with those people? Makes you appreciate the class we have here - Pastides, Tanner, Frank, Dawn, Muschamp, Kingston on down. They sure are setting a poor example for their athletes/student body in general. The AD, now the Chancellor? Give me a break.
Thought SEC was supposed to be getting "class" when Mizzou joined the SEC. What the hell is wrong
- Thread starter psycock
- Start date
Should have invited WVA who practically begged for an invite. Mo is in love with the B10 which never returned that affection. SEC should have gone to school on B10's reluctance to invite Mo.
Not trying to be contrary, but where did you see Missouri was supposed to bring “class” to the SEC. Ever since I saw the movie “Winter’s Bone” and many, many subsequent news stories, Datelines, and 48 Hours, I’ve associated Missouri with meth, rednecks, and trailer parks. Most recently, after seeing pictures of their former Chancellor, I assume crack is an issue too for the state.
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
Mizzou was strictly a television money move. It opened up the Kansas City and St. Louis markets to the SEC. West Virginia would have brought next to nothing from a TV market perspective. Although I personally feel WVU would have been a much better fit from a cultural perspective.
WVU is an awkward fit for the Big 12. Mizzou never should have left the Big 12. It interrupted one of the country's great, historic rivalries in Kansas/Missouri.
WVU is an awkward fit for the Big 12. Mizzou never should have left the Big 12. It interrupted one of the country's great, historic rivalries in Kansas/Missouri.
Missouri is an Association of American Universities institution, one of only four in the conference. The SEC doubled it's representation in that group when A&M and Missouri joined the conference. It is a prestigious organization. Athletics might not be living up to their academic reputation.
Mizzou is not the only school to unadvisedly leave the conference they were in. I know of one closer to home.
Yeah but come on now Kingy! While I certainly know where you're trying to go with this (AGAIN!), even from a pessimistic POV such as yours, you gotta admit that that was then and this is now!!! With of course now being the fact that we're a HECKUVALOT BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE THEN!!!
Could be; could be not. We were a natural member of that family; not adopted. And we had more real hatred going on with a greater number of schools, including our instate rival UPC, Maryland, and three of the four Tobacco Road schools. I miss that.
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
We may have been a natural fit for the ACC, but that doesn't mean we were appreciated - far from it. What follows is a quote from The State in 1971, in the days shortly before Carolina's exit from the ACC:
“The Atlantic Coast Conference was formed by the four North Carolina members for the benefit of the North Carolina members. They needed USC, Clemson, Maryland and Virginia (a late joiner) to fill out a decent conference. But the outsiders were supposed to be step-children, to be seen and not heard.”
- Editorial, The State (Columbia) Newspaper, March 17, 1971
Biggest thing to come out of Missouri was William Munny killer of women and children and nearly everything what walked or crawled.
That was a think piece designed to justify a move from which there was no return - a bad move. We actually did it for two reasons that both went away by NCAA mandate within a couple of years - the ACC's higher entrance requirements for athletes and their lower number of allowable football grants-in-aid than the SEC. Those were Dietzel's pretexts and they both evaporated soon after our departure. The next 20 years in the wilderness were for nothing. And even if that last sentence was accurate, it was joyous winning bot the football and basketball championships the final year we were in the ACC. We were being heard then, and would have kept on being heard, in the way that matters most. Leaving was a colossal blunder.
Last edited:
WADR Kingy, I do see your point there, and will even submit that your statement of, "We were being heard then, and would have kept on being heard, in the way that matters most. Leaving was a colossal blunder." is correctly factual; FOR THEN!!! In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it kinda reminds me of my Ex-BFH-Wife. At first, our separation and the immediate, yet unexpected changes in regards to my personal family life were overwhelmingly depressing and worrisome!!
I had no idea how the relationship between myself and my two sons would be affected/effected!! The question with the then unknown answer of just how negative those then unknown ramifications would be in regards to my short and long-term relationship with my two sons were very, VERY CONCERNING!!!
Jump forward into time from then until now, and Kingy, those initial worries were unfounded, and in fact absolutely illogical!! From the "Right Now" point of view, that initial separation, and ultimately that divorce, were two of the most very blessed occurrences/experiences that I, as a 50 year old man, HAVE EVER BEEN BLESSED TO EXPERIENCE in regards to my personal life, and most importantly, in regards to my relationship(s) with my two sons!!!
That divorce was the best thing that has EVER happened to me and my son's - just EXACTLY as was the separation between The University of South Carolina and the acc!!! In fact, IMHOFWIW, those are two identical, yet separate occurrences, that BOTH reflect upon the fact(s) that those changes were two perfect examples for what was ultimately the best "Thing Possible" for both individual parties IN THE LONG RUN!!!
There. I'm through now. Y'all have a great evening - especially you Kingy!! =;-p
King is right. That and the firing of Jim Carlen were probably two of the stupidest moves in college athletics' history. I was so POed about USC's treatment that I supported the exit at the time. But the Metro Conference.....REALLY. USC was reduced to crawling back and practically begging to be re-admitted.
Boom the 1st was talking about a new conference a coupla yrs before he passed. It was probably the Big East he was thinking about.
Should have invited Sewanee back into the SEC, would have been a natural fit than Mizzou...
some history...
The Sewanee Tigers were pioneers in American intercollegiate athletics and possessed the Deep South's preeminent football program in the 1890s. Ellwood Wilson is considered the "founder of Sewanee football."[2] Their 1899 football teamhad perhaps the best season in college football history, winning all 12 of their games, 11 by shutout, and outscoring their opponents 322-10. Five of those wins, all shutouts, came in a six-day period while on a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) trip by train. Ten of their twelve opponents, including all five of their road trip victims, remain major college football powers to this day.[3] In 2012, the College Football Hall of Fame held a vote of the greatest historic teams of all time, where the 1899 Iron Men beat the 1961 Alabama Crimson Tide as the greatest team of all time.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewanee_Tigers_football
Last edited:
Follow up...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Sewanee_Tigers_football_team
The 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team represented Sewanee: The University of the South in the 1899 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season. Sewanee was one of the first college football powers of the South and the 1899 team in particular was very strong. The 1899 Tigers went 12–0, outscoring opponents 322 to 10, and won the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association (SIAA) title.
With just 13 players, the team known as the "Iron Men" had a six-day road trip with five shutout wins over Texas A&M, Texas, Tulane, LSU, and Ole Miss. Sportswriter Grantland Rice called the group "the most durable football team I ever saw."[1] The road trip is recalled memorably with the Biblical allusion "...and on the seventh day they rested."[2][3][n 1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Sewanee_Tigers_football_team
The 1899 Sewanee Tigers football team represented Sewanee: The University of the South in the 1899 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season. Sewanee was one of the first college football powers of the South and the 1899 team in particular was very strong. The 1899 Tigers went 12–0, outscoring opponents 322 to 10, and won the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association (SIAA) title.
With just 13 players, the team known as the "Iron Men" had a six-day road trip with five shutout wins over Texas A&M, Texas, Tulane, LSU, and Ole Miss. Sportswriter Grantland Rice called the group "the most durable football team I ever saw."[1] The road trip is recalled memorably with the Biblical allusion "...and on the seventh day they rested."[2][3][n 1]
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
Actually, the overall slant of that particular editorial was in support of USC staying in the ACC. But the quote about Carolina being a "stepchild" to the North Carolina cabal was an admission of fact.
Ironically, to your point, the ACC dropped its GPA standard, which was higher than the NCAA standard, within two days of our official departure from the conference on August 15, 1971. They did so because of a federal lawsuit brought by two Clemson athletes who sued Clemson and the ACC over the higher standard. A federal circuit court judge ruled that the ACC's higher standard was "arbitrary and capricious" because it applied only to athletes.
Actually, prior to that lawsuit, federal officials were looking into the ACC's admissions policy as a part of a wider investigation into admissions policies by Southern colleges designed to keep out blacks. Keep in mind, this was in the latter stages of the Civil Rights movement. The argument for the ACC's higher standard was about maintaining academic excellence, but it would be naive to think there was not a racial element involved.
In 1968, 90% of black high school seniors in South Carolina failed to score high enough on their SAT to qualify for varsity eligibility in the ACC. Dietzel led the charge to change that. He was tired of seeing South Carolina talent moving onto Big Eight or Big Ten schools and having outstanding careers - because they could not qualify to play for their State University.
The entire power structure of the ACC was concentrated among the four NC schools. Yes, it was a tough 20 years for Carolina, and yes, leaving the ACC destroyed the basketball program for decades. But there were real issues in the ACC that were beyond solving for South Carolina by 1971. Things were toxic.
Last edited:
With the overall expansion that has taken place among the conferences since that time, those issues with the Tobacco Road schools have also diminished as their proportionate influence has lessened, rendering departure both premature and errant. They say that, in life, timing is everything. Our timing was fateful - fatefully mistaken.
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
I'll agree with you that leaving the ACC was a fateful decision in many ways, and caused more harm than good for 20 years. But from the vantage point of 27 years after joining the SEC, I wouldn't wish us back in the ACC for anything.
Funny, at this point we have actually been in the SEC quite a bit longer than we were in the ACC (18 years - 1953 - 1971). The SEC has been an excellent home for USC. We are a valued member - something that was never the case in the ACC.
Most Clemson fans, I would speculate, would gladly trade spots with us, whether they would ever admit that or not.
Last edited:
Some posters bitch and rightfully so about the fact that Clemson was supposed to exit with us. Don't know if that's true or not but if they had the SEC might have invited Clemson instead of USC.
Who thought they were adding class to the conference? Had anyone ever heard anything about this school and their fanbase before they joined?
King Ward,
I consider you a friend and I enjoyed our years working together, however, I feel
that you are wrong in your belief that leaving the ACC was a mistake.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and your arguments are based on the AFTERMATH
of our departure. I was 28 years old in 1971/72, when all this occurred, and was
a Gamecock Club member, therefore I followed these events closely.
During the tenure of " Pepsodent Paul", it was an accepted fact that the " Big
Four", UNC and the three dwarfs Duke,Wake and NC State, dominated the
management of the ACC. USC, Clemson, Maryland and Virginia were the
red-headed step children and were treated as such.
For years, Gamecock fans had bitched at Dietzel to DO SOMETHING about
the obvious double standard of the ACC. Dietzel took the correct stand that
USC needed to establish itself as a leader before it tried to lead in the ACC.
In 1971, we won both the football and basketball conference championship.
In an interview before his death, Dietzel said that he went to the ACC annual
meeting with what he thought was credible ammunition to force some changes
in ACC admission policies. He also stated that he was assured by the ADs from
both Clemson and Maryland that they would back him upto and including with-
drawing from the ACC. We know how that turned out.
You mentioned that the NCAA and ACC, a couple years after our withdrawing,
changed the admission policies that Dietzel asked for. You are, again, arguing
from HINDSIGHT. Yes, after they were forced by law to do so.
AT THE TIME, 99% of the Gamecock fans felt Dietzel had no choice.
Were the next 20 years rough, absolutely! But the journey has been worth it.
USC is in much better shape today than the 60's and 70's. And we stood for
principle when our " friends" at Clemson tucked their tail between their legs
and crawled away. I feel that if Clemson and Maryland had honored their
promise to Dietzel, the ACC would have relented and try to compromise. This
is pure speculation on my part.
Incidentally, let's recall how the ACC treated Clemson after they reneged on their
promise.
When Danny Ford's cheating scandal broke, the NCAA , rightly, curb stomped
our tiger friends. Two years ban on tv and bowl appearances and 20 scholarships
stripped away. Then, their fellow ACC officials added a third year of probation.
Old Danny went ballistic, swallowed his 1/2 pound cud of tobacco, and bitched
about the " unfairness of the ACC ". I'll never forget how much I enjoyed his melt
down.
I STILL feel that USC did the right thing.
Cocktal, tks for a persuasive argument that I disagree with but now am leaning more toward what you posted. The ACC did not really care that USC was gonna withdraw despite the fact that USC was a founding member. I guess if a red headed step child wants to move out the parent opens the door. Have hated the success of the ACC in MBB and FB.
I like the way you post. The road not taken is always speculative for sure. What we do know is that we had gotten our athletic program at or near the top of the ACC.
Football, basketball and baseball were right there. We also know that South Carolina had a greater commitment to football than any other league member at the time except UPC and were ahead of the curve in facilities at the time. There's no reason to believe that would not have continued.
Certainly the ACC would have expanded along with other conferences, diluting the power of "The Big Four" as they did. Had we remained, we would have been the beneficiaries of that. I think there would be one fewer northern-tier school in there now - probably Boston College, the most outlying current ACC institution.
I think it's reasonable to project that our strong mutual hatred with three of the four N.C. schools would have continued unabated. And of course, we would have been competing with our instate rival for league as well as state supremacy - perhaps national prominence. These things would have been very meaningful and nothing in the SEC has replaced these in-conference rivalries.
I also think that, with the commitment we had to football and having pulled even with UPC at that time, if not having surpassed them, we might have enjoyed a level of success in football comparable to what they have enjoyed - going to major bowls and competing for championships. If they could play in the ACC and get to where they have gotten, then so could other people who made the commitment.
I don't think UPC would have left the league on its own since they didn't do it in tandem with us. So they probably wouldn't be in the SEC now, either, especially considering the cost that getting out of that league eventually carried. They would have come out early or not at all, and FSU was the school the SEC always wanted.
Anyhow, it's fun to contemplate. The SEC is a good place. Becoming an independent during an era that saw all other major independents besides ND join conferences was simply terrible.
I pretty much summed up my views on this just above in post 24. I enjoy discussing things with folks like you and G and B, who know how to conduct civil, thoughtful discussion.
twenty years in the wilderness as an independent between the ACC and the SEC were extremely costly for our sports programs
We 're better off than we were as an independent. As for whether we are better off competitively across most sports, but especially the Big Two, in the SEC today than we would have been in the ACC - I don't know and you don't either. I have my suspicions but the truth will never be known.
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
Appreciate the conversation and the healthy, respectful and informed debate. I came along after the ACC exit - born in '72. I have few memories of the McGuire era, but have always been fascinated with that time and the characters involved.
Back to the original post. They are a poor fit and that will never change. As for grabbing the two large TV markets, fail IMO. Those markets are either NFL towns or Kansas Jayhawk leans. Mizzou is an afterthought. I guess ESPN thought otherwise.
My hope is that we stomp a mud hole in them in all sports. Best revenge.
My hope is that we stomp a mud hole in them in all sports. Best revenge.
Agree with “Appreciating the Class” we have at Carolina. But, pretty sure an invite to Missouri to join SEC was only to increase television market. Definitely wasn’t to increase “class”.
Here's another "quaint" memory from an "old timer":
Then came along a recruiting class of John Roche, Tom Owens and John Ribock among others; and after Harlicka and the Gamecocks posted a 15-7 record in the 1967-68 season — including a key 87-86 win over North Carolina in Chapel Hill — things looked primed for a spectacular end of the decade. McGuire and the troops did not disappoint the fans as the 1968-69 squad became the first at USC to post 20 wins, going 21-7, winning the Quaker City Classic and advancing into the second round of both the ACC Tournament and the National Invitation Tournament. Led by Roche and Owens — who scored 40.0 points a game between them — the Gamecocks were ready to tackle all comers in the league. In the 1968-69 season, McGuire’s dreams of big-time basketball had come true as the South’s finest basketball arena was finished — the Carolina Coliseum. The 12,401-seat arena would be home to boisterous sell-out crowds for the Gamecocks as the home-court advantage was taken one step further.
Quaker City Championship back in 1968 remains one of my fondest "quaint" memories. Starting on Dec 27th 1968:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/south-carolina/1969-schedule.html
Not really a fail. Doesn’t matter if they are pro fans or Jayhawk fans as long as they have cable or satellite and choose (or are forced) to get the SEC Network. That was the play and it worked.
Now, as the cable/satelitte/streaming model continues to radically change, the quality of the content and having rivalries people want to see will eventually become more important. Will be interesting to see then what happens. Will the SEC try to shed Mizzou? Will the B1G do the same with Rutgers and Maryland?
King Ward and others, I highly recommend you obtain a copy of ACC Basketball: The Story of the Rivalries, Traditions, and Scandals of the First Two Decades of the Atlantic Coast Conference by J. Samuel Walker. Easily and inexpensively available on Amazon.
Walker provides a background into events which resulted in the founding of the ACC by the two groups of strange bedfellows (the big four, and USC, Clemron & Maryland).
Also, we won the ACC football and regular season basketball titles in the same academic year (1969-70) and the ACC basketball tournament title the following year (1970-71).
The lawsuit which resulted in the ACC having to drop academic standards did not conclude until 1972.
Maybe Clemron decided to await the result of the lawsuit before making a move.
Walker provides a background into events which resulted in the founding of the ACC by the two groups of strange bedfellows (the big four, and USC, Clemron & Maryland).
Also, we won the ACC football and regular season basketball titles in the same academic year (1969-70) and the ACC basketball tournament title the following year (1970-71).
The lawsuit which resulted in the ACC having to drop academic standards did not conclude until 1972.
Maybe Clemron decided to await the result of the lawsuit before making a move.
Last edited:
The irony of it all. The Tarholes advocating "higher" academic standards in the 70's only to adopt phony courses in the 90's to keep basketball players in school and eligible. Hypocrites have a way of looking down their noses to those who are morally superior.
I wonder if the Mississippi schools would have supported Dodd's position on the "140 rule" if he would have agreed to schedule them in football.I am sure you must be taking about Georgia Tech.
IMO, Tech is a better geographic fit for the SEC, and a better demographic fit for the ACC. USC, the exact opposite.
I think their "higher advocacy" goes back to the 50s and 60s, if not earlier. Walker covers some of this.
Politics makes strange bed fellows. Apparently, so do football conferences.
Last edited:
Similar threads
GNT: Is Frank Martin right or wrong? | Baseball polls released | Women's Basketball bracket watch
- Brian Shoemaker
- The Insiders Forum
