re: Muschamp won’t be fired

Yep, while the buyout being 75% of his remaining contract is in line with most SEC schools, extending him 1 more year therefore increasing the buyout ~4M AFTER the Belk Bowl embarrassment is inexcusable.

quote:

---

Tanner is the one to blame for that.

---

You're absolutely right there.

quote:

---

I remember a few years ago after 5 straight South Carolina wins hearing many Clemson fans doing the "Dabo will never beat Spurrier..he needs to go." I also remember the South Carolina fans (me included) saying.."No keep Dabo for life...ha, ha". Looking back on that and you can see than both sides were very stupid in their evaluation. I like Muschamp but his hires are questionable.

---

The big difference during the Spurrier 5 year run over Clemson is that Clemson continued to win league championships and win BCS Bowls...That can sure soften the sting of losing to your rival. If that was happening with Muschamp, no one would be complaining

quote:

---

been wanting this to happen since the day he was hired.

---

I thought our athletics had turned the corner

Then we went and made this hire

I knew from there shite would get worse

That's interesting Lonnie.

Very interesting.

But where do those rank in the conference?
I think as the LSU Bama game showed us this weekend
The game is all offense now days

The game is not the same it was 10 years ago
shite even 5-6 years ago

I know that UofSC fans aren't in any mood to take advice from fans of their archrival, but i'll proffer some anyway.

Since it's looking like you're stuck with Muschamp for now, you ought to consider offering him a 1- or 2-year extension in exchange for a reduced buyout. That way he doesn't look like a dead man walking, he can say with a straight face that the university still has confidence in him, & you don't lose your 2020 recruiting class. Then if you do end up having to can him next year, it won't be prohibitively expensive. In the meantime, an extension might enable him to persuade a proven OC to come in. (Who in his right mind would take that job now if it looks like he'll be out of work in a year?) If Boom really believes he's on the right track & just needs more time & some tweaks to his staff, he ought to be willing to agree to an arrangement like this. If not, well then both he & the football program are condemned to another wasted year.

Meanwhile, such an arrangement would buy the school some time to retire Ray Tanner with dignity (like offering him a sinecure of "university ambassador" or "coach emeritus") & then bring in a real, professional, experienced AD who would be tasked with a top-down review of every sports program & making sorely needed changes.

Whatever his "baggage", I still think y'all ought to consider Brad Edwards for the job - he's a USC alum (was one hell of a football player!), at age 53 is in the prime of his AD career, knows football & what it takes to lead a big-time football program, has previous experience inside UofSC's athletic department, brings administrative competence, & would immediately have the political clout to make tough decisions about hiring & firing coaches.

Just my thoughts, fwiw.

quote:

---

That's interesting Lonnie.

Very interesting.

---

It makes me feel MILDLY better about Muschamp...

Tallulah, you're not wrong. Muschamp's agent would never let him accept that kind of deal, but that's what needs to happen.

On a similar note, he needs to drop McClendon and swallow his pride and call Mangus. He's local to Columbia, would take the job if even for a year, and could actually make this situation work. His offenses were capable, and if paired with a competent D, you could be looking at 8-4 next year.