Week 3 snapshot, SC growing, Clemson falling short....

Yeah, South Carolina lost a game to Vandy that it really needed. But from week 2 to week 3, the Gamecocks showed a lot of improvement. It looks like the Gamecocks' offensive line seemed to get a little cohesiveness in the second half of the Georgia game, and the team's offense found some of its identity in the pass.
South Carolina, and quarterback Chris Smelley (23 of 39 for 271 yards,) had struggled to find receivers to catch the ball other than Jared Cook and Kenny McKinley(injured.) But by the end of the game versus Georgia, wide receivers Mo Brown, Freddie Brown and Dion Lecorn had all made contributions. It seems Smelley was learning to look all over the field and WRs were getting open versus a good Bulldog defense. If that continues, the Gamecocks will be able to make up for the Vandy loss by taking a win over a team it will not be favored to beat. It's the SEC, which means a murderer's row and it will not be easy. But the Gamecocks showed they had heart - and a defense that has strength and talent - against Georgia. The Gamecocks also introduced freshman QB Stephen Garcia. With him in the mix, used in special situations, SC will only be more versatile as an offense.
If the Gamecocks learn and grow - and keeps its head up - the team will move in the right direction.
At Clemson, the Tigers have played an SEC foe and one from the ACC. The results have to be scary for the ever-hopeful Clemson fans, who talk of conference championships and BCS contention every off-season, only to be slammed into reality when the talk stops and the actual games begin.
What looks like a fair-to-middling Alabama squad, thoroughly dismantled a Tiger team, 34-10, that was penciled into the national picture by a slew of fawning, now egg-faced, pundits.
The bally-hooed backfield of James Davis and C.J. Spiller (0 yards rushing versus Bama) are constantly referred to as the top RB tandem in college football. What most leave out, is that "Thunder and Lightening" are not as effective as most teams' single back formations. And while Tiger QB Cullen Harper has been praised ad nauseam, he looks very average, even versus the poor teams that annually make up the bulk of Clemson's schedule.
Aside from the national embarrassment delivered to Tiger Head Coach Tommy Bowden by the Crimson Tide, Clemson returned to its usual band of weak sisters in week two. Padding its record, as is its custom, with a win over the Citadel, but the tigers did not look sharp.
A week later, it took Clemson three quarters to finally shake an N.C. State team that is clearly in the rebuilding stage.
The fact that the Tigers play in a very weak conference usually covers the sad truth that it is one of the weakest BCS schools in the country. And 2008 seems to be no different.
You can look for the tigers to feast on the down-trodden, but stumble against any opposition with half a heart and a few players.
The good news for Tiger fans, there are not many teams on Clemson's schedule with the resources and personnel a big school like Clemson can attract. In other words: Clemson's schedule is so weak, the Tigers can win most weeks just by showing up.
And for those looking to late November: if SC sustains the type of injuries it had in 07, the Tigers will have a chance to add it it win total versus SC. But if the Gamecocks can remain even relatively healthy, their team is a good bit ahead of Clemson, as far a college football on a major stage is concerned. And lucky for the Gamecocks, it gets to live like Clemson for the next two weeks, with games versus ACC-level opponents in Wofford and Alabama-Birmingham.
But if the Tigers and Gamecocks were to tee it up Sept. 20, I think we could assure that the Gamecocks would walk away with a convincing win.

Why are Clemson fans in a state of 'Shock' after 34-10 loss to Alabama?

Big T Blog
Sept. 3, 2008

For months, since it was announced that Clemson would oppose Alabama on Aug. 30, in Atlanta, there has been excitement. And that would have been the case with any major BCS program.
And the fervor grew as more and more pre-season college football publications gushed about the amount of talent that Clemson Head Coach Tommy Bowden has assembled. The longstanding boasts and promises that Bowden has made to IPTAY (Clemson’s athletic donors) about his recruiting prowess were finally making an impact with the regional, and eventually, the national media.
Despite the loss of linebackers Nick Watkins and Tremaine Billie from 2007, Clemson fans were under the belief the team would be stronger. Even the loss of another linebacker, the troubled Courtney Vincent, did not phase exuberant Clemson fans. The eventual banning of the academically struggling Vincent, who was allowed by Bowden to play in the Tigers’ loss in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in Atlanta in 2007, was exacerbated by the decision of defensive end Phillip Merling to go to the National Football League. And that was just the defensive losses. The Tigers lost four its five starters on the offensive line.
How can you project such lofty heights for a team that lost so many standout starters? And that is not all. Clemson is a squad that mustered only a third-place finish in 2007 in the inept Atlantic Coast Conference? But don’t blame Clemson fans only for the traditional off-season euphoria that always seems to envelope Tigertown. Pollsters voted Clemson as the ninth-best team in college football.
Despite the weak logic of expecting so much with so little reason, TigerNation is shocked that Alabama kicked the team up and down the field, beating Clemson 34-10.
Bowden was so clueless as to what happened that he called colleagues in the coaching world, including Nick Saban, Alabama’s coach who drubbed his team, to ask what he did wrong.
While Bowden admitted he called to ask for help, he did not give many details regarding the answers. But famed South Carolina Head Coach Steve Spurrier may give a little insight into what happened. In his weekly coach’s call-in show on Sept. 2, Spurrier said he read where members of the Clemson program were in "shock." The Head Ball Coach then talked about his Gamecocks’ 2007 loss to underdog Vanderbilt. He said people thought the Gamecocks were good because they had won a couple games. Spurrier then said his team lost because they were not a good team.In effect, he said the Gamecocks lost because the team was supposed to lose. And that goes right to the point with Clemson’s loss to Alabama.It should be no surprise the Tigers lost. Sure many pundits, and the Clemson friendly venues (like The State newspaper, Columbia, SC) told us Clemson is a primetime program, and would win big.But there are also those in this state who know Bowden and they have seen the work he has done at Clemson. Bowden has a marginal record versus the ACC, but there was no reason to believe Clemson would beat Alabama, if the Tide had improved any from its 6-6 campaign of 2007. In 10 years, Bowden’s teams have embarrassing losses that range from blowouts at the hands of Georgia, Virginia Tech and Texas Tech to inexplicable implosions to teams including Duke, Georgia Tech and Wake Forest.Versus Alabama, Clemson lost, and lost big, because that is where the program is. And what's more: regardless of this year's record, which will be greatly padded by many of the weakest opponents in college football, Clemson will get no better.
Under Bowden, Clemson is a mediocre program, not likely to ever win a game versus a top quality opponent, as long as Bowden is the coach.
If you believe otherwise, prepare to be shocked.

Gauge a program’s character by its schedule

NM

Spurrier won the state’s recruiting war in 2005

It was July 2005 and Steve Spurrier had been the head football coach at the University of South Carolina less than eight months. That’s when word got out that he had sent letters to six players telling them they would lose their scholarships. Those affected included two South Carolina high school products and both were recruited by the staff of former coach Lou Holtz.
In response to Spurrier’s action, the South Carolina High School Coaches Association is called Spurrier unethical.
The SCHCA said Spurrier's actions showed a “lack of commitment to recruited players.”
The SCHCA even requested that the state HS championship games be moved away from Williams-Brice to a location off the SC campus.
But the SCHCA’s group turned out to be big talkers, who balked when called on their bluff. Spurrier alluded to his suspicion that the loud-mouth coaches were put up to their squawking. His indications were that the whiners were minions of an opportunist Clemson program, that had a head coach in Tommy Bowden who would again take a backseat to a man, in Spurrrier, who had achieved much more than Bowden ever will. And that has proven out.
For Spurrier’s part he did not back down, he answered:
“There were some players the former staff had signed that we did not think would ever contribute much. And we had some walk-on players who actually were contributing more. So some of the high schoolers they got mad about it. I don't know what to say, but to me in life, you put people on scholarship who deserve it the most.”
And later in the month this report surfaced:
Spurrier awarded scholarships to two USC walk-ons: senior WR Michael Flint and junior long snapper Ike Crofoot.
Imagine that, giving scholarships to kids who earn them, not to those who are deemed entitled.
With that episode, three years ago, Spurrier sent a message to the establishment that had controlled South Carolina football. He told the powers-that-once-were that he is the one and only football coach at SC.
Not missing the chance to hoist his own opportunities, Bowden, who had been dominated in in-state recruiting by Lou Holtz, wasted no time.
With Holtz’s departure, Bowden was coming off a 6-5 season in which one of his players had punched a pinned S.C. player in the face and ignited a free-for-all that ended up costing Bowden some minor bowl. Considering Bowden’s record of flourishing only in small-time post-season venues, missing the bowl game was hard on Bowden and the story he was peddling to the Clemson faithful. Bowden needed some new hope to sell his ever-grumbling, orange-clad following on. Then he remembered.
On Feb. 19, 2001 the headline screamed:
`We got him baby! - acquisition of player Roscoe Crosby by Clemson University's football team
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_8_225/ai_70926942/pg_1
It took seven years, but Bowden was right. The rank-and-foul IPTAY members had forgotten all about the euphoria they had bought into before. Long forgotten were the promises that Bowden made on the backs of Crosby, Currie, Hall and Zimmerman.
Fast-forward. It’s 2008, and there still have been no championships at Clemson. But The State newspaper is making more promises, but this time it’s about Harper, Allen, Brown and Page. The Associated Press tells us: “The potential star power in Clemson's new class will only increase the pressure for championships on Bowden…..”
But Bowden has been there and he knows to pull out numbers when faced with unpleasant facts. He‘s always one point away or as he said on Wednesday: “The expectations were high when I got here. I've been on the hot seat three times" in nine seasons, Bowden said.
Yep, they’re all smiling and the cupboard is full of can’t-miss-blue-chip big-timers again. It’s got to be so, because the media tells them it is.
While Spurrier sat with a wry smile and said: “I don’t know if they grew up wanting to go to Clemson or what…..We missed on a couple of the guys after the season was over. (But) I think Clemson was going to get most of the guys they got regardless.”
And of course there are a couple good ones in Bowden‘s class, but you’ve got to wonder who he has in there just to make the SCHCA happy.
And remember what Spurrier said about his class: “But we’re really proud of the guys that came and we’re proud of the guys we’ve got.”
They call coach a straight shooter. With that and 2001 in mind, I’m guessing the Tigers will be ready to trade that “can’t-miss” gang at Clemson for the guys who can keep their scholarships for Spurrier.

Is it media scrutiny, not recruiting, that most affects a team?

This recruiting season has Clemson fans cocksure that their class of signees will finally lead them to that elusive ACC Championship they are promised year in and year out. But what those now-giddy fans forget, is that they’ve had a class, under Tommy Bowden, that brought them Roscoe Crosby and a near Top 10 finish in the rankings. That was six-or-so years ago, and it seems the lessons of the past cannot be found in the dreary but hopeful days of February of 2008.
The fact is, recruiting does matter, but it is not in the manner Tiger fans are trumpeting.
By the standards most commonly used (recruiting analysts) SC has done as well versus Clemson in recruiting, and many times the Gamecocks have done better. That has not translated into many wins head-to-head.
But what Clemson has been able to do (and SC has not) is keep its recruits. How has Tommy Bowden kept more players at Clemson than South Carolina? You tell me.
After the 2006 season, Duane Coleman was arrested for smoking marijuana. (http://www.independentmail.com/news/2006/dec/20/clemson-starter-doubtful-after-arrest/). Coleman was a senior at Clemson, and one would have to be quite naïve to think he lit up his first joint after the last game of his final year. There is supposed to be drug testing of college athletes. How did Coleman stay on the team for years, and his pot smoking go undetected?
Then we have the case of Clemson standout Gaines Adams who admitted that he smoked pot in college (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/04/28/gaines-adams-defensive-end-Clemson/).
This drug use, always discovered after the season, begs the question, who else is using illegal drugs on Clemson’s team, and not getting caught? And how are they getting away with it?
There are other examples of discipline issues at Clemson and little or no publicity. A Clemson player was shot in 2005, but an extraordinarily small amount of detail ever surfaced about the incident. There was a scant report in the Anderson Independent newspaper, a year or so after the shooting. It was a report on a weakly-related matter and revealed that several players were involved in a gang-related fight about the time of the shooting and the two were related.
Then there is the Roman Fry jet ski incident at a rich Clemson booster‘s luxury home, that has never been completely explained. He never even missed a practice.
Then you have South Carolina. Where at least three players: Cory Boyd, Emmanuel Cook and Daccus Turman were convicted in the media for crimes they never committed. In other words: The Gamecock players can do nothing, and get thoroughly investigated, while at Clemson, pot smoking, gang fighting go totally uninvestigated and unpunished.
What’s the point?
Over-publicizing player indiscretions leads to quick dismissals, and loss of valuable scholarship players. At SC, coaches are directed to take immediate action by judgmental media members and school administration, while the media yawns about over a bounty of dirty-looking dealings at Clemson. And the most routine questions are never even attempted.
While there is an extreme double-standard and different degree of scrutiny at SC, Steve Spurrier is changing things.
The Columbia Police Department and the media did tally a score in busting prized recruit Stephen Garcia for sipping a beer underage, but Spurrier, much to the chagrin of Bowden, is retaining his players.
And you have to believe even Bowden would admit, (IF he were honest) that Spurrier can take players several notches below Tommy Bowden’s recruits and spank Tommy over and over again.
If Spurrier can hold off the media and Gamecock-envy law enforcement in Columbia, Bowden’s alleged recruiting advantage will only serve to get him fired more quickly.
Not that Tiger fans want to hear that, but based on the past, they would be very smart to heed it.

Reality Check for Gamecock Fans RE: Recruiting Worries!!!

BlogSpot News Service
From Staff Reports

How soon we forget. It was the end of a 2004 football season in which Clemson’s Bobby Williamson punched Gamecock QB Syvelle Newton in the face while the kid lay helplessly pinned beneath a pile of players. While Williamson’s cowardly blow to the face was caught on tape for all the world to see, USC, under the authority of the soon-departing Andrew Sorenson, opted to deny GamecockNation and its players, a bowl game appearance.
After the melee, the Gamecocks ended up suspending players that were part of recruiting classes that were highly coveted by the less-successful Clemson (in recruiting) program. And with intense scrutiny on the SC football team, along with Spurrrier’s adherence to high standards, players of legendary status, including Mo Thompson and Demetrius Summers were shown the door. Aside from the stars’ departure, promising players such as K.T. Mainord were disciplined with dismissal and Gamecock Great Cory Boyd was suspended. The fallout from the fiasco that followed the brawl Clemson started, charged SC Football Coach Steve Spurrier with the task that finds him years later, still recovering from. Not to say that Spurrier has not worked miracles with what he has had to deal with. The Head Ball Coach pieced together a respectable recruiting class in 2005, especially considering he had but a few weeks to catch programs years ahead of him. Of that class, players including: Jonathan Hanna; Shea McKeen; O.J. Murdock, Cade Thompson and Dakota Walker were unable to meet Spurrier’s standards for various reasons. Jarriel King still has yet to don the Garnet and Black.
And so it goes. Aside from wash-outs, Spurrier has seen devastating injuries to players including Marquee Hall, Jasper Brinkley, Nathan Pepper and Bobby Wallace, just to name a few. If you don’t think the route Spurrier has had to travel with that first recruiting class has been a tough one, make note that hardly any of Spurrier’s 2006 recruiting class is absent from the program. And except for some NCAA-approved recruits, that were blocked by (the soon-departing) Sorenson, about all of Spurrier’s 2007 recruiting class is still with him. Major injuries, at different times of the season have hurt Spurrier, but you cannot play in the SEC and not expect that.
Now, contrast the staying rate of Spurrier’s classes, to the dismissal rate of the previous staff. If you do that, and make note of the number of post-season honors Spurrier’s recruits received, you begin to see this picture developing.
An example: The Gamecocks began the 2007 football season with fifth-year senior QB, Blake Mitchell, suspended because he cut too many classes. Another top (and much-needed, veteran) defensive player, Jordin Lindsey, was suspended from the team for the year for academics. Neither player is a Spurrier recruit.
The point is this. Spurrier has been working out of a hole, without much leadership from upperclassmen, for three years. And he still may not be out of the dark because he has senior players, from the previous staff, who may not be getting the message yet.
Now compare Spurrier’s obstacles with his in-state rival. At Clemson, a program that has had the same coach for almost a decade, the local Police Department has not made an arrest of a Clemson football players since 2001 (and that was post-season of course.) A Clemson player charged with Driving Under the Influence is allowed to play. And one pleading guilty to an alcohol-related charge, involving a fatality, was allowed to negotiate down the offense, with little media scrutiny. And the players miss little or no playing time. Other serious offenses (a gang-fight) by players are handled by a student court, and scarcely make news, while players remain secure on the football team. And until post-season 2007, player dismissals for academics at Clemson were extremely rare. Thanks to either a cleanly run program (extremely doubtful) or crafty manipulation of the rules and media (probable) attrition, has not hampered the Tigers in the least. And still the team seems to be no better in Coach Tommy Bowden’s ninth year than it was in his second year.
In conclusion: When you consider all that Spurrier has dealt with in three years at South Carolina, it is a wonder he has had anything resembling success, but he has. And for anyone fretting over any recruiting deficiency you think you may perceive, take a closer look. Evidence is strong that things will get much better, regardless of who Spurrier signs in 2008. And that has to have all reason-based Gamecock football fans excited.

The “Next-To-Great” Tommy Bowden

The “Next-To-Great” Tommy Bowden
Does Tommy Bowden suffer from a complex born of being surrounded by greatness?

Blog Spot News
FROM STAFF REPORTS

In early 2006, after a couple of coach-less programs desperately pursued Steve Spurrier, wanting him to leave South Carolina to revive their collapsed football teams, the USC administration increased Spurrier's salary. It was after his first year, a year in which he had won at Tennessee and beaten Florida, fielding a team that lost loads of talent that was recruited by former coach Lou Holtz (for discipline reasons.) In connection with Spurrier’s upgrade in pay, Tommy Bowden, in effect, quipped: “At South Carolina, they give you a raise if you win seven games, here at Clemson, you win seven games and they’ll fire you.” For the most part, the media laughed and dutifully printed Bowden’s claim without vetting it. Of course it was untrue. Bowden had maxed out at six wins in 1999; seven wins in 2001; seven wins in 2002 and six wins in 2004. Fact is, when Bowden made the derogatory comment toward Spurrier and USC, he had won only seven or fewer games a majority of his seasons at Clemson. And he had not only been retained by Clemson, he had been given a raise with a multi-million dollar buyout clause in his contract.While Bowden’s declaration would have been classless, even it were based in truth, you have to ask: Why does a man in his position feel he must lie to draw bravado and attention to himself? (And that is not Bowden’s only looseness with the truth: See the Tony Nelson and Eric Young.) Considering what we‘ve seen Bowden do: I think if we look around him we can answer the question about his less-than-candid nature.His whole life, Tommy Bowden has lived in the shadow of his father, Florida State University’s Bobby Bowden. Bobby Bowden is one of college football’s greatest coaches. Bobby Bowden has earned a spot in many a big game. And on some of those occasions, when faced with a challenge, Bobby Bowden stepped up and won the “BIG” game. His Seminoles were National Champions in 1993 and 1999. In addition to his championships, Bobby Bowden dominated the Atlantic Coast Conference for a decade, winning championships, seemingly with the least of effort.Though he is but a shell of himself now, many would argue that Bobby Bowden’s accomplishments are no doubt the reason Tommy Bowden, who has failed to win even one championship in the hapless ACC, has been given a considerable amount of cache as a college football coach.While dwarfed by football greatness in his family, it is not the only place the diminutive Tommy Bowden finds himself lacking.In 1999, after Brad Scott engineered one of the most miserable coaching jobs in the history of South Carolina football, Lou Holtz took over as the head coach of the Gamecocks. At that moment, Bowden went from a big fish in a small pond, that had contained only a blubbering and incompetent whale as competition, to Mr. Nobody, paling to “Football Legend Lou Holtz.” The popular Holtz, like Bobby Bowden had not choked in his big moment, and he won a National Championship in 1988. A feat Tommy Bowden could not even dream of. While Tommy Bowden was able to defeat Holtz more times than not, Bowden still failed to win big games as he and Holtz coached in the same state. In fact, it was not until Bowden’s ninth year at Clemson (2007) that he was able to match Holtz’s best two years at SC. Both Holtz and Bowden amassed win totals of 17 in two years. Holtz did it in years two and three at SC and Bowden did not do it until years eight and nine. Still: Holtz won two New Year’s Day bowl in those years, while Bowden has lost two bowl games, and has never won an NYD bowl game.Exit Holtz: and who shows up on the scene at South Carolina” the aforementioned Steve Spurrier. Another of the greatest coaches in college football history. And like Holtz and Bobby Bowden, Spurrier shined at one of his most-opportune moments, winning the National Championship in 1996.In addition to his stature, Spurrier is also building a contender at South Carolina. Something Holtz, given his energy level, was not able to maintain. But with Spurrier’s drive and determination, it seems Bowden will again be overshadowed by a great man. And with the success Spurrier is having at building the Gamecock program, Bowden is likely to be beaten by the “Head Ball Coach” for the rest of his tenure at Clemson.While Bowden must look up and wish he could be, the ACC seems to dip in quality each year. Yet Bowden has failed, even when a crown has been virtually laid at his feet.And now James Davis, the possibly highest-quality running back Clemson has ever had, is leaving Bowden. Clemson, even with the talented Davis, was pretty much an under-performing offense, so it lessens the big-game opportunity for Bowden in the future. Yes: there is something to be said for Bowden meeting a level of mediocrity annually in an ever-slipping ACC, but the fact that he has stumbled so visibly when his chance was handed to him, will likely haunt and scar Bowden. To be sure, Bowden’s performance has launched his legacy as the best coach ever to stand “Next-To-Greatness.”

After Big Win, Tigers and Gamecocks Take Two Different Paths

After Big Win, Tigers and Gamecocks Take Two Different Paths

BlogSpot News Service
Staff Writer

The kick sailed through, the clocked turned to :00 and TigerNation screeched with unbelievable relief.It was the euphoria that comes from postponing the fear that Steve Spurrier, in his third year with an injury-depleted team, was not quite able to embarrass Clemson’s ninth-year coach.But since the Tigers’ improbable 23-21 comeback, last-second win over the Gamecocks, the two teams seem to have taken different paths.First, rumors swirled that Tiger head man Tommy Bowden was talking to Arkansas about being a replacement for Houston Nutt, who had departed for Ole Miss. While ESPN reported that there was no guarantee that the Arkansas Board of Trustees would accept Bowden because of questions about his abilities, Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips hurriedly, if not prematurely, locked championship-less Bowden into $2 million-plus, long-term contract. At South Carolina, Steve Spurrier sent the message that the Gamecocks’ horrible skid, that included losses to what many would consider inferior opponents in Vanderbilt and Clemson, most likely had to do with a deficiency in his defensive coordinator’s staff. Spurrier’s defensive coordinator was allowed to leave to take the DC job with Nutt at Ole Miss.At Clemson, the oft-accused villain for Clemson’s inability to rise above football mediocrity, will stay at the school. Offensive Coordinator Rob Spence, the butt an avalanche of criticism after any Clemson loss - most of which come on the few times the Tigers take on any above-average opponent - said he was offered a $100,000-plus annual raise to become OC at Tennessee. Although many media sources reported that Spence turned down the job, there was never any confirmation that he was actually offered the position by the Volunteers.Meanwhile, Spurrier was successful in his effort to lure former Georgia DC Brian VanGorder to Columbia. VanGorder’s credentials are impeccable and even more important, he has coached in the Southeastern Conference’s Eastern Division, and he knows that he will be facing the toughest slate of opponets in the country. Still, he gladly accepted that challenge. In addition to VanGorder, the Gamecocks were able to snag Maryland Special Teams Coach Ray Rychleski, one of the best in the nation. Ironically, without a blocked punt, South Carolina likely would have ended the season with a victory over Clemson and been in a bowl game. Aside from the coaching murkiness at Clemson and triumphs at South Carolina, player personnel has become an issue at both schools. As if the administration was sending a message to Bowden, three of his starters were banned from the Peach Bowl. The player dismissals came after Bowden attacked the Clemson University administration (in February) when some of his recruits, who likely would not have been cleared for enrollment by the NCAA, were denied by the university.At South Carolina, University President Andrew Sorensen announced his resignation. Sorensen drew sharp criticism from Spurrier in August for the last-minute denial of NCAA-approved recruits.In other personnel-related developments, Bowden, who often uses faith to gain an advantage with recruits and their families, allowed Courtney Vincent to play in the Peach Bowl after the player was arrested for Driving Under the Influence just days earlier. That move came after Bowden learned of the academically ineligible players. To add insult to injury, despite Bowden’s choice to forgo discipline of Vincent, the Tigers loss the bowl game 23-20.The bowl loss was crucial because of the fact that Clemson was favored and Auburn was having what many feel to be a down year. Before the loss, Clemson supporters in the media expressed opinions that the Tigers’ assumed 10th win (over Auburn) would beckon back the memories of Clemson icon Danny Ford. Even though, Clemson Head Coach Ken Hatfield won 10 games at Clemson after Ford’s departure. The loss only served to increase the size of the already large monkey on Bowden’s back as he enters 2008.Also related to personnel developments, James Davis, the key player in Clemson’s offense, has announced that he will turn pro and not return to Clemson. Tiger fans, who on queue from Bowden are accustomed to the belief that ballyhooed recruits can replace their greatest performers and surpass them, may learn the hard way of Davis’ unique talent and value to the team. Still, Bowden has managed to set up such a non-competitive host of opponents to supplement an already laughably weak slate of Atlantic Coast Conference foes, Davis’ departure will likely have less affect than it would if the Tigers’ schedule offered a more legitimate challenge. Besides Davis, in a sign of possible no-confidence, other players are mulling a departure from Clemson. And any one of them leaving will be harmful to the already underachieving Tigers’ chances in 2008.At South Carolina, Jasper Brinkley, one of the top linebackers in the country, is returning for his senior year as is Wide Receiver Kenny McKinley, also one of the top players in the country.While Gamecock fans were left to sulk after a late-season defensive collapse, changes are being made and there is a lot of reality based optimism among the GamecockNation.And while Clemson fans have a long history of being able to overlook serious off-season blows to their program, logic says 2008 could be a difficult one for the Tigers.If the post-November developments at Clemson and South Carolina are any indication, Gamecock fans have a lot to look forward to. At Clemson, Tiger fans need to try to not think about the long-term deals their athletic director has given to their coaches, who have underachieved to this point. It is truly a tale of two decidedly different directions.

The “Next-To-Great” Tommy Bowden

The “Next-To-Great” Tommy Bowden
Does Tommy Bowden suffer from a complex born of being surrounded by greatness?”

Blog Spot News
FROM STAFF REPORTS

In early 2006, after a couple of coach-less programs desperately pursued Steve Spurrier, wanting him to leave South Carolina to revive their collapsed football teams, the USC administration increased Spurrier's salary. It was after his first year, a year in which he had won at Tennessee and beaten Florida, fielding a team that lost loads of talent that was recruited by former coach Lou Holtz (for discipline reasons.) In connection with Spurrier’s upgrade in pay, Tommy Bowden, in effect, quipped: “At South Carolina, they give you a raise if you win seven games, here at Clemson, you win seven games and they’ll fire you.”For the most part, the media laughed and dutifully printed Bowden’s claim without vetting it. Of course it was untrue. Bowden had maxed out at six wins in 1999; seven wins in 2001; seven wins in 2002 and six wins in 2004. Fact is, when Bowden made the derogatory comment toward Spurrier and USC, he had won only seven or fewer games a majority of his seasons at Clemson. And he had not only been retained by Clemson, he had been given a raise with a multi-million dollar buyout clause in his contract.While Bowden’s declaration would have been classless, even it were based in truth, you have to ask: Why does a man in his position feel he must lie to draw bravado and attention to himself? (And that is not Bowden’s only looseness with the truth: See the Tony Nelson and Eric Young.) Considering what we‘ve seen Bowden do: I think if we look around him we can answer the question about his less-than-candid nature.His whole life, Tommy Bowden has lived in the shadow of his father, Florida State University’s Bobby Bowden. Bobby Bowden is one of college football’s greatest coaches. Bobby Bowden has earned a spot in many a big game. And on some of those occasions, when faced with a challenge, Bobby Bowden stepped up and won the “BIG” game. His Seminoles were National Champions in 1993 and 1999. In addition to his championships, Bobby Bowden dominated the Atlantic Coast Conference for a decade, winning championships, seemingly with the least of effort.Though he is but a shell of himself now, many would argue that Bobby Bowden’s accomplishments are no doubt the reason Tommy Bowden, who has failed to win even one championship in the hapless ACC, has been given a considerable amount of cache as a college football coach.While dwarfed by football greatness in his family, it is not the only place the diminutive Tommy Bowden finds himself lacking.In 1999, after Brad Scott engineered one of the most miserable coaching jobs in the history of South Carolina football, Lou Holtz took over as the head coach of the Gamecocks. At that moment, Bowden went from a big fish in a small pond, that had contained only a blubbering and incompetent whale as competition, to Mr. Nobody, paling to “Football Legend Lou Holtz.” The popular Holtz, like Bobby Bowden had not choked in his big moment, and he won a National Championship in 1988. A feat Tommy Bowden could not even dream of. While Tommy Bowden was able to defeat Holtz more times than not, Bowden still failed to win big games as he and Holtz coached in the same state. In fact, it was not until Bowden’s ninth year at Clemson (2007) that he was able to match Holtz’s best two years at SC. Both Holtz and Bowden amassed win totals of 17 in two years. Holtz did it in years two and three at SC and Bowden did not do it until years eight and nine. Still: Holtz won two New Year’s Day bowl in those years, while Bowden has lost two bowl games, and has never won an NYD bowl game.Exit Holtz: and who shows up on the scene at South Carolina” the aforementioned Steve Spurrier. Another of the greatest coaches in college football history. And like Holtz and Bobby Bowden, Spurrier shined at one of his most-opportune moments, winning the National Championship in 1996.In addition to his stature, Spurrier is also building a contender at South Carolina. Something Holtz, given his energy level, was not able to maintain. But with Spurrier’s drive and determination, it seems Bowden will again be overshadowed by a great man. And with the success Spurrier is having at building the Gamecock program, Bowden is likely to be beaten by the “Head Ball Coach” for the rest of his tenure at Clemson.While Bowden must look up and wish he could be, the ACC seems to dip in quality each year. Yet Bowden has failed, even when a crown has been virtually laid at his feet.And now James Davis, the possibly highest-quality running back Clemson has ever had, is leaving Bowden. Clemson, even with the talented Davis, was pretty much an under-performing offense, so it lessens the big-game opportunity for Bowden in the future. Yes: there is something to be said for Bowden meeting a level of mediocrity annually in an ever-slipping ACC, but the fact that he has stumbled so visibly when his chance was handed to him, will likely haunt and scar Bowden. To be sure, Bowden’s performance has launched his legacy as the best coach ever to stand “Next-To-Greatness.”

After Big Win, Tigers and Gamecocks Take Two Different Paths

After Big Win, Tigers and Gamecocks Take Two Different Paths

BlogSpot News Service
Staff Writer

The kick sailed through, the clocked turned to :00 and TigerNation screeched with unbelievable relief.It was the euphoria that comes from postponing the fear that Steve Spurrier, in his third year with an injury-depleted team, was not quite able to embarrass Clemson’s ninth-year coach.But since the Tigers’ improbable 23-21 comeback, last-second win over the Gamecocks, the two teams seem to have taken different paths.First, rumors swirled that Tiger head man Tommy Bowden was talking to Arkansas about being a replacement for Houston Nutt, who had departed for Ole Miss. While ESPN reported that there was no guarantee that the Arkansas Board of Trustees would accept Bowden because of questions about his abilities, Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips hurriedly, if not prematurely, locked championship-less Bowden into $2 million-plus, long-term contract. At South Carolina, Steve Spurrier sent the message that the Gamecocks’ horrible skid, that included losses to what many would consider inferior opponents in Vanderbilt and Clemson, most likely had to do with a deficiency in his defensive coordinator’s staff. Spurrier’s defensive coordinator was allowed to leave to take the DC job with Nutt at Ole Miss.At Clemson, the oft-accused villain for Clemson’s inability to rise above football mediocrity, will stay at the school. Offensive Coordinator Rob Spence, the butt an avalanche of criticism after any Clemson loss - most of which come on the few times the Tigers take on any above-average opponent - said he was offered a $100,000-plus annual raise to become OC at Tennessee. Although many media sources reported that Spence turned down the job, there was never any confirmation that he was actually offered the position by the Volunteers.Meanwhile, Spurrier was successful in his effort to lure former Georgia DC Brian VanGorder to Columbia. VanGorder’s credentials are impeccable and even more important, he has coached in the Southeastern Conference’s Eastern Division, and he knows that he will be facing the toughest slate of opponets in the country. Still, he gladly accepted that challenge. In addition to VanGorder, the Gamecocks were able to snag Maryland Special Teams Coach Ray Rychleski, one of the best in the nation. Ironically, without a blocked punt, South Carolina likely would have ended the season with a victory over Clemson and been in a bowl game. Aside from the coaching murkiness at Clemson and triumphs at South Carolina, player personnel has become an issue at both schools. As if the administration was sending a message to Bowden, three of his starters were banned from the Peach Bowl. The player dismissals came after Bowden attacked the Clemson University administration (in February) when some of his recruits, who likely would not have been cleared for enrollment by the NCAA, were denied by the university.At South Carolina, University President Andrew Sorensen announced his resignation. Sorensen drew sharp criticism from Spurrier in August for the last-minute denial of NCAA-approved recruits.In other personnel-related developments, Bowden, who often uses faith to gain an advantage with recruits and their families, allowed Courtney Vincent to play in the Peach Bowl after the player was arrested for Driving Under the Influence just days earlier. That move came after Bowden learned of the academically ineligible players. To add insult to injury, despite Bowden’s choice to forgo discipline of Vincent, the Tigers loss the bowl game 23-20.The bowl loss was crucial because of the fact that Clemson was favored and Auburn was having what many feel to be a down year. Before the loss, Clemson supporters in the media expressed opinions that the Tigers’ assumed 10th win (over Auburn) would beckon back the memories of Clemson icon Danny Ford. Even though, Clemson Head Coach Ken Hatfield won 10 games at Clemson after Ford’s departure. The loss only served to increase the size of the already large monkey on Bowden’s back as he enters 2008.Also related to personnel developments, James Davis, the key player in Clemson’s offense, has announced that he will turn pro and not return to Clemson. Tiger fans, who on queue from Bowden are accustomed to the belief that ballyhooed recruits can replace their greatest performers and surpass them, may learn the hard way of Davis’ unique talent and value to the team. Still, Bowden has managed to set up such a non-competitive host of opponents to supplement an already laughably weak slate of Atlantic Coast Conference foes, Davis’ departure will likely have less affect than it would if the Tigers’ schedule offered a more legitimate challenge. Besides Davis, in a sign of possible no-confidence, other players are mulling a departure from Clemson. And any one of them leaving will be harmful to the already underachieving Tigers’ chances in 2008.At South Carolina, Jasper Brinkley, one of the top linebackers in the country, is returning for his senior year as is Wide Receiver Kenny McKinley, also one of the top players in the country.While Gamecock fans were left to sulk after a late-season defensive collapse, changes are being made and there is a lot of reality based optimism among the GamecockNation.And while Clemson fans have a long history of being able to overlook serious off-season blows to their program, logic says 2008 could be a difficult one for the Tigers.If the post-November developments at Clemson and South Carolina are any indication, Gamecock fans have a lot to look forward to. At Clemson, Tiger fans need to try to not think about the long-term deals their athletic director has given to their coaches, who have underachieved to this point. It is truly a tale of two decidedly different directions.

I'm still having a hard time finding answers for Saturday

First, let me say NO, I don't think Steve Spurrier is doing a bad job at South Carolina.
But if Clemson, Georgia or any other team was playing like SC is now, I'd be all over them with the idea that the party was over for Bowden, Richt...etc....
With SC, it's four days since the offensive meltdown versus Vandy, and the answers are getting more difficult to come by. The way the team is playing and the patterns are just inexplicable.
How is it that Spurrier took a 2005 team that had been taught little discipline and riddled with dismissals and beat Tennessee and Florida?
How can SC begin to stumble and end a 9-1 streak the way it did to Vandy after Spurrier has been on the job for three years?
I know upsets happen, but when you look at the deepening of the problems, why does this team seem to decline as the year wears on. With Spurrier, SC fans are just not used to that.
One reason given: the team is young. But if you use that one, how do you account for the fact that the defense, where just about all of the freshman play, has performed well enough to win all the games played this year?
Another reason given: no talent at O-Line. But we have been told we have the best talent at O-line since Spurrier got here.
Another reason given: We have a RS freshman QB. It's game nine, so he is not a freshman anymore. Neither are the new WRs. And, why is the fifth-year senior QB on the bench? We've been told to look at other college football powers to observe how many RS seniors play elsewhere. And we've been told we'd be good when we had RS seniors starting. So why do ours play so poorly we we bench them?
Is it the OL coach? Why have we let go of other coaches, yet the problem at this position persists with no change being made?
It was a "bad day" is a reason given: but how can you play like you did in the second half versus UNC and then claim another "bad day" a week later?
I think what makes the whole thing harder is the negative direction of the team. and it could not come at a worse time.
Most of us were relieved to get to Vandy while SC was 6-1. We figured we escaped the lighter part of the schedule and were allowed to grow up to be in a strong position for the critical stretch run.
But if you're like me, I just have no confidence SC can beat Tennessee.
Could Vandy have been a "wake-up" call? Yes, but the same should have the case with UNC.
The conclusion: I'm left here with a lot of questions and wondering if SC can win another game.
And what's scary, Spurrier is now talking about the 2008 season and "competing" (a term worn out by Brad Scott.) not winning the SEC East.
I know no one is obligated to work to soothe my concerns, but I'm just not getting a good feel for the SC football predicament right now. It just makes no sense.
I hope I'm wrong, and a spirited performance and a win in Knoxville can turn it all around.
But as a Gamecock fan, who has seen this sort of thing before, it's just difficult to fathom with Spurrier at the helm.

Is media embellishing SC's negative, mishandling Clemson gaff?

Spurrier sacks critical fans

http://www.thestate.com/gamecocks/story/207468.html

The State newspaper has gotten new life in SC's horrific failure Saturday versus Vandy and Clemson's "resurgence vesus CMU (Charity and Mercy University.)
The State's first feature article on Monday (10-22) made sure to note the booing fans at SC versus Vandy. A reference to the story posted on Gamecock Central ignited differing opinions and got fans pointing fingers and criticizing other SC fans. That is likely what The State intended.
But the truth is: if you look at the headline, and then read the story, you see that the headline is very inaccurate. Spurrier seems more hurt by the fans' booing than he is critical.
And I'd say Spurrier makes somewhat of an apology when he said: “I would hope the booing would cease, and hopefully we won’t give ’em a lot of reasons to boo. I hope that doesn’t continue.”
Also: When Clemson got embarrassed by VT, I don't remember much media coverage of the much more and frequent booing that rained down on Tommy and the Tigers. Maybe it was covered, but not with the same prominence and the attempt to tear apart the team, coaches and fans, as The State is doing with SC.

Part of the article: (Below)
A year after he chided fans for applauding after a close loss to Auburn, Spurrier expressed disappointment in the boobirds.
“That’s the first time that’s happened, isn’t it? I just assumed they were booing me and the coaches for a bad play call,” Spurrier said Sunday. “I hope they weren’t booing our players. I’ve always sort of gone under the thought that professional players get paid, so you can boo them all you want. They accept that. But college kids are amateurs. I don’t think you should boo them.”
The crowd grew restless watching Spurrier’s offense give away four turnovers, allow seven sacks and commit five false-start penalties by linemen. The fans booed loudest at the end of third quarter when a scrambling Blake Mitchell was hit while he threw, resulting in an incompletion on fourth-and-5 in Vanderbilt territory.
“We had sporadic play there. That’s just the way it happened,” Spurrier said. “I would hope the booing would cease, and hopefully we won’t give ’em a lot of reasons to boo. I hope that doesn’t continue.”

Now, look at how State State handles Clemson's James Davis promising a win versus Maryland on Saturday.
I am glad The State reported it. That is progress for the Tiger beat writer, Paul Stelow. He normally avoids any controversy that could prove to be negative or harmful to Clemson.
But instead of keying on the stupidity of the Clemson player's comment, Strelow is fearful of what it can do Clemson's psyche, while the focus should be on how punkish and thuggish this behavior from the Clemson player is.
But what is TOTALLY inexcusable in this incident (and should be the lead) is Tommy Bowden's reaction. Bowden twists and spins the ramifications of Davis' action, with a bunch excuses and dodges.
MoRon will tell us what a "class-act" Bowden is, but this shows the really sickening side of what Tommy Bowden represents to college football.
If Bowden had any class he would apologize and explain that Davis may have been a little overly excited. Instead Bowden comes off looking more disgusting than the kid.

Davis promises a win at Maryland
http://www.thestate.com/tigers/story/208272.html

Part of the article: (Below)

“No hesitation. We’re going to win this game.”
Asked after Monday night’s practice about Davis’ guarantee, coach Tommy Bowden pulled out an article about Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen’s Sunday teleconference in which Friedgen was quoted as saying, “We are going to go back and get ready for Clemson and I expect to win.”
“So I looked up the word ‘expect’ in the dictionary — considered likely or certain to happen — so he’s done guaranteed a win,” Bowden said. “So I think James saw that Sunday night ... and thought, well, if he can motivate his team. So he did what Ralph did.”

Can SC Rebound?

Any winner will tell you it's not adversity that does you in, it's how well you react to it.
That being said, SC's loss to Vandy, while disgusting, it is not the end of the trail.
Anybody with a goal, analyses a slip-up by how much it will cost them in the expenditure to achieve the payoff.
In the gamecocks' case, the Vandy loss did not cost much. That is IF: the team wakes up this morning, puts the loss out of memory and moves forward with a new determination.
All SEC East teams have at least two losses, and the Gamecocks have beaten its direct competition to this point. That's why a loss to Vandy is the easiest loss among SEC East teams the Gamecocks to absorb. The 'Dores are not a direct competitor.
Still, the Gamecocks have to see the loss and their performance as a "Wake-up" call. If they do that, the team can come out ahead.
NOTES: I'm guessing Spurrier is not too happy with OL Coach John Hunt at this point. The OL has been a constant source of embarrassment for Spurrier. Spurrier said in a pre-season press conference that the OL was the most-talented he'd had since being at SC.
The inability to block is bad enough, but the five procedure penalties is a discipline issue and that goes right back to the coach. Look for a change as soon as SS can make it.
EXTRA: Did Gamecock fans have any idea that Georgia fans were having so much trouble accepting that Spurrier has come to SC and passed their program. There was so much glee from Bulldog fans over SC's loss to Vandy, it spoke volumes. Tiger and Tar Heel fans were the same, but they are a little easier to laugh at. Georgia fans are just ridiculous. Their players tried to dance on Vandy's mid-field art last week, because they were intoxicated with beating the 'Dores ( team that defeated them in 2006 in Athens.)

All games are now big

SC is 6-1 and has played itself into position to have a BIG year. The Gamecocks need to win today as a lead-up to one of the biggest games in the SEC versus Tennessee next Saturday.
Being ranked sixth in the BCS poll makes any SC game BIG. And if the Gamecocks keep winning each game gets bigger.
The reason the Vandy game takes on more significance this year has more to do with the fear of a bad day than the competitiveness of the game.
SC also needs to work on getting better. The feeling is that SC has yet to play a complete and good game. Each week there seems to be lapses in the quality of play, so everybody is waiting for the Gamecocks to put it all together for four quarters. Until that happens there will be a heavy supply of doubters.
But if the Gamecocks don't slip up today, you have to believe that the advantage goes to Steve Spurrier next week when matched in a one-game situation against Phillip Fulmer.
Versus Tennessee, if Fulmer did not have David Cutcliffe back to bail him out, it would be somewhat easier for SC. But Cutcliffe is good and a difference-maker at Tennessee.
SC fans will be watching the Tennessee at Alabama game too.
Lou Holtz once said if a team is used to winning, you want them to win a week before you play them. Holtz also said it's better to play a team if they lost the week before, if they are used to losing. I'm not sure that applies to Tennessee. I'm hoping Alabama takes care of Tennessee. The Vols seem to have a little momentum with them. 'Bama could stop that, though it's more likely Tennessee will win.
While it is imperative that SC keeps winning, Clemson is in a very dangerous situation.
Coming off an embarrassing loss to at home, after another high-hopes start, TigerNation is in the "Here-we-go-again" mode for yet another year.
But usually the Tigers' schedule provides so many opportunities to get out of the losing rut, by playing the dregs of college football, Tommy Bowden extricates himself to the relieved shrieks of their fans.
That being said, Central Michigan has averaged around 50 points a game in winning its last three. So you have a team on a positive streak versus a team in Clemson, that could be hanging its head and has a hard time getting up for yet another of its many patsy games.
A Tiger loss to the Chippewas would end much of the speculation that Bowden will produce yet another rabbit from his hat.
And a slip-up by the Tigers today spells the onslaught of an era some have expected is long overdue at Clemson. There are those of us who have never believed Tommy Bowden was top-shelf, or anywhere near it, in the first place.
It's not likely, but today could provide evidence of a slope so precipitous, that Bowden's personal safety may be threatened by those who have bought into his line for years, and now feel like dupes.

Recruiting is a wild ride

Just look at the current headlines as it tells the story.
Usually, highly-touted recruits in the Palmetto State will keep both SC and Clemson on their list even if they are not planning on committing to one of them. High School coaches encourage the players to name the state schools as a possibility even if it is just a courtesy.
But the news linked below shows that LB Robert Quinn from the Lowcountry has no interest in Clemson and has decided early to not even humor the Tigers.

USC In, Clemson Out With Quinn
LB Robert Quinn (6-6 255) of Fort Dorchester has narrowed his list to a final six. USC made the cut, Clemson did not. http://www.goupstate.com/article/20071017/PSPORTS02/71017011/-1/psports

Is the true personality of the coaches at the state's two D-1 schools setting in?
The other link (below) is a story that hronicles the respect Emmanuel Cook and his family have for Steve Spurrier.

From the Story: Spurrier believed him, immediately going on the defensive on Cook's behalf. Cook said. As soon as his mother heard that Spurrier was her son's ally, she called to tell Cook that he'd made a great choice for a school. After cook was accused: "Spurrier believed him, immediately going on the defensive on Cook's behalf."
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/19/hit_manfeeling_blessed_have_second_chanc19584/

Contrast the Spurrier/Cook scenario with the words of disgust C.J. Spiller's mom spoke about the Clemson coaching staff last winter when it was rumored that C.J. wanted out of Clemson, but would not be released by Bowden and Co.
It does not take a genius to figure out that success on the field draws recruits. But it should only be a fair that a coach who disgraces himself should be held accountable.
Note with Bowden the Tony Nelson episode. There, the Washington, DC-area kid was given a scholarship only to have it taken from him when Bowden got a higher-level recruit at the position. Nelson's family, high school coaches and the kid himself were left with a nasty taste of orange in their mouths, and they were not quiet about it, even if the South Carolina media more or less ignored it.
The Eric Young fiasco is another glimpse of Bowden's character. Young was the player who Bowden swore indicated he was a Clemson lock with an alleged "wink."
When Bowden was left with egg on his face as Young signed with Tennessee, Bowden sought to embarrass the kid by making the "wink" story public.
It worked, with Clemson fans anyway, as have many of Bowden's smoke-screens and excuses to discredit players and coaches to exalt himself.
But the Robert Quinn dis-respect of Clemson, C.J's drama and James Davis' criticism of Bowden during the time period of the North-South High School game last winter are all likely signs that Bowden's reputation is catching up to him.
Yes, the media, bending backwards, will tell us how "classy" Bowden is even if he continues to stumble and becomes more assailed. But it seems recruits and Bowden's own players know better.

It would be great if Blake Mitchell catches fire

From newspaper reports, it seems Blake Mitchell is ready to take advantage of his playing time versus Vandy on Saturday. http://www.thestate.com/gamecocks/story/203942.html
For more than one reason, it would be a very good development if Blake plays like he did to close out the 2006 season.
One reason is that SC could use the points. Chris Smelley has done as well as he could be expected to do, but he still misses reads and he does not know the offense as well as Blake.
Many Gamecock fans get that sick feeling in the gut when Smelley gets into one of the three-and-out stretches. Also: it's not good for the defense to lose faith in the offense's ability to sustain a drive, and that leads to a near panic.
If a confident and capable Blake is on hand to spell Smelley, I think some of the pressure is lessened.
And if Blake were stake his claim and come back as the starter because he outplayed Smelley, that makes the team so much stronger and better.
As for Smelley, the experience he has gotten already is INVALUABLE, even if he does not play much more this year.
Another reason to pull for Blake: He has been around for some great wins. Tenn. and Fla. 2005. He was terrible versus Clemson, but recovered and walked off the Tigers' field with a smile while Clemson's can't-miss blue chip athletes buried their faces and cried. And what about the Liberty Bowl, that was good times.
And the idea that a seat on the bench makes Blake a better player is not foreign. I remember the 2005 back-and-forth Vandy game, in which Blake was relieved by Syvelle Newton, only to come back a drive for the win after Syvelle was hurt. Even in the loss to Arkansas 2006, Blake was amazing.
If Blake leaves without at least getting another shot at QB, it would be a bit sad. It would be better for him to leave on a positive note.
All that said: has Blake let us down at times?...Yes. But maybe he can make us forget that.
Of course, Blake may get his shot, stumble...and that will be the end of it. But it's not a bad idea to hope he plays so well, he retains the job.

SC is No. 6 so now the media focus is on undeserved rankings

Imagine that. South Carolina moves to No. 6 in the BCS polls and the topic of conversation quickly turns to teams that are undeserving of their ranking (i.e. SC.)
We have to look no further than our old friend Ron "MoRon" Morris http://www.gogamecocks.com/index.php/site/daily_article/for_truer_rankings_coaches_discount_spurrier_aura/

to read: If truth be known, the coaches, and their poll, recognize USC is not the sixth-best team in the country.

Of course there never was any debate over the legitimacy of the polls when Clemson climbed to lofty heights after blowing out the likes of Temple and Florida Atlantic last year. As a matter of fact MoRon opined a year ago, that Clemson's win over a putrid John Bunting UNC squad was evidence of the team's greatness.
And MoRon, although he is the most likely and usual suspect to rush to an argument to discount SC, he is not the only one.
Last night on Sportstalk, K-Mac, rolled his eyes (according to Phil) when the idea that SC may be a contender was broached. K-Mac was fervent in his pleas that SC is over-rated. This media lockstep and thought process is hatched and grows right there in downtown Clemson. Read the words on Gamecock Central about Mickey Plyer from WCCP-Clemson radio. The Clemson rank and file are drunk with the belief that SC is undeserving. Of course they could be right. But my problem is the negative gang mentality that takes over anytime SC accomplishes something.
Could SC be over-rated?....YES...
But the rush to make the Clemson-think mindset the order of the day is appalling, yet par for the course with this state's media.
Why is it done? An ingrained inability to respect SC is one reason. Many local media people are just too lazy to think that things have changed for the SC program. The cliched thinking that permeates The State newspaper's "Old Guard" is the easy way out. And many accept that instead of thinking for themselves.
Also: focusing on SC in a negative way takes attention away from Clemson and gives Tommy Bowden a better opportunity to correct the mediocrity that has set in up there.



.

The State newspaper having trouble admitting reality

Last week it seemed that The State newspaper was coming around and being a little more accurate in the reporting about SC football. Upon further review (after, and before) the big KY. win, it seems The State just cannot break its penchant to downplay SC's accomplishments. The State, after the Clemson loss to GT, also seems to be having a hard time believing that Clemson fans are grumbling about all of the Tigers' problems. The same problems The State has overlooked for months, in hopes that they would go away.
This does not even mention the color, full-page spread that was offered by The State on Andre Woodson (the opponents' QB) on the day of the big game with the Wildcats.


This is just a spot check of The State's Web site and as usual found some samples of their tactics.

UK fumbles, Norwood rumbles
http://www.thestate.com/gamecocks/story/192400.html

Notice that Kentucky fumbled the game away. Even though the Gamecock scores came on overwhelming team defense or TAKEAWAYS, it was Norwood, a single player's name in the headline. When USC wins, you'll see The State do this a good bit. The newspaper's sports editors seem to go out of their way not to promote USC as a team. Unless you were looking for the article, you would not know it was about SC beating 8th ranked Kentucky.

USC preps for UK’s air raid
http://www.thestate.com/gamecocks/story/189198.html

In this one, when USC is highlighted, it more or less says, the Gamecocks are the ones on the defensive for the aggressive UK passing attack or RAID that rain down on the SC secondary. Of course, SC is No. 1 in the country in Pass D, which is not mentioned in the headline.

But when it's Clemson

Harper aims to pick pockets of ‘robbers’
http://www.thestate.com/tigers/story/192177.html

This is saying (we hate to admit) VT has some good DBs, Then, they go on to imply that surgeon Cullen Harper (based on NOTHING) has something for that stout defense of the Hokies. He plans to pick their pockets. This is a positive spin on what could be the Tigers' undoing. It is a defensive and positive spin for Harper, who was helpless versus GT. The VT D would get a full-page spread if the Hokies were coming to play SC.

Loss opens line of inquiry
http://www.thestate.com/tigers/story/192178.html

This column is a defense of Clemson's fat and weak OL. This headline (that should intimate Clemson's OL sucks) is worthless. And in the piece, the writer apologetically beats around the bush and finally, with his trademark sophomoric language, tells you that the Clemson line got its BEEP kicked at GT. Then he rains down the excuses. But because of his apologist stance, it takes him 3 graphs to spit out the unpleasant subject he obviously hates to broach.
This is a pathetic attempt to cover up a weakness that the State would have harped on for weeks if it were SC. (it did.)
The columnist, is dinosaur Bob Spear, who dusts off the mold on his jacket and opines every August, using that tired cliché about SC fans being nothing but eternal hopefuls of football grandeur. You know the obligatory "Hope Springs Eternal column is razor-edged mind has written since Paul Dietzel paced the sidelines at WB.

ACC as usual - No reason to believe VT can win

When you look at the laugher Clemson turned in versus VT in 2006, it was easy to chalk up VT as another loss for Clemson in 07.
The ACC is very low on legitimate Division-1 teams, but VT has seemed to be the one team that has not fallen completely apart since joining the hapless assemblage of mediocrity known as the ACC.
On second thought, SCREEECH....check that respect for VT at the door.
After struggling to beat a pretty poor East Carolina squad, the Hokies looked like Division 1-AA versus the SEC's leader, LSU. Of course the college football world has come to expect SEC teams to handle teams from mid-major level conferences, but the 48-7 embarrassment the Bengal Tigers stuck on VT surprised many.
So now the Hokies come to Clemson with a ranking and some belief that they are a viable opponent.
I don't buy it. Maybe UNC is better, and getting better, each week, but the fact that the Hokies only beat the Tar Heels by a 17-10 score is not much to be impressed over.
I have little faith that VT will be able to come anywhere near the shellacking the Hokies laid on the Tigers in 2006, in a game where a distraught Clemson fan threw a bottle and hit his hapless coach, Tommy Bowden.
(An aside. Funny how that incident was dropped and the accusations against the VT Police stopped, once it was learned a Tiger fan threw the bottle, instead of a Hokie. But so it is with anything or any news "unpleasant" about the undercurrents that rage and threaten Clemson.
And another fact that seems to become more apparent with the changing colors of the leaves, the ACC just gets weaker and weaker, leaving us who want to see Tommy Bowden exposed, wanting as each week plays out.
I must admit, I've just about stopped making predictions about Tommy's sure implosion because (as Moe the Rooster said) "It's hard to lose with the stuff he use."
Yes, playing nobody is a sure path to an endless string of 6,7 and 8-win seasons. And Tommy has made a career out of that, to adoring fans.
And there is no reason to believe that VT will again deliver that crushing blow that ignites the orange-robed lynch mob toward Tommy and Brad's front door.
Of course, I'll watch the game, hanging on every Tiger miscue and stumble, but I expect in the end, I'll be disappointed.
Yes, dissatisfied that Clemson wins, but even more frustrated that the Tigers simply used its 85,000 zombies to take down yet another over-rated pretender while the media drools about the excellent football that is on display.

Were Clemson fans foolish to believe Tommy, media again?

A week ago, Ron "MoRon" Morris was making the case that Clemson has the fastest skill players in America and all is rosy in Tigertown. http://www.thestate.com/tigers/story/185931.html
Morris opined that the insertion of Cullen Harper had solved all of the Tigers' problems of a year ago.
And it's not just MoRon. Other media members, as is their tradition in this state, simply glossed over some very important personnel isues at Clemson.

What MoRon and the media left out:

Clemson Offensive line: if you watched Clemson vs FSU, when the two linemen who came out of the game, looked to me to be soft and kind of fat. And they did not look all that big (of course I'm used to seeing SEC linemen week after week.) Still, was it not foolhardy to think Clemson would be better at O-line in 07 than in 06. The Tigers lost Roman Fry (which is when their problems began last year) Nathan Bennett and Dustin Fry, and maybe a couple more from last year. That was Clemson's best O-line under Tommy Bowden. For Clemson fans to think they would not see a drop-off in 07 was unrealistic. I have not heard, but I wonder if Clemson fans are finally ready to recognize OL coach Brad Scott for his true coaching talents, which are lacking.

WR: Aaron Kelley has been a little surprising (that he has looked capable a couple time) since the trend at Clemson for a few years has been underachievement at WR. That trend began about the time Rick Stockstill bolted the program (K. Grant, Rendrick Taylor....etc.) But Kelley's progress may simply be the result of soft competition. Chansi Stuckey was more of a self-made player and it was not rational to think his absence would not be a big loss.

RB: James Davis and CJ Spiller are talented, but probably not anywhere near the best tandem in the country. MoRon, in is column (linked above) said media members laughed when Tommy Bowden credited RBs Mike Davis and Cory Boyd as possibly being in the same class with Clemson's duo. And knowing Bowden's character (or lack of it) he probably was trying to draw a laugh and make fun of SC's RBs. But if his RBs had the heart and toughness of Davis and Boyd, he may not be facing another year in fear of termination. Tommy's RBs can go down surprisingly easily when things go south, as they always seem to do during the season.

QB: Harper, may (or may not) be a little better than Will Procter, but he is a lot like Proctor. He looks great when there is no rush on him, versus an inferior opponent (most of Clemson's schedule.) But he is not a big-play guy. When you consider that Mike O'Cain brought in Charlie Whitehurst, you have to wonder if Bowden has any idea about recruiting, or coaching, the type QB he needs. Harper will throw into double coverage, too, but it has not hurt him much because of the level of the defenses he has played against. And Harper takes horrendous sacks. How familiar does that sound?

Defensive line: Phillip Merling, the nephew of Clemson assistant coach Chris Rumph (a former SC player) is a talent. You just wonder if he was worth the bargaining of a job to get Merling to sign at Clemson. Ricky Sapp has looked good, but there is not a lot after that. Gaines Adams won a game or two for Clemson. I don't think they have that type player on the D-line this year. The departure of Coach Hobby two years ago continues to haunt the D-line and may make the hiring of Rumph, who had sparse experience, even more pronounced.

LBs: I have not studied this group enough to be too analytical, but nothing I've seem makes me believe that it is anything special as a group. Nor is there a player that stands out.

Defensive secondary: With the loss of CJ Gaddis (left early) Hill and Fudge, it was not likely there would be improvement in the secondary. And that is likely to remain the case, except it may be even worse in 07.

PK: Hats of to Mark Buchholz for attempting after the way Jad Dean was treated by Tommy Bowden last year. But the kid needs to pick football or soccer. And you have to wonder what kind of coach would keep sending him out there, miss after miss, versus GT, unless the cupboard is completely empty up there.

Return team: Ford is a threat and should be feared as a return man, but his durability is likely fleeting. If he has gold medal speed (probably does) he should drop football and go to where his bacon is. Kelley may end up losing (fumble) a game before it's over. To risk Davis or Spiller at return, regularly, is just stupid or desperate.

Punt team: Already lost one game for them. How many more will they lose? And why is this a persistent problem under Tommy Bowden.