Tanner takes himself off Recruiting Trail

[ucan'tlickourcocks]

I don't want to see Tanner step down as Coach, that's only because he is the BEST Baseball coach in the Country!!! Period!!! Having said I am surprised by 2 things!

1) How little faith folks have in Tanner's ability to be a good AD!
2) How little faith folks have in Holbrook! Why do you think Chad Holbrook came to South Carolina???? One reason! To be head coach of our baseball team!!! If we lost Tanner, and had to do a Coaching search, In my opinion, there is not a better candidate in the Country than Chad Holbrook! As much as I cherish Ray Tanner, I also have equal belief that Chad Holbrook will maintain our Program as one of the best in the Country!

Originally Posted by Acockolypse Now

Cons:

Will he be able to truly let go of the team? Will Holbrooke feel like he's being second guessed at times?

I can say with clarity and certainty that Ray Tanner would NEVER interfere in day to day operations of the baseball team if he was AD...... just not his style! If Holbrook asked advice, he would get it........ that's it!

At the end of the day, I am happy for Ray Tanner, I am happy for Chad Holbrook, and I am happy for the University of South Carolina!

[GarnetInChicago]

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

So you want to compare a job where a person's life is at stake with an athletic director's job?

Logical fallacy

You're being intentionally obtuse. There is no logical fallacy here. The point being made is that many of us do not want a man that does not have this exact experience that we can point to and make us feel comfortable with what we believe we'll be getting. Instead, we're facing a much greater unknown and a higher degree of risk that something will go wrong.

[usc1]

Originally Posted by SwimCock

A move by Tanner is more akin to a Manager moving up to a VP or Director level position in a big company. It happens all the time, especially if the Manager is qualified, experienced, successful, respected, and has other characteristics that fit the job. Even VPs and Director level management personnel often move up to EVPs, CFOs, CEOs, and COOs.

Except it's two completely different fields. Coaching a baseball team and running an athletic department are different things. Your analogy would work if we hired someone within the AD circle at our school.

[rolinb1]

Originally Posted by The Yancey

That is actually how it is done in medicine: Watch one, do one, teach one.

and....the military

[FloydTheBarber]

Originally Posted by GarnetInChicago

You're being intentionally obtuse. There is no logical fallacy here. The point being made is that many of us do not want a man that does not have this exact experience that we can point to and make us feel comfortable with what we believe we'll be getting. Instead, we're facing a much greater unknown and a higher degree of risk that something will go wrong.

It is a logical fallacy because it is a false comparison. Saying its the same for a doctor with no experience to perform brain surgery is the same as someone with no experience as an AD to take that job is an absurd argument.

[spareparts]

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

See where I'm going with this??

Yes, perfectly. And I am not surprised that lots of people missed the point by claiming you are comparing being an athletic director to being a brain surgeon. Classic!

Originally Posted by i29gman

Tanner has served the University of South Carolina exceptionally well as baseball coach. He built a stadium; won back to back championships; his teams set all kinds of records. He won the last national championship in one stadium and the first in another; history can never change that. Tanner has earned the right to do what he wants to do. If being AD now is on his list, he has earned it.

You sound like his wife.

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

Why would anyone think Tanner couldn't do the job?

Because he is unqualified to be the athletic director at the highest level of NCAA competition.

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

He has earned the right to pursue being our AD if he wants.

That is true, anyone can apply for the job.

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

He's been around the block

What does that mean, specifically? How does it translate to qualifications?

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

and I have faith he can be an awesome AD.

Hires of this magnitude don't have anything to do with faith, they have to do with demonstrating a track record of AD success at the highest level in the NCAAs, which he cannot do.

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

He won his titles here and is a Gamecock.

Both of those things have nothing to do with his qualifications for the job.

Originally Posted by Rebel4ever

I think the timing is right and I think Holbrooke will make a great HC and Tanner will be a great AD.

Again, emotional appeals with not one shred of factual evidence that Tanner will make a "great" AD, whatever that means.

Originally Posted by GarnetInChicago

And I would rather have an AD that I KNOW can do the job (based on prior experience in that role) than one I THINK can do it.

Me too.

Originally Posted by sosfan812

Tanner is also someone I think would become just as good an AD as he is a Coach. He is driven and will run a tight ship.

Not one shred of facts in this statement whatsoever, complete emotional appeals and resume cliches. What is "running a tight ship", exactly? And as I previously stated, being "driven" doesn't have any specific definition at all. What does that mean as far as qualifications? Nothing.

Originally Posted by ucan'tlickourcocks

1) How little faith folks have in Tanner's ability to be a good AD!

Because we know that hires of this magnitude have nothing to do with "faith".

[Roosterboy]

I am not feeling this decision.
I love Coach Tanner, but I just don't think he is ready.

I'm still hoping we promote one of Hyman's assistant ADs to the head job, and this is all a promotion to move Tanner to the assistant AD position to learn the ropes and take over a the department in a few years.

And I get the feeling that may be what is happening. And if that does happen, I feel confident Chad Holbrook will be the new head-man, he will hopefully keep Jerry Meyer and promote Sammy Esposito (and eventually bring back Adrian Morales to be an assistant coach;-) )

[Cockin It]

Not really sure about this one. The man knows about making champions, but does he know the business side of things? You can't always be nice and give in to fan whining (a la the YES program).

If it goes sour, can the president bring himself to fire the man? Really hope he is able to be successful, but don't think this is necessarily the best move right now.

[roosteronce]

Does he have any experience as an AD? If not, this would be an awful hire.

[FloydTheBarber]

Well, if Tanner becomes the AD, I will hope for the best.

The naysayers who write him off even before it happens can just bitch and moan and cry about how the sky is falling.

[sandstorm2001]

Originally Posted by The Yancey

That is actually how it is done in medicine: Watch one, do one, teach one.

Yeah, but not watch one 20 years ago and do one now. A lot changes in two decades.

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

So you want to compare a job where a person's life is at stake with an athletic director's job?

Logical fallacy

As far as I'm concerned the life of our Athletic Department is at stake. I'm not saying Ray will kill the department, but he has more potential to knick the wrong wire than an experienced AD does. What other job do I need to throw out for it not to be a logical fallacy?? Who are you going to call to do your plumbing? Somebody that was a plumbers assistant 20 years ago but has been doing electrical work sense or somebody that is currently a plumber? Do you want a chef cooking for you, or do you want the ex sou chef that has been a line cook since. Do you want the mechanic working on your car or the guy at firestone that does nothing but change tires all day??

I'm not trying to equate being the head baseball coach to some kind of low level job, just trying to argue that it is by no means the same world as being an AD.

There is no logical fallacy in my reasoning.

[FloydTheBarber]

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

Yeah, but not watch one 20 years ago and do one now. A lot changes in two decades.




As far as I'm concerned the life of our Athletic Department is at stake. I'm not saying Ray will kill the department, but he has more potential to knick the wrong wire than an experienced AD does. What other job do I need to throw out for it not to be a logical fallacy?? Who are you going to call to do your plumbing? Somebody that was a plumbers assistant 20 years ago but has been doing electrical work sense or somebody that is currently a plumber? Do you want a chef cooking for you, or do you want the ex sou chef that has been a line cook since. Do you want the mechanic working on your car or the guy at firestone that does nothing but change tires all day??

I'm not trying to equate being the head baseball coach to some kind of low level job, just trying to argue that it is by no means the same world as being an AD.

There is no logical fallacy in my reasoning.

Skip Bertman has done a horrible job.

I know, I know...anecdotal evidence.

But fact of the matter is very few, if any of us, have an effect on this decision. What's the point of whining about a hire that hasn't even happened? Or when it does even...what's the point? At least give him a chance to succeed before you write him off.

[spareparts]

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

Well, if Tanner becomes the AD, I will hope for the best.

As would I. Do you think those who are suspicious that it isn't the best hire are against USC? That sounds like the fallacies you intended to criticize others for earlier, except more appropriate.

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

The naysayers who write him off even before it happens can just bitch and moan and cry about how the sky is falling.

More emotional appeals. Interesting you think those who are asking for EVIDENCE OF HIS QUALIFICATIONS are "bitching and moaning", while those who are excited because (as far as I can tell) the main reason for the hire is "Tanner is a good guy" AREN'T being emotional.

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

What's the point of whining about a hire that hasn't even happened?

About the same as praising the hire before it's happened, which you are doing.

[sandstorm2001]

For the people that think this is a great move, how would you feel if this was any other head coach of any sport in the country?? In this hypothetical scenario they were an Assistant AD twenty years ago and have seen success in their tenure as a head coach.

[FloydTheBarber]

Originally Posted by spareparts

As would I. Do you think those who are suspicious that it isn't the best hire are against USC? That sounds like the fallacies you intended to criticize others for earlier, except more appropriate.




More emotional appeals. Interesting you think those who are asking for EVIDENCE OF HIS QUALIFICATIONS are "bitching and moaning", while those who are excited because (as far as I can tell) the main reason for the hire is "Tanner is a good guy" AREN'T being emotional.



About the same as praising the hire before it's happened, which you are doing.

No, I think anyone saying outright this would be a horrible hire are the ones who was jumping the gun. I feel the same about anyone saying its a home-run. But I try to be a glass half-full kinda guy, so maybe the naysayers stick out a little more to me. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

Like I said- none of us have any effect on this decision, so those who are ready to jump off the proverbial cliff should take a deep breath and see how it plays out.

Or jump. Whatever works.

[sandstorm2001]

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

Skip Bertman has done a horrible job.

I know, I know...anecdotal evidence.

But fact of the matter is very few, if any of us, have an effect on this decision. What's the point of whining about a hire that hasn't even happened? Or when it does even...what's the point? At least give him a chance to succeed before you write him off.

Like you said, we have no effect on this decision so the chance is not mine to give. Nowhere have I said that he will do a bad job, I just think it would have been smarter to pursue some people that are currently having success as an AD.

[ucan'tlickourcocks]

Originally Posted by spareparts

Because he (Ray Tanner) is unqualified to be the athletic director at the highest level of NCAA competition.

Friend, with all due respect, you can certainly make the argument that Tanner is not the most EXPERIENCED or QUALIFIED candidate....... but to flat out say that Ray Tanner is not qualified to be Athletic Director...... is patently false!
If I am assistant dog catcher, does that make me "qualified" to be dog catcher? Certainly! Maybe not the most qualified, but certainly qualified!
So in my mind, when you say Ray Tanner is not qualified to be AD, I just don't find that factual! But you certainly have your opinion, I respectfully disagree!

Originally Posted by spareparts

Because we know that hires of this magnitude have nothing to do with "faith".

What? There is not a single job, where somebody is hired, that there is not some degree of "faith"........... part of the hiring process, is "believing" that whoever you hire can do the job! Faith absolutely is required! I know Ray Tanner's work ethic, his rules ethics, and his leadership abilities, not to mention his experience and love for the University..... I for one have Faith.......

Every great AD out there was not born a great AD........ somewhere along the way, somebody gave them a chance, had faith....... Tanner may be getting his shot! Is their risk of a bad hire here? In my opinion, a VERY low risk, with a TREMENDOUS upside!!! I personally believe that when Ray Tanner retires, he will retire with Distinguished Honor as a Coach, AND Administrator!

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

For the people that think this is a great move, how would you feel if this was any other head coach of any sport in the country??

This IS NOT just any other head coach........ this is RAY TANNER! Ray has made his desires clear, even before winning 2, almost 3 National Championships....... he wanted a shot at being our AD.......

And do you not give Chad Holdbrook ANY consideration at all? I realize its not AS important as AD....... but as much as we all love our baseball program, IT IS relevant!

[GarnetInChicago]

For those of you claiming Ray is qualified for the job of Athletic Director, let me ask you this: can 3 name another athletic department of USC's caliber today? If not, then you cannot rationally argue he is qualified for this job either.

[spareparts]

Originally Posted by ucan'tlickourcocks

There is not a single job, where somebody is hired, that there is not some degree of "faith"

Indeed. But it is not even on the list when you consider specific qualifications which Tanner does not have. As hard as it is to realize this, he is unqualified to be the AD at an SEC school. And faith, at that point, isn't enough to sustain his candidacy.

Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber

No, I think anyone saying outright this would be a horrible hire are the ones who was jumping the gun. I feel the same about anyone saying its a home-run. But I try to be a glass half-full kinda guy, so maybe the naysayers stick out a little more to me. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

Like I said- none of us have any effect on this decision, so those who are ready to jump off the proverbial cliff should take a deep breath and see how it plays out.

Or jump. Whatever works.

I am not saying it would be a horrible hire, but it is absolutely not the best possible hire considering (as far as I can tell) not one high profile AD from another top-tier NCAA school has publicly been vetted. Maybe there are backroom deals, who knows. But the reaction here hasn't been unexpected or unique.

And by the way, if you think no alumni and possible stakeholders have any effect on the decision (i.e., do they consider the fans when choosing) is absolutely wrong. This sort of hire is a BUSINESS DECISION, yet if Tanner is hired, it would not be one at all because it would be based solely on emotion and not on qualifications.

I am also a glass half full person, but to me the glass is empty in this case. There is not one person who has come forward with specific qualifications for Tanner which would put him over the top against other candidates who we could be pursuing.

Floyd - I do not want to "see how it plays out". And anyone who has that attitude is obviously not thinking in the best interests of our program at this point in time.

"See how it plays out" is the same as throwing caution to the wind. Can we afford to do that in 2012 and beyond? Seriously? With all we have done - are you prepared for our AD to have on-the-job training?

[FloydTheBarber]

Originally Posted by spareparts

Indeed. But it is not even on the list when you consider specific qualifications which Tanner does not have. As hard as it is to realize this, he is unqualified to be the AD at an SEC school. And faith, at that point, isn't enough to sustain his candidacy.



I am not saying it would be a horrible hire, but it is absolutely not the best possible hire considering (as far as I can tell) not one high profile AD from another top-tier NCAA school has publicly been vetted. Maybe there are backroom deals, who knows. But the reaction here hasn't been unexpected or unique.

And by the way, if you think no alumni and possible stakeholders have any effect on the decision (i.e., do they consider the fans when choosing) is absolutely wrong. This sort of hire is a BUSINESS DECISION, yet if Tanner is hired, it would not be one at all because it would be based solely on emotion and not on qualifications.

I am also a glass half full person, but to me the glass is empty in this case. There is not one person who has come forward with specific qualifications for Tanner which would put him over the top against other candidates who we could be pursuing.

Floyd - I do not want to "see how it plays out". And anyone who has that attitude is obviously not thinking in the best interests of our program at this point in time.

"See how it plays out" is the same as throwing caution to the wind. Can we afford to do that in 2012 and beyond? Seriously? With all we have done - are you prepared for our AD to have on-the-job training?

Well, why don't you share your strategy to influence Dr Pastides, aside from posting on CT?