It's down to the Board of Trustees

[GroupElbowJungle]

I'm a 1989 alumnus and I buy into the hope every year. Saturday was gut-wrenching. After reflecting and research, I'm of the opinion that a great deal (but by no means all) of our history of mediocrity is down to our Board of Trustees. Our Board makeup is defined by State law, not University policy. That led to the weird situation of having Nikki Haley, a Clemson grad, as ex-officio Chair during her term (note - she's now on the Clemson Board). We have members of the Board who went to Bob Jones, Hampton University, Converse, and Wofford for undergrad and there are currently two vacant seats. Other than the members required by State Statute (Governor, Secretary of Education, Alumni Association president, and a Gubernatorial appointee), the General Assembly elects the remainder. Some of you remember how this led to politicization in the Spurrier era. Clemson's Board policy allows the majority of Board members to choose their own successors - and if you look at their Board it's all Clemson loyalists who are invested in athletic success.

I'm convinced the Board hit the easy button and hired Tanner as a reward, not because it made any sense. And the Board certainly had to approve the insane contract extensions for Muschamp and Beamer (who were being courted by no one).

What happened Saturday is down to coaches, players, x's and o's, and clock management - my point is that I think the macro issue at the root of it all is the Board. And I don't see how it's fixable. It would literally take the General Assembly changing state law.

TL/DR - Our Board is unserious about football.

 

[BoneSpur]

I cannot agree with you more. I have been saying this as well. We sell out every home game no matter what. I don't know the full budget situation at USC, I don't have the time to look it up. I am sure LSU, Florida, etc. BOT know the importance of a good to great football program. aTm dumped Jimbo Fisher but look at the reward they are getting, they are CFP bound. USC is not willing to go in the hole to hire a top notch coach. The BOT wouldn't know a top notch coach if it slapped them in the face.

 

[OldFlaCock]

I'm a 1989 alumni and I buy into the hope every year. Saturday was gut-wrenching. After reflecting and research, I'm of the opinion that a great deal (but by no means all) of our history of mediocrity is down to our Board of Trustees. Our Board makeup is defined by State law, not University policy. That led to the weird situation of having Nikki Haley, a Clemson grad, as ex-officio Chair during her term (note - she's now on the Clemson Board). We have members of the Board who went to Bob Jones, Hampton University, Converse, and Wofford for undergrad and there are currently two vacant seats. Other than the members required by State Statute (Governor, Secretary of Education, Alumni Association president, and a Gubernatorial appointee), the General Assembly elects the remainder. Some of you remember how this led to politicization in the Spurrier era. Clemson's Board policy allows the majority of Board members to choose their own successors - and if you look at their Board it's all Clemson loyalists who are invested in athletic success.

I'm convinced the Board hit the easy button and hired Tanner as a reward, not because it made any sense. And the Board certainly had to approve the insane contract extensions for Muschamp and Beamer (who were being courted by no one).

What happened Saturday is down to coaches, players, x's and o's, and clock management - my point is that I think the macro issue at the root of it all is the Board. And I don't see how it's fixable. It would literally take the General Assembly changing state law.

TL/DR - Our Board is unserious about football.

How many BOT members are SC Alumni?

 

[GroupElbowJungle]

Only 14 of 22 seats (counting the vacancies) went to USC Columbia for undergrad. (In my opinion a graduate school experience is very different from undergrad).

 

[sclawman77]

I cannot agree with you more. I have been saying this as well. We sell out every home game no matter what. I don't know the full budget situation at USC, I don't have the time to look it up. I am sure LSU, Florida, etc. BOT know the importance of a good to great football program. aTm dumped Jimbo Fisher but look at the reward they are getting, they are CFP bound. USC is not willing to go in the hole to hire a top notch coach. The BOT wouldn't know a top notch coach if it slapped them in the face.

Valid points. Gonna be up to Donati to find the coach. He presents to the BOT, who approves the hire and compensation package. I do blame the board and Pastides for the lazy hire of Tanner for AD which put us in today's current predicament. I also agree that the BOT is more interested in boosting their own bank accounts more than Carolina having success in sports. There is no commitment to winning that starts up top at Carolina.

 

[Legal_fowl]

I counted some time ago that at least 4 members of the BOT were Clemson grads but attended Law School at SC. I will not infer from that any attempt at sabotage, but I doubt that any member of the Auburn BOT graduated from Alabama.

 

[SouthernBelly]

I'm a 1989 alumni and I buy into the hope every year. Saturday was gut-wrenching. After reflecting and research, I'm of the opinion that a great deal (but by no means all) of our history of mediocrity is down to our Board of Trustees. Our Board makeup is defined by State law, not University policy. That led to the weird situation of having Nikki Haley, a Clemson grad, as ex-officio Chair during her term (note - she's now on the Clemson Board). We have members of the Board who went to Bob Jones, Hampton University, Converse, and Wofford for undergrad and there are currently two vacant seats. Other than the members required by State Statute (Governor, Secretary of Education, Alumni Association president, and a Gubernatorial appointee), the General Assembly elects the remainder. Some of you remember how this led to politicization in the Spurrier era. Clemson's Board policy allows the majority of Board members to choose their own successors - and if you look at their Board it's all Clemson loyalists who are invested in athletic success.

I'm convinced the Board hit the easy button and hired Tanner as a reward, not because it made any sense. And the Board certainly had to approve the insane contract extensions for Muschamp and Beamer (who were being courted by no one).

What happened Saturday is down to coaches, players, x's and o's, and clock management - my point is that I think the macro issue at the root of it all is the Board. And I don't see how it's fixable. It would literally take the General Assembly changing state law.

TL/DR - Our Board is unserious about football.

Yes. This has been a growing complaint among fans since the Muschamp extensions. They were just as guilty as Tanner probably even more so for hiring him. Don’t recall where I read this years ago but they thought they owed him the job after the baseball success. That was stupid.

Approving his football hires & ridiculous contracts was stupid, it was actually a board member who first suggested Beamer.

However, if they continue to hit the easy button and simply approve what the AD throws out there maybe improvement can come. This is not a prediction, certainly not a hope nor expectation, just saying it’s a possibility.