|
Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 254
|
Game Day Hero [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 11553
Joined: 1995
|
Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
Feb 7, 2012, 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [14923]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12316
Joined: 2006
|
I assume the Coots are going to try and go out on top by
Feb 7, 2012, 9:35 AM
|
|
never playing us again and thus avoiding the inevitable 4-Loss Streaks. Not anymore!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4725]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Ridiculous
Feb 7, 2012, 9:35 AM
|
|
"The teams have met 103 consecutive years... despite the fact that there has been no law requiring them to play each year."
While they're at it, they should pass laws making the sun rise in the east and gravity to always pull instead of push.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5911]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
No kidding.
Feb 7, 2012, 9:49 AM
|
|
Is this what we want out of our government right now? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2522]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
I'm with you on this. Don't worry about CU vs USuC football
Feb 7, 2012, 10:50 AM
|
|
Start by figuring out a way for all that lottery money to offset my State Income Taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [898]
TigerPulse: 92%
22
|
Will Texas play TX A&M this year in football?
Feb 7, 2012, 12:21 PM
[ in reply to Ridiculous ] |
|
Will WVU play Pitt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [366]
TigerPulse: 87%
15
|
Irrelevant, both of those were in-conf. rivalries.
Feb 7, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
Ours has been OOC for a looong while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4762]
TigerPulse: 92%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [156]
TigerPulse: 88%
11
|
Re: Ridiculous
Feb 7, 2012, 5:01 PM
[ in reply to Ridiculous ] |
|
So, I suppose that if one of the schools figured that it would be financially advantageous to drop the rivalry game for a home game every year with MTSU, then you would object to passing this type of law.
I thought we had a pretty good rivalry with Georgia, and it disappeared. Wouldn't mind seeing legislation in both Georgia and SC mandating that game.
I live in NC and would like to see a law requiring that NCSU and UNC play ECU every year. Keep the money in state and reduce the number of joke games (Liberty University, Furman, ETSU, UT Chatt, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6301]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
Posts: 13384
Joined: 2000
|
not that ridiculous if we go to 16 team leagues
Feb 7, 2012, 10:10 PM
[ in reply to Ridiculous ] |
|
I doubt seriously people in Texas 10 years ago thought their rivalry would end.
You never know, one school gets pissed at the other and all of a sudden you don't play each other.
While they are at it, mandate that we play the coots twice in basketball (so we can catch their sorry @rse) and have two 3 game series in baseball (although we might want to wait until Tanner retires to start that one)
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1900]
TigerPulse: 99%
30
|
so who goes to jail if we dont play?***
Feb 7, 2012, 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3631]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
If it's the players will Usuks be served concurrently with
Feb 7, 2012, 9:45 AM
|
|
their various other convictions? Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16534]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 21664
Joined: 2007
|
Re: If it's the players will Usuks be served concurrently with
Feb 7, 2012, 9:47 AM
|
|
Now that right there is funny!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 85%
35
|
Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
Feb 7, 2012, 9:38 AM
|
|
I thought there was a bill already concerning this.
Remember it got moved to the Sat after Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1639]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
Feb 7, 2012, 9:43 AM
|
|
Back in the 50's when Clemson was banned from playing ACC games because they accepted a bowl bid that the ACC was against (Guess that's where Swoffie learned it) The SC legislature did pass a bill that they had to play. Didn't have anything to do with Big Thursday being cancelled. Has that law expired?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25858]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 14849
Joined: 2011
|
I think that's where the confusion over the existance of a
Feb 7, 2012, 9:50 AM
|
|
law arose. The incident you're referring to was in 1952, I believe, when we belonged to the old Southern Conference. They enacted a rule disallowing any member from participating in bowl games. The problem was that both CU and MD were already scheduled for such, and both schools played in the bowls anyway. The conference ruling forbade either from playing other conference games, which included the CU/USC game, and hence, the SC legislation requiring it. The following year was when Clemson along with several others bolted from the Southern Conference and formed the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25858]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 14849
Joined: 2011
|
As Tigergirl said, I, also, thought there was a law already
Feb 7, 2012, 9:44 AM
|
|
on the books concerning this. Perhaps, it was a little confusion over the prior legislation, as indicated in the article. I'd be surprised if both administrations at CU and USC ever consented to the elimination of the rivalry; however, considering what happened with UT and Texas A&M, anything these days is possible. As far as I'm concerned, I want the rivalry to continue...just don't know if legislation is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1870]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
I think the previous law folks have referred to had
Feb 7, 2012, 11:05 AM
|
|
something to do wth ties. After the '86 game, there was some legislation (maybe only proposed) about not allowing the game to end in a tie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: As Tigergirl said, I, also, thought there was a law already
Feb 7, 2012, 8:10 PM
[ in reply to As Tigergirl said, I, also, thought there was a law already ] |
|
Nope no law on the books and why it has been created and is in committee under consideration. Time to let your Sate Rep know your position on this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1310]
TigerPulse: 78%
27
|
Is this what people mean by Big Government?***
Feb 7, 2012, 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22966]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 25005
Joined: 1999
|
I don't suppose it would do any good to await
Feb 7, 2012, 10:03 AM
|
|
an apology from the idiots who attacked me the last time this issue came up on Tigernet and I advised them THERE IS NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REQUIRING CLEMSON AND usuck TO PLAY EACH OTHER IN FOOTBALL ANNUALLY. If there were, why would this stupid legislator, who apparently has nothing better to do, suggest the legislation????
The only reason the bill was passed in '52 was to give the two schools that one year a way to circumvent the SoCon's ban on any other conference school playing Clemson after Coach Howard thumbed his nose at them (well, he probably did worse than that) and went to the Orange Bowl against Southern Conference rules which dictated only one conference team could go to a bowl game each year.
Incidentally, this brouhaha is the reason Maryland and Clemson BOTH left the Southern Conference and the reason there is an ACC.
Also btw---the voters of this legislators district need to start recall vote plans TODAY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25858]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 14849
Joined: 2011
|
I didn't TD or trash you, Tigrjim76, even though I, too,
Feb 7, 2012, 10:22 AM
|
|
thought there was already a law on the books. I began doubting my belief when I saw the posts indicating otherwise, as I've come to realize that most of you on TNet have more general and common sense in your little fingers than I do in my whole body! My main problem is the fact that I've either forgotten a lot of things over the years or have a misconception about things I think have occurred...and, thus, usually yield to others who I think are a lot smarter than me! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22966]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 25005
Joined: 1999
|
wasn't talking about you Hartins.....this was
Feb 7, 2012, 10:25 AM
|
|
several months ago and I'm not going to go back into the archives to look it up....the people who were arguing with me know who they are.
The entire dynamics of the formation of the ACC (which is a result of everything that went on in '51/'52 in the old Southern Conference) has long been a bone of contention with me---unc and the other 3 dwarfs left soon after Clemson and Maryland did. How they took complete control of the newly formed ACC is a story no Clemson fan enjoys hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [71440]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 116871
Joined: 1998
|
I thought there was already a law on the books like this
Feb 7, 2012, 10:15 AM
|
|
was the wrong or did it expire?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5011]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
What fans are worried that we won't play each other?
Feb 7, 2012, 10:16 AM
|
|
I mean come on! Really? Spare me the Texas/A&M stuff, it would never happen here. Tell our State Gov't to spend their time on real stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
9
|
If this law passes, I would hope both schools would seek
Feb 7, 2012, 10:22 AM
|
|
funds for the mandate. Otherwise, the bill is an unfunded mandate. I would ask for at least 1/12 of the football budget to come from the state.
Otherwise, I would request that those running the athletic programs be allowed to make those decisions rather than know-nothing state reps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22966]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 25005
Joined: 1999
|
for once, a chicken makes an excellent point on TNet....
Feb 7, 2012, 10:30 AM
|
|
not only that, what about all the other sports??? Shouldn't they be included in any sort of legislative mandate requiring the two schools compete against each other athletically?? And shouldn't the state (read:taxpayers) then be required to pay those costs as well??
Like I said. This legislator need to go if he can't find real issues facing his district and this state
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105575]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
I partly agree, but on the other hand, should the programs
Feb 7, 2012, 10:30 AM
[ in reply to If this law passes, I would hope both schools would seek ] |
|
start receiving budget money, it could be a slippery slope. How long until the state legislature begins demanding that the teams seek their approval on hires, budgets, spending, etc? It could come with a lot of strings, aside from a mandate that the teams play each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
9
|
post was done tongue in cheek...no way the state would
Feb 7, 2012, 10:41 AM
|
|
ever fund the football program. This said, that thought is about as ridiculous as the state mandating an opponent on the schedule.
Next they will state that the schools have to play Furman, Wofford, etc and pay them each $800,000 for the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105575]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
Good point, again a slippery slope***
Feb 7, 2012, 10:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [762]
TigerPulse: 82%
21
|
what an idiot***
Feb 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [null]
TigerPulse: null%
| |
|
|
50
