Talk:South Carolina Gamecocks football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / South Carolina (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina.

Who Put GarnetAndBlack In Charge??[edit]

GarnetAndBlack's continuous deletion of facts needs to be stopped!! This article does not belong to him/her. It is in the public domain, and we all should be able to add facts even if those facts do not fit into GarnetAndBlack's personal view of the gamecock football program. His/her numerous deletions of history simply because it doesn't show the program in a good light shows he/she is guilty of a certain POV and the "edit warring" that he/she is accusing others of. Such hypocrisy! The gamecock football program has a history of mediocrity, and the numerous stories that go along with supporting that fact should be allowed to stand in this article. The mediocrity is a big part of the program's history. To continuously delete references to such mediocrity demonstrates an agenda or psychosis. (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No one put me in charge of this article, but all Wikipedia editors are "in charge" of removing material that does not conform to NPOV standards, whether or not they are "facts". Your recent addition of nothing but negative content in this article demonstrates you have a clear agenda with regard to the subject, and if your "facts" were notable to the sections of the article that you are editing, then it would be fine, but you are adding negative content in an apparent attempt to "prove your point" that USC has a mediocre football program. The problem is, it's not your job to "prove" anything about these articles. The facts that you are adding (overall record, bowl record, etc.) are in most cases already in place in the article, and readers should be allowed to come to their own conclusions, they don't need someone like you to "help" them. It's pretty obvious from a glance at the information presented (and there is plenty that doesn't "show the program in a good light") in the article prior to your overly negative additions that Carolina does indeed have a mediocre program, no embellishment is needed to hammer that point home. If you persist in this type of contentious editing, ignoring Wikipedia standards and policies without seeking any type of consensus, your edits will continue to be summarily removed, not because I am "in charge" of this article, but because that's how things are done here. I'd also point out that you aren't in charge of this article either, so why should your slanted POV be the only acceptable one in this case? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please vote on whether this is "vandalism"[edit]

GarnetAndBlack called the following edit vandalism and will not allow it in the Georgia "rivalry" section:

Most of these games have been heartbreakers for the Gamecocks, however, since four games were decided by four or less points, and the Gamecocks were only able to win one of them.

One of the most bizarre plays came in the 2002 game when quarterback Corey Jenkins was attempting a pass from South Carolina's end zone and Georgia's defensive end David Pollack simultaneously grabbed the ball to record a pick 6 and give Georgia a 10-0 lead with 14 minutes left. Georgia coach Mark Richt would say after the game, "I've never seen a play like that." The Gamecocks responded, however, with a touchdown on a 65 yard drive. Georgia would also add a field goal. However, another heartbreaker occurred when fullback Andrew Pinnock fumbled inside the 5 yard line with 12 seconds remaining, which allowed the 10th-ranked Bulldogs to hold on for a 13-7 victory.

In the 2008 game, fullback Mike Davis fumbled at the 2 yard line in the fourth quarter, but it was an interception of quarterback Chris Smelley's pass with less than a minute to go that sealed Georgia's 14-7 win.

With Georgia leading 41-37 in the 2009 game, South Carolina drove to Georgia's 13 yard line with less than a minute to go. Runningback Brian Maddox gained no yards on first down, and then quarterback Stephen Garcia threw three incompletions to end the game. (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's blatant POV (because you use only USC losses to "justify" a rivalry with UGA that you personally feel doesn't exist), and since you keep adding it to the article in total disregard for Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that makes it vandalism. Furthermore, if you keep adding this POV material to the article without consensus, you will be reported again for edit warring. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You're good at reporting authors. I see you have a long history of doing that. You have a long history of reporting and reverting. When will you roll up your sleeves and actually write something? Your only recent contribution was negative POV in a Clemson article. What a hypocrite! (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've contributed plenty, so far the only person I've ever had the need to report is you, and you aren't exactly helping your cause here by edit warring and posting personal attacks. But keep it up and I can assure you that your time here will be filled with blocks like the one you just had. I'd advise you to go read the policies of Wikipedia, because based on your recent history it's pretty clear that you aren't familiar with them. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_31#File:South Carolina Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1933 Southern Conference Championship[edit]

I removed this championship because it seems silly to try to claim it. South Carolina, 3-0, finished behind Duke, 4-0. If we consider this a shared championship, then we have to add many more for the conference, including Clemson in 1939, when they finished 4-0 behind Duke's 5-0. An examination of the cited article suggests that South Carolina was added a note to the the conference's final results, not a claim of a shared title. Every conference that split a champion has it listed as "School and School (tie)".Moberho (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC) lists all champions on page 144 (page 64 on the PDF), and does not include South Carolina in 1933. The South Carolina Official Athletics Site ( does not claim the championship either. Moberho (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This shared championship information was added based on the reference to it from three different newspaper sources. Two were in the Spartanburg Herald Journal and one in the Sarasota Herald. While they are not a final authority, they do give a lens to see how the 1933 season was viewed by those experiencing it. You are correct in that, currently, neither the school nor the conference list it as such. That does not, however, change that it obviously was considered a co-championship by those who reported it. If we are to make assumptions based on a 2013 mindset, we can wildly jump to the conclusion that if the conference or the school were opposed to South Carolina being named a co-champion, they would have requested retractions of such an attribute.,6804157&dq=south+carolina+25+erskine+0+1934&hl=en,368320&dq=south+carolina+1933+southern+conference+champs&hl=en,993140&dq=gamecocks+1933&hl=en (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You admit the newspapers are not a final authority. Wouldn't the school and the conference, the entity that determines the champion, be the final authority? Yes, it was obvious, that somebody considered it a championship. But why are we disregarding a records keeping organization and a university in favor of a newspaper?

Look, we have the records from the season. We know the method the conference used to determine a champion. And we know what results they got when they applied the method to the facts. Why does a newspaper trump that? Moberho (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be Wikiman, but it seems like you won't discuss this unless I assert it with an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moberho (talkcontribs) 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the previous post would be considered discussion by some people. Why should one person trump three (3) newspapers, also records keeping organizations? The method used was apparently to award the championship to the team with the best record. 4-0 and 3-0 records, with 4-0 a game better, both are 100 percent winning percentages and presumably merited co-championships in the absence of head to head results. Should a school be penalized for going undefeated in conference, but not having as many in-conference games to play? What has to be determined, with great difficulty, is whether or not it was viewed thusly, but just lost in the passing of time in what was a year of major transition for the conference. The reason the newspaper articles carry weight is because they bring into question what was thought to be a cut and dry topic. To be continued... (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, we should change Harvard's page to add the win they got over Yale in 1968. After all, I can show you a newspaper as evidence ( Plus, their opponent didn't score more points than them, so it's not fair to say they didn't win. Sarcasm aside, a newspaper makes a great resource when you're describing an event, but not as great when reporting a fact. (Just ask President Dewey.) Championships in the Southern Conference from 1932 and before are open to opinion, but in 1933 the conference began to officially award them, making the Conference THE source for that information. If the school wants to claim it, I'd be willing to include it here, but they make no such claim. Moberho (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


I've noticed that the UNC football page has SCAR listed as a rival, and there is a page dedicated to the North Carolina-South Carolina rivalry in football. Common sense says this page should have N Carolina listed as a rival? Am I right? I'm not quite sure how to add it. CarolinaBlue Army (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

GOT IT!!!!!CarolinaBlue Army (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina is certainly not a big a rival as Georgia or Clemson. However, the two do make up the "Battle of the Carolinas". North Carolina has SCAR listed as a rival on its page. And there is an article about the rivalry between the two. But again, it may not be worth noting. However, if it is deemed unworthy of note, then I believe it should be removed from the N Carolina page as well. Basically, I'm looking for consensus before I add it on this page or take it off of another. Thanks in advance! CarolinaBlue (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is/was NC State a rival?[edit]

Should it be mentioned as rivalry here and on the Wolfpack article? Fränsmer (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

conference affiliation[edit]

Per 2016 Media Guide, pg 124, 126-139:

  • Independent (1892–1932)
  • Southern Conference (1933–1952)
  • ACC (1953–1970)
  • Independent (1971–1991)
  • SEC (1992–present)

Associated edits to follow. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert 2015 Season[edit]

Why did you revert my contribution about the 2015 season. Perhaps the title was a bit provocative, I'll concede that, but the substance of the section was true and accurate. I would also classify 2015 as a notable season, therefore fitting the purpose of the section. Everything was cited when needed, and followed a neutral POV.

Nothing notable about the season in the scheme of the history of Carolina football. No championships were won, no records for wins or losses set. Basically, just an average football season which has no relevance to this article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't really believe that do you? It was the climactic conclusion to the winningest coach in school history. It was also the end of an era , the central story line for that season, and the subsequent seasons. For the time being I believe that it is an important season, just as the 11 win season prior to it. In the future, once the Gamecocks return to form, It would be a footnote in history. However, it is an important piece of recent history, dictating the narrative for the following seasons. Sdbarry1 (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It's already a footnote in history, and as I've already pointed out, not a particularly notable one as far as the program is concerned. No other coach has their final season highlighted in this article simply because it was an "end of an era", there is no reason Steve Spurrier should be any different. The results of that season haven't "dictated" anything in following seasons, as an entirely new coaching staff has taken the reins, and they will fail or succeed on their own merits, not because of anything that occurred in Spurrier's last year. Will Muschamp certainly isn't continuing any "narrative" from the Spurrier years, other than to point out that it is possible to win big at USC. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)