ADVERTISEMENT

Why do these Darla Moore type issues continue to happen at USC decade after decade?

PabloSC

Active Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,714
679
113
These types of problems are the one consistent for USC. This one story is bad, but it brings up another bad story regarding Nikki Haley and the BOT and Darla's ouster from Board.
And I recall all of the political turmoil in the 80's surrounding President Holderman and his lavish Washington lobbying efforts, etc. Politics have always been a problem at USC. Just look at the recent Presidential search that was mired in controversy. The Capital City of Columbia and its Mayor got press related to it, the students at USC were heavily involved (negatvely) in the process. It was a dumpster fire. But why was that??? You never see that happening at CU.

It just seems that one entity is run like a lean business with goals in mind, and one is run like a largess government DMV. In my opinion, the fact that USC sits beside the state capitol in Columbia is why USC will always be run like a big incompetent government agency, and will never be run like a private entity commited to accomplishing goals no matter how difficult the challenge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elgringo
These types of problems are the one consistent for USC. This one story is bad, but it brings up another bad story regarding Nikki Haley and the BOT and Darla's ouster from Board.
And I recall all of the political turmoil in the 80's surrounding President Holderman and his lavish Washington lobbying efforts, etc. Politics have always been a problem at USC. Just look at the recent Presidential search that was mired in controversy. The Capital City of Columbia and its Mayor got press related to it, the students at USC were heavily involved (negatvely) in the process. It was a dumpster fire. But why was that??? You never see that happening at CU.

It just seems that one entity is run like a lean business with goals in mind, and one is run like a largess government DMV. In my opinion, the fact that USC sits beside the state capitol in Columbia is why USC will always be run like a big incompetent government agency, and will never be run like a private entity commited to accomplishing goals no matter how difficult the challenge.

I agree with you. The last several years have showed me there is no culture of excellence at USC. There are tons of very smart people doing really good things. But there is no expectation of excellence from the top down. There are lots of mediocre people in expensive leadership positions that just collect a paycheck (BOT...I am looking at you). We dont do the very simple things well. Not acknowledging the passing of your largest donor's mother at all is a prime example.....and there are many.

it permeates into the athletic department where there is no championship culture. That should be the athletic expectation. Bring home a trophy or banner. That is the definition of success. Excuses are constantly made....including by many of our supporters.
 
For one Clemson operates differently I believe. It is my understanding that Clemson’s bot is only half legislator appointees, USC is all appointed. Half of Clemson’s are legacy appointees per Thomas Clemson’s will.
 
I would love to see FGF put a volunteer team/board together to examine the organizational failures coming from the BOT, President's Office, and Alumni Association at USC. I'd be more than willing to participate.
 
There is certainly something wrong with our political environment. I met a former BOT member recently who is still very active at USC (and is an Alumni) and we talked USC for quite sometime. I left shaking my as to what did I just hear???? I wasn't sure where most of the stories were going. Was he/she in favor of Caslen?, against Caslen?, for or against Pastides?. The whole conversation had a very negative, unhappy with USC vibe to it. It was weird.
And I recently spent time with someone on CU's Board of Visitors and they couldn't have been more clear eyed about how much they loved CU and just perked up at the thought of discussing whatever CU. The USC BOT member was the opposite. There is a cultural disconnect between the two I don't think will ever change and it will forever limit how successful the flagship school of SC will ever be, unfortunately.
As a side note, The USC BOT member talked about how much $ he had given over the years, but hadn't done so recently. Subconiously because he just hasn't thought about it, and conciously because he just isn't happy with the leadership/direction of the school recently. Which makes me think, this lack of giving (read $) is likely why we could not move forward without Martin as a coach but have to sit tight on his current contract and let it expire and waste a couple years in basketball.
 
For one Clemson operates differently I believe. It is my understanding that Clemson’s bot is only half legislator appointees, USC is all appointed. Half of Clemson’s are legacy appointees per Thomas Clemson’s will.
You're exactly right. Clemson gets state money but it not indebted to the legislature like South Carolina is. And that was part of the agreement with Thomas Clemson when he donated the land. Clemson can put whomever they want on their BOT we cannot. Sad but true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76MACC and Elgringo
Why are we comparing ourselves to Clemson? Why don't we look at how the elite public institutions in the US are run - UNC, Michigan, Virginia, etc. Clemson shouldn't be our measuring stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 67gamecock
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.
 
Last edited:
These types of problems are the one consistent for USC. This one story is bad, but it brings up another bad story regarding Nikki Haley and the BOT and Darla's ouster from Board.
And I recall all of the political turmoil in the 80's surrounding President Holderman and his lavish Washington lobbying efforts, etc. Politics have always been a problem at USC. Just look at the recent Presidential search that was mired in controversy. The Capital City of Columbia and its Mayor got press related to it, the students at USC were heavily involved (negatvely) in the process. It was a dumpster fire. But why was that??? You never see that happening at CU.

It just seems that one entity is run like a lean business with goals in mind, and one is run like a largess government DMV. In my opinion, the fact that USC sits beside the state capitol in Columbia is why USC will always be run like a big incompetent government agency, and will never be run like a private entity commited to accomplishing goals no matter how difficult the challenge.
Because it’s Darla Moore! If you deal with Darla, you’ll pay a high price in the long run.
 
This is a long post, but I've been wanting to post it for a whole 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 are 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.

Thanks for your post. Very interesting. I work for a medium size private university. One thing I can say about our BOT members, whether you like them or not, they are the biggest promoters of the university we have. Also, all are required to make a certain donation to the school each year to maintain board membership. Also, open seats on the board are filled by recommendation of the President and Provost and then voted on by the board.

Very odd how its done at Carolina and clearly not in the school's best interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCGCock07
The bottom line is that as long as USC is in Columbia and has the BOT structure it has, it’ll be a mess, just like it has pretty much always been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCGCock07
I’ll tell you why. The people that “run” USC don’t have the mindset of “put USC first. What is best for USC?”. That’s been our biggest problem.
I’m genuinely curious why the idea of what’s best for Darla Moore is inherently what is best for USC?
 
I’ll tell you why. The people that “run” USC don’t have the mindset of “put USC first. What is best for USC?”. That’s been our biggest problem.

I thought the people that currently run the University decided we should be now called UofSC?

You're both actually talking about the same thing. We're legally required to call ourselves UofSC today, because the administration of the University of South Carolina didn't care enough about the university branding to keep Southern Cal from trademarking "USC" in a way where we can't use it anymore, even though the letters U-S-C applies to South Carolina just as much as it applies to Southern California.

Everything those put into position of safe-guarding, marketing, promoting, and building our university do, are typically done in a reactive, knee-jerking, after-the-fact manner, because they never really gave much of a shit....
 
The bottom line is that as long as USC is in Columbia and has the BOT structure it has, it’ll be a mess, just like it has pretty much always been.
And this is the mindset that we collectively have to change. Just because it’s always been, doesn’t mean that’s the way it always needs to be!
 
I agree with you. The last several years have showed me there is no culture of excellence at USC. There are tons of very smart people doing really good things. But there is no expectation of excellence from the top down. There are lots of mediocre people in expensive leadership positions that just collect a paycheck (BOT...I am looking at you). We dont do the very simple things well. Not acknowledging the passing of your largest donor's mother at all is a prime example.....and there are many.

it permeates into the athletic department where there is no championship culture. That should be the athletic expectation. Bring home a trophy or banner. That is the definition of success. Excuses are constantly made....including by many of our supporters.
Clemson fan here. Not here to flame or troll.

In Just about every other state that has both, the larger, flagship university has been more successful athletically than the smaller, land grant school. Bama>AU, Ole Miss > Miss St, Texas>A&M, OU> OK St, UNC > NCSU, Mich> Mich St etc.

The state of SC has always had an especially corrupt, good ol boy system compared to other states. Our state was controlled by the elite planters for much of our history, much more so than in GA and AL. Think that culture and mindset still permeates though y’all’s school, whether anybody realizes it or not. Think the incompetency and lack of a standard of excellence y’all are talking about goes back to that planter mindset/culture. I bet it’s always been like that. Clemson was made for the common white folk, whose mindset was completely different than the elite planters. My uncle said , “they’ve got too many chiefs and not enough Indians”.

There really is no excuse as to why Carolina has never been the superior program. Think the corruption of SC politics prevents y’all from being like the other big state schools like UGA, UNC, Bama, Etc
 
I’m genuinely curious why the idea of what’s best for Darla Moore is inherently what is best for USC?
Because sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Kissing a little butt now will pay off later.
 
The state of SC has always had an especially corrupt, good ol boy system compared to other states. Our state was controlled by the elite planters for much of our history, much more so than in GA and AL. Think that culture and mindset still permeates though y’all’s school, whether anybody realizes it or not. Think the incompetency and lack of a standard of excellence y’all are talking about goes back to that planter mindset/culture. I bet it’s always been like that. Clemson was made for the common white folk, whose mindset was completely different than the elite planters. My uncle said , “they’ve got too many chiefs and not enough Indians”.
Louisiana and LSU say "hello."
 
Then start lobbying your Legislator, because that's where the change has to come from, since the way our BOT is set up is in the SC Code of Laws. .
I am out of state. I live in Virginia, however I love USC and I’d be happy to be a part of a movement for change, but it’s going to take a large group pulling in large donors and big wallets.
 
The BOT didn't stop Holtz and Spurrier from coming here and having success. Just sayin'.
If you read comments from Chuck Allen, the BOT was vastly different for a period of time. It has reversed in recent years under Haley and McMaster.

There has long been a notion that good ol’ boy politics has been a detriment to South Carolina’s athletic departments because of undue influence over the department.
"At one point, our governance improved and became much more independent, and I would say to you that part of that was during the best athletic run that we have had in the history of the school. (South Carolina’s football team won the 2010 SEC East title; won 11 games three years in a row, 2011-13; and beat Clemson five straight seasons, 2009-13. In 2017, the women’s basketball team won a national championship, and the men’s basketball team went to the Final Four.) When I first went on the board 12 years ago, it was independent and things were decided based on the best interests of the university. Because of that, I would suggest that had a substantial effect on us having the best athletic run in school history, and now it’s going back the other way. It’s going back to the old model. The good ol’ boys want to run the University of South Carolina, and it will detrimentally affect many areas of the university."
 
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.
So the next question is, are any other BOT at flagship universities structured this way?
 
Clemson fan here. Not here to flame or troll.

In Just about every other state that has both, the larger, flagship university has been more successful athletically than the smaller, land grant school. Bama>AU, Ole Miss > Miss St, Texas>A&M, OU> OK St, UNC > NCSU, Mich> Mich St etc.

The state of SC has always had an especially corrupt, good ol boy system compared to other states. Our state was controlled by the elite planters for much of our history, much more so than in GA and AL. Think that culture and mindset still permeates though y’all’s school, whether anybody realizes it or not. Think the incompetency and lack of a standard of excellence y’all are talking about goes back to that planter mindset/culture. I bet it’s always been like that. Clemson was made for the common white folk, whose mindset was completely different than the elite planters. My uncle said , “they’ve got too many chiefs and not enough Indians”.

There really is no excuse as to why Carolina has never been the superior program. Think the corruption of SC politics prevents y’all from being like the other big state schools like UGA, UNC, Bama, Etc

One part that confuses me is that....while i understand the BOT's at both schools are different, the state legislature basically has the same oversight on both for spending and budgetary approvals. They always seem to be a huge pain in the neck for anything South Carolina wants to do. But I never really hear a peep out of them for any requests made by Clemson. The close to $100 million project at CU's new business school had funding level approvals through the legislature and it seemed to just sail right through. UofSC is trying to get some of the needed approvals now to build a very much-needed new medical school facility and there are questions and good-ole-boy politics being played left and right.

It can't just be because the USC campus is blocks from the State House and Clemson is in Pickens.
 
Why are we comparing ourselves to Clemson? Why don't we look at how the elite public institutions in the US are run - UNC, Michigan, Virginia, etc. Clemson shouldn't be our measuring stick.
Clemson is the measuring stick in this state. We are behind them in our place in the state. You beat your rival before you branch out to others.
 
Agree. It's going to take a MASSIVE groundswell movement to change it. And probably several tries at it.

Ding, ding, ding...winner winner chicken diner.

Yes politics and the BOT is a major issue, but not THE issue. We, the fans, are THE issue.

I feel that the best thing that happened to us may in the long run actually be the worst thing.

Just think if there had been no Hotlz-Spurrier era that spanned 16 full seasons. Just think if those 16 seasons had been more Sparky Woods and Brad Scott’s.

No Outback Bowl victories, no 4 peat, no wins over top 5 opponents. With the way the world changed in that time (every game on TV) our ticket buying allegiance would have atrophied to a point changes were made.

Instead Holtz and Spurrier gave us our best times and unfortunately hope that we had turned a corner.

The problem is each of these men were like a rainmaker sales person. As long as the rainmaker is around the company is selling like crazy. But because there is no actual sales process or training, when the rainmaker leaves, the company flounders.

I know it’s hard as fans to as some on here say “give up on the teams”, but if the university has already given up aren’t we the fools that let it happen?

I can assure you if our attendance reflected the on field product the university would be hemorrhaging cash and make changes.

After 20 years as a high paying season ticket holder I stopped after the 2017 season when Muschamp refused to make big changes.

It sucked at first because I’d spent most Saturdays in the fall at WB since I was a kid in the 80s. It was a shock to my lifestyle. But then a funny thing happened.

I did not care as much. A loss or bad play or dumb hire didn’t bother me. Why?

Because I didn’t feel ripped off. I wasn’t spending thousands of dollars a year for tickets, tailgating and hotel rooms. I wasn’t investing 300 plus hours of my life getting to Columbia and back 7 times a year.

There is a difference between being a supportive fan and an investor in a failed business. If you are a booster you are a fan but you are also an investor. Our fan base has not be able to understand those are separate things.

A massive groundswell starts by hurting the checkbook. That is all that seems to get anyone’s attention in this world today.

And let me add this. Yes I only mention football. That’s because I quit buying basketball tickets long, long ago. Midway through the Dave Odom era. Baseball I’ve never had season tickets because I just can’t make that many games that time of year. With just 7 home games, football was manageable.
 
Last edited:
These types of problems are the one consistent for USC. This one story is bad, but it brings up another bad story regarding Nikki Haley and the BOT and Darla's ouster from Board.
And I recall all of the political turmoil in the 80's surrounding President Holderman and his lavish Washington lobbying efforts, etc. Politics have always been a problem at USC. Just look at the recent Presidential search that was mired in controversy. The Capital City of Columbia and its Mayor got press related to it, the students at USC were heavily involved (negatvely) in the process. It was a dumpster fire. But why was that??? You never see that happening at CU.

It just seems that one entity is run like a lean business with goals in mind, and one is run like a largess government DMV. In my opinion, the fact that USC sits beside the state capitol in Columbia is why USC will always be run like a big incompetent government agency, and will never be run like a private entity commited to accomplishing goals no matter how difficult the challenge.
Palms, Sorenson, and Pastides were good stewards of the University as President.

And in the past Clemson has had issues with its President...Lennon and Curris were not exactly beloved. Also remember that Robert Edwards was President for a long, long time....so they didn't have near the turnover we did.
 
One part that confuses me is that....while i understand the BOT's at both schools are different, the state legislature basically has the same oversight on both for spending and budgetary approvals. They always seem to be a huge pain in the neck for anything South Carolina wants to do. But I never really hear a peep out of them for any requests made by Clemson. The close to $100 million project at CU's new business school had funding level approvals through the legislature and it seemed to just sail right through. UofSC is trying to get some of the needed approvals now to build a very much-needed new medical school facility and there are questions and good-ole-boy politics being played left and right.

It can't just be because the USC campus is blocks from the State House and Clemson is in Pickens.
No, i don’t think it’s the only reason. I think the different groups of people both schools were designed for still affects the culture. This is from wiki so take it FWIW.

“ It would eventually be rechartered for the last time in 1906 as the University of South Carolina. However, Clemson Agricultural College held sway over the state legislature for decades and was generally the more popular college during the first half of the 20th century in South Carolina”

 
ADVERTISEMENT