|
Replies: 34
| visibility 251
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 204
Joined: 5/22/12
|
USC Leaving ACC in 1971
May 22, 2012, 10:06 PM
|
|
This is the first time I have posted here, although I post quite a bit in The State.
My reason for this post...I have a question. Does anyone know where I can find an official report regarding Clemson's involvement with USC at the time of their departure from the ACC?
I was a Clemson student in 1971 and don't remember it happening the way Gamecock fans claim at all. Surprise here, right?
They claim we shafted them on a pact to leave the ACC together, and I remember that we tried to get USC to align with Clemson to take the matter of admission requirements to court with leaving as a plan "B."
If the courts did not work (which, of course, they did), then we exit together. USC was so bent on leaving at any cost that they wouldn't consider it.
I would like to locate this info, but I cannot find any official report to support either my claim or theirs.
If anyone has a credible info source, I'd like to know about it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1243]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 8289
Joined: 2/1/04
|
There is no "official report" of such.
May 22, 2012, 10:52 PM
|
|
South Carolina was intent on leaving the ACC because they felt they were being treated unfairly- primarily by North Carolina schools and the conference office.
Some people believe, because Clemson was being treated in a very similiar way, that some Clemson higher ups had - behind the scenes - indicated they would follow South Carolina if they were to make the jump.
They didn't. It doesn't matter. South Carolina was going regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3556
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: There is no "official report" of such.
May 22, 2012, 10:55 PM
|
|
I always thought the main reason usc left the ACC was because only the tourney champ made it to the NCAA back then or maybe the NIT was the crown jewel then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: There is no "official report" of such.
May 22, 2012, 11:01 PM
|
|
My memory of it (i was 8) was that they were upset about the basketball issue as well as the things mentioned in the original post. The basketball issue I speak of was when they won the ACC regular season in '70 or '71, but lost the ACC tourney and had to settle for the NIT. The ACC was the only conferencel that sent the Tourney champ rather than the regular season champ to the NCAAs. Frank McGwire was really hot about that. Basketball ruled the roost at USC in the late 60's early 70's.
All this talk about Clemson betraying them- I NEVER heard any of that garbage until years later, when the chickens had to blame someone for their misfortune.
Message was edited by: ClemTig®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
^^^^^ Exactly Right ^^^^^
May 22, 2012, 11:20 PM
|
|
McGuire wanted to be an Indy because he thought it gave him a better chance at making it to the Dance.
It was the football coaches (at USC and Clemson) who were unhappy with the ACC's more stringent admissions standards much more so than basketball. But, there was no pact. At most, there may have been a "can't blame you if you left."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1243]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 8289
Joined: 2/1/04
|
It never had to do with the title
May 23, 2012, 11:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: There is no "official report" of such. ] |
|
it was about the academic requirements- that the ACC relaxed a few years after South Carolina left (but fought like heck to uphold- but had to back down).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 25005
Joined: 6/24/99
|
and underscored the absurdity of usuck's move....
May 23, 2012, 11:45 PM
|
|
had they stuck it out two more years, they'd have gotten (supposedly) what they wanted anyhow....but the real reason for usuck's departure from the ACC wasn't about the elibility of athletes, it was about basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
SCU left because of academics. Frank McGuire….
May 22, 2012, 10:59 PM
[ in reply to There is no "official report" of such. ] |
|
had a hissy fit when one of his top recruits couldn't qualify academically. SCU left the ACC purely over academic standards. And within a few years of leaving the ACC, SCU basketball started to go down and has never been anywhere close to as good as it was when they played in the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
McGuire was also mad that the ACC tourney champion got the
May 22, 2012, 11:07 PM
|
|
only ticket to the dance - thought his chances were better as an Indy. He was right for a while, but after a few years nobody want to sign with a non-ACC USC.
McGuire also learned to hate ACC officiating after he got to Cola - he had found them much more satisfactory back in the 50s when he was at Chapel Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savant [460]
TigerPulse: 51%
Posts: 700
Joined: 8/1/08
|
Re: SCU left because of academics. Frank McGuire….
May 23, 2012, 5:41 AM
[ in reply to SCU left because of academics. Frank McGuire…. ] |
|
If Im not mistaken it was over a recruit that couldnt get in to cootville and McGuire was in a hissy fit when they let him in to one of the nc schools instead. Wasnt it Dietsel or one of them guys who got SC out of the conference? I always thought McGuire was upset when they left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 204
Joined: 5/22/12
|
Re: There is no "official report" of such.
May 22, 2012, 11:05 PM
[ in reply to There is no "official report" of such. ] |
|
I remember finding a site several year's ago that had such a report in its archives, but you had to pay a fee to retrieve it. I was unwilling to do so at the time.
As our fine feathered fans are stating (what I believe) are inaccuracies on the matter, I'd love to be able to find it again.
I also recall, several years ago, a former USC Trustee was quoted in an article in The State that USC's departure from the ACC was a huge blunder on their part.
He further stated how, as a Trustee at the time, he was vehemently against the move. His statements in that article also supported my recollections of those events as previously stated.
I'd love to see that article again.
Anyway, thanks for responding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
That's complete BS, don't ever believe what a gamecock...
May 22, 2012, 10:56 PM
|
|
tells you. Clemson was never considering leaving the ACC. SCU left the ACC because Frank McGuire had a hissy fit over a top recruit being unable to academically qualify, so SCU left the acc over academic standards their players couldn't live up to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
That Clemson backed out of a pact is urban myth started
May 22, 2012, 11:00 PM
|
|
by USC folks bitter about their lot as an independent / member of the Metro Conference throughout the 70s and 80s.
Part II of this myth is that the only reason Clemson supported USC's application for re-admission to the ACC was that we felt guilty about backing out of the pact. The reality was we had no political choice but to support re-admitting USC ( but I imagine we had a pretty good idea how UNC, Duke and UVa were going to vote as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 204
Joined: 5/22/12
|
Re: That Clemson backed out of a pact is urban myth started
May 22, 2012, 11:13 PM
|
|
My thoughts exactly. They are sure beating this drum over on FGF, further stating that we are in trouble today with conference affiliation because we didn't "jump off the cliff" with them in 1971.
I was looking for a good info source to blow up the myths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
That's so idiotic that people are saying that. *L****
May 22, 2012, 11:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connoisseur [364]
TigerPulse: 18%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 8/26/11
|
Re: That Clemson backed out of a pact is urban myth started
May 22, 2012, 11:28 PM
[ in reply to That Clemson backed out of a pact is urban myth started ] |
|
What year did USC try to rejoin the ACC?
From what I understand there was a myriad of reasons (academic standards, ACC officiating, NC bias, Tournament) for leaving. In the end it worked out very well for us, but we wandered in the dark for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
Circa 1977... USC's basketball fortunes were beginning to
May 22, 2012, 11:39 PM
|
|
sag and the knives were starting to come out for McGuire (even though he did not "retire" until 1980). It was the football program - believe it or not - that pushed for re-admission over McGuire's objections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connoisseur [364]
TigerPulse: 18%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 8/26/11
|
Re: Circa 1977... USC's basketball fortunes were beginning to
May 22, 2012, 11:40 PM
|
|
Wow. Had not realized that. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24596
Joined: 5/14/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
Not related to USC bolting the ACC, but I love
May 22, 2012, 11:44 PM
|
|
the quote from McGuire about being investigated by the NCAA and being subsequently forced out at Chapel Hill - "I fed the boys too well."
Apparently, he did not feed some of his boys as well as they wanted to be fed - a couple of his Tar Heels were convicted of point-shaving...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
That article was '66. S. Car left in '71. Supposedly part
May 23, 2012, 12:28 AM
|
|
of this was over the "800 rule", which was found to be in conflict with the 14th amendment in 1972.
http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/browse/author_interview?title_id=2207
Q: You discuss the controversy over the ACC's 800 rule, which stipulated that an athlete must score at least an 800 on the SAT to be eligible to participate in intercollegiate sports. Increasing frustration with this rule as a major hindrance to recruiting led South Carolina to abandon the conference in 1971. What impact did this development have on the ACC?
A: The 800 rule was consistent with the ACC's commitment from the time of its founding to foster academic integrity along with athletic excellence. It was intended to ensure that athletes who enrolled at ACC schools had at least a fair chance to succeed academically and earn their degrees. The 800 rule, despite its low threshold, was not much different than the minimum entrance requirements for all students at most ACC schools. By the end of the 1960s, South Carolina and Clemson complained that the rule made it difficult to compete in football with non-ACC opponents whose entrance standards for athletes were less strict, most notably schools from the Southeastern Conference. Their appeals for abolition of the rule produced sharp controversy and considerable ill-will within the ACC and eventually led South Carolina to withdraw from the league. In a decision that was handed down in 1972, a federal judge concluded that the 800 rule violated the 14th Amendment. The end of the rule was a blow to the ACC's efforts to balance academic and athletic objectives and opened the way for the admission of athletes who had, at best, only a slight chance of performing adequately in college classrooms. The departure of South Carolina caused little regret among other ACC schools and had no harmful impact on the league. Within a few years, its place in the ACC was filled by Georgia Tech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
The author's correct that both USC and Clemson football
May 23, 2012, 1:14 AM
|
|
Programs were vehemently opposed to the 800 rule because they wanted to compete against SEC teams (full of dumb white kids apparently). But, USC football did not have the juice to get the university out of the ACC. It took getting McGuire on board to get that done.
The MOST accurate thing the author says is this: "The departure of South Carolina caused little regret among other ACC schools and had no harmful impact on the league.". THAT is not in dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savant [460]
TigerPulse: 51%
Posts: 700
Joined: 8/1/08
|
Re: The author's correct that both USC and Clemson football
May 23, 2012, 5:59 AM
|
|
Wow and look how long that school was down because of the decision to leave. I guess ultimately it ended up being good for them as they are in the SEC now but my god....all those years of darkeness and getting their #### handed to them. No wonder there is bitterness down in cootville.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Forbes ranks us among the Top 20 most "valuable"
May 23, 2012, 6:05 AM
[ in reply to The author's correct that both USC and Clemson football ] |
|
(profitable) football programs in the nation EVERY year. No ACC team makes that list. Carolina is flourishing (and about to flourish more when the SEC soon joins the Big 10 and PAC 10 in establishing an equal revenue-sharing conference "network") while the ACC is desparately looking for a lifeline.
Alls well, that ends well. You know what they say about "he who laughs last........"? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
You lost me at Carolina is flourishing ... I don't live in
May 23, 2012, 8:14 AM
|
|
SC anymore. You do realize that in the other 49 states, "Carolina" means those jackars$es in Chapel Hill. And they ain't exactly flourishing the last few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: You lost me at Carolina is flourishing ... I don't live in
May 23, 2012, 9:17 AM
|
|
You mean like "Death Valley" means LSU, "CU" means Colorado and "Tigers" means Auburn, in the other 49 states? Do we really want to play this childish game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 134
Joined: 1/28/07
|
There was a long article in the STATE a few years ago.
May 23, 2012, 12:49 AM
|
|
I have not been able to find it lately. But, a Clemson athlete file suit against the ACC regarding the academic requirements being higher than the NCAA minimum. This happened almost the same week USC announced they were leaving and it resulted in the overturning of the ACC rule. They also were limiting the FB scholarships to ~45-55 in the era of no NCAA limits. Tobacco Road wanted FB to be a warm up to BB and were not interested in national exposure. They also could not count because they failed to see the $$ potential from 50k fans vs. 8k in Cameron & Carmike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
Actually, the BB over FB thing was kind of a fallacy, even
May 23, 2012, 1:26 AM
|
|
from our perspective. Actually, when the ACC originally formed, it was more about football than basketball. The large schools wanted to balance out the schedules by separating from the smaller schools to play each other, and the SoCon also had a ban on bowl games and the ACC schools wanted to play in the post-season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [115]
TigerPulse: 22%
Posts: 563
Joined: 1/11/12
|
Re: USC Leaving ACC in 1971
May 23, 2012, 8:56 AM
|
|
It's filed in the same cabinet with the report or the talks between Clemson, FSU and the Big 12. Just because they don't exist, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Mike Grosso issue was much more than the 800 rule. Grosso agreed to pay his own way. An uncle, who later proved he had the means to do this, was paying his tuition because Grosso wanted to play in the SEC. This was done because Jim Weaver, Chuck Erickson, and Ed Cameron. Whether you believe it was Grosso's Uncle who paid the tuition or not (he wrote the check), the ACC had no evidence to the contrary and still ruled Grosso ineligible. The ACC had much more of a grudge against McGuire than he had against the ACC. When the ACC gave the ruling on the Grosso situation, Jim Weaver tried to leave the room as McGuire came in, McGuire told him he was going to come sit down and watch his committee rule Grosso ineligible.
Freddie Solomon was a much bigger reason for USC and Clemson's problem with the 800 rule. Dietzel and Howard was the biggest enemies of the 800 rule, and Dietzel was the main more adamant about leaving the ACC than even McGuire was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1207]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2254
Joined: 12/25/03
|
Re: USC Leaving ACC in 1971
May 23, 2012, 9:30 AM
|
|
and almost 40 years later, they win a division (not conference championship - hope it doesn't take us that long - but it might when we leave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [400]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 1255
Joined: 11/3/06
|
40 years later
May 23, 2012, 10:04 AM
|
|
and y'all still haven't equaled our ACC basketball championship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1207]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2254
Joined: 12/25/03
|
Re: 40 years later
May 23, 2012, 10:08 AM
|
|
Actually, Cliff Ellis won the ACC regular season championship. You did have some great teams in BB, while part of the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [115]
TigerPulse: 22%
Posts: 563
Joined: 1/11/12
|
Re: 40 years later
May 23, 2012, 10:53 AM
|
|
They weren't ACC Champions though. Title goes with the tournament. We don't get to count our 14-0 regular season as an ACC title either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connoisseur [364]
TigerPulse: 18%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 8/26/11
|
Re: 40 years later
May 23, 2012, 11:16 AM
|
|
We won the tournament as well in 70 or 71 I believe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 251
|
|
|
50
