Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 53
| visibility 1

Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 7, 2012, 9:30 AM

Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football

Read Update »


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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!!

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No kidding.


Feb 7, 2012, 9:49 AM

Is this what we want out of our government right now? Really?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Will Texas play TX A&M this year in football?


Feb 7, 2012, 12:21 PM [ in reply to Ridiculous ]

Will WVU play Pitt?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Irrelevant, both of those were in-conf. rivalries.


Feb 7, 2012, 12:57 PM

Ours has been OOC for a looong while.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No to UT vs. TAMU


Feb 7, 2012, 1:06 PM [ in reply to Will Texas play TX A&M this year in football? ]

Nor will KU play Mizzou. I don't know about WVU-Pitt.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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)

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

so who goes to jail if we dont play?***


Feb 7, 2012, 9:36 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If it's the players will Usuks be served concurrently with


Feb 7, 2012, 9:45 AM

their various other convictions? Go Tigers!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If it's the players will Usuks be served concurrently with


Feb 7, 2012, 9:47 AM

Now that right there is funny!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 7, 2012, 8:08 PM [ in reply to Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football ]

Only for 1 game. That is created much misunderstanding. The Clemson vs USC game is in jeopardy

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

CUTIGERTIM
Clemson Rat 1968
Clemson fan forever


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.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

CUTIGERTIM
Clemson Rat 1968
Clemson fan forever


Is this what people mean by Big Government?***


Feb 7, 2012, 9:46 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-74tiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good point, again a slippery slope***


Feb 7, 2012, 10:44 AM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


what an idiot***


Feb 7, 2012, 10:37 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 7, 2012, 10:46 AM

Not sure if the old bill had an expiration but there is already a law in south carolina requiring this. Happened a long time ago. But there definitly was one if it isn't still on the books.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is absurd...


Feb 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

It's is ridiculous for lawmakers to try to set up legislation surrounding college football schedules. I would prefer they focus on more important state legislation. That being said, as long as ESecPN has a major hand in CFB, I think there is a possibility that this rivalry could go away. And, as the SEC grows, I can see where they would put more emphasis on their in-conference rivalries.

I'm not an expert on any of this. But I imagine that if we adopt state legislation that requires these teams play, additional legislation would have to be created at the conference level as well and who is going to step in and propose that?

To me, it's just silly to think that, with all of the money being thrown around in the college football arena right now, this rivalry may not trump the charts for national attention or even regional attention, and therefore, I can see it eventually fading away. Not saying it's right, just how I see it at this time.

I personally don't care if we ever play scar again. I cannot stand the football program and the fans give me hives. But I understand that the rivalry is important to most of the fans in SC.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: This is absurd... I just called


Feb 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=102272715
Business Phone (803) 734-2969

and left them a message that if this was voted on I would make sure they were never reelected.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Clemson Rugby is back on top.
Dailypaul.com


You're missing the big picture, but continue to be


Feb 7, 2012, 10:30 PM

delusional. If super conferences enter the game say goodbye to the small market in-state games.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is silly. NO way these teams dont play every year***


Feb 7, 2012, 11:10 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm sure Texas and Texas A&M said that 10 years ago***


Feb 7, 2012, 11:12 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I'm sure Texas and Texas A&M said that 10 years ago***


Feb 7, 2012, 11:46 AM

They first played in 1927 and not every year. They have only played 70 times with A&M leading 37-32-1. Not exactly a rivalry. Clemson and SC have played 103 straight years. I doubt either school would ever want that to stop.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Great point but people are going to believe what they


Feb 7, 2012, 1:01 PM [ in reply to I'm sure Texas and Texas A&M said that 10 years ago*** ]

want to believe.

I can't believe they aren't playing, its more ridiculous then anything I've seen in sports.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You mean like Nebraska/OU or Kansas/MO


Feb 7, 2012, 10:04 PM [ in reply to This is silly. NO way these teams dont play every year*** ]

Lots of examples of rivalries nobody thought would end that have or soon will end.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Seems like a save USC bill


Feb 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

when the NCAA Jailer come's a-callin they will fall back to Furman and Citadel status, probably end up struggling with the PCs and Charleston Southerns of the world. Brynes will drop them from their opening day jamboree because the Gamecocks aren't a worthy scrimmage for the Rebels.

This is a grand conspiracy to save USC's football program while hurting our strength of schedule. ;)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's nice and all, but don't they have more important


Feb 7, 2012, 11:34 AM

things to be doing in the state capital? Neither school will end the rivalry - there's too much revenue at stake for both schools. And the fact that we're NOT in the same conference makes it that much better because - in the big picture - it's not as consequential. Neither team will ever cost the other their conference championship and subsequent BCS berth. About the only thing either could do is spoil a perfect season (not likely) or rob them of their 6th win to be bowl eligible (more likely).

I appreciate the thought - but would MUCH rather these guys focus on getting our state out of debt and managing our financial and other resources.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Brasky?***


Feb 7, 2012, 11:48 AM



badge-ringofhonor-clemsonsteve02.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wish he was AS motivated to restore historical funding.***


Feb 7, 2012, 12:13 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is funny because I've heard so many people brag


Feb 7, 2012, 1:02 PM

on how intense the rivalry was saying "ITS REQURIED BY LAW" (which either wasn't true OR this report is flawed), and now you have a law that would back up what all these fans used to brag about and the entire thread is people bitching about it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I really couldn't care less if we stopped playing them.


Feb 7, 2012, 3:40 PM

The only thing more exciting than tradition is change.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Our tax dollars at work. You would think with so many people


Feb 7, 2012, 4:06 PM

out of work, those clowns would have more pressing matters.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Let's pass a law....


Feb 7, 2012, 4:30 PM

that the government stays the He!! outta college football. They have bigger fish to fry don't they?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is a law both repubs and dems...


Feb 7, 2012, 4:31 PM

In the state can agree on

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 7, 2012, 8:06 PM

Posted this on the Donor's Board several weeks ago with a poll and received little response. The official position by Clemson is that "Clemson is studying the matter to determine its impact on Clemson". I requested it be one of the questions asked TDP in the interview several days ago. Then Clemson creates a committee to study its athletic program that meets again in June. Obviously a contract of this nature could hinder Clemson's move into another conference. I for one believe we are loosing what college football is all about. The end of the Ga series with Clemson was disappointing even if we had a terrible record with them. The fact that Texas A&M has to give up a rivalry game to join the SEC is wrong IMO. Clemson vs SC is a tradition. The Battle for the Palmetto State. It should continue. TV Contract money is destroying college football. Without traditional rivalries there will come a day that we all just sit on a coach to watch the game because gas and cost of tickets will take the average person out of the stadium. I have faith in President Barker and the Trustees that they will get this one right as they have with many other decisons and even if we are playing in the Big 12 vs TCU, Oklahoma and the rest we can still carry on the rich history that got us there. Guess its all part of College sports gone wild.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

CUTIGERTIM
Clemson Rat 1968
Clemson fan forever


More worried that the annual revenue leaves the state......


Feb 8, 2012, 8:07 AM

they probably have plans written in books currently for the money they'll make each year.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 8, 2012, 8:53 AM

I like the idea. With the conferences shifting towards the idea of "making money is king", I'd hate to see our rivalry fall of the schedule.

This game is important to all fans in the state and I look forward to the water cooler trash talk everyday. I'd hate to see that go away.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football


Feb 8, 2012, 10:48 AM

How about he work on something important - finding people jobs.
And not try to get his name out there with a stunt like this. And that's this is, a stunt.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 53
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic