ADVERTISEMENT

Carolina has roughly 4-5 years to try to win SEc

We’re going on 30 years in the conference and it hasn’t happened yet. The closest we ever got was with 3 losses in conference (I believe the only time a 3 loss team has made it to the SECCG, or at least one of very few). We got obliterated in that game.

I don’t know what all that means, but I don’t think the addition of UT, OU, Clemson, OSU and Michigan affects us all that much.
 
No offense intended to the OP, but so many of us Gamecock fans still don’t get it. It’s not about who you play (unless you’re in the ACC). It’s about accountability and commitment.

Texas, Bama, OU, LSU, TN, FL and even Clemson are all examples.

Texas had won a boatload of games. 3 national titles. Less than Miami.

Bama had its wildness years from 1979 until Saban in 2007. That 92 team proved to be paid for.

OU was a doormat from 1989-1999.

LSU was nothing for the entire 90s. Hell they hired Vandys coach.

TN, all the way back to the 50s is good, bad, good and then bad again.

FL had Spurrier and Meyer. End of story.

Clemson is a recent phenomenon.

My point is this. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN SERIOUS ABOUT FOOTBALL. Period.

Sometimes a coach can make it all happen, a Saban, a Spurrier, a Meyer. Those are unicorns. Rare.

Tradition means nothing anymore and hasn’t for a while. If it did, The Horns would be better. Bama and OU would have never been in the wilderness years.

Sometimes there is a unicorn, such as Spurrier here, our only unicorn. More often than not it’s about an institution being “all in”.

Read an article recently on Ohio State. A loss, any loss is a referendum on the whole program. The school itself. The mega booster down to the half season ticket holder demand excellence. As fan base we as of yet have not.

If we don’t like the odds of success we need to look in the mirror. It’s our ticket and merchandise dollars that fund this. It’s our eyeballs on the TV that fund this. Good is the enemy of great because is spawns mediocrity. We’ve always just wanted to be good. Great escapes the imagination. I’m as guilty as anyone else.
 
Last edited:
No offense intended to the OP, but so many of us Gamecock fans still don’t get it. It’s not about who you play (unless you’re in the ACC). It’s about accountability and commitment.

Texas, Bama, OU, LSU, TN, FL and even Clemson are all examples.

Texas had won a boatload of games. 3 national titles. Less than Miami.

Bama had its wildness years from 1979 until Saban in 2007. That 92 team proved to be paid for.

OU was a doormat from 1989-2009.

LSU was nothing for the entire 90s. Hell they hired Vandys coach.

TN, all the way back to the 50s is good, bad, good and then bad again.

FL had Spurrier and Meyer. End of story.

Clemson is a recent phenomenon.

My point is this. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN SERIOUS ABOUT FOOTBALL. Period.

Sometimes a coach can make it all happen, a Saban, a Spurrier, a Meyer. Those are unicorns. Rare.

Tradition means nothing anymore and hasn’t for a while. If it did, The Horns would be better. Bama and OU would have never been in the wilderness years.

Sometimes there is a unicorn, such as Spurrier here, our only unicorn. More often than not it’s about an institution being “all in”.

Read an article recently on Ohio State. A loss, any loss is a referendum on the whole program. The school itself. The mega booster down to the half season ticket holder demand excellence. As fan base we as of yet have not.

If we don’t like the odds of success we need to look in the mirror. It’s our ticket and merchandise dollars that fund this. It’s our eyeballs on the TV that fund this. Good is the enemy of great because is spawns mediocrity. We’ve always just wanted to be good. Great escapes the imagination. I’m as guilty as anyone else.
DEMAND MORE!!!!!1!!

(You are talking to the jackasses who can't even be bothered to wear a matching shirt to a game. Much less put their money where their mouth is)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lakecock1
That makes no sense. Whether OU and Texas are in the SEC or not, the road to the SEC Championship goes through Bama. If we can beat Bama we can beat OU, UT, OSU, clemsun… Does not matter who they add.
We gotta figure out how to finally win against A&M first before we worry about Alabama or anyone else.
 
DEMAND MORE!!!!!1!!

(You are talking to the jackasses who can't even be bothered to wear a matching shirt to a game. Much less put their money where their mouth is)
Soooooo you know what I mean then.

In all fairness though I do feel like new logo licensing rights are in every one of our contracts.

Lou with Carolina Football

SOS with his visors

Boom with script Carolina (which was Jo Mos before)

Bama and Clemson don’t change that A and paw do they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkHorse2001
Soooooo you know what I mean then.

In all fairness though I do feel like new logo licensing rights are in every one of our contracts.

Lou with Carolina Football

SOS with his visors

Boom with script Carolina (which was Jo Mos before)

Bama and Clemson don’t change that A and paw do they?
I imagine they cook up something a little different for fans every time there's a new regime. Our problem is we've had way too many new regimes (well one problem among many)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigWillieCock
No offense intended to the OP, but so many of us Gamecock fans still don’t get it. It’s not about who you play (unless you’re in the ACC). It’s about accountability and commitment.

Texas, Bama, OU, LSU, TN, FL and even Clemson are all examples.

Texas had won a boatload of games. 3 national titles. Less than Miami.

Bama had its wildness years from 1979 until Saban in 2007. That 92 team proved to be paid for.

OU was a doormat from 1989-2009.

LSU was nothing for the entire 90s. Hell they hired Vandys coach.

TN, all the way back to the 50s is good, bad, good and then bad again.

FL had Spurrier and Meyer. End of story.

Clemson is a recent phenomenon.

My point is this. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN SERIOUS ABOUT FOOTBALL. Period.

Sometimes a coach can make it all happen, a Saban, a Spurrier, a Meyer. Those are unicorns. Rare.

Tradition means nothing anymore and hasn’t for a while. If it did, The Horns would be better. Bama and OU would have never been in the wilderness years.

Sometimes there is a unicorn, such as Spurrier here, our only unicorn. More often than not it’s about an institution being “all in”.

Read an article recently on Ohio State. A loss, any loss is a referendum on the whole program. The school itself. The mega booster down to the half season ticket holder demand excellence. As fan base we as of yet have not.

If we don’t like the odds of success we need to look in the mirror. It’s our ticket and merchandise dollars that fund this. It’s our eyeballs on the TV that fund this. Good is the enemy of great because is spawns mediocrity. We’ve always just wanted to be good. Great escapes the imagination. I’m as guilty as anyone else.
Heck Ohio State fired a coach that averaged 10 wins a year.
 
We gotta figure out how to finally win against A&M first before we worry about Alabama or anyone else.
Exactly my point. We are not competing with any of the SEC teams recently except Vandy. We have only ourselves to blame for the challenges we face and it makes no difference if the SEC expands or not- we have to be the ones to improve so we can compete. Complaining about competition getting harder is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
Ok maybe you rambled too long for anyone to catch this, but Oklahoma went 60-7 and won a national championship and played for another between 2000-2004. Also lost to Florida in the 2008 National Title game.

That doormat was built like a brick $hithouse.
You got me. That should be 1999. Obviously since Stoops arrival that changed.

But thanks though for calling out my rambling as opposed to thinking there’s simply a typo. You’re a real peach.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gamecockben1979
giphy.gif
 
OU was a doormat from 1989-2009.

Didn't OU go 13-0 in 2000 and win the consensus national title? Beating FSU in the Orange bowl? And finished No. 6 the next year 2001 and No. 5 in 2002 and No. 3 in 2003 and 2004.

So in the five year period from 2000 to 2004 Oklahoma was:


2000 13-0 No. 1 consensus national champions
2001 11-2 No. 6 AP and UPI
2002 12-2 No. 5 AP and UPI
2003 12-2 No. 3 AP and UPI
2004 12-1 No.3 AP and UPI

Yet this is in the middle of your alleged doormat period?
 
Didn't OU go 13-0 in 2000 and win the consensus national title? Beating FSU in the Orange bowl? And finished No. 6 the next year 2001 and No. 5 in 2002 and No. 3 in 2003 and 2004.

So in the five year period from 2000 to 2004 Oklahoma was:


2000 13-0 No. 1 consensus national champions
2001 11-2 No. 6 AP and UPI
2002 12-2 No. 5 AP and UPI
2003 12-2 No. 3 AP and UPI
2004 12-1 No.3 AP and UPI

Yet this is in the middle of your alleged doormat period?
Agree. Some people are not being realistic, and just don't get it. OU and Texas will bring more MONEY to the SEC. That's what its all about. Sad but true. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are foolish. NCAA is all about the money.

Bringing OU and UT into there SEC is nothing more than for financial reasons, and it will absolutely hinder our chances of ever getting a championship.

Think about it. Would Clemson have as many ACC championships if they had to play OU, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, TAMU, LSU, on a weekly basis? Please. NO WAY.

But USC is going to somehow now rise to the Spurrier days and challenge this gauntlet of competition? Some people are either ignorant or have their head in the sand. This is not good for USC for championships.
 
Agree. Some people are not being realistic, and just don't get it. OU and Texas will bring more MONEY to the SEC. That's what its all about. Sad but true. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are foolish. NCAA is all about the money.

Bringing OU and UT into there SEC is nothing more than for financial reasons, and it will absolutely hinder our chances of ever getting a championship.

Think about it. Would Clemson have as many ACC championships if they had to play OU, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, TAMU, LSU, on a weekly basis? Please. NO WAY.

But USC is going to somehow now rise to the Spurrier days and challenge this gauntlet of competition? Some people are either ignorant or have their head in the sand. This is not good for USC for championships.
It is all about the money. OU and Texas saw projections for TV revenue after the Big 12 grant of rights that ran out in 2025 that would have fallen way behind the SEC payouts under its new 3 billion dollar deal. That spurred moving now, not later. As you say, for the SEC it was the same motivation. Money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
Winning the SEC? Heck I'd be happy with some bowl games.
Yes, let's freaking beat Kentucky first.

The SEC getting even tougher just means that future SEC champions are more likely to have 1 or 2 losses. Additionally, with the playoffs expanding, winning SEC championships becomes less of a priority.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: will110
Why is it that so many are deathly afraid of OU and Texas? Up our game to where it should be and things will take care of themselves. Even Bama loses sometimes and Texas and OU are no different. If we don't recruit better, and play better, then we would have never won the SEC anyway, so at least we get the extra Benjamins.
I agree that with the two new additions the road still goes through Alabama. We have never elevated our program to that level. Spurrier got us close for a few years. Right now we are way behind Oklahoma and we are behind Texas too. Adding these two teams makes it harder than ever. The Texas A&M addition has done nothing but add an extra loss to our season every time we played them. The two Newcomers are likely to do the same for awhile.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
I agree that with the two new additions the road still goes through Alabama. We have never elevated our program to that level. Spurrier got us close for a few years. Right now we are way behind Oklahoma and we are behind Texas too. Adding these two teams makes it harder than ever. The Texas A&M addition has done nothing but add an extra loss to our season every time we played them. The two Newcomers are likely to do the same for awhile.
How? We still must improve or we would never win anything anyway. How often will we play Texas or Oklahoma? Surely they won't take away Vandy and put one on our schedule,. So they replace aTm, LSU, Bama, with Texas or Oklahoma, what's the difference? Until we improve, you plug in a team and it is a loss, the only question is how bad. We must improve in recruiting, coaching and effort or we are destined to be mired where we are in the SEC regardless of who joins the conference. Beamer and staff know this and must get it done. I know we can be better and I hope this new staff will show that we ARE better than advertised.
 
Yes, let's freaking beat Kentucky first.

The SEC getting even tougher just means that future SEC champions are merely likely to have 1 or 2 losses. Additionally, with the playoffs expanding, winning SEC championships becomes less of a priority.
Exactly. I don't think Texas or OU come to the SEC if the playoffs are still four teams and the SEC gets at most two slots. With a 12 team playoff, the SEC probably gets 4 slots, roughly the four pod winners, maybe five in a strong year. So for Texas, previously it needed to beat OU and win the Big 12 to make the playoffs, now it needs to beat OU and win its pod to make the playoffs. Not that different.
 
How? We still must improve or we would never win anything anyway. How often will we play Texas or Oklahoma? Surely they won't take away Vandy and put one on our schedule,. So they replace aTm, LSU, Bama, with Texas or Oklahoma, what's the difference? Until we improve, you plug in a team and it is a loss, the only question is how bad. We must improve in recruiting, coaching and effort or we are destined to be mired where we are in the SEC regardless of who joins the conference. Beamer and staff know this and must get it done. I know we can be better and I hope this new staff will show that we ARE better than advertised.
" We still must improve or we would never win anything anyway" I agree.
"How often will we play Texas or Oklahoma?" I don't think anyone knows yet.
"Surely they won't take away Vandy and put one on our schedule" Probably correct
"So they replace aTm, LSU, Bama, with Texas or Oklahoma, what's the difference?" Right now A&M is on our schedule every year. Most years our schedule will probably include at least one of these teams, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, LSU and Auburn. Some years we probably get lucky and play Miss ST, Ole Miss, and Arkansas instead of the best teams in the West.
"Until we improve, you plug in a team and it is a loss, the only question is how bad." I agree.
" We must improve in recruiting, coaching and effort or we are destined to be mired where we are in the SEC regardless of who joins the conference. I agree.
The rumor is the new SEC East will look like this
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt.
That is a definitely tougher division than it is today.

The new SEC West will look like this
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss ST
Arkansas
Missouri.
In my opinion this makes the SEC West slightly weaker.

Our chances of winning the East Division will be worse than they already are.
If the conference decides to play nine games instead of eight, Our schedule most likely will be considerably tougher than any schedule we have ever played to date. Keep in mind after playing this super difficult conference schedule, We will then play Clemson. South Carolina has been trying to build a good football program my entire life. It has only happened once for a brief period. Looking at our long history of mediocre football, this new conference addition is going to produce a lot more losses than wins for us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
OP, there are greater threats to us already in the SEC. Don’t worry so much about Texas and Oklahoma. LMAO
We are entering like a decade with nothing to show football wise. Our problem is more from within at the top. It’s Ray and the BOT.
 
Last edited:
Agree. Some people are not being realistic, and just don't get it. OU and Texas will bring more MONEY to the SEC. That's what its all about. Sad but true. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are foolish. NCAA is all about the money.

Bringing OU and UT into there SEC is nothing more than for financial reasons, and it will absolutely hinder our chances of ever getting a championship.

Think about it. Would Clemson have as many ACC championships if they had to play OU, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, TAMU, LSU, on a weekly basis? Please. NO WAY.

But USC is going to somehow now rise to the Spurrier days and challenge this gauntlet of competition? Some people are either ignorant or have their head in the sand. This is not good for USC for championships.
Here is somebody that gets it. Why is this hard for many here to understand?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
Didn't OU go 13-0 in 2000 and win the consensus national title? Beating FSU in the Orange bowl? And finished No. 6 the next year 2001 and No. 5 in 2002 and No. 3 in 2003 and 2004.

So in the five year period from 2000 to 2004 Oklahoma was:


2000 13-0 No. 1 consensus national champions
2001 11-2 No. 6 AP and UPI
2002 12-2 No. 5 AP and UPI
2003 12-2 No. 3 AP and UPI
2004 12-1 No.3 AP and UPI

Yet this is in the middle of your alleged doormat period?

Battleship, my mom is an OU grad so I know the history between your schools. It must really pain you to defend OU. Much respect to you sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
" We still must improve or we would never win anything anyway" I agree.
"How often will we play Texas or Oklahoma?" I don't think anyone knows yet.
"Surely they won't take away Vandy and put one on our schedule" Probably correct
"So they replace aTm, LSU, Bama, with Texas or Oklahoma, what's the difference?" Right now A&M is on our schedule every year. Most years our schedule will probably include at least one of these teams, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, LSU and Auburn. Some years we probably get lucky and play Miss ST, Ole Miss, and Arkansas instead of the best teams in the West.
"Until we improve, you plug in a team and it is a loss, the only question is how bad." I agree.
" We must improve in recruiting, coaching and effort or we are destined to be mired where we are in the SEC regardless of who joins the conference. I agree.
The rumor is the new SEC East will look like this
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt.
That is a definitely tougher division than it is today.

The new SEC West will look like this
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss ST
Arkansas
Missouri.
In my opinion this makes the SEC West slightly weaker.

Our chances of winning the East Division will be worse than they already are.
If the conference decides to play nine games instead of eight, Our schedule most likely will be considerably tougher than any schedule we have ever played to date. Keep in mind after playing this super difficult conference schedule, We will then play Clemson. South Carolina has been trying to build a good football program my entire life. It has only happened once for a brief period. Looking at our long history of mediocre football, this new conference addition is going to produce a lot more losses than wins for us.
I agree with all you have stated with one caveat. Replacing aTm with Bama is a wash since we have never beaten aTm. Replacing Missouri with Auburn is minimally harder.

Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt.
That is a definitely tougher division than it is today.

We would still have to go through Georgia, Florida and the rest which we have only been able to do sporadically. If we are good enough to beat them, then we are good enough to beat Auburn. I just don't see where it makes that much difference. I stated earlier, we have to improve our level of recruiting, coaching, and play or we will be mired where we are in any conference ACC included.
 
That makes no sense. Whether OU and Texas are in the SEC or not, the road to the SEC Championship goes through Bama. If we can beat Bama we can beat OU, UT, OSU, clemsun… Does not matter who they add.
Bama has had lengthy dry spells between legendary coaches. They need to have the right people in place just as anyone else does. In not more than two or three years, they will be looking for the next savior. It might take awhile to find him. Texas and Oklahoma will be starting play in the SEC at exactly the right time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT