells you that no coach here ever found success.

We're on a treadmill. We're working and spending and doing lots of activity but not getting anywhere.

Wait, the guy right before Spurrier did it too.

Im not talking about never having a losing season, im saying not to have it happen often.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think we need to be honest with ourselves about who we could realistically hire. We aren't going to convince a Kirby Smart, Steve Sarkasian, Mario Cristobal or Ryan Day type coach to come to SC, no matter how much we delude ourselves into thinking we can throw enough money at them to make them come here. As pointed out, no HC at SC has ever been hired away to be a HC somewhere else, or gone on to be a HC anywhere else. Like it or not, the SC head coaching job is a career graveyard and the good, established HCs know it and will not want any part of it.

I'm not sure there is a can't miss OC or DC or G6 HC out there that we could bring in and him do much better than Beamer. There might be, in fact, there probably is. Our problem is, we can't be certain we would hire that guy. We might end up hiring another Brad Scott or Sparky Woods.

Everyone loves to point at Cignetti, but let me ask you this. How many times has a coaching hire from a lower tier program to a higher tier program worked well and been very successful? Usually, those hires result in disappointment.

Right. Everyone thinks all we have to do is go out and do what IU did. If that could be done, everyone would do it. IU just got lucky. We can certainly keep doing what we have always done and hoping for a different result.

Of note, I do think we could have had a chance to change our status if we made a run at Franklin when he was available. It was kind of a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a coach of that caliber. He's won north of 66% of his games in his career. He won at Vanderbilt. He was dangling out there for quite a while. Coaches with his resume are not usually available on the open market like that.

His knock at PSU was that he wouldn't take them to the title, but that's not our goal. I think he easily would have been an 8-win coach here. I know that contradicts my statements above, but that goes to the extremely unusual nature of his availability. We would have never been able to hire him away from PSU, but he was a free agent and that almost never happens, particularly with a coach still in his early 50s.

That's the only scenario I can think of where we could have had a shot at hiring a proven head coach.

 

[Piscis]

Wait, the guy right before Spurrier did it too.

Im not talking about never having a losing season, im saying not to have it happen often.

The guy right before Spurrier was 4 games under .500 in 6 seasons. 3 of his 6 seasons were losing seasons.

 

[rockingamecock]

Let's start by firing the entire BOT at USC. For reasons unknown, they apparently love Shane. The board and the legislature have had their fingers in USC sports for way too long.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The guy right before Spurrier was 4 games over .500 in 6 seasons. 3 of his 6 seasons were losing seasons.

You mean 4 games under .500

 

[Piscis]

You mean 4 games under .500

Correct. I looked at the numbers backwards. Everyone will say "yeah, but his first season he went 0-11, take that out and he did OK". To those people, I say, take away the worst losing seasons from any coach and he will probably look OK. It isn't like someone else coached the team to 0-11.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Correct. I looked at the numbers backwards. Everyone will say "yeah, but his first season he went 0-11, take that out and he did OK". To those people, I say, take away the worst losing seasons from any coach and he will probably look OK. It isn't like someone else coached the team to 0-11.

I agree. I kind of give a Holtz a pass b/c of what he inherited and what he had to do that season to start building a winner, but you're right. We can go cherry pick bad seasons from any coach and make things look better.

 

[SouthernBelly]

I think we need to be honest with ourselves about who we could realistically hire. We aren't going to convince a Kirby Smart, Steve Sarkasian, Mario Cristobal or Ryan Day type coach to come to SC, no matter how much we delude ourselves into thinking we can throw enough money at them to make them come here. As pointed out, no HC at SC has ever been hired away to be a HC somewhere else, or gone on to be a HC anywhere else. Like it or not, the SC head coaching job is a career graveyard and the good, established HCs know it and will not want any part of it.

I'm not sure there is a can't miss OC or DC or G6 HC out there that we could bring in and him do much better than Beamer. There might be, in fact, there probably is. Our problem is, we can't be certain we would hire that guy. We might end up hiring another Brad Scott or Sparky Woods.

Everyone loves to point at Cignetti, but let me ask you this. How many times has a coaching hire from a lower tier program to a higher tier program worked well and been very successful? Usually, those hires result in disappointment.

Who advocates that we should go try to get such coaches as Smart or Sark from such programs? I don't do that. Before I hung out on this particular webspace Matt Campbell used to be name that people would often through around in other Gamecock circles. I even thought that was far fetched but just as you say the people think the money thing will be an ultimate answer, and it's not so we agree there.

Sure, there is no such thing as a can't miss hire. But the very thing you ask about hiring from lower tier programs - I've long been in the camp of doing that. That is generally how it works - find someone at lower tier who has proven they win and they get bigger jobs. Saban began at Toledo. Urban Meyer began at Bowling Green. Both went through other mid-majors before landing the SEC gig. Spurrier was at Duke before Florida. Just a few off the top of the examples, but the list goes well beyond Cignetti. I know there are examples the other way IE Sparky.

So while we can't be certain we won't hire the right guy, because no one ever can be; why is there a comfort level among our fans to say essentially say "Keep Beamer because he's what we've basically always had?" It's pretty clear by now that is the absolute best he can do. If that is what SC fans and administration want for the next 130 years of football then so be it. I'm not convinced it has to stay that way. It very well might, but it also might not.

 

[Lurker123]

The guy right before Spurrier was 4 games over .500 in 6 seasons. 3 of his 6 seasons were losing seasons.

Holy crap, I remember the first year, but forgot all about the back to back 5-7's.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Right. Everyone thinks all we have to do is go out and do what IU did. If that could be done, everyone would do it. IU just got lucky. We can certainly keep doing what we have always done and hoping for a different result.

Of note, I do think we could have had a chance to change our status if we made a run at Franklin when he was available. It was kind of a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a coach of that caliber. He's won north of 66% of his games in his career. He won at Vanderbilt. He was dangling out there for quite a while. Coaches with his resume are not usually available on the open market like that.

His knock at PSU was that he wouldn't take them to the title, but that's not our goal. I think he easily would have been an 8-win coach here. I know that contradicts my statements above, but that goes to the extremely unusual nature of his availability. We would have never been able to hire him away from PSU, but he was a free agent and that almost never happens, particularly with a coach still in his early 50s.

That's the only scenario I can think of where we could have had a shot at hiring a proven head coach.

There' s no point to that since SC is always just going to be a 6-6 program.

 

[Lurker123]

Who advocates that we should go try to get such coaches as Smart or Sark from such programs? I don't do that. Before I hung out on this particular webspace Matt Campbell used to be name that people would often through around in other Gamecock circles. I even thought that was far fetched but just as you say the people think the money thing will be an ultimate answer, and it's not so we agree there.

Sure, there is no such thing as a can't miss hire. But the very thing you ask about hiring from lower tier programs - I've long been in the camp of doing that. That is generally how it works - find someone at lower tier who has proven they win and they get bigger jobs. Saban began at Toledo. Urban Meyer began at Bowling Green. Both went through other mid-majors before landing the SEC gig. Spurrier was at Duke before Florida. Just a few off the top of the examples, but the list goes well beyond Cignetti. I know there are examples the other way IE Sparky.

So while we can't be certain we won't hire the right guy, because no one ever can be; why is there a comfort level among our fans to say essentially say "Keep Beamer because he's what we've basically always had?" It's pretty clear by now that is the absolute best he can do. If that is what SC fans and administration want for the next 130 years of football then so be it. I'm not convinced it has to stay that way. It very well might, but it also might not.

Think of it this way. Picture our last 3 seasons.

What if our head coach didn't hire bone headed OC', but simply decent ones? And what if a plain, normal head coach would have fired a horrible OL coach.

Simply doing his job right, and nothing more would have made drastic differences in our last few years.

I dont mean titles, but respectable seasons.

 

[Piscis]

There' s no point to that since SC is always just going to be a 6-6 program.

I think there would be a greater chance that SC would turn Franklin into a 6-6 coach than Franklin would turn SC into an 8-4 program.

 

[SouthernBelly]

I think there would be a greater chance that SC would turn Franklin into a 6-6 coach than Franklin would turn SC into an 8-4 program.

That's an I think and we all have I thinks. And sure it could happen. But Franklin won 9 games at Vanderbilt twice and was successful at Penn St, just not to the level demanded by PSU. VT made a great hire by all that can be known about him. So far, and it's an incredibly small sample size no doubt, he's vindicating it.

 

[gamecox4982]

Keep him but require him to give up 50% of his salary and use that money to get better players. He’s not going anywhere else making 4 million. Replace him and you’re right back where you are now in five years…. Wash and repeat time and time again - Carolina will always be like it is now with a few good years thrown in there. Stop pretending!

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

I agree. I kind of give a Holtz a pass b/c of what he inherited and what he had to do that season to start building a winner, but you're right. We can go cherry pick bad seasons from any coach and make things look better.

I look at situations like Holtz' first season as being similar to a relief pitcher coming in with the bases loaded - the previous guy is responsible for the mess they left and the new guy can only do so much with it. Back then you couldn't get 70 new players between seasons to flush the mess you were left.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Think of it this way. Picture our last 3 seasons.

What if our head coach didn't hire bone headed OC', but simply decent ones? And what if a plain, normal head coach would have fired a horrible OL coach.

Simply doing his job right, and nothing more would have made drastic differences in our last few years.

I dont mean titles, but respectable seasons.

This is a fantastic scenario, because that is part of the problem. It's a good thing to examine how and why things happen and not just the outcome. Sports are stupid. Sometimes great stuff and stupid stuff can both happen for unknown reasons. IE Why does our secondary suddenly suck? I don't know rn. Compare that to the former OL coach - we could all see he needed to go well before he did. Same with Satterfield. And sometimes it absolutely doesn't matter - you can make a change and maybe nothing improves. But when you know what you're doing isn't working you explore something else. Beamer practically refused to get rid of those coaches despite them not getting the job done. Teasley even got a raise. So while changes do not guarantee success I simply do not understand the mindset of do nothing about it, especially while being paid handsomely to do something about it.

When you step back and apply the how's and why's to all of Gamecock football, you'll see some matters that all of us just go - I got no answer. But you'll also see some stuff where you go - that was a stupid decision; what could have/should have been done instead?

 

[Skuddy]

Think of it this way. Picture our last 3 seasons.

What if our head coach didn't hire bone headed OC', but simply decent ones? And what if a plain, normal head coach would have fired a horrible OL coach.

Simply doing his job right, and nothing more would have made drastic differences in our last few years.

I dont mean titles, but respectable seasons.

Nope, you are forgetting the laws of gamecockdom (aka the law of averages). If one part of your team good, another part will suck. We have a decent OL this year but our secondary sucks.

 

[atl-cock]

I am. Our history proves it. It's the old "it's not you, it's me". We've tried every conceivable approach to hiring a coach, and nothing works.

If we fire Beamer, the absolute best-case scenario is that the next coach has maybe 3 good seasons and then leaves for a better job. That's like utter euphoria best case. Then we'd be back in the same situation starting over the same cycle. Worst case, we end up with Brad Scott 2.0. Most likely case, we end being about what we always have been.

My challenge is if a football coach has three good seasons here in the SEC, why would they leave?

 

[atl-cock]

Let's start by firing the entire BOT at USC. For reasons unknown, they apparently love Shane. The board and the legislature have had their fingers in USC sports for way too long.

Are there other schools whose BOT gets too involved in the varsity athletics program?

 

[atl-cock]

Who advocates that we should go try to get such coaches as Smart or Sark from such programs? I don't do that. Before I hung out on this particular webspace Matt Campbell used to be name that people would often through around in other Gamecock circles. I even thought that was far fetched but just as you say the people think the money thing will be an ultimate answer, and it's not so we agree there.

Sure, there is no such thing as a can't miss hire. But the very thing you ask about hiring from lower tier programs - I've long been in the camp of doing that. That is generally how it works - find someone at lower tier who has proven they win and they get bigger jobs. Saban began at Toledo. Urban Meyer began at Bowling Green. Both went through other mid-majors before landing the SEC gig. Spurrier was at Duke before Florida. Just a few off the top of the examples, but the list goes well beyond Cignetti. I know there are examples the other way IE Sparky.

So while we can't be certain we won't hire the right guy, because no one ever can be; why is there a comfort level among our fans to say essentially say "Keep Beamer because he's what we've basically always had?" It's pretty clear by now that is the absolute best he can do. If that is what SC fans and administration want for the next 130 years of football then so be it. I'm not convinced it has to stay that way. It very well might, but it also might not.

How much time/seasons do you give a coach?

 

[ThinnyJ]

Well.... There's no doubt he hates losing. He likes to score, too. The plays haven't been bad.

He hasn't thrown one of those balls 20 feet over someone's head or in the dirt. He also hasn't dropped one of that hit his hands, or left any receivers wide open.

I can't blame everything on him like some do... The players have really just dropped the ball in a lot of ways (metaphorically and literally)

 

[18IsTheMan]

Well.... There's no doubt he hates losing. He likes to score, too. The plays haven't been bad.

He hasn't thrown one of those balls 20 feet over someone's head or in the dirt. He also hasn't dropped one of that hit his hands, or left any receivers wide open.

I can't blame everything on him like some do... The players have really just dropped the ball in a lot of ways (metaphorically and literally)

As I posted in another thread, I really have no issues with the offense Briles is running. Unlike the head scratching nonsense we were slopping around on the field last year, this offense actually looks crisp, if it's run well. We've had quite a few nice, sustained drives. The offense moves the ball well and picks up yards. We just shoot ourselves in the foot. That opening drive against MSU may become emblematic of our season.

 

[cocksx5]

6yrs enough.no consistency, horrible fundamentals, bonehead coaching moves, bad talent evaluation-see whole secondary, and just no player development, I mean none!!!!!!!! look at Indiana, msst, fla , our hiring process is so flawed, the last 2 with chump and beamer terrible, i'm betting donati is better, bring back beamer and expect nothing better and players jumping a sinking ship and a lot of donors with them, go watch men bball team , its going to b a historically bad yr how much more do u expect our fans to take

 

[fwm]

"If we accept that we are what we are (And after 130+ years, we simply have to."

Defeatism is not the answer. It's
corrosive to the soul. Here is a counter argument-admittedly Ai generated.



Defeatism is not acceptance; it is a defensive
surrender disguised as realism. Believing "we are
who we are and cannot get better" feels safe
because it shields us from the pain of trying
and failing, but it ultimately trades the discomfort
of growth for the slow rot of resignation.

Here are perspective-shifting insights and words
of wisdom to challenge the attitude of fixed futility:
1. The "I Can't" Illusion
When we tell ourselves we cannot change, we are
usually mistaking a choice for a permanent condition.

As author Craig D. Lounsbrough notes,
the "I can't" attitude is often a decision of "I won't," representing a form of negative self-sabotage where
we reject hope to avoid risk.

Literary giant Maya Angelou famously observed
the difference between experiencing failure and
internalizing it: "We may encounter many defeats
but we must not be defeated." Resignation turns
an event into an identity.

2. Radical Acceptance vs. Defeatism
There is a profound difference between accepting
reality and accepting defeat. Real acceptance
acknowledges your starting point without locking
you into a permanent ending.

Acceptance says: "This is where I am right now."
Defeatism says: "This is all I will ever be."
Resignation pretends to be a quiet form of
peace, but true strength comes from carrying
yourself with intention through difficult baselines.

3. Growth is Not Linear
Defeatism thrives when we expect flawless,
immediate improvement. When that doesn't happen,
we default to "we aren't going to get any better."

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again.
Fail again. Fail better," wrote Samuel Beckett.
Improvement isn't about eradicating flaws; it's
about altering your relationship with them.

In his pioneering work on Learned Helplessness
on Wikipedia, psychologist Martin Seligman
demonstrated that giving up is a conditioned response
to feeling powerless. We break that conditioning
not through massive transformations, but by making
small, intentional choices that prove we still
have control.

4. The Cost of Certainty
Defeatism offers a dark comfort because it makes
the future predictable. If you decide you can
never improve, you will always be right. But as
Napoleon Bonaparte starkly put it: "To live defeated
and inglorious is to die daily." You exchange the
vibrant uncertainty of potential for the stagnant
safety of a self-imposed cage

 

[Deathstar]

What choice do we have? We cannot get rid of him, he is too expensive to fire.

 

[Piscis]

"If we accept that we are what we are (And after 130+ years, we simply have to."

Defeatism is not the answer. It's
corrosive to the soul. Here is a counter argument-admittedly Ai generated.



Defeatism is not acceptance; it is a defensive
surrender disguised as realism. Believing "we are
who we are and cannot get better" feels safe
because it shields us from the pain of trying
and failing, but it ultimately trades the discomfort
of growth for the slow rot of resignation.

Here are perspective-shifting insights and words
of wisdom to challenge the attitude of fixed futility:
1. The "I Can't" Illusion
When we tell ourselves we cannot change, we are
usually mistaking a choice for a permanent condition.

As author Craig D. Lounsbrough notes,
the "I can't" attitude is often a decision of "I won't," representing a form of negative self-sabotage where
we reject hope to avoid risk.

Literary giant Maya Angelou famously observed
the difference between experiencing failure and
internalizing it: "We may encounter many defeats
but we must not be defeated." Resignation turns
an event into an identity.

2. Radical Acceptance vs. Defeatism
There is a profound difference between accepting
reality and accepting defeat. Real acceptance
acknowledges your starting point without locking
you into a permanent ending.

Acceptance says: "This is where I am right now."
Defeatism says: "This is all I will ever be."
Resignation pretends to be a quiet form of
peace, but true strength comes from carrying
yourself with intention through difficult baselines.

3. Growth is Not Linear
Defeatism thrives when we expect flawless,
immediate improvement. When that doesn't happen,
we default to "we aren't going to get any better."

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again.
Fail again. Fail better," wrote Samuel Beckett.
Improvement isn't about eradicating flaws; it's
about altering your relationship with them.

In his pioneering work on Learned Helplessness
on Wikipedia, psychologist Martin Seligman
demonstrated that giving up is a conditioned response
to feeling powerless. We break that conditioning
not through massive transformations, but by making
small, intentional choices that prove we still
have control.

4. The Cost of Certainty
Defeatism offers a dark comfort because it makes
the future predictable. If you decide you can
never improve, you will always be right. But as
Napoleon Bonaparte starkly put it: "To live defeated
and inglorious is to die daily." You exchange the
vibrant uncertainty of potential for the stagnant
safety of a self-imposed cage

There is a difference between defeatism and acceptance of reality. No matter how many time I try, or ever tried, I would never be able to compete in the NBA.

I did not practice defeatism by accepting that, I merely accepted the reality of the situation.