Tanner email records reveal glimpse into Muschamp’s final days as Gamecocks head coach
READ MORE
Inside USC’s coaching search
Exclusive look at the Gamecocks’ process in deciding to hire Shane Beamer.
Expand All
——Editor’s note: This is the first in a series on South Carolina’s football coaching transition.——
The frustration gave way to boos. The rumblings grew into rumors.
As South Carolina reeled following a 48-3 loss to Texas A&M on Nov. 7, 2020, there was little doubt football coach Will Muschamp was on the hot seat. The only question: Just how scorching was it?
Speaking Tuesday, Nov. 10, during his weekly news conference, Muschamp projected confidence when it came to his standing with USC athletic director Ray Tanner.
“Coach Tanner and I talk all the time about where we are and what we need to do to be successful,” Muschamp said. “Everything has been very positive. … He’s been very supportive like he has been for the past four years.”
Was Muschamp worried about his job security?
“No,” he said.
On the same day, just a few hours later, Tanner received an email from his chief of staff, executive associate AD Charles Bloom. Its subject line was simply “Coaches,” and the body of the email was a list of 10 head coaches and coordinators in college football and their salaries.
That email was just one of hundreds obtained by The State through an open records request for the time period the Gamecocks were working through their change in football leadership in November and December. Nearly all the work in a coaching search is handled through private conversations, of course, but the emails and other public records provide a glimpse into the timeline, thinking and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that occurred.
Muschamp was fired five days later, and nearly all of those 10 men listed in Bloom’s email would be reported as candidates for the Gamecocks’ head job in the weeks that followed.
A review of Tanner’s emails — particularly those that landed in his inbox around the week of Muschamp’s firing — show input from board of trustees members, some concern around the school’s financial situation and Muschamp’s buyout, and a first mention of Shane Beamer as a potential head coach option.
Behind the scenes: To fire or not to fire Muschamp
Six days after that news conference, Muschamp was gone, the Gamecocks having followed up the Texas A&M loss with a beating at the hands of Ole Miss, giving up 59 points to Lane Kiffin’s Rebels.
Tanner met with the media the Monday after the Ole Miss loss and insisted the decision to fire Muschamp midway through the season was made only the day before.
“I’ll tell you the decision was made yesterday. It wasn’t made in advance,” Tanner said. “There were some conversations that occurred. As you know, my direct report is President Bob Caslen, and we had some conversations on a number of occasions yesterday. And so, the decision was made yesterday.”
Using records obtained through South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, The State reviewed hundreds of Tanner’s emails from the period between Nov. 7 to Dec. 6. The State initially requested these records Dec. 14, asking for emails, text messages and phone records for Tanner during that 30-day period. The request was not fulfilled until five months later.
While the records do not contradict Tanner’s claim of when a decision was reached, they do show a build-up to the firing had been coming for quite some time and reached a critical point before the Ole Miss game.
After a dismal 4-8 season in 2019, a vocal portion of South Carolina’s fan base was already prepared to part ways with Muschamp.
Despite some confusing statements from Caslen, Tanner came out with a strong public vote of confidence in his coach, and the general consensus heading into 2020 was that Muschamp had one more season to prove himself.
Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides the on-field challenges it caused, the USC athletic department was expected to face a massive budget shortfall, and Muschamp’s buyout, reported at the time to be around $13 million, was actually more than $15 million. The optics of paying someone that much to not coach at the same time as the university implemented mandated furloughs would not be good.
Board member Toney Lister admitted as much in an email sent to Tanner, Caslen, board chair Thad Westbrook and other board members Nov. 10, the same day Muschamp defended his job security and Tanner received the list of potential coaching candidates.
“I, along with each of you, have received numerous calls concerning our football situation,” Lister wrote. “Some of my calls have been very negative about our head coach; some positive, especially after learning the buyout. I’m of the opinion that all of Dan’s committee should be kept in the loop by the administration before any decisions are made in this regard, especially considering our financial situation and faculty furloughs.”
C. Dan Adams, a trustee appointed by Gov. Henry McMaster, chairs the academic excellence and student experience committee and sits on the governance, finance and infrastructure and student and systems affairs committees.
Concern over the buyout, however, wasn’t enough to quell the dissatisfaction of many as the Gamecocks cratered after a 2-2 start.
Tanner’s emails show how he worked behind the scenes to deal with USC’s various stakeholders, even taking the time to disavow a fake Twitter account’s tweet to the board of trustees through board secretary Cantey Heath.
“There is a fake Twitter post going around that I need to update you about,” Tanner wrote after the Texas A&M loss. “Someone has taken the time to photoshop the tweet below and make it look like it is from my Twitter account. This tweet was not produced by me.”
A screenshot of the fake tweet was included, reading: “The rumors of Will Muschamp’s removal are all fiction. I fully stand behind him and believe he will get us to the promised land. All gas no brakes!” That last line was a nod to a motto Muschamp coined after the Gamecocks’ Outback Bowl win over Michigan on Jan. 1, 2018.
Indeed, Tanner sent no such tweet, and two days later, he received the list of possible coaching candidates from Bloom. They were, in the order listed and with Bloom’s own notes about salaries:
- Boise State coach Bryan Harsin (listed in his previous position as Arkansas State head coach) $1.75 million
- Louisiana head coach Billy Napier, $1.005 million
- Oregon head coach Mario Cristobal, $2.6 million
- Liberty head coach Hugh Freeze, was at $4.7 million at Ole Miss
- Alabama offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian, $1.55 million
- Arkansas offensive coordinator Kendal Briles, $1.02 million at Florida State in 2019
- Cincinnati head coach Luke Fickell, $3.4 million
- Coastal Carolina head coach Jamey Chadwell, $375,000
- Louisiana Tech head coach Skip Holtz, $700,000
- SMU head coach Sonny Dykes, approx. $1.34 million
When contacted by The State regarding the list and the email, Bloom couldn’t recall whether someone else asked him to generate the list or not. He did say it’s not unusual for him to compile information regarding topics being mentioned publicly without a request from Tanner or another colleague. In this case, Bloom said he researched names he’d seen on social media or in mainstream media that had been floated as hot names in college football and passed the information along to Tanner.
The end for Muschamp
If Tanner made any direct moves before the Gamecocks traveled to Oxford, his email records do not reveal it. But the Saturday morning of the Ole Miss game, he did receive an email from Eugene Warr, a board member since 2003 and a former chairman.
Warr’s email simply contained a link to an article from the University of Oklahoma student newspaper profiling assistant coach Shane Beamer. The headline of the story referred to Beamer as a “future head coach.” In the emails released to The State, there is no record of Tanner responding to Warr’s message.
Under the lights at Ole Miss that night, South Carolina couldn’t keep pace with the Rebels’ offense. While sophomore running back Kevin Harris put up a record-breaking performance, Muschamp’s defense was abysmal. In the immediate aftermath, national pundits questioned how long Muschamp could survive.
The next day, cell phone records show Tanner called Jimmy Sexton, Muschamp’s agent, at 9:46 a.m. Caslen then called Tanner at 9:49 a.m.
The same morning, Mark Bieger, chief of staff for Caslen, sent an email to Tanner, Caslen, board chairman C. Dorn Smith, vice chairman Thad Westbrook, Warr and general counsel Terry Parham setting up a conference call for 11:30 a.m. No agenda was set in the email.
But when Tanner did email the full board later that Sunday, it suggested a final call was all but made.
“I have scheduled a 6 p.m. meeting with Will Muschamp this evening. There is a possibility that the leadership of the Gamecock football program will be changing,” Tanner wrote. “I wanted to alert you to this possibility in case a change is made. You will be notified following this meeting if a change does occur.”
At 6:48 p.m., Bieger emailed USC leadership of the impending news that Muschamp was going to be dismissed — with a note that Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin and Gov. Henry McMaster were being notified. (McMaster is an ex officio chair of the university’s board, a role that lasts as long as he is governor.)
At 7:25 p.m., the official release from the university came down: Will Muschamp had been relieved of his duties as head coach.
Less than an hour later, a search firm emailed the university offering its services to help find the next South Carolina football coach. It was a precursor to the correspondence that would flood Tanner’s inbox in the coming weeks.
Muschamp, too, was sent an email from the university at 10:05 that Sunday night regarding the change in leadership. Tanner was copied on the message.
“Will — Please find the attached termination letter as required by your employment agreement,” wrote Chance Miller, South Carolina’s senior deputy athletic director. “Please let me know if you have any questions.”
— The State’s Ben Portnoy contributed to this story
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHow we did this story
Using records obtained through South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, The State reviewed hundreds of emails from more than 2,300 pages of Tanner’s inbox and sent box from the month of Nov. 7 to Dec. 6. The State initially requested these records Dec. 14, asking for emails, text messages and phone records for Tanner during the time period listed above.
For various reasons, documents were not provided by USC until May 14, five months after The State’s original request.
The university did not acknowledge The State’s request within 10 business days, as required by law, and The State followed up on its request Jan. 25. A university employee responded that same day, saying the school was in the process of gathering the requested information and that he hoped to have a response “in the near future.”
The State sent two more follow-up emails asking for a timeline on USC’s response, on March 2 and April 20. On April 20, the university’s new FOIA coordinator responded, saying she and her staff were reviewing the requested documents and asked The State if “there are any particular topics or keywords you are looking for” to expedite the review process. The State responded with a list of 24 search terms, such as “Muschamp,” “Beamer,” “position” and “interview.”
On May 14, five months after the original request, USC provided hundreds of Tanner’s emails, as well as more than 950 phone records made to or by the athletic director.
This story was originally published June 8, 2021 at 5:00 AM.