Replies: 53
| visibility 358
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 11558
Joined: 1995
|
Football Update: Bill would require SC, Clemson to play in football
Feb 7, 2012, 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
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 [4735]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
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%
39
|
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%
32
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [935]
TigerPulse: 92%
24
|
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%
16
|
Irrelevant, both of those were in-conf. rivalries.
Feb 7, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
Ours has been OOC for a looong while.
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4764]
TigerPulse: 92%
37
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [156]
TigerPulse: 88%
12
|
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 [6407]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13465
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%
31
|
so who goes to jail if we dont play?***
Feb 7, 2012, 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3678]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
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 [16650]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 21728
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%
36
|
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%
31
|
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 [25986]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14899
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%
27
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25986]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14899
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1899]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
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%
27
|
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%
28
|
Is this what people mean by Big Government?***
Feb 7, 2012, 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22966]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
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 [25986]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14899
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%
53
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 [72423]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117299
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5020]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
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%
10
|
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%
53
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%
64
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%
10
|
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%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
Good point, again a slippery slope***
Feb 7, 2012, 10:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [762]
TigerPulse: 82%
22
|
what an idiot***
Feb 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [null]
TigerPulse: null%
-1
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8701]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2212]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8701]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [593]
TigerPulse: 87%
20
|
This is silly. NO way these teams dont play every year***
Feb 7, 2012, 11:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
I'm sure Texas and Texas A&M said that 10 years ago***
Feb 7, 2012, 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [593]
TigerPulse: 87%
20
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
49
Posts: 22551
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3619]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9627]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78880]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 78623
Joined: 2003
|
Brasky?***
Feb 7, 2012, 11:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19338]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 15601
Joined: 1998
|
Wish he was AS motivated to restore historical funding.***
Feb 7, 2012, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
49
Posts: 22551
Joined: 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 73%
-1
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [206]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
48
Posts: 25448
Joined: 2005
|
This is a law both repubs and dems...
Feb 7, 2012, 4:31 PM
|
|
In the state can agree on
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1298]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [58081]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 22896
Joined: 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [165]
TigerPulse: 68%
12
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2303]
TigerPulse: 64%
32
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 358
|
|
|