I am not here to please anybody.
And we're not here to tell you how right you are.
Let's unpack that a bit - because what "the brand" means to you and what it really means as a whole are two different things. The brand to you is success in football, and to a lesser extent men's basketball and I'm assuming baseball. However, taken as a whole, and putting aside statements like "women's basketball isn't a sport," the Gamecock brand is based on the overall success all its teams, whether you like them or not, and how well that brand is performing in terms of revenue generation and competitive success. And choosing to eliminate from the discussion the single biggest year-in-and-year-out success story in our athletics department because of your take on whether or not it is a sport basically renders any idea that you are talking from a set of facts, instead of a random opinion, a moot point.
We all know how how humiliating it has become to watch us in any sport.
We're 5-5 in football and not yet where we want to be. But I don't feel humiliated. Men's basketball is a shitshow but I don't feel "humiliated" when I watch it, especially because I know Frank is more than likely in his last days as coach. In baseball we made the regionals and I see no reason why we won't improve. If you feel humiliated by the results of any sporting event, back away from the TV and and find something else to do. When I get furious watching our football team, which is a lot lately, that's what I do. And FWIW I get a ton of satisfaction watching Coach Dawn and her crew go to work and dominate with the word "Carolina" right across the front of their jerseys, and I know plenty of other Carolina fans do as well. Their commitment to excellence makes me feel proud, not humiliated. Too bad you are missing out.
WTF are we doing paying the womens basketball coach - a nonrevenue sport - more than we pay our HEAD FOOTBALL COACH
Because that's how much a Hall of Fame coach who wins national championships, has the #1 team in the nation (sorry, because not only is it a sport, it's the third-most viewed collegiate sport in the nation after football and men's bb) and who is 34-1 in her last 35 games, gets paid -- based on market rates.
If you want to stare right into the face of stupidity, there it is.
Shane's a first-time head coach, with 5 career victories. Dawn is arguably one of the top two coaches in her field. CWM made more than her, which is laughable. Market scale for good coaches is what it is, whether you agree with it or not. FWIW, I don't disagree with you that if the coach you feel is best for this football program is worth X, you pay him X, or don't try to hire him. I never got the feeling during the search that Ray was looking for the best cheap coach, but I'm sure he has a budget like everyone else.
Look, what do you think ANY LSU fan would say if they hired a guy like Beamer? There would be a God damn EARTHQUAKE in that entire state.
The idea that the same coaches would be interested in the LSU job and the Carolina job is where your point once again goes off the rails. Not apples to apples, and not EVEN close to being so. You are living in a mythical world where money is the only reason coaches take jobs. It isn't. They also take it because it will either feed them (with success ) into their NEXT job, or it is their destination job. Carolina, for all it has going for it, and unlike LSU, doesn't have a baseline of success and recent championships like LSU does, and it's not a destination job for 99% of coaches or coaching candidates. Or Clemson does. Or Alabama. Or even the tradition that can take the place of recent natties, like Texas A&M. If the A&M job and this job were open at the same time with the same salary, why would any coach like Jimbo take this one? This job is HARDER than most jobs, because their is no history or easy path (hello ACC) to success.
Now, if you wanted to make an argument that Hugh Freeze or Lane Kiffen were available last winter to an AD with either vision or huge cajones, I might agree with you.