Its time to leave the SEC BE HONEST

[atl-cock]

No, men’s basketball, soccer and baseball are ok with me. I wish we could make Rugby a varsity sport also. Women’s sports are boring to watch and I have no interest in them. They cost a lot of money to support and take revenue away from the important revenue generating sports. All nonrevenue sports so be club level enterprises in my opinion.

No problem if you have no interest in a particular sport. Does the NCAA sponsor rugby competition?

All sports USC sponsors are important to somebodies. I've asked the question many times with few if any solid answers: Why does a school sponsor non-revenue sports on the varsity level? I think it behooves us all to understand the answer, whether or not we agree with it.

 

[Psycock]

Yes the ACC is the answer! Wow that could be us playing at Cal tomorrow night - easy to get excited about that one, right? I`m sure the Clemson fans won`t sleep tonight in anticipation. Wow we could be playing Syracuse, Boston College, Stanford instead of Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, etc. I`m sorry to me it`s not worth more wins to be in a lesser conference. Like others have said other sports would suffer as well. Give it up and just get better.

 

[atl-cock]

The SEC wanted two more teams for the very reason you say. But SC and Arkansas were invited because Texas and Texas A&M said no at the time. That much I can remember and have heard that a few times over the years. What I don’t recall clearly was any potential interest in FL St. I think, FL had strong objections and FSU probably had no interest given their recent admission to the ACC. But had they found their way to the SEC that may also have kept SC out.

I never understand why a school would not want their major athletic rival to bew a fellow conference member. It increases interest in your program and makes scheduling athletic contests easier.

When Georgia Tech announced they were leaving the SEC, UGA and Auburn indicated they would continue to schedule the Jackets in as many contests as they could. And for about 30 years, Tech scheduled Tennessee, Auburn, and (of course) UGA regularly in football. The Jackets still play Auburn each year in baseball.

 

[atl-cock]

I don't think the SEC ever made a formal offer to Clemson, I just seem to remember some Clemson "insiders" and some people who were really keeping up with SEC expansion saying Clemson had been approached to gauge their interest. I want to say the talk at the time was that the SEC would have liked to get FSU and Clemson since both were more "SEC like" and geographically closer to the SEC footprint.

And that's what happened circa 2005 with USC and the ACC. With the league poaching the Big East, the ACC reached out to USC to gauge interest in returning. Too late - they should have done that in 1985.

 

[Deathstar]

No problem if you have no interest in a particular sport. Does the NCAA sponsor rugby competition?

All sports USC sponsors are important to somebodies. I've asked the question many times with few if any solid answers: Why does a school sponsor non-revenue sports on the varsity level? I think it behooves us all to understand the answer, whether or not we agree with it.

We all agree to disagree, it is the American way. I have sat through many hours of my girl’s boring basketball, soccer and frisby games over the years. I more enjoyed their choir and orchestra events, where girls excel more than sports.

 

[Thunderstick]

The thought of leaving the SEC is so asinine I won`t even comment on it.

Thank you for not commenting on it.

 

[Thunderstick]

Oh, I totally agree with you. TLDR: We were about 5 years behind father time in him becoming our coach.

I'm still pissed at him. - It took a few years to get things rolling, then we got Lattimore and Clowney and those guys. IMHO, he screwed up and didn't listen to his own advice after Lattimore ran all over Georgia that one day. He even said after the game that the play calling really wasn't all that complicated. "Just give the ball to Marcus." - DUH!!!!!!

If he would've / could've listened to his own darn advice, I believe Marcus would have run straight to the Heisman trophy.... thus increasing USC football program status THAT MUCH MORE in addition to the name / coach "Spurrier." - We would have gotten even more better recruits.

But he just couldn't help himself and kept calling pass plays. Marcus got hurt, the rest is history. Spurrier *ALMOST* had us over the hump, and he quit. Quit recruiting. Quit caring. Didn't have the fire for that one final push to the mountain top. IE: He quit. - Yes, I'm still pissed about it. Sooooooo freakin' close. He quit, it fell apart. Now we're here.

Having said all of that, he's the best we've EVER had.

 

[Thunderstick]

Our first year in the SEC we went 3-5.

33 years later, we went 1-7.

You must admire our consistency.

 

[Thunderstick]

They pay us well to lose!

Are we the Washington Generals?

 

[TheRoo]

Oh come on.. being in the SEC is the only thing going for USC

It's not a theory nor an assumption that SC is a mediocre football program, they have been in any era. I'm also not assuming they would return to the ACC. Given their history with the conference both as a member and nonmember it was logical to consider how they have done against them. When comparing them to the ACC since their departure until now, as far as records go, it's simply nothing special. If you remove Clemson from the equation as that's the only ACC team they've always played since leaving, I think that does come out to a record a little over .500.

But something I do theorize on is this: I tend to think SC made certain investments and improvements in the football program because of joining the SEC which they otherwise would not have. So that elevated the program from where it was, but the competition on field increased as well. So if all things were the same for SC since 1992 (same players, same coaches, same facility upgrades, etc...) and they rejoined the ACC instead of joining the SEC then the on field results could look much better. If you narrow the record of SC vs ACC opponents since 1992, not named Clemson, I think the record is 10-6. Not dominate, but clearly good (but is admittedly stretched out over 24 years). And they had that run of being better than Clemson when Clemson began climbing the mountain and was the class of the ACC and not yet a natty contender. So there's indicators they could have done much better in this imaginary world, on the field.

So there's reason to assume they would not plummet, and there is reason to believe they still would not be much better off outside the SEC.

Yep. If they move to the 24-team playoff system, we could possibly expect to at least knock on the door once every 5-6 years or so as it stands today remaining in the SEC - especially if we can continue to land recruiting classes in the upper half of the SEC like we did this year.

If we were ACC, that number would probably increase to maybe once every 3 years or so.

However, the regular season of the SEC is far more exciting than the ACC, even if we're not in the hunt.

So you probably get more entertainment overall on average staying put, as long as you don't hang your emotions on final outcomes.

 

[Piscis]

Yep. If they move to the 24-team playoff system, we could possibly expect to at least knock on the door once every 5-6 years or so as it stands today remaining in the SEC - especially if we can continue to land recruiting classes in the upper half of the SEC like we did this year.

If we were ACC, that number would probably increase to maybe once every 3 years or so.

However, the regular season of the SEC is far more exciting than the ACC, even if we're not in the hunt.

So you probably get more entertainment overall on average staying put, as long as you don't hang your emotions on final outcomes.

I have to think Clemson fans have had a better time over the last 34 years than South Carolina fans have. Personally, I would enjoy winning more games, going to more bowls and playing in more major bowls and being in the playoff more than watching the other teams in the conference have success.

As to continuing to land recruiting classes in the upper half of the SEC, ESPN ranked us 25th, rivals ranked us 18th, On3 had us at 17 and 247 had us at 14. We were 8th in the SEC, exactly halfway. Coming in 8th in the SEC isn't going to get us into the playoff, ever.

 

[TheRoo]

I have to think Clemson fans have had a better time over the last 34 years than South Carolina fans have. Personally, I would enjoy winning more games, going to more bowls and playing in more major bowls and being in the playoff more than watching the other teams in the conference have success.

As to continuing to land recruiting classes in the upper half of the SEC, ESPN ranked us 25th, rivals ranked us 18th, On3 had us at 17 and 247 had us at 14. We were 8th in the SEC, exactly halfway. Coming in 8th in the SEC isn't going to get us into the playoff, ever.

That's about as good as we've done in awhile though. If the playoffs we're at 24 teams in 2024, we would have been in. Occasionally we outperform.

 

[uscfan1981]

We're 1-5 against Miami since 1953. So when I see 1-0 I'm a little confused.

They were not in the ACC.

 

[Piscis]

They were not in the ACC.

Oh, OK, then those losses don't count as losses.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

They were not in the ACC.

Gotcha. Our lone victory was against an ACC Miami.

 

[w8280]

Be honest this **** just isnt working. No program does less with more than USC. We need 9-10 win seasons to become a contender and it’s NEVER happening in the SEC. We should leave for the ACC or Big12

I agree definitely not working in the men sports

 

[atl-cock]

I agree definitely not working in the men sports

I want to see how the baseball team does under Schnall.