Somewhere over the rainbow

The great thing about writing a blog is that you can make thousands of ridiculous predictions and if one comes true, you’re a genius. Before the 2007 football season, I told anyone that would listen (basically four people) that 6-2 would probably win the SEC East, and that it would not be completely inconceivable for 5-3 to win it. Tennessee was one recovered fumble away from making that 5-3 prediction a reality. With that in mind, let’s take a walk down the yellow brick road of the 2008 SEC East schedule:

Week 3 – The Dawgs come to the Fairgrounds looking to put their first notch in their championship belt. The Gamecocks lose their brief one week division lead after beating Vanderbilt in yet another slugfest against Gawga.
UGA 1-0 USC 1-1 Vandy 0-1

Weeks 4, 5 and 6 – While the West watches Auburn and LSU determine the frontrunner in their division, Florida and Tennessee has the attention of the East. Tebow begins his Heisman campaign in earnest as Volunteer fans start their annual grumbling when the “new fangled” passing offense gets poor marks. The Vols catch Auburn in a double hangover game the next week and manage to pull off a squeaker. Vandy struggles along as Kentucky plays its first conference game against an Alabama team that is growing up quickly. The Gamecocks win a thriller at Ole Miss as the offense shows its first sign of life in conference play.
UF 3-0 UGA 2-0 USC 2-1 UT 1-1 Vandy 0-3 Kentucky 0-1

Week 7 – Another Saturday of showdowns as Florida and LSU return for another episode of the fourth down game. It takes overtime to do it, but LSU shocks the world with a field goal. Meyer becomes more and more reluctant to run his quarterback as a year and a half of lowering his shoulder is starting to wear on him. Georgia goes to Knoxville and notches another Eastern division victory. Gamecocks take advantage of a rebuilding Kentucky squad.
UF 3-1 UGA 3-0 USC 3-1 UT 1-2 Vandy 0-4 Kentucky 0-2

Week 8 – LSU comes to Columbia after its dramatic victory in Gainesville for a CBS 3:30 game. It is obvious to all that are watching that the Tigers are a bit listless against the Gamecocks. The third quarter is marred by a botched fake field goal by USC as Spurrier seeks revenge for last year. Late TD drive seals it for Les Miles and Company and USC loses another close one. Vandy loses to the Dawgs and becomes mathematically eliminated at 0-5.
UGA 4-0 UF 3-1 USC 3-2 UT 2-2 Kentucky 0-3

Week 9 – LSU continues its ridiculous three week jaunt through the Eastern division, but this time lands a home game against Georgia. The game resembles a heavy weight fight as both teams slug it out back and forth. CBS moving the game to a night time kickoff tips the odds in LSU’s favor. Les Miles gets even more outlandish with his post game comments. Tennessee squeaks by Alabama at home.
UGA 4-1 UF 4-1 USC 3-2 UT 3-2 Kentucky 0-4

Week 10 – Everyone raises a glass in Jacksonville as the Eastern Conference is on the line when Florida takes on the Dawgs. The teams set a series record for most yards of offense in a game. Both quarterbacks make their bid for the Heisman as Florida wins it on a late Tebow quarterback sneak. Meyer refuses to shake Richt’s hand because “he never forgot what Georgia did last year.” Tennessee comes to the bird cage for an ESPN 7:45 kickoff. The week off seems to have done the Gamecocks good as the offense finds some traction. The defense gives up yards, but not points, as another barn burner between these two goes Carolina’s way. The Vols, along with the Wildcats, are mathematically eliminated.
UF 5-1 UGA 4-2 USC 4-2

Week 11- Florida and Georgia shell Vandy and Kentucky. The Gamecocks survive a hangover game to beat an Arkansas team that is struggling to grasp the new offense. USC’s defense plays with a giant chip on their shoulder after last year.
UF 6-1 UGA 5-2 USC 5-2

Week 12 – Georgia goes down to the Plains and finds an Auburn team with a lot of late season fight left in it despite being out of the race for the West. The Dawgs come up empty handed, eliminating them from contention as they just run out of gas down the stretch. The ESPN night game features Spurrier against his old team and, wait a minute, the winner goes to Atlanta? No, can’t be.

Ok, so all this story is missing is a wicked witch, a scarecrow, and an urban legend about a little person hanging himself; but stranger things have happened. In all sincerity, I am giving LSU way too much credit for sweeping that stretch of Florida away, USC away, and Georgia at home. But Georgia struggling with its tough schedule is not that far fetched. Same goes for the Florida and Tennessee scenarios. The sure bet is that the winner of the Georgia-Florida game will determine the East. But you never know, Dorothy’s slippers may actually be garnet and that November 15th game could be for all the lollipops. I wonder if Ted Turner will colorize it.

Time to let it go

Yesterday, Spurrier had his annual media golf outing. After the tournament was over, Spurrier addressed the media in an informal press conference. Unfortunately, he took the opportunity to criticize a Clemson website for allegedly emailing reports of arrests involving USC football players to high school prospects. Naturally, despite everything else Spurrier said, this comment is the red meat that the local media and everyone else have been devouring over the last twenty four hours. Quite frankly, when it comes to USC’s off the field issues, it needs to be the last time he makes a public comment on the subject.

Before engaging in this discussion, there are a few facts that need to be ironed out:

1. The rest of the world does not care how many football players have been arrested at a certain school unless ESPN does a story on them.

Ok, pop quiz – what do Missouri, West Virginia, Penn State, and Kent State have in common? They are all well ahead of USC in the Fulmer Cup Standings. The Fulmer Cup is a poll that keeps track of criminal charges brought against college athletes. The more serious the crime, the more points the school gets. http://www.sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Fulmer_Cup The bottom line is the Gamecocks are just like every other school. They have problems. Compared to its SEC brethren, they are on the low end when it comes to criminal charges and convictions. And unless one player from USC gets arrested once a month for the next three years, they are no where near Penn State's struggles over the last few years.

2. Acknowledging internet sites only gives them credibility they do not deserve.

Putting up an internet site to spout facts and opinion does not take a whole lot of effort. Trust me. Any moron can go on a website chat room or message board and start talking about what they heard from somebody’s cousin. You have to take what you see on these sites with a grain of salt. Spurrier acknowledging one of them only gives it credibility. Trust me, there are plenty of sick people out there who let recruits know every time the rival school stubs their toe. Having a website do it is just one more sicko.

3. Saying that you do not have a problem only makes people think that you do have a problem.

Spurrier needs to have a blanket statement that he makes when he is asked a question about an off the field problem. “The athletic department and the university are looking into the matter and we will determine the appropriate course of action.” That’s it. Plain and simple. No public laboring over what happened and what the punishment should be. If he continues to talk about it, especially unprovoked like yesterday, it just sends a signal that there is a problem that he feels needs to be addressed. The more attention Spurrier gives it, the more people watching and listening think, “wow, things must be pretty bad over there.” Keep the public on a need to know basis, and the public pretty much needs to know nothing.

4. In Columbia, everything is given more attention than it deserves.

When it comes to college athletics, this town is sick. It has problems. Columbia is the media capital of the state. There are seven million local sports shows that have nothing to talk about between April and August. The largest newspaper in the state is located in Columbia. There are no pro sports. Not even a Columbia Mets team to talk about. As such, it’s all Gamecocks, all the time. That can be good and bad. Every positive and every negative is blown completely out of proportion. There are enough people in this town that will labor over off the field issues without Spurrier himself doing it. Every time some player is arrested, Columbia works itself into a pointless frenzy. It is completely absurd.

5. If you win, it makes no difference.

Drive about three hours to the west and there is a little town called Athens, Georgia. You know what people in Athens are talking about? Whether or not the Dawgs can run the table and win the SEC. You know what they are not talking about? How Little Johnny got arrested for DUI and carrying a concealed weapon. Winning cures everything. If being a nice guy and having your players not get into trouble meant anything, no coach would ever get fired. In the case of Dave Odom, it may buy you one more year. The bottom line in Division I-A college athletics is how much a coach wins – period. What happens off the field is only held against a coach when he goes 3-9.

Ok, now that we have established some things, let’s get to Spurrier’s comments. He just needs to let this thing go. Mentioning it does more harm than good. Any idiot that follows college athletics knows that USC’s off the field woes are no different than anywhere else. Players get arrested. Thirty years ago, a policeman would call the coach and tell him he needs to come get his player. Those days are over. Now they go to jail and it gets put in the newspaper. The correct course of action when they get arrested is to gather the facts, administer a punishment, and move on. Worrying about what people that support other schools are saying is pointless. College football is one giant neighborhood of glass houses.

Why Tennessee should scare you

The people that run this blog (corporate types that wear power suits) keep telling me I have to be bolder and make big predictions. With that in mind, I’m going to make two. Starting this season, beware the Tennessee offense. Second, in about three years, the name Dave Clawson is going to start meaning a lot more to fans of the SEC.

Now the obvious question: who is Dave Clawson? Well, he is the first year offensive coordinator for the University of Tennessee. And wherever he goes, teams tend to score points, gain yards, and win football games.

Clawson got his first head coaching job at I-AA Fordham, who had endured 12 straight losing seasons before Clawson got there and took them to the playoffs. His next stop, Richmond, is where he probably did his best work. After a 3-8 record his first year in 2004 where the offense averaged 354 ypg, Clawson took the Spiders to the I-AA playoffs and a 9-4 record the very next year. The Spider offense raised its ypg average to 392 in that same year. Last year, the Spiders made it all the way to the I-AA championship game before losing to Appalachian State. The 2007 Spider offense averaged 413 ypg while compiling a record of 11-3.

Clawson’s offensive philosophy comes from spread principles. (Think more West Virginia than Florida). Anyone who saw the 2007 I-AA championship game could appreciate how much he had accomplished with less than spectacular talent. Richmond’s admission standards are not exactly football conducive. What is scary for the rest of the SEC is that he will be working with some pretty talented football players at Tennessee.

Even scarier for the rest of the conference is that Tennessee is traditionally very successful when their offense is clicking. Before Clawson, there was David Cutcliffe. Cutcliffe was Tennessee’s offensive coordinator when they won the 1998 national title. Following the ’98 title run, Cutcliffe went to Ole Miss to be the Rebels’ head coach. From that season until 2006, Tennessee won a lot of close games with defense, running the football, special teams, and a lackluster offense (which they were pretty good at). That is, until 2005 when the bottom fell out and the team went 5-6. Re-enter David Cutcliffe. The Vols go 9-4 in ’06 and 10-4 in ’07, winning the SEC East in the process.

Tennessee always has a solid defense under John Chavis. Without Cutcliffe, they seemed to struggle at times to find an offense to match. Clawson is just the guy to pick up where Cutcliffe left off, assuming that Fulmer doesn’t reign him in along with his spread offense. Tennessee’s first four games include Florida at home and at Auburn. If the offense struggles in those games, look for Fulmer to get antsy and reel in the offense. If Fulmer and Tennessee fans have patience with the new offense, Clawson could be just the shot in the arm they need. In the coming years, he could be the hot assistant coach on the short list of most athletic directors in the market for a head coach.

Ahh, the SEC East: the most ridiculously tough division in college football. And it just got tougher.

New Coke and Steroids

Remember New Coke? If you were around in the 1980’s, you do. In 1985, Coca Cola decided that they were going to ruin a good thing and change the time-tested formula for Coke. The result was something that tasted like a flat Pepsi. After the public revolted, Coca Cola decided to change Coke back to what it was – well, kinda. The Coca Cola Classic that was put back on the shelves tasted virtually the same as Old Coke, but was not made using the original Coke formula. Original Coke (pre 1985) was sweetened with sugar. Coca Cola now sweetens Coca Cola Classic with high fructose corn syrup. This syrup is what causes that filmy feeling on your teeth. Apparently, sugar sweetened Coke can still be bought in Mexico. Some stores in America like Costco and Wal-Mart even sell Mexican Coke.

As with most weird things, there is a conspiracy theory behind the Coke to New Coke switch. Theorists believe Coca Cola wanted to change the formula to eliminate sugar because the syrup sweetener was much cheaper. According to the conspiracy theory, the change to New Coke was to distract the customers and get the Old Coke taste out of their mouths (literally). After months of New Coke, Coca Cola Classic would taste the same as Old Coke to consumers despite the different choice in sweetener. The end result is a slightly different tasting Coke that is cheaper to mass produce, but no one is the wiser.

Although it is far fetched, one would have to wonder if the decision makers in horse racing are trying a similar gambit.

In the 1970’s, the sport of horse racing was chugging along just fine. While Secretariat was making history, the powers that be in horse racing decided to introduce steroids into the game. Currently, the United States is the only country to allow the use of anabolic steroids in actively racing horses. Twenty eight of the thirty eight racing states allow for steroid use in horse racing (including Kentucky, Maryland, and New York). In the thirty or more years following the introduction of steroids, American horse racing has steadily declined to the point where it is now. A point where Congress is asking the industry to take a look at itself in the same way Congress asked baseball to take a look at itself. A point where an admitted steroid using, odds on Triple Crown favorite faded on the far turn of the Belmont. A point where a sport that is barely hanging on in mass public appeal faces losing the little bit it has. So why would a sport ruin itself with steroids?

In the 1970’s, the reason was money. The general consensus was that steroids would help horses run through soreness which would allow them to race more often. Racing more often means winning more money. Oddly enough, the statistics show a reverse trend. The average number of starts per year for a horse went from 11.31 in 1960 to 6.37 in 2006. The obvious conclusion is that steroids do not help horses run more often. “But if steroids do not help, then how did Mark McGwire hit all of those home runs and Ben Johnson break all of those world records?” The answer is simple. McGwire and Johnson have good genetics. Today’s horses compared to horses from the 1960’s do not.

In horse racing, just like in human sports, steroids mask true ability. But unlike human athletes, thoroughbreds will be given steroids at a very young age. The result is yearling horses going to auction with the muscle mass and structure of two year olds. Further results are horses whose muscles grow disproportionately to their bones structure – a physiologically unsound horse.

The money in horse racing is in the breeding. For example, Big Brown’s DNA will sell for millions. Although breeding is mostly about the horse’s genetics, looks play a role too. Yearlings without muscle mass, or ones that look just plain frail, do not sell for a high price. Breeders will give young horses steroids to encourage appetite and build muscle mass. There have even been reports about the use of cosmetic surgery to improve the looks of some young horses. Breeding is simple economics. The demand is for young, muscular horses with good genetics. As such, breeders do all they can to give buyers what they want.

“But if they are all on steroids, and steroids are bad for the horses, why would anyone knowingly buy a structurally deficient horse?” For one, structural deficiency is not always obvious. Eight Belles looked pretty good to most people, but there was obviously something not quite right about her. Second, no one really knows for sure about a horse until the horse trains and races. And even then, many horses are through racing before they are five years old. The really good ones, like Big Brown, will be done before they turn four. Why? So they can go out to stud. Good for the horse, bad for racing. Big Brown will father hundreds of horses. With each horse, he passes on potentially poor genetics. Racing fans will recall that Big Brown was not on his usual dose of steroids for the Belmont. This would make one wonder who the real Big Brown really is and how much steroids played a role in his success (and while we are on the subject, whatever happened to Sammy Sosa?)

As the statistics indicate, over thirty years of steroid breeding have given us generations of unsound horses. So the question is: what will American racing look like in the future? Congress has basically told horse racing to shape up or face the consequences. A little law called the Interstate Horse Racing Act is the lifeblood of racing. It allows a bettor in Florida to place a bet on a race in New York. Off track bets account for roughly 80% of a track’s take. Horse racing does not want Congress taking that kind of revenue away from it. Change will occur.

In the coming years without steroids, horse racing could become pretty entertaining for race fans and adventurous for bettors (is there a difference between race fans and bettors?). Horses that looked pretty good this year may flop the next. Because Europe does not allow steroids, look for American money to go towards purchasing foreign horses to breed here in America. Also look for that “average number of starts” statistic cited earlier to begin to rise. Racing may even be able to breed a Triple Crown winner in the not too distant future. (Three races in five weeks used to be difficult, not impossible.) It took thirty plus years to breed racing into this mess, it may take thirty more to breed it out.

Although conspiracy theorists will swear Coca Cola meant to ruin itself, I do not personally believe that horse racing meant to sabotage its own game. But one thing is for sure, they certainly have laid the ground work to sell racing fans a better product – and those fans sure are thirsty.

ACC Player(s) Of The Year

At the A.C.C. Media Days, Clemson Quarterback Cullen Harper was voted Preseason Player of the Year. (See Article) Who finished second in the voting? James Davis. Who finished third in the voting? C.J. Spilla'. To top it all off, Clemson was picked to win the ACC outright. Will Tommy and the Tigers be able to handle all this hype?!?!

A side note from the A.C.C. gathering. N.C. State was picked to finish DEAD LAST in the Conference. How could the Gamecocks (from the powerful S.E.C.) possibly lose a home game to the worst team in the A.C.C.? (The game is at night and we all know what happens to the Cocks at night.)

Spurrier: "Life is a Beech(er)"

Yesterday, Spurrier had his summer “State of the Program” address before heading off to the SEC Media Days. The biggest news coming out of this press conference is how confident he sounded about Tommy Beecher. This fact leads many fans to ask the question, “So where has he been?”

The quarterbacking situation since Spurrier’s arrival (and quite frankly since Petty left) has been a study in inconsistency. With the exception of the last few games of 2006, USC quarterbacks have struggled to gain traction. So if Beecher is the man now, why was he not the man for the last couple of years?

Entering his fourth year, Beecher’s on field performance would leave many fans to think that he would end up being nothing more than half of the answer to a Gamecock trivia question – who were the first two Carolina quarterbacks signed by Spurrier? (Cade Thompson being the other). All that anyone ever said about him was that he had a strong arm and he could “run around a little bit” (Spurrier talk for someone that is mobile). Having watched Smelley last year, it could be that these physical attributes have won him the job.

From the stands, it seemed obvious that Smelley had a very good grasp on the offense from a mental standpoint. The offense even had a little rhythm at times. He never seemed to be confused before the snap. Most of his struggles came after the snap. At times, there was hesitation in his throws – not good for a guy with average arm strength. If you are going to play quarterback for Spurrier, you better trust your throws. Spurrier’s philosophy for attacking zone coverage is to throw to windows and trust that your receiver will get there. It’s about timing. (Take a predetermined number of steps, put your foot in the ground and throw it to this spot. But don’t throw it if we don’t get the coverage we thought we were going to get. Oh, and make sure the defense didn’t trick you by lining up in one coverage, but playing another. Yeah, it’s hard.) That can be a difficult adjustment for a quarterback. For many, it is too much of one.

Perhaps Spurrier feels that he knows what he can get out of Smelley so he might as well look at the next guy. He has seen Smelley take plenty of live snaps. Overall, Smelley did OK. Maybe he figures that Beecher’s physical advantages over Smelley need to be explored. After all, he is more mobile than Smelley and has a stronger arm. Spurrier might be thinking that he just needs to be “coached up.” Most of the buzz from spring practice was that Beecher was looking better than Smelley, if only by a small margin.

Listening to Spurrier the past couple of years, most fans are getting the impression that he is having a philosophical epiphany. For years, Spurrier has been able to take smart guys with average physical attributes and turn them into quarterbacks. Remember Danny Wuerrfel throwing passes that seemed to fall like snowflakes? Those days are over. The problem is defenses have gotten faster and more athletic. Those windows that Shane Matthews was throwing into are a lot smaller today. Those slow linebackers that Duke used to pick on in man coverage are a lot more athletic and are just as fast as the running backs they are covering. Translation: it is a lot tougher to find mismatches. Result: Spurrier’s quarterbacks have to be even more gifted from the neck up and the neck down. Before Spurrier left Florida, he had one of those guys – Grossman. Remember how many plays Grossman made with his legs? How he could throw bullets while scrambling around? Yes, I know his pro career has been less than stellar, but the guy is physically talented, and he was mentally talented enough to put up a lot of points at Florida.

Unless Spurrier completely changes his offensive philosophy, he will need more Grossman’s and less Wuerffel’s to be successful. Perhaps knowing this is what has prompted the change to Beecher. Again, maybe the thought is to take the physically talented guy and “coach him up” because he has more upside. We shall see. There is a lot of football between now and N.C. State.

What's Brett Favre doing here?

They just need to let him go – and soon. The Packers have made a business decision. In the NFL, they call it a football decision or a philosophical decision. Green Bay believes that it is time to move on and let Aaron Rodgers be the quarterback. And, oh by the way, Brian Brohm is also hanging around on the roster. This is the same Brian Brohm that was considered the most NFL ready quarterback in his draft class. McCarthy and Green Bay saw Favre and Rodgers in every practice last year as well as studying them on film. This is what they think is in the best interest of the Green Bay Packers. If they are wrong, they will be held accountable. As such, they need to cut Favre loose - ASAP. Do not shop him around and do not let him come back to be a backup. Here is why:

If the Packers let him come back, you might as well trade Rodgers. Every mistake he makes will be magnified times a million by the Green Bay fans and media. Second, Favre is not going to come back to be a back up. Disgruntled benchwarmers are never good for team morale. The team will fracture and collapse.

If the Packers shop him around as trade bait, this whole ordeal will continue to fester. Green Bay needs to get the spotlight off of itself. Plus, other teams know that if they wait around long enough, Green Bay will release him because they will want to relieve themselves from the daily media scrutiny. Favre is already doing TV interviews and publicizing private conversations.

The solution is just to rip it off like a band aid and let people start forgetting. Remember Andy Pettite being on steroids? Not many people do because he took his medicine and moved on. The public has a short memory. Fans in Green Bay may take some time to forget, but the Packers might as well start the process before practice starts and they have to field all of those same questions every day. It will just be a distraction.

The bottom line is the number of games the Packers win next year and whether they make the playoffs. If they are successful, all is forgiven. If there is but one truism in sports, it is this: winning cures everything, and I mean everything – especially in professional sports. Patriot fans forgot all about Drew Bledsoe. Cowboy fans forgot all about Herschel Walker. Miami Hurricane fans do not remember how much trouble their football players got into in the late 80’s. If you win, bygones are bygones. So that is where the Packers need to focus their energy – on winning. And if that does not involve Brett Favre, release him and move on.

A perfect time to switch

Now that Packer is gone, it is high time CBS get their act together and give the Final Four to the greatest college basketball announcing duo since the dawn of time. I am talking about none other than Lundquist and Raftery. (What is odd is that the word “Lundquist” does not come up as a misspelled word on Word). Lundquist is the booming voice of CBS’s SEC game of the week as well as operating the tower on Number 16 at Augusta. Raftery is one of THE voices of college basketball who seemingly does every ESPN game that Vitale does not do and then teams up with Verne for the tournament. And they are excellent. They are the best twosome working.

First of all, Raftery understands basketball beyond explaining to you what you just watch happen. He knows what should have happened, tells you what both teams should make happen, and gives you a good idea of what is going to happen. For the average basketball fan, like me, who does not know much more beyond “put ball in basket”, Raftery tells you why things are and are not occurring.

Second, Raftery is entertaining. His New Jersey slang actually adds something to the game. And unlike Vitale and Packer, nobody has anything bad to say about the guy.

With apologies to wikipedia, here’s a few samples:

"Shoulder ... shake ... a little lingerie!"
"A little pirouette, and they said this was a beer town!"
“I wheel the wheel barrel down the street to the tin!”
"Give it to the big fella!"
"Send it in, Jerome!”
"The Big Guy"
"With disdain to the tin!"
"Send it in, Verne!"
"...with the kiss!"
"With the sweet kiss, off the glass..."
"With a little dipsy do"
"Dagger!"
"Onions!"
"Nylon!"
"The vegetable cart"
"Put a little english on it"
"With the teardrop, that'll make you cry"
"Panties on the deck"
"We got a little nickel-dimer here"
"The small change"
"With the blow-by"
"With authority!"
"Send it in, big fella!"
"From the Right Wing!"
"There's a little lingerie on the deck"
"The bounce to ecstasy"
"You might call this Newton's Law!"
"Most unattractive but beneficial"
"With the dribble drive"
"Attacking the tin!"
"Strong... to the goal!"
"Bring your lunch!"
"Elevation!"
"(insert co announcers name), (insert team name) goes man to man!"
"They're playing a (insert zone defense name) zone with man-to-man principles!"
"A little ricochet romance!"
"Get the puppies set!"
"He can do it all; let him into the band!"
"(insert player's name) with some early onions!"
"Fill the lane! Provide the lift!"
"He can make you ask for your mommy."
"Walter at the altar: High Mass!"
"Bottle of blackout!"
"Deployment!"
"Divine intervention!"
"With a little smoocher!"
"Protect the women and children!"
"Chubby Checker Do the Twist!"
Verne Lundquist: "I hope Dwayne Wade likes cajun cooking!" ... (dramatic 5 second pause) ... Bill Raftery: "JAMBALAYA!"
"A Large Edifice!"
"He's got the puppies sent off the bus."
"Why the lefties look so pretty its amazing."

In the late stages of a competitive 2002 NCAA Tournament game between UCLA and Cincinnati, a CBS camera showed the parents of a player who was shooting free throws. Raftery immediately remarked, "Free throws can destroy a family."

In 2007, Raftery along with his broadcast partner, Verne Lundquist, made a classic exchange after Memphis' Chris Douglas-Roberts made an emphatic jam in Ohio State's regional final victory.

Raftery: "The speed! Done with alacrity! Sitting over there, he was salivating at an opportunity." Lundquist: "I'm still stunned at 'alacrity'." Raftery: "Don't ask me to spell it."

As I write this, Clark Kellogg is getting the job. Well, I guess that is better than splitting up Bill and Verne. Even if they took my suggestion, CBS could still bring in Nantz at the end of the game to say something like “Rock Chalk Championship” or “Win for the ages” or whatever. I like Nantz, but he is the golf guy. Bill and Verne have good basketball energy. And they would be perfect for the job.

(If the unthinkable ever happened and South Carolina won it all, what would Nantz do with Horn? Or Gamecock?)

Would Tommy suspend O.J.?

In college football, there are four seasons. There is the regular season in the fall, recruiting in the winter, spring practice in the spring, and arrest season in the summer. Recently proving that the Gamecocks have not cornered the market on criminal activity, Clemson’s DeAndre McDaniel was recently charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in Central, South Carolina. The charge stems from an altercation between McDaniel and an alleged girlfriend. Bowden, after speaking with McDaniel, has not yet taken any action. Instead, he wants to wait and let the criminal process take its course.

Usually the controversy with college athletes getting in trouble is what the punishment by the coach should be. Is it enough? Is it not enough? Should they be kicked off? Etc. And usually the player admits guilt in the early going, takes his medicine, and puts it behind him.

McDaniel, on the other hand, just like his teammate Cortney Vincent and Carolina’s Dion Lecorn, maintains his innocence and has asked for a jury trial. Spurrier’s approach with Lecorn was different than Tommy’s. He suspended Lecorn immediately from team activities (granted it was in the off season and not for very long). But he did do something. Tommy, however, has taken the approach that his guys are innocent until guilt is either proven or admitted. Fair enough, but Bowden could be setting himself up for a lot of criticism.

Consider Lecorn’s trial (incidentally, any man that requests a jury trial in Lexington either thinks he has a lock solid defense or is simply a moron). If he is found innocent, then no further punishment is needed. He even garners sympathy for the slap on the wrist he did receive. If Dion is found guilty, Spurrier can consider if the punishment he gave him was enough or he could punish Lecorn further. Either way, Spurrier comes out looking like he did the right thing in suspending Lecorn initially, even if only symbolically.

Bowden, however, is playing a game of roulette. If Vincent and McDaniel are innocent, he wins. If they are found guilty, Bowden loses. Especially when you consider the charges – DUI and ABHAN. Vincent already played in the bowl game last year and both will surely play before their jury trials begin. Now I am not saying Bowden is wrong, I am just saying he is taking a gamble. Even giving both players a slap on the wrist could help him down the line if both players are found guilty.

Now consider this hypothetical. Suppose McDaniel is found innocent by a jury. Now suppose the alleged victim sues him in civil court. After all, that is what happened to O.J. Although he was found innocent of murder, he was found civilly liable for the deaths of the victims. How, you ask? Rather than the criminal standard of “beyond all reasonable doubt”, O.J.’s civil jury needed to only find it “more likely than not” that O.J. caused the victims’ deaths. Now suppose McDaniel’s alleged victim sues him for her emergency room bill and the jury finds him liable. Now what? McDaniel is not guilty, but his hands are not exactly clean. Would Tommy punish the criminally innocent?

Now the last thing I am here to do is to compare murder to an alleged shoving contest. This is all for the sake of argument. But the above hypothetical is not that far fetched. And Tommy’s “no punishment until a verdict of guilt is rendered” stance on these issues would put him in a tough spot. So the real question is: since Clemson already has Thunder and Lightning, is there room for The Juice?

Not as bad as you think

Lately, I walk around town and hear how depressed Carolina fans are about the football team. (Please note I am not including the fans that think we have a good chance at the SEC championship every year. Just your serious “I’ve seen everything” fans.) I guess going 6 – 6 can have that effect on people. What is surprising is to hear them reminisce. “Morrison sure put out some good teams.” “Carlen was a hell of a coach.” While that may be true, funny thing is, we might be living in the golden age.

Take a look at these stats:
Wins Losses Win %
2000s -- 54 - 42 56.3
1990s -- 41 - 67 37.9
1980s -- 63 - 49 56.3
1970s -- 56 - 55 50.5
1960s -- 37 - 59 38.5
1950s -- 54 - 41 56.8
1940s -- 36-43 45.6
1930s -- 49-49 50.0
1920s -- 55-37 59.8
1910s -- 32 - 41 43.8
1900’s -- 37-26 58.7
1890s -- 6-15 28.6

I have got news for you, Carolina has never had it better. So far, the Gamecocks have had two better decades in terms of win percentage, the 50’s and 20’s. Those glorious 80’s? It is a statistical dead heat with the current decade. (I threw out the ties – who counts those anyway?) While we are on the subject of the 80’s, Carolina is all of 10 wins away from topping that decade’s win mark (yes, I know more games are played now.)

In the 2000’s, Carolina has been to four bowl games, and get this, won three of them. For a team that did not win a bowl game until 1994, that is saying a lot. Although I did not take the time to tally them, I wouldn’t think I was going out on a limb in saying that the 2000’s led the decades in NFL draft picks. If anyone wants to confirm that, knock yourself out.

You may notice the 90’s. Gee, I wonder what happened then? Oh yeah, something about joining college football’s version of the NFC East.

“Well, Spurrier's just not getting it done like we thought he would.” Actually, he is doing pretty well. Spurrier’s three years rank right up there with other three year totals. Have a look:

2005-2007 -- 21-16 56.8
2000-2002 -- 22-14 61.1
1987-1989 -- 22-12 64.7
1983-1985 -- 20-14 58.8
1978-1980 -- 21-13 61.7
1957-1959 -- 18- 12 60.0
1952-1954 -- 18 -12 60.0
1946-1948 -- 14-10 58.3
1932-1934 -- 16-11 59.3
1924-1926 -- 20-10 66.7
1912-1914 -- 14-10 58.3

The one they call Darth Visor is holding his own. (Who knew Carolina was so good in the 20’s?)

So why is this such a good decade? The answer - no debacle seasons. No 0 -11’s or 1-10’s. Not even a 3-6-2. (Can you believe there were two of those?) The worst is a couple of 5 – 7’s.

So why so many grumbling fans? Well when your conference wins the national title almost every other year, garnet turns green. That, and people tend to have short memories. But hang in there Gamecock fans. When this season is over, you may be partying like it’s 1925.

Clemson is 20 to 1

Whether in the pursuit of gambling or not, it is always good food for thought to check out which way the betting public is leaning. I will survey the lines from various Las Vegas outlets just to get a vibe on things. After all, those casinos did not build themselves - these oddsmakers are hardly idiots. Recently I checked into the odds for who will win the upcoming BCS championship. Your early line favorite, quite obviously - Southern Cal at 7 to 2. Not so obvious - Clemson, at 20 to 1.

Sounds like long odds until you compare it to everyone else. LSU at 15 to 1. Texas at 25 to 1. So you like Michigan? You can have them at 60 to 1. (Oh, the Gamecocks you say? Try 100 to 1. Personally, I would not take them at 500 to 1.)

While I certainly do not think Clemson will win the National Championship, playing for one is not a total pipe dream. As a sidebar, I would be shocked if they did not win the Atlantic Division and play for the ACC Championship. So why all this confidence in the boys from Tiger Town?

First, and foremost, the schedule. Most preseason magazines have Clemson's schedule ranked in the bottom half of the country (as low as 70th by one outlet.) Sad to say, but Carolina might be one of the top three or four teams they face - especially at season's end when the QB situation settles. Only one Clemson opponent is in ESPN's preseason top 25 - Wake at 22.

Clemson's schedule is more about who they do not play, rather than who they do. No Virginia Tech, no Miami, and no UNC (don't laugh, the Heels are going to be a team no one wants to play in the near future). Virginia Tech is ranked 20th in ESPN's preseason poll. They, Wake, and Clemson are the only ACC teams ranked in ESPN's top 25.

The second reason is talent. Offensively, they have it in spades. Although depth at linebacker may cause Clemson to have to outscore some people, they certainly have enough offense to do it.

Third, they will probably be favored in every game they play. BC has no Matt Ryan. Wake is good, but still is not as talented. FSU has no quarterback, and has shown no signs of righting the ship. Georgia Tech will be in the first year of an unorthodox offense. Duke, Maryland, and NC St. - not very good and the games are at Clemson. UVA - mediocre. Alabama will be good - but probably not until the middle of the season.

Lastly, Tommy absolutely has to do it (win the ACC, that is). Clemson has had the title game in their grasp the last two years only to blow it. To not make it to the title game for a third year in a row would set records for underachivement. And, after all, three is the charm.

As far as the 20 - 1 for the national title goes, I would hardly think about it. They would not be able to stop Southern Cal or Florida. But to win the ACC? Clemson is a safe bet at any odds. So why are so many Clemson fans scared to take that bet?