Who Are The True Believers?
posted by Scott Hood on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
But here's how I typically approach things like that: Who cares?
In case you haven't noticed, and I'm sure most of you have, USC competes in the SEC, typically the toughest college football conference in the country top-to-bottom on an annual basis. Unlike most conferences, nearly every league school is passionate about football. Heck, even at Kentucky, where basketball is king, queen and court jester, football tends to draw pretty well at home.
Here's my point: USC plays a difficult schedule every year. So to claim in any particular year that the Gamecocks' schedule is overly demanding is, in my opinion, redundant.
For the record, here's how I rank the 12 opponents on USC's 2007 schedule in terms of degree of difficulty taking into account a variety of factors like quality of the opponent, whether it's a home or road game, the crowd and the atmosphere:
1. Louisiana State (9/22 at Baton Rouge)
2. Florida (10/10 at Columbia)
3. Tennessee (10/27 at Knoxville)
4. Georgia (9/8 at Athens)
5. Arkansas (11/3 at Fayetteville)
6. Clemson (11/24 at Columbia)
7. Kentucky (10/4 at Columbia)
8. Vanderbilt (10/20 at Columbia)
9. North Carolina (10/13 at Chapel Hill)
10. Mississippi State (9/29 at Columbia)
11. Louisiana-Lafayette (9/1 at Columbia)
12. South Carolina State (9/15 at Columbia)
Rather than being concerned about the difficulty of the schedule, here's what matters most to me - how do the Gamecocks attack the schedule? With confidence or with timidity? Do they truly believe they can go to place like Athens, Baton Rouge, Knoxville and Fayetteville and win?
When it comes to the schedule, everything really boils down to this one point of emphasis: whether the coaches and players EXPECT to win every time out or whether they just HOPE to win?
Psychologically, that's a huge difference.
In my opinion, it's that winning mindset that has separated USC from the top teams in the SEC over the years. Schools like Florida (thank you Steve Spurrier), Georgia, and Tennessee expect to win every game, no matter who the opponent is. Even in the darkest days of probation, Alabama fans expected to win each time the Crimson Tide took the field.
Is it arrogance? Possibly. But that's the attitude you must possess to succeed in the hypercompetitive SEC. That goes for any sport, male or female.
If a team expects to win every game rather than just hoping to win, then no schedule, no matter how daunting it may appear on the surface, is really too difficult. In other words, a schedule is only as difficult as you make it out to be.
I've seen signs over the last two years that USC is slowly but surely crossing over into the "expecting to win" territory. The close wins at Tennessee and Arkansas and the stunning win over Florida in 2005 started the ball rolling. Last season, USC was 4-1 on the road, and won its last three games for the first time since 1973. Granted, the opposition was tougher at home but a conference win on the road is still something to be cherished.
I'm sure USC expected to win every game in the mid-to-late 1980's when it enjoyed a successful run under Joe Morrison. But the decision to join the SEC changed everything.
In my opinion, USC was ill-prepared to compete on a long-term basis in the SEC when it joined the league in 1992. The facilities were substandard compared to most other teams in the league. The program received a false sense of comfort when the Gamecocks upset Tennessee, 24-23, on Halloween in 1992. But the remainder of the 1990's was largely a nightmare filled with discouraging losses and lackluster performances.
By the time that decade closed, most of the enthusiasm around the program had drained away. There was the 21-game losing streak in which the Gamecocks became a laughingstock.
USC has turned the corner over the last seven years. Beginning with the 2000 season, the Gamecocks are 48-36, a .571 winning percentage, and have won three bowl games. Three of the school's nine eight-win seasons have come in this decade.
The crop of recruits over the last two years (2006 and 2007), besides being better football players, seem to have a swagger about them that I haven't seen in a while. They've bought into the authenticity of Spurrier's mission to win USC's first SEC title. They came to USC expecting to win
I wonder about some of the fans, though. When I see posts on the message boards predicting the outcome of individual games several months into the distance, I doubt those fans expect to win each game. Will the Gamecocks finish 14-0? Probably not. But to sit around in mid summer and predict USC will win this game or lose that game is silly. Each game stands on its own merit. Circumstances change from week to week.
In my opinion, if you're doing that, you're still a fan who just hopes to win.
- Permalink, Discuss, Blog Home
So, a few national scribes have judged South Carolina's 2007 schedule as one of the toughest in the nation. With road games at Georgia, LSU, Tennessee and Arkansas, and home games against Florida and Clemson, I'm not surprised.
But here's how I typically approach things like that: Who cares?
In case you haven't noticed, and I'm sure most of you have, USC competes in the SEC, typically the toughest college football conference in the country top-to-bottom on an annual basis. Unlike most conferences, nearly every league school is passionate about football. Heck, even at Kentucky, where basketball is king, queen and court jester, football tends to draw pretty well at home.
Here's my point: USC plays a difficult schedule every year. So to claim in any particular year that the Gamecocks' schedule is overly demanding is, in my opinion, redundant.
For the record, here's how I rank the 12 opponents on USC's 2007 schedule in terms of degree of difficulty taking into account a variety of factors like quality of the opponent, whether it's a home or road game, the crowd and the atmosphere:
1. Louisiana State (9/22 at Baton Rouge)
2. Florida (10/10 at Columbia)
3. Tennessee (10/27 at Knoxville)
4. Georgia (9/8 at Athens)
5. Arkansas (11/3 at Fayetteville)
6. Clemson (11/24 at Columbia)
7. Kentucky (10/4 at Columbia)
8. Vanderbilt (10/20 at Columbia)
9. North Carolina (10/13 at Chapel Hill)
10. Mississippi State (9/29 at Columbia)
11. Louisiana-Lafayette (9/1 at Columbia)
12. South Carolina State (9/15 at Columbia)
Rather than being concerned about the difficulty of the schedule, here's what matters most to me - how do the Gamecocks attack the schedule? With confidence or with timidity? Do they truly believe they can go to place like Athens, Baton Rouge, Knoxville and Fayetteville and win?
When it comes to the schedule, everything really boils down to this one point of emphasis: whether the coaches and players EXPECT to win every time out or whether they just HOPE to win?
Psychologically, that's a huge difference.
In my opinion, it's that winning mindset that has separated USC from the top teams in the SEC over the years. Schools like Florida (thank you Steve Spurrier), Georgia, and Tennessee expect to win every game, no matter who the opponent is. Even in the darkest days of probation, Alabama fans expected to win each time the Crimson Tide took the field.
Is it arrogance? Possibly. But that's the attitude you must possess to succeed in the hypercompetitive SEC. That goes for any sport, male or female.
If a team expects to win every game rather than just hoping to win, then no schedule, no matter how daunting it may appear on the surface, is really too difficult. In other words, a schedule is only as difficult as you make it out to be.
I've seen signs over the last two years that USC is slowly but surely crossing over into the "expecting to win" territory. The close wins at Tennessee and Arkansas and the stunning win over Florida in 2005 started the ball rolling. Last season, USC was 4-1 on the road, and won its last three games for the first time since 1973. Granted, the opposition was tougher at home but a conference win on the road is still something to be cherished.
I'm sure USC expected to win every game in the mid-to-late 1980's when it enjoyed a successful run under Joe Morrison. But the decision to join the SEC changed everything.
In my opinion, USC was ill-prepared to compete on a long-term basis in the SEC when it joined the league in 1992. The facilities were substandard compared to most other teams in the league. The program received a false sense of comfort when the Gamecocks upset Tennessee, 24-23, on Halloween in 1992. But the remainder of the 1990's was largely a nightmare filled with discouraging losses and lackluster performances.
By the time that decade closed, most of the enthusiasm around the program had drained away. There was the 21-game losing streak in which the Gamecocks became a laughingstock.
USC has turned the corner over the last seven years. Beginning with the 2000 season, the Gamecocks are 48-36, a .571 winning percentage, and have won three bowl games. Three of the school's nine eight-win seasons have come in this decade.
The crop of recruits over the last two years (2006 and 2007), besides being better football players, seem to have a swagger about them that I haven't seen in a while. They've bought into the authenticity of Spurrier's mission to win USC's first SEC title. They came to USC expecting to win
I wonder about some of the fans, though. When I see posts on the message boards predicting the outcome of individual games several months into the distance, I doubt those fans expect to win each game. Will the Gamecocks finish 14-0? Probably not. But to sit around in mid summer and predict USC will win this game or lose that game is silly. Each game stands on its own merit. Circumstances change from week to week.
In my opinion, if you're doing that, you're still a fan who just hopes to win.
- Permalink, Discuss, Blog Home
Previous Blog Entries
Scott Hood. Since February of 2005, Scott has covered the South Carolina football, men's basketball and baseball programs for GamecockCentral. He may be reached by email at scottblog(at)gamecockcentral.com. Replace (at) with @.