Can this become permanent?

This just in: Tennessee football is down.  Lane Kiffin's 14 month experiment left the cupboards quite bare in Knoxville.  Derek Dooley is a good coach (war analogies aside) who has very little to work with - for now.  That will change soon enough.


Like all SEC schools, Tennessee is obligated to play its entire football schedule regardless of the shape the roster is in.  With the exception of an ugly game in Baton Rouge that was far closer than anyone expected, the 2010 version of the Volunteers have been beaten convincingly in their other conference games and the season opener against now number one Oregon.


However, while winning is usually the most important thing for any team to do, I would argue it's second on UT's current list.  At the top? Recruiting.


Sure, plenty of fans would argue that winning is 1a to recruiting's 1b at all schools every year.  That may be true most seasons, but in Knoxville - right now - it's not.  The Vols need players.  Good ones, and lots of them.  They'll get them too, much to the chagrin of their Eastern division rivals and Alabama.  That said, are we at a point in SEC history where there's a real changing of the guard, or will the normalcy of the "Big Six" and the "Next Six" return in a year or two?


This Saturday's game in Columbia between the Gamecocks and Vols can begin to answer that question.


Since his arrival at Carolina, Steve Spurrier is just 2-3 against Tennessee.  Last year saw the Gamecocks take a talented team to Neyland Stadium.  The Vols thumped USC, like they'd done to Georgia a few weeks earlier.  In a year when movement was supposed to start in the East, Kiffin and UT served notice that they wouldn't be moving down anytime soon.


Kiffin's departure, however, erased a lot of good feelings in Vol country, and most notably soured an entire recruiting class on playing for UT.  Some recruits stayed on board, but many looked elsewhere, unsure of who or what was next.  That left the Vols in worse shape than before AD Mike Hamilton decided Phil Fulmer was no longer capable of running the program.


Enter South Carolina.  At SEC Media Days the Gamecocks were picked ahead of Tennessee for the second consecutive year.  I know, it's just a July prediction, but it is an indicator of how schools are seen across the conference.  As we speak, there are very few who feel Tennessee football is in better shape than South Carolina football.  Winning Saturday will further validate Carolina's current status for sure, but it will not be the final say as these two programs struggle for the right to back in the Top 3 in the East.


Tennessee has a long, proud and very successful football tradition.  Now that the head coach is once again a principled man with deep ties to the South, order in Knoxville is slowly being restored.  The intangibles - money, facilities and history - are all solidly in place at UT.


South Carolina's football history is long too, but not nearly as successful as the Vols'.  The Gamecocks recent recruiting fortunes have turned the team into a legitimate contender in the SEC East.  The reason is simple: seizing the moment.

Leadership at Carolina is solid.  The plan has been laid out and the feeling of positive expectations is very high.  Bottom line - the future here is bright, those involved want to be champions and the resources and opportunities to accomplish those things in Columbia are as good as most other schools across the SEC.  That has not always been the case at USC.  New recruits can be shown that the Gamecocks are ready for the next level right now.

So this weekend Tennessee brings their road show to Columbia.  They were beaten badly last week and know there are few chances left to redeem the season.  What are they playing for?  Their coach?  Themselves?  The future?  Any reason is a good one, and I suspect the Volunteers will want to prove they still belong in the conversation of best teams in the Southeastern Conference.  The Gamecocks need to be prepared for a good team, even one that comes in as 17 point underdog.

That said, it all boils down to one very simple concept.  Winning.  There is indeed some uncertainty at a few of the schools the Gamecocks compete against every year.  Those doors will close soon enough.  The single best thing to do to impress upon recruits how serious you are is to show them how good you are in head-to-head match-ups.  That's easy enough.  Players, get on the field and give it your all.  Fans, get in the stands and give it your all.

One more note: a win Saturday and the Gamecocks know they'll be playing for the division title.  That's big motivation if you ask me.

Yes Tennessee is down.  Yes Carolina is up.  Will it stay that exact way?  I doubt it, but that doesn't mean Carolina has to go to the back of the line again.  

Pac 12 should follow SEC model

I was reading this story on Pac 10/12 expansion and thought "they're trying too hard."  The original league idea of a North-South split is perfect and everyone can still get what they want.  Here's how: follow the lead of the SEC.

Heresy to to the cultural side of some out west I'm sure, but the model now in place here in the South works very well.  A few tweaks for a nine game football schedule only enhance what the new Pac 12 wants to do.

First, here are the divisions as initially proposed:

North - Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Colorado, Utah

South - Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA, California, Stanford

The original Pac 8 schools in the north worry that the proposed split will mean less time to recruit in California.  The solution lies in assigning each school a permanent opponent from the other division.  It makes further regional, not to mention economic and emotional, sense to place the Oregon and Washington schools with the California schools while matching the Arizona schools with Colorado and Utah.

Longstanding conference and border rivalries will be maintained on one hand and created on another.  An example of what the individual rivalries could be:

Arizona - Colorado
Arizona St - Utah
USC - Oregon
UCLA - Washington
Cal - Oregon St
Stanford - Wash St

Like the SEC, the inter-divisional rival would be played each year.  Since the Pac 12 is likely to keep playing nine league games, the rotation amongst the other schools would occur every four years.  Enough people earn a living at scheduling to ensure that the eight schools outside of California are there virtually every season.

The ACC, in my opinion, got it wrong by splitting the way it did.  Geography is better for marketing.  It's easy to tell the split in the SEC and Big 12.  The ACC's "Atlantic" and "Coastal" divisions are still confusing.  While attempting to prove a correlation between no BCS titles and misguided divisions would be very difficult, how many of you think it's just a coincidence? (OK, I kid, but only a little.)

As for basketball and the other sports, again, follow the current SEC setups.  They work well too.  Football will be the driving engine, so just make sure you get that one right from the start.

So, Pac 12, take a southern football fan's advice and follow the lead of the SEC.  The model works very well.  I know you've got some great schools with smart people, but trust me: keep it simple.  North and South, not Pacific and Coastal.  That said, Sashimi and Medium Rare could work as divisions.  Talk about marketing out west.

Now the hard part begins

It was only a few seasons ago that South Carolina's football program found itself in the Top 10 rankings.  After a fun win in Chapel Hill over the Tar Heels, USC was elevated to number 6.  They had a 6-1 record, Vanderbilt at home the following week and appeared to be in great shape in the SEC East race.

They didn't win again and missed out on a bowl game.

That was 2007.  This is 2010.

The '07 squad still had several players who believed in their own hype.  The '10 squad doesn't seem to have that problem.  That said, the proof of how hard it is to "get up" for every game was on display Saturday at Williams-Brice Stadium.  Alabama was playing its third straight Top 20 opponent and second on the road in that span.  They didn't seem to be clicking on all cylinders and Carolina took advantage in its impressive 35-21 win over the National Champs.

I'm not writing this to diminish Carolina's accomplishment.  It was hard earned.  It was thorough.  It was special for Gamecock Nation.  It was though, however monumental, just one win.

Carolina now finds itself in rarified air: first place all by themselves in the SEC East.  4-1 overall, 2-1 in conference play.  They will likely be favored in each of their next four games, and, depending on what they and their opponents do in the next few weeks, favored in all of their remaining contests, though I don't see Florida being a home dog to USC - at least not yet.

How will these 2010 Gamecocks handle their current status?  Based on what I've seen of their effort and attitude thus far, much better than the '07 team.  From January of this year on, Steve Spurrier's been reminding all of us - a lot - of just how bad the bowl loss to UConn was.  His team seems to have not only listened but truly done something about it.  That's a huge step forward for the program.

They've played sixty minutes of football in each SEC game.  The non-con games were never in doubt.  The caliber of player now putting on a Gamecock uniform has changed.  They aren't surprised when they play well.  They expect it.  They don't need to be reminded to work hard.  They expect it.  That should fill fans with hope and the team with confidence.

I think I know the answer to the question I posed earlier, but that's why we play the games.  Let's see what these new-look Gamecocks think Saturday in Lexington.  That's when the hard part begins.

Was that an acorn or the sky?

You'll have to pardon the unintended yet apropos pun, but many Gamecock fans channelled their inner Chicken Little over the weekend following Carolina's 35-27 loss at Auburn.

Based on reaction on Twitter, Facebook and the call-in show after the game you'd have thought the Carolina program suffered its most embarrassing loss ever, that Stephen Garcia would make a better quarter horse than quarterback and that Steve Spurrier finally proved he belongs on the golf course everyday.  None are true, but a lot of fans want to believe they are.

Let's start with some of the real reasons a large faction of Gamecock Nation is angry - and has reason to be.

1- Giving up a big lead...First, after giving up a touchdown on Auburn's first drive the Gamecocks scored three straight TD's of their own, though a missed PAT on the third made the score 20-7 at that point. Auburn then took a 21-20 lead, Carolina scored again to make it 27-21 before the Tigers scored the final 14 points of the game.  Get a big lead and hold it.  Fair reason to be upset.

2- Four second half turnovers...Two fumbles by Stephen Garcia and two interceptions by Connor Shaw doomed the Gamecocks late in the game, no doubt about it.  For each player though, I truly only blame them for one apiece.  Garcia's second fumble and Shaw's first INT were bad mistakes by players whose first responsibility is to protect the ball.  The other Garcia fumble was made on a solid defensive play, while Shaw's second pick came in desperation time.  The ball was near Alshon Jeffrey, but he was covered by three defenders, one of whom made the play.

3- Defensive letdowns all night...It was great to have Shaq Wilson back in the lineup, but he alone won't make things better against a team with a weapon like Cam Newton.  Carolina's vaunted D gave up 492 total yards, 334 of them on the ground.  Half of those rushing yards were gained by Auburn's big QB.  The Gamecocks - and Ellis Johnson - knew EXACTLY what Auburn's plan was and simply couldn't stop it.  Missed tackles, bad angles and a superior Auburn offensive line all contributed to a brutal night for the defense.  They're better than they showed at Jordan-Hare, but that's a moot point.

I could keep going but there's no reason to.  The Tigers were more physical "in the trenches" all night.  In the SEC, if you keep getting pushed around on the line you're likely to lose after four quarters.  No one singular play (or player, or coach) cost Carolina the win.  It was a collective failure on many fronts.  Simply put, Auburn was better than Carolina all night and won the game.

Now for some good news.  Despite all the aforementioned failures, Carolina had a chance to tie the game on its final possession.  They were in the game all night.  Garcia, as predicted, had a good night through the air, going 15-21 for 235 yards and three TDs.  Shaw was 4-8 for another 70, giving the offense 305 total passing yards.  To that end, Jeffrey had 192 receiving yards in the game, fourth best night ever by a Carolina receiver.  The confidence gained through the air should serve the team well moving forward.

As for larger goals, they're all still attainable.  Carolina is likely to be tied with Florida when the Gamecocks host Alabama next week (the Gators visit Tuscaloosa Saturday).  Believe it or not, losing to Auburn only counts as one loss, though to hear some tell it the loss doomed Carolina to another season of mediocrity.  While beating Bama will be a tall order, it's doable.  Pull off the upset and you're right back in the hunt.  Even losing to the Tide won't be a killer - if there's no more losing before the trip to Gainesville in November.

Bottom line: Carolina is 3-1.  They're still in the Top 20.  They have a week off to heal and extra time to prep for America's best team.  They have some exciting young talent.  They have a terrific coaching staff.  Yes they had a bad game.  At times it was very bad.  They've been worse though.

If you called in Saturday blaming Garcia's fumble or Spurrier's decision making, stop.  That wasn't the difference.  It wasn't the end of the season either.  Relax.  Enjoy the off week.  Quit looking for a scapegoat.  The Gamecocks are good, and they have a lot of football left in them.

Saturday night in Auburn an acorn hit the Gamecocks on the head.  It wasn't the sky at all.

It's Hard to Say Goodbye, Part 2

Unconditional love is an awesome thing.  I have it for my wife and children.  My mother has it for me.  Any of you reading this knows who you have that feeling towards and who in turn has it for you.  No matter what someone may do to hurt you or another person, you still love and support them.  It's powerful in its scope sometimes.  When it comes to sports, however, there is a bit of a disconnect when it comes to the word "unconditional."  The Weslye Saunders case at South Carolina is a prime example of that fact.

Saunders, as you by now know, was dismissed from the USC football program Wednesday by Athletics Director Eric Hyman.  A short and to the point statement was the only official notification we got from the university.  The reaction to the news, however, has been very mixed in the last 24 hours or so.

Most fans and observers are in no way surprised to learn of the dismissal.  This author actually called for Saunders to be kicked off the team before the season ever began, and the support I got was heavy.  Some fans took issue with that stance though, and now that the news is official, they still seem to believe that Saunders got a raw deal.  He didn't, and let me explain why.

Rabid fans of any team will always look at who they support differently than outside observers or even more objective supporters.  No matter what, they'll put the team - and its individual members - ahead of everything else.  In theory I have no problem with this, but in practice there are times when the garnet colored glasses need to come off.

Those who continue to blindly support Weslye say things like "He's just a college kid who made a mistake" or "the things he did weren't criminal acts, so let's not treat him that way."  Naive feelings at best. As has been discussed before, Saunders history of putting himself first go back far longer than summer, or for that matter, winter of 2010, two times when he was suspended from the team for what can kindly be described as selfish acts.

In January, Coach Steve Spurrier put Saunders' reinstatement to a team vote, and his fellow players decided to let him come back.  There was no such show of democracy this summer.  Saunders had a good spring and came to training camp in what Spurrier called the best shape he'd seen him in at Carolina.  Then the lying began.  Saunders told his coaches he'd done nothing wrong in reference to his trip to South Florida and the subsequent NCAA investigation into the trip.  Because of their trust in him (unconditional love perhaps) they believed him.

After arriving very late to a Saturday morning scrimmage at Williams-Brice Stadium, Saunders told the staff he was again being questioned by the NCAA.  Because of their trust in him (unconditional love perhaps) they believed him.  Then, when caught in a lie, Saunders LIED AGAIN.  That sealed the deal with Spurrier.

Saunders was suspended and had not been a part of the team in any way since, and now of course he's done.  He got what he deserved, but to hear a faction of Gamecock fans tell it, the punishment still doesn't fit the crime.  I rarely read message boards, but I did yesterday.  One string in particular struck me.  It was apparently meant only for those who wanted to show support for, not condemnation of, Weslye.  A few detractors posted on it anyway and were themselves condemned for not being "real fans."

Talk about a case of some fans not seeing the forest for the trees.  Imagine that.  One player repeatedly put himself ahead of his team during his career and ultimately got kicked off, and through the process may have gotten his ENTIRE PROGRAM in trouble with the NCAA, yet some feel he is the victim.  That stuns me.

The real victims are the other members of the team who've done things the right way the whole time.  The victims are the coaches who've doubled their collective efforts to bring in better citizens to play football for Carolina.  The victims are the fans - all of them - who pour heart, soul and money into their support of Gamecock football.  Weslye Saunders showed no regard for everyone else, yet some fans believe he still deserves the benefit of what little doubt may be left out there.  Wow.

I have admittedly been very harsh in my criticism of Weslye.  (For more of what I've said on this, just check the column on the right of this page)  I have also made it clear that I wish him nothing but success in the future.  He has immense football talent.  He is a good student who comes from a good family.  That said, he and he alone is responsible for the mess he is in.

The 2010 Gamecocks are a good team, and have started strongly without Weslye on the squad.  As I've said before, a case of addition by subtraction is at work here and I don't believe this case has been a distraction, despite what some would have you believe.  Fans want to see their team play hard and win.  That's the bottom line.

If you're a fan who believes Weslye has done the wrong things and gotten what was deserved but wants to support him beyond his time in Columbia, have at it.  You won't be alone.  That is unconditional love.

However, if you're a fan who thinks Weslye got a raw deal, made some "mistakes" or is the victim of a broken system, wake up.  Your unconditional love of your team has officially gotten in your way of seeing the truth, and that's not good for anybody, no matter how much love you have.

Pete and Reggie's Hard Luck Club

As reaction poured in on the show today on Reggie Bush's "decision" to give up his Heisman Trophy, it got me thinking about the points people made when saying he'd accomplished so much "on the field."  They're right of course.  Bush's career at Southern Cal was brilliant.  At a school loaded with great players he stood out above them all.  Remember, he played with fellow Heisman winner Matt Leinart.  His margin of victory over Vince Young of Texas in the Heisman balloting was huge.

In short, based on his performance, he deserved to win what most believe is the greatest and most recognized individual award in American sports.

In reading about the process that led Bush to give the award up, it was noted that there are actually very few overall criteria players must meet to be Heisman winners.  One, however, is that players must be in compliance with NCAA rules to be eligible.  Based on what we all now know, Bush wasn't an eligible candidate.  Enough said.

Furthermore, the Heisman Trophy Trust has decided that no one will now hold the 2005 honor, citing the time that's elapsed from then to now and that a revote wouldn't be fair.  (I didn't know until today that they don't have a Miss America-type deal to automatically have the runner-up take the spot in the event the winner can no longer serve, but I digress.)  Leaving the title vacant will, in the long run, actually make Bush's year more memorable and keep his accomplishments - on AND off the field - more relevant than most past Heisman winners.

Basically, Bush will now be remembered as one of college football's best players ever and have no official recognition to show for it.  Kind of sucks for him.  It also gives him something in common with baseball legend Pete Rose.  Both men are now fantastic athletes who threw away recognition due to equally fantastic screw ups.

The biggest difference in the two is simple: Bush won an award and had to give it back.  Rose, if we can equate the Heisman to induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, never actually got his.  Ask almost anyone who follows baseball though and they'll say that based on what he did "on the field," Rose should absolutely be in the HOF.  He's not because of foolish decisions made off the field after he played.

Bush's transgressions were also away from the field, and for that matter away from school entirely.  Neither man was forced to do what got them in trouble, and both could have likely salvaged their situations if they'd fessed up sooner and been swifter in ending what they'd started.

Instead, Rose kept gambling on baseball and then spent years lying about the extent of what he'd done.  By the time he admitted to it a few years ago it was too late.  He was toxic and voters, because of Major League Baseball's lifetime ban of Rose from the game, would be able to have nothing to do with him.

Bush was equally filled with a false sense of bravado.  Not only did he take hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal benefits from an agent, he actually decided NOT to sign with that agent when the time was upon him.  As one caller said, Bush had "no honor amongst thieves."  The agent ratted him out and look where we are today.

You will never hear me say that either of these men weren't great at what they did.  Neither of them cheated to get better at their craft.  Whether it was harnessing physical gifts like Bush did or working to overcome the lack of them like Rose did, both are deserving of being joined with their respective sports elite names because of what they accomplished "on the field."  They'll certainly be remembered for that part of their careers.

Sadly for them, they'll be equally remembered for what they did away from the field too, and those transgressions will keep them from official recognition alongside their peers.  Like it or not, what they did on the field only goes so far, and for them it's just not far enough.

Pete and Reggie, kindred souls in their own club.  There are many lessons to be learned here.  We, and they, need to hope the example they unwittingly set keeps that club's membership at two from here on out.

Lee Corso still a Gamecocks hater?

The show was on location at Hooter's today.  If you don't already know, Lee Corso is now a national spokesman for that fine chain of restaurants, which is smart during football season.  Corso is well known and can be funny from time to time.  As coincidence would have it, the South Carolina football team is a legitimate contender for the SEC East this season, and I was asked over the weekend, after the Gamecocks' 17-6 win over Georgia, what Corso might say about the teams' chances now.

It reminded me that a couple of years ago I wrote a piece detailing what I thought of Coach Corso's outlook on the South Carolina program.  I'm reposting it today.  Let me know what you think...

Lee Corso is a professional.  He sells pencils.  The good kind, too.  He is also a broadcaster, and has been since the late 1970's.  He's called college games, Arena League, even the USFL.  He coached nearly a decade in the Big 10.  Oh, by the way, he's been on ESPN's College Gameday since the show's inception.  Here is some of what Corso's own website says about him:

"As College GameDay's national appeal has grown, Corso's opinions, analysis and daring predictions have become one of the most anticipated in sports television. In 2001, Sporting News magazine selected Corso as the 17th most influential person in college football. The magazine in January 2004 ranked Corso and fellow GameDay hosts - Chris Fowler and Kirk Herbstreit - as 2003's 'Most Powerful Media Personalities in Sports.'

Corso, whose college roommate was actor Burt Reynolds, received four varsity letters in both football and baseball at Florida State. He is a member of the Hall of Fame at Florida State and University of Louisville. In June 2003, Corso was inducted into the state of Florida Sports Hall of Fame in St. Petersburg.

A graduate of Florida State University, Corso earned a bachelor of arts degree in physical education and a master's degree in administration and supervision."

So you can see, this is a man who is a decorated athlete, well educated student, respected coach, successful businessman and close friend of a Hollywood legend who has been cited by respected national publications as a major force in one of America's great sporting traditions.  And I'm told to treat him like a clown.

If I, or any of the tens of thousands of fans around the nation Corso riles each week with his opinion and prognostication, don't agree with his views, someone will say "Ignore it, he's Lee Corso."  After all, the guy puts mascot heads on every week.  For every team he picks for, he automatically must pick against another.  When it comes to the games he discusses each week on what is the best pregame show of ANY sport in the country, I agree - it's just his job.  A job everyone knows he's good at.  A job he, if no one else, takes very seriously.

But something different occured during a Gameday broadcast in Columbia a few years ago that to this day has many supporters of the University of South Carolina upset, including this author.  Corso, on day one of the Spurrier Era, proclaimed before the college football world that the Gamecocks could never win an SEC championship.  Ever.  

USC is using Corso's words against him in a marketing effort designed to boost revenues near the top of the conference, where Florida leads the way with an athletic budget of more than $75 million per school year.  USC is not the first and will not be the last to use Corso as a kind of "negative" motivation.  Corso doesn't like the fact that he's been singled out by USC in this particular case and can't seem to grasp what all the fuss is about.  It's just his opinion after all, he says, and it's based on fact.  He's right - to a point.

No one can argue that South Carolina football is anything more than it is.  Some highlight moments and big wins.  A good, but not great, NFL pipeline.  George Rogers and Sterling Sharpe.  1984.  Back-to-back at the Outback.  That's pretty much it, and because of that Corso told anyone willing to listen that Carolina would never win a title, even if Steve Spurrier "coached there 400 years."  That wasn't a prediction on a game, it was a prediction on a life, the football life of a big, proud southern school.

I wonder what "the experts" told Corso when he became the football coach at Louisville and Indiana, two basketball schools.  Probably something to the effect of you can't win there.  He did though, relatively speaking, because he believed he could.  He's glad, I'm sure, not to have followed the negative advice.

Say it will be incredibly difficult for USC to win a title when you factor in history and present competition, that Florida and Georgia will always have a recruiting edge based on numbers, and that young men want to play where years of winning are what they add to, not start.  All of that is true and no reasonable person could argue the point.  

Again, Corso said "can't."

Corso can say what he wants to anytime he wants to.  This is America.  Those who listen can choose to interpret his words how they want to for the same reason.  Corso, however, shouldn't act so shocked that the anger of Gamecock fans is focused at him on this issue.  He didn't say it will be hard, or take some time.  He said it cannot, under any circumstance, be done.  How should reasonable people respond when told they, and seemingly they alone, can't accomplish something never done solely because of who and where they are?

It's also worth noting that Corso earns part of his income through IMG as a motivational speaker.  I wonder how many times a company or civic group has had him come in and say "You can't, so don't try."  Considering he's still available to speak, I'd say never.  I realize he wasn't paid by USC that late summer day in 2005, but I would hope a man like that always had a positive, realistic outlook on life no matter the setting.  He may as well have said don't try to the Gamecock nation back in 2005, but he may not be that bold.

After all, making a prediction about a Saturday is one thing, making a prediction on a lifetime is something else.

###

Now in 2010, let's see if anything in Corso's outlook changes.  I don't believe it will.  There's still nothing in it for him.