The Difference Between Us And Clemson

BigWillieCock

Active Member
Sep 14, 2007
1,142
603
113
Lots of comments on here about our administrative ineptitude. I’ve posted the following on here a few times over the years. Maybe now, in this seriously embarrassing cycle of ineptitude, it might find more open minds than in the past.

When I was growing up in the 80s and Clemson was a powerhouse, I asked my uncle, who was a massive Clemson booster, how they got that good.

He told me after the 56-20 beat down in the mid 70s a group got together and told the university it was either do what it takes to win or lose our money.

Fast forward to 201I’m playing golf at Musgrove Mill in Clinton with a man in his 70s. The company I worked for was trying to buy his business which was for sale. We traded jabs all day long. He had Clemson logo balls, I had Gamecock logo putter, etc, etc.

After the round we were having some beers and he said I hope you enjoyed the run because it’s going to be a long time before you beat us again.

I said oh yeah, you know something I don’t? He just laughed and said yeah.

I told him what my uncle told me in the 80s. He said who is your uncle. I told him and he said I know him. He then said what my uncle told me was entirely true and that he was part of the group.

Fast forward to November 2014. I’m sitting with this guy in his box seats as they are beating us. He said, I told you it was going to be a long time before you beat us again. He said the difference between them and us was that when they decided to do something they just made it happen.

Moral of the story is that is not our mindset. Whether you own a Cockaboose or scrimp and save to make one game a year, we for some reason are not as unified in our purpose.

The large contingent of apologists on Frank, Muschamp, Tanner, Caslen etc seem to prove that point.
 

Boom4life

Member
Oct 30, 2017
906
773
93
Our university unlike clemson is not committed to winning. the one difference in the 2 universities i will say is clemson really only cares mainly about football success....and USC looks more at all sports.
My response to that would be name me one school that does that successfully and wins national championships in all of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lakecock1

Elgringo

Active Member
Oct 11, 2004
1,180
866
113
Our university unlike clemson is not committed to winning. the one difference in the 2 universities i will say is clemson really only cares mainly about football success....and USC looks more at all sports.
Football is king, and everything else is just a distraction. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to themselves and you. I can totally see how our BOT justifies to themselves that we suck at football but other sports WBB, Equestrian, etc, are on the rise. These folks just reek of the "inclusive, diverse, equity" crowd who don't know jack squat about running businesses or creating a winner in anything.
 

usccocksfan

Member
Feb 5, 2003
39
79
18
Lots of comments on here about our administrative ineptitude. I’ve posted the following on here a few times over the years. Maybe now, in this seriously embarrassing cycle of ineptitude, it might find more open minds than in the past.

When I was growing up in the 80s and Clemson was a powerhouse, I asked my uncle, who was a massive Clemson booster, how they got that good.

He told me after the 56-20 beat down in the mid 70s a group got together and told the university it was either do what it takes to win or lose our money.

Fast forward to 201I’m playing golf at Musgrove Mill in Clinton with a man in his 70s. The company I worked for was trying to buy his business which was for sale. We traded jabs all day long. He had Clemson logo balls, I had Gamecock logo putter, etc, etc.

After the round we were having some beers and he said I hope you enjoyed the run because it’s going to be a long time before you beat us again.

I said oh yeah, you know something I don’t? He just laughed and said yeah.

I told him what my uncle told me in the 80s. He said who is your uncle. I told him and he said I know him. He then said what my uncle told me was entirely true and that he was part of the group.

Fast forward to November 2014. I’m sitting with this guy in his box seats as they are beating us. He said, I told you it was going to be a long time before you beat us again. He said the difference between them and us was that when they decided to do something they just made it happen.

Moral of the story is that is not our mindset. Whether you own a Cockaboose or scrimp and save to make one game a year, we for some reason are not as unified in our purpose.

The large contingent of apologists on Frank, Muschamp, Tanner, Caslen etc seem to prove that point.
Agree on all points, however we need to stop using Clemson as any sort of measuring stick. We should aspire to more, at least on the academic side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vidaliagamecock

alaskagamecock

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2005
2,996
1,087
113
Agree on all points, however we need to stop using Clemson as any sort of measuring stick. We should aspire to more, at least on the academic side.
Well we certainly should aspire to their success on the field, although it will never happen. Realistically we might to be lucky to make one football playoff in the next 20 years, they have made 4 in n a row.
 

Boom4life

Member
Oct 30, 2017
906
773
93
Stanford, Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, etc.
Half those schools have not won a football national championship in 15 years. I wouldn’t call that successfully being good at multiple sports. You just can be excellent at all of them. So chose the one that makes the most money first and invest everything into it. The rest will follow. Football is king
 
  • Like
Reactions: USCRBCOCK

Gamecock80SC

Member
Feb 18, 2021
95
113
33
To me things were more fun when the football team could go toe to toe with anyone. Like between 2010 to 2013.

Then we took a nose dive and it became more obvious each year that the Administration doesn’t have the desire or ability to install a winning culture. Caslen, the board and Tanner need to do something good or step aside. Tell local politicians to screw off if they want to replace a good board member with a bad one.

Things like Nikki Haley running Darla Moore off should not have happened. Sen. Darrell Jackson not letting UofSC fire Frank Martin should not happen. Our Admin should have the balls to press back on that kind of stuff. Clemson isn’t going to let McMaster or some clown come in and mess their program up. So why do we?
 
Last edited:

nccock622

Member
Nov 18, 2017
377
429
63
Agree on all points, however we need to stop using Clemson as any sort of measuring stick. We should aspire to more, at least on the academic side.
We would need a new USC president to achieve more on the academic side. I can’t believe we hired Caslen. What did Foghorn Leghorn see in him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
Oct 22, 2020
285
382
63
Our university unlike clemson is not committed to winning. the one difference in the 2 universities i will say is clemson really only cares mainly about football success....and USC looks more at all sports.
That seems to be a common misbelief on the board. Yes Clemson focuses on football, but not at the expense of other sports. They have a top 5 golf ranking, finished 5th in a basketball conference, top 25 in baseball and number 1 in soccer. Does that sound like a school that doesn’t care about other sports? Maybe they don’t care about women’s BB and will let USC have the glory there.
 

SCGCock07

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2009
3,339
987
113
Conway, SC
Half of Clemson's BOT aren't political appointments, they're permanent trustees who select their own replacements. And the day-to-day operation of the university isn't right down the street from the Statehouse. Until we overhaul the way our university operates, we will always be second fiddle.
 

CockofEarle

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 1999
60,251
4,379
113
Greenville, SC
Lots of comments on here about our administrative ineptitude. I’ve posted the following on here a few times over the years. Maybe now, in this seriously embarrassing cycle of ineptitude, it might find more open minds than in the past.

When I was growing up in the 80s and Clemson was a powerhouse, I asked my uncle, who was a massive Clemson booster, how they got that good.

He told me after the 56-20 beat down in the mid 70s a group got together and told the university it was either do what it takes to win or lose our money.

Fast forward to 201I’m playing golf at Musgrove Mill in Clinton with a man in his 70s. The company I worked for was trying to buy his business which was for sale. We traded jabs all day long. He had Clemson logo balls, I had Gamecock logo putter, etc, etc.

After the round we were having some beers and he said I hope you enjoyed the run because it’s going to be a long time before you beat us again.

I said oh yeah, you know something I don’t? He just laughed and said yeah.

I told him what my uncle told me in the 80s. He said who is your uncle. I told him and he said I know him. He then said what my uncle told me was entirely true and that he was part of the group.

Fast forward to November 2014. I’m sitting with this guy in his box seats as they are beating us. He said, I told you it was going to be a long time before you beat us again. He said the difference between them and us was that when they decided to do something they just made it happen.

Moral of the story is that is not our mindset. Whether you own a Cockaboose or scrimp and save to make one game a year, we for some reason are not as unified in our purpose.

The large contingent of apologists on Frank, Muschamp, Tanner, Caslen etc seem to prove that point.
Culture vs. agriculture.
 

NMB Dave

Member
Feb 21, 2017
144
146
43
That seems to be a common misbelief on the board. Yes Clemson focuses on football, but not at the expense of other sports. They have a top 5 golf ranking, finished 5th in a basketball conference, top 25 in baseball and number 1 in soccer. Does that sound like a school that doesn’t care about other sports? Maybe they don’t care about women’s BB and will let USC have the glory there.
clemson frequently has success in their smaller sports, better put their other sports (because men’s basketball isn’t small and they’re often competitive).
The difference is that their fans don’t care. If they had loyal fan support for men’s basketball they would get and keep good coaches that would take them to the next level. The day clemson fans start to care about sports other than football is the day we have another problem in addition to the pile of problems at USC already well documented on this board
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2

tailgatecock

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 3, 2001
13,201
1,535
113
Lots of comments on here about our administrative ineptitude. I’ve posted the following on here a few times over the years. Maybe now, in this seriously embarrassing cycle of ineptitude, it might find more open minds than in the past.

When I was growing up in the 80s and Clemson was a powerhouse, I asked my uncle, who was a massive Clemson booster, how they got that good.

He told me after the 56-20 beat down in the mid 70s a group got together and told the university it was either do what it takes to win or lose our money.

Fast forward to 201I’m playing golf at Musgrove Mill in Clinton with a man in his 70s. The company I worked for was trying to buy his business which was for sale. We traded jabs all day long. He had Clemson logo balls, I had Gamecock logo putter, etc, etc.

After the round we were having some beers and he said I hope you enjoyed the run because it’s going to be a long time before you beat us again.

I said oh yeah, you know something I don’t? He just laughed and said yeah.

I told him what my uncle told me in the 80s. He said who is your uncle. I told him and he said I know him. He then said what my uncle told me was entirely true and that he was part of the group.

Fast forward to November 2014. I’m sitting with this guy in his box seats as they are beating us. He said, I told you it was going to be a long time before you beat us again. He said the difference between them and us was that when they decided to do something they just made it happen.

Moral of the story is that is not our mindset. Whether you own a Cockaboose or scrimp and save to make one game a year, we for some reason are not as unified in our purpose.

The large contingent of apologists on Frank, Muschamp, Tanner, Caslen etc seem to prove that point.
You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard thousands of times. Clempzin was one of the most corrupt programs in the country during the 80's and into the 90's. Many believe its still going on. Ive actually had some of their big donors hint at a few th
 

Legendary Cock

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2014
5,386
6,894
113
Colorado
You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard thousands of times. Clempzin was one of the most corrupt programs in the country during the 80's and into the 90's. Many believe its still going on. Ive actually had some of their big donors hint at a few th
I think many of us agree that they're still playing dirty. The problem is, it's working for them. David Cloninger said the other day on 107.5 that it's impossible to win fairly in an unfair game.

Maybe it's time for us to finally play the game.
 

bigsirspur

Member
Nov 12, 2012
200
354
63
We know how Clemson got good in the 80's, and even if you wanted to go that route, nobody gets away with it these days. It wasn't will or desire. As to present day, that's a different deal. Despite the occasional defamatory comment aimed at CU here, there is no proof of any cheating or short cuts. If we don't allow ourselves to be blinded by hate and want to see how they did it you have to be honest about it. It is just too complex to say that they won because boosters demanded it. Not saying the story isn't true, but every booster base does something like this, and the level of giving at Clemson was nothing that special.

If you said school A hired the coach from Tulane and then promoted the receivers coach, while school B hired two hall of fame coaches with national championship resume's, which school sounds more committed? Add to that the fact that School A did not even have a plane for recruiting. Add to that School B's facilities are way above the facilities provided for any other aspect of the university. I am not sure it is lack of desire or commitment. The answer has to be more complex than that.

By the time SOS needed to tap out, we should have been in better position. He already proved to everyone that we could win in the SEC. In fact, he built a helluva foundation that any good coach should have wanted to jump on. But the best coach available to us at the time was a risk, which didn't work out. But nobody could ever accuse Muschamp of not giving 110% every day. Again, the commitment and desire were there. Where we fell down was in not being prepared with good internal candidates. SOS gave us an advantage in leaving early, even before the carousel started spinning. Blown opportunity.

With both Holtz and Spurrier, you had a great combination of credibility and attitude. You definitely need the first for recruiting, and the second for coaching. Coach Beamer has a different type of credibility -- a lot of positive player buzz it seems. No doubt the attitude is there. Players seemed fired up. If he builds this into something special though, it won't be because a bunch of entitled middle aged men with disposable incomes demanded victory.
 

PabloSC

Active Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,628
520
113
This was posted by SCGCock07 on another thread. It's VERY telling about why we are where we are and it won't change until we change the rules of the USC BOT.

"This is a long post, but I've been wanting to post it for a while and here's my chance:

The SC Constitution and the SC Code of Laws have a direct impact on the insanity that is "leadership" at the University of South Carolina. The first problem is the manner in which our board members are appointed. All of them are political appointments, either by their status as elected ex officio members or the appointed members from each judicial circuit. And as for the appointed members, so long as it is the state legislature doing the appointments, the offices will be political in nature. Unlike at USC, half of Clemson's BOT members are not appointed by the legislature, but are permanent trustees who choose their own successors.

Another huge problem with the manner in which our BOT is selected is that state law requires we have one BOT member from each judicial circuit. There are 16 judicial circuits in SC, and I'd say 7 or maybe 8 of the 16 have a pro-Clemson population. Now to get selected for one of these positions, you need to have the approval of the local legislative delegation from the counties that comprise the judicial circuit. Many of these legislators are Clemson fans and alums who have nothing but contempt for USC. So our BOT members are often times beholden to people who have no love for the university. Look at the Chuck Allen situation. This guy is all Gamecock, and tells Bruce Bannister's loudmouth Tater wife to shut up in a Gamecock skybox and all of a sudden the General Assembly wants to remove him from the board. And why should the counties in the Upstate have an equal say in how USC is run than the areas where the majority of alums live?

Until there is an overhaul of how our BOT members are selected and from where they are selected we will always suffer. This is a structural problem and I don't know any other way it can be fixed without serious legislative overhaul."
 

adg4419

Member
Jun 16, 2019
67
27
18
You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard thousands of times. Clempzin was one of the most corrupt programs in the country during the 80's and into the 90's. Many believe its still going on. Ive actually had some of their big donors hint at a few th
Careful. We are the last ones on probation in football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76MACC

bigsirspur

Member
Nov 12, 2012
200
354
63
There is a benefit to political accountability. If you don't already, follow or subscribe to "The College Fix," it is a conservative blog that aggregates stories about the extremes to which the left are embarrassing colleges and hurting higher education. Some of the stuff going on in the name of "equity" and "justice" is shocking, especially the muzzling of free speech on campus and the explicit discrimination against conservative faculty. But you don't see those extreme stories coming out of USC. I'm not saying Caslen has worked out so far, but his appointment was a political move to keep the PC industrialized complex out of power. Many of us would support that effort, although I would hope there is someone qualified to run a major university that also has common sense. Caslen may get his footing and find his voice soon. South Carolina is not an easy place to drop into and to figure out all the political angles. He is smart, analytical, and has powerful backers though that should be helping him.

So yes, capital politics plays a larger than normal role at USC, and it always has. But there is some silver lining also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zann77

uscwatson21

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2001
9,808
604
113
Let’s just be honest. Clemson wants to win more than we do.

They’re 100% committed to winning and presenting a unified front. That’s why they seem cultish. They would never allow someone to criticize the university like Darla Moore did. They would cast her aside until she got back in line.

And it obviously works for them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2

Legendary Cock

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2014
5,386
6,894
113
Colorado
Let’s just be honest. Clemson wants to win more than we do.

They’re 100% committed to winning and presenting a unified front. That’s why they seem cultish. They would never allow someone to criticize the university like Darla Moore did. They would cast her aside until she got back in line.

And it obviously works for them.
No, they would know where their bread's buttered and not eff up like we did. THEY actually sent their condolences.
 
Oct 22, 2020
285
382
63
clemson frequently has success in their smaller sports, better put their other sports (because men’s basketball isn’t small and they’re often competitive).
The difference is that their fans don’t care. If they had loyal fan support for men’s basketball they would get and keep good coaches that would take them to the next level. The day clemson fans start to care about sports other than football is the day we have another problem in addition to the pile of problems at USC already well documented on this board
You are absolutely right. As a grad of both schools, I’m well aware of the pride we take in our football program and the somewhat ambivalence to other sports. The last time that I remember getting excited about basketball was in the Rick Barnes era.
 

midline

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2007
4,957
4,128
113
Our university unlike clemson is not committed to winning. the one difference in the 2 universities i will say is clemson really only cares mainly about football success....and USC looks more at all sports.
You are correct. And as long as Clemson is elite in football, they can handle a middle of the road basketball program. And let's be real honest. As far as moving the needle, those are the only two sports that really matter. Meanwhile, in Columbia mediocrity seems to be valued as long as the fan base is content to keep sending that money on the promise that next year is right around the corner
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2

ken in sacramento

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2000
9,527
2,285
113
Clemson has a great football program right now but I'm not gonna wash their balls over it. That place is an orange cult. Dabo is a weirdo and I'll never understand how he managed to put together such a dominate program. It's Carolina Forever- I don't care how many football games Clempson wins.
 

bigsirspur

Member
Nov 12, 2012
200
354
63
f5d4c2a378ab0bedce2ffeaef85d4ae7.jpg
 

photon73

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
4
7
3
My response to that would be name me one school that does that successfully and wins national championships in all of them.
UCLA men's programs have won 75 national championships in multiple sports. UCLA women's programs have won 39 national championships in multiple sports. It can be done although most are not as successful as UCLA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 67gamecock

vacock#

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 1998
33,754
3,913
113
This was posted by SCGCock07 on another thread. It's VERY telling about why we are where we are and it won't change until we change the rules of the USC BOT.

"This is a long post, but I've been wanting to post it for a while and here's my chance:

The SC Constitution and the SC Code of Laws have a direct impact on the insanity that is "leadership" at the University of South Carolina. The first problem is the manner in which our board members are appointed. All of them are political appointments, either by their status as elected ex officio members or the appointed members from each judicial circuit. And as for the appointed members, so long as it is the state legislature doing the appointments, the offices will be political in nature. Unlike at USC, half of Clemson's BOT members are not appointed by the legislature, but are permanent trustees who choose their own successors.

Another huge problem with the manner in which our BOT is selected is that state law requires we have one BOT member from each judicial circuit. There are 16 judicial circuits in SC, and I'd say 7 or maybe 8 of the 16 have a pro-Clemson population. Now to get selected for one of these positions, you need to have the approval of the local legislative delegation from the counties that comprise the judicial circuit. Many of these legislators are Clemson fans and alums who have nothing but contempt for USC. So our BOT members are often times beholden to people who have no love for the university. Look at the Chuck Allen situation. This guy is all Gamecock, and tells Bruce Bannister's loudmouth Tater wife to shut up in a Gamecock skybox and all of a sudden the General Assembly wants to remove him from the board. And why should the counties in the Upstate have an equal say in how USC is run than the areas where the majority of alums live?

Until there is an overhaul of how our BOT members are selected and from where they are selected we will always suffer. This is a structural problem and I don't know any other way it can be fixed without serious legislative overhaul."
So, change it.