Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry

Neutrality

The reason I tagged this, is because I read the article that most of this information comes from, and it's pretty biased toward Carolina, in my opinion. Much of the "interestingly enough" stuff is more of opinion than anything, and is mostly copied from the author of the article, which is more opinionated than news-based. Zchris87v 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A rivalry article needs real-life stories ("interestingly enough" stuff) to explain the passion of the participants, and although some of the stories may be a little embarrassing for a Clemson fan, they are facts, not opinions. On the other hand, there are plenty of facts in this article that make Clemson look good too, so I really don't know what you are complaining about. If you dispute something, then be specific on this discussion page. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a tag could be placed on the article. 65.4.96.64 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the "interestingly enough" stuff entails a story, such as the fact that fake tickets were handed out, and ends with "Carolina won the game" or "Clemson won the game" - unless it has something to do with the play of the game, how important is that? I mean if it was under a new coach, sure. But stuff like ticket sales? The outcome shouldn't exactly matter in that case. Zchris87v 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clemson leads the football series 63-37-4. However, the series would be tied if only 13 games of the 104 had gone the other way. Considering the Tigers have tied or won by less than a touchdown in almost twenty games, this series is much closer than the record, which explains the fans' passion for this game."

Good call on this removal, it's basic math. 63 minus 13 is 50. 37 plus 13 is 50. Woohoo. Also, the removal of "game would've gone into overtime" - if you're familiar with football at all, you know a field goal is 3 points, if you have the final score and add 3, you would get equal numbers. Dee dee dee Zchris87v 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina forfeited their 17-16 victory in 1965 for the use of an ineligible player, so the record is technically 64-36-4. Even counting that game as a victory, 19 of USC's 37 wins against Clemson (as opposed to 16 of Clemson's "63" against USC) were by a touchdown or less. To drag up this anecdotal tidbit but ignore its flipside bespeaks of bias. KingmanIII 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged forfeit is not recognized by anybody and is one of many reasons the Gamecocks left the ACC. (See the official NCAA records and the media guides for both programs.) To use such info to discuss bias certainly shows a lack of neutrality on your part. 70.144.2.98 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I really was biased, I could've just vandalized the page by providing a link to "This Is South Carolina Football." And any perceived biases I may have is a moot point since I didn't even edit the article.The forfeit wasn't the gist of my objection, anyway, which was already addressed in the most recent edit, so this is a moot point.KingmanIII 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You initially argue 16 vs 19 close wins while bringing up a bogus forfeit to show the "flipside," then you act like you made your point by not vandalizing or making any edits. Kind of odd reasoning, but thanks for not being a dick. 68.154.130.31 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I repeat, the alleged forfeit, justified or not, was not the gist of my objection. I didn't bring it up as part of my argument, just as a side note. The article has been edited anyway, so it's a moot point. 75.87.110.147 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start a major argument here, but I'd like to see a full justification of the supposed non-NPOV material removed from user 76.26.192.86's recent edits. At quick glance everything stated appeared to be factual and with little bias, but with this section of the article having more mention of notable USC wins, these contributions seemed to add some balance. The fact that USC beat Clemson in the 2002 CWS is frequently removed and re-added, but the information that this was in the prior format of the tournament is relevant (to both Clemson and USC's chances for the title). Anywho, I've always thought that the notable events section needed some serious cleanup and maybe its time for a complete re-write. What does everyone else think?Arwalke 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Recent addition stating point spreads in football is not cited and is worded in with a bias towards Clemson. Please do not revert back unless you are willing to find citation and rewrite in a unbiased manner. 70.144.12.91 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Games

On the same thread, was the 2006 game really notable enough to be mentioned? Aside from the fact that it was the first win in five years, I don't see what the big deal is. Moberho 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the '81 championship enough to claim elite status for all-time? Obviously not. The only reason anything in this rivalry is notable is because neither school has much else to talk about (as far as athletics). 68.154.130.31 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been edited to add "the first time either team had made it to a national championship", making it more noteable. Also, the fact that the 2006 game was mentioned could be in part due to the fact that '05, '04, and '03 were all mentioned. If someone could create a table with all the scores and years on it, we wouldn't have to have anything other than an asterisk besides noteable games with a footnote under the table. Zchris87v 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "the first time" comment is totally unnecessary and completely untrue. Besides, the fact that Clemson won a championship that year is notable enough. As for the '06 football game, it's notable for Gamecock fans for many reasons, including their first win at Clemson in 10 years. See the following link for an incomplete but easily accessible table: [1] 70.144.13.83 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, "the first time either won" perhaps. Zchris87v 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote about state population

Does it actually pertain to the article? Zchris87v 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence about how it's unusual to have two major universities competing for recruits in such a "small" state--SC is in the top half in population (at #24 of 50) in the US and there are several smaller states that have the same "problem." --Littledrummrboy 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry Among Average South Carolinians

Since the article already established that the rivalry stems from socio-economic conflict within the state, not just athletics, I think it would be a good idea to have a section discussing how the rivalry manifests itself among the population of South Carolina. I just don't know where to find sources. Agree, disagree? ColonelDEH

Disagree. I find absolutely no evidence in everyday life that this is any means of socio-economic conflict. I live in both Columbia and Clemson and spend time nearly everywhere in-between and so many places around the state. There is very little to support this claim. I see as many beat-up old cars driving around with Gamecock stickers on them as I do new Escalades with the same stickers on them. The exact same goes for Clemson - of the people I work with, none went to college but a couple are USC fans, a couple are Clemson fans. The colleges are too big and too close to merit this. Now, if there was some school as prestigious as MIT in South Carolina...that'd be a different story. But if anything is evident through this article, it's that these schools are similar, which makes the rivalry so strong. If there was a South Carolina-Furman rivalry, well it wouldn' t even be notable, unless there was some odd circumstance. Zchris87v 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additionally...how the rivalry "manifests itself" seems to be a quite random pattern - literally. My friend's supervisor is a Clemson fan because he had a friend who had a Clemson mug, or something to that effect. Not even a real reason, just a luck-of-the-draw type scenario. Obviously, the closer you are to the school, the more fans there'll be. But I'd say the ratio of Carolina fans to the population of Pickens county (where Clemson is) is around the same as the ratio of Clemson fans to the population of Richland county (where Carolina is). And about the rambling sentence above...IFurman is a more expensive school than Carolina (and I believe private), hence there may be some sort of conflict with economic class there. But since Carolina and Clemson are just the two largest schools in the state, it's natural for people to either choose one to pull for, or already be pulling for one for whatever reasons there may be. Hope that ties my thought together more. Zchris87v 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ColonelDEH was referring to the original conflict within the state in the establishment of Clemson as an agricultural institution. This conflict is no longer the primary reason behind the rivalry. Like Zchris87v has said, the rivalry stems from the close proximity of the schools and their many similarities and the almost natural inclination of South Carolinians to choose sides. It is worth mentioning that South Carolina lacks a major professional sports franchise and this likely contributes to the interest in collegiate sports in the state. Arwalke 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Clemson was founded as a school for farmers and is still better known for its agricultural school than any other program, while USC was originally a school for the elite and is still famous for its business school. This blue collar versus white collar distinction played itself out in the state's General Assembly in the early days, but it is now played out on bumper stickers and t-shirts (eg, a picture of hick and his son with the heading "Clem's son"). Of course each school has some sophisticated fans and some not so sophisticated. However, it is interesting how the hick-factor continues to be one thing that USC fans point to about Clemson and how USC's football program seems to be the Achilles’ heel that Clemson fans like to harp on. The section suggested by ColonelDEH could be a collection of the different jokes, sayings, bumper stickers, and t-shirts related to the rivalry. 74.249.3.253 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]