Phil Steele: "This program (South Carolina) is a sleeping giant"

[Big Papa Satan]

Page 38 of his preview, under his forecast.

Agree or disagree?

Discuss.

[Rooka]

Seems to me every year they are predicted to be a sleeper...They have potential but they have never lived up to what some people predicted them as.

[Amityvillehogger]

Puuuleeeassee. 

[IronHog]

Page 38 of his preview, under his forecast.

Agree or disagree?

Discuss.

Disagree:

1.  Clemson receives much more national attention.

2.  They hire coaches past their prime

3.  That "2000" entry is queer

[Iwastherein1969]

to be a "sleeping giant" means two things, that you are a giant and that you are asleep....its possible that S Carolina fits one of the two criteria as they may be asleep, but the Cocks have NEVER been a GIANT in college football....so I disagree, South Carolina is not a sleeping giant...how about a sleeping Shrek ?

[Marshfieldhog]

South Carolina could be good, but never great. Having to compete for recruits against the likes of Clemson, UNC, Georgia, really any SEC or ACC school will not allow the cocks to get past the 8-4, 9-3 mark.

[hogchic2001]

I disagree.  They will never be a giant because of their location.  It doesn't matter who their coach is (obviously).

[Hogeration]

USC just keeps hitting the snooze button.

[hogfan064]

USC will never be a power. Their fans accept being mediocre, the stadium is a dump off campus, the campus isn't nice, facilities are mid tier at best, and they'll always be Clemson's female dog.

A&M and UCLA are sleeping giants, not South Carolina

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Page 38 of his preview, under his forecast.

Agree or disagree?

Discuss.

I disagree, though they have had decent recruiting classes averaging a #20.75 class over the last four years. Some say Clemson kicks their butt in recruiting and over 3 of the last four years that would appear to be accurate as Clemson landed classes that ranked 15, 16 and 12, though someone screwed the pooch this past year when Clemson landed a #37 ranked class. Still, Clemson's four year average, skewed by the 2009 class being so low, is a #20 ranking.

One would think that Steve "Superior" could produce a better team than he has so far as SC. He has a good coaching staff, good facilties and decent recruiting classes, so what's the problem? Lou Holtz apparently thought they could never become the "giant" that Steele thinks that they could be and as much a I respect Steele's opinion, he hasn't coached at SC.

It is possible for most any team to become a member of the elite with the right staff, enough money backing them and excellent recruiting. But having said that, I don't see that happening to SC anytime soon.

[hogfan064]

I disagree, though they have had decent recruiting classes averaging a #20.75 class over the last four years. Some say Clemson kicks their butt in recruiting and over 3 of the last four years that would appear to be accurate as Clemson landed classes that ranked 15, 16 and 12, though someone screwed the pooch this past year when Clemson landed a #37 ranked class. Still, Clemson's four year average, skewed by the 2009 class being so low, is a #20 ranking.

Look at the size of Clemson's class this year, one of the smallest in the country.  They went with quality over quantity with a new head coach. 

USC will never pull ahead of Clemson.  Clemson football is taken seriously, USC football is a social affair for the locals of Columbia. 

[Steef]

I disagree, though they have had decent recruiting classes averaging a #20.75 class over the last four years. Some say Clemson kicks their butt in recruiting and over 3 of the last four years that would appear to be accurate as Clemson landed classes that ranked 15, 16 and 12, though someone screwed the pooch this past year when Clemson landed a #37 ranked class. Still, Clemson's four year average, skewed by the 2009 class being so low, is a #20 ranking.

One would think that Steve "Superior" could produce a better team than he has so far as SC. He has a good coaching staff, good facilties and decent recruiting classes, so what's the problem? Lou Holtz apparently thought they could never become the "giant" that Steele thinks that they could be and as much a I respect Steele's opinion, he hasn't coached at SC.

It is possible for most any team to become a member of the elite with the right staff, enough money backing them and excellent recruiting. But having said that, I don't see that happening to SC anytime soon.

#20.75 is nothing to sneeze at. I'm guessing it's also the best four year average in SC's history. This past year was no exception...they had crazy good defensive recruits.

But no QB. Which is odd. Spurrier is a QB coach...or was. Yet, he's had real QB issues since he got there. Still does. They have one and only one 'go to' and seem content to ride him out.

Still, they've been loading their wagon for several years now. It could come together this year. I personally think the real wildcard in this equation is Spurrier. Does he have any fire...left?

Which may ultimately be SC's overall problem. They hired Holtz after his fire had fizzled, too.

And the SEC is currently dotted with coaches whose fire is blazing. Petrino, Meyer, Saban, Richt, Miles (shudder...I don't like him...but he's got fire)...maybe even Kiffin.

Spurrier needs to decide if he still wants the prize...or retirement. Golfers need not apply.

[NWASooner]

There are reasons South Carolina is an average program.  Until those reasons go away, they'll keep being average.

I agree with the previous poster about UCLA, though.

[hogfan064]

#20.75 is nothing to sneeze at. I'm guessing it's also the best four year average in SC's history. This past year was no exception...they had crazy good defensive recruits.

20.75 is good nationally, but in the SEC this would rank somewhere from 6-8 in the league.  That is typically where USC falls in the SEC 6-8. 

They haven't had a losing season since 2003.  This is much better than where they were 10 years ago.  Remember this program went 1-10 in 98 and 0-11 in 1999.  At one point they lost 21 straight games.  How is that even possible for the largest university in a SEC State?

Here's a depressing stat.

98-99
Arkansas 17-7
South Carolina 1-21

00-08
Arkansas 64-47
South Carolina 61-47

[12247]

I think this will be the year that USC puts up or Spurrier leaves.  Can't see him with an average team or less.  He has players, don't know about his assistants.  They are not a sleeping Gaint by definition but they could be the sleeper of the SEC this season.  They should be far better than us on paper.  If Spurrier does put it together, look out.

[Cure]

Recruiting grounds in SC have produced some great recruits and their facilities have been improved and are continually improving under Spurrier, I'd agree with Steele.

[hogfan064]

I think this will be the year that USC puts up or Spurrier leaves.  Can't see him with an average team or less.  He has players, don't know about his assistants. 

He has a good group of defensive assistants that include 2 guys he stole from Arkansas, Ellis Johnson and Lorenzo Ward.

[3kgthog]

Phil might be good at predicting games, but he's an idiot when it comes to things like this.

[pitbull1]

The only thing I hope for USC-E is that they beat Ole Piss!!  Other than that I could care less about them.

[HamShank]

Phil might be good at predicting games, but he's an idiot when it comes to things like this.

But isn't that what he's doing here?  How do you measure a "sleeping giant" if not in predicting upcoming games won?

[rebelbruiser]

I'd say UNC is more of a sleeping giant than USC for a few reasons.  UNC is in an easier conference, and they have the ability to become THE football program for the state of North Carolina.

That said, SC does have a few things in its favor that suggest it should have more success than it does.  For one thing, the state of South Carolina produces a lot more talent than you would think.  It's not as good as Georgia or Florida in talent production, and yes they have to split it with Clemson, but it produces as much talent as Alabama and Mississippi, and even if you divide the state's talent in half, it's still more talent than the states of Arkansas and Kentucky as a whole.

Example, here is a link to the numbers of players drafted by the NFL by high school state since 1988:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/draft-history-graphic.htm

And here are the highlights:
California - 745
Texas - 624
Florida - 583
Georgia - 306
Louisiana - 251 (this is why LSU is such a prime job, all that talent and no competition for it)
Alabama - 178
South Carolina - 150
Mississippi - 137
Tennessee - 99
Arkansas - 58
Kentucky - 56

Plus, SC does have unbelievable fan support for a school with so little tradition and not a whole lot of winning.  I think the SC program has more potential than it has shown, but I think it will always fall below UT, UGA, and Florida in the East in terms of potential.

[kimjongsqUeAl]

Page 38 of his preview, under his forecast.

Agree or disagree?

Discuss.

Disagree - because they are in the toughest division in all of football.  They shoulda woke up looooong ago.  I can see them being a consistant 8-9 wins/season team soon but that's about it.  They have potential but in a bad place to be.

Plus steef is right, USC(E) has NEVER had a consistent QB and that could be The Visor's fault because he yanks them out of the game more often than he slams his clipboard on the ground whenever 1 of them makes a mistake.

[hogfan064]

Disagree - because they are in the toughest division in all of football.  They shoulda woke up looooong ago.  I can see them being a consistant 8-9 wins/season team soon but that's about it.  They have potential but in a bad place to be.

Plus steef is right, USC(E) has NEVER had a consistent QB and that could be The Visor's fault because he yanks them out of the game more often than he slams his clipboard on the ground whenever 1 of them makes a mistake.

One thing is certain, Spurrier won't be yanking Garcia much this year.  He doesn't have anyone behind Garcia that is a SEC caliber QB. 

I don't think USC will ever be a consistant 8-9 win program.  In their history only 2 teams at USC has finished with 9 wins or more(84 10-2 and 01 9-3).  When Spurrier leaves they'll be a bottom feeded in the SEC again as I doubt any decent coach will want to go where Spurrier and Holtz failed. 

[NWASooner]

I'd say UNC is more of a sleeping giant than USC for a few reasons.

Bingo.  North Carolian produces a lot more talent than South Carolina, it just goes elsewhere.  If UNC can ever keep all the talent in state and cherry pick elsewhere, they'd be VERY good.

There's not enough talent in South Carolina considering there are two D-1 schools there AND there are 4-6 other big time programs within a 3 hour drive.

[The Hogfather]

Bingo.  North Carolian produces a lot more talent than South Carolina, it just goes elsewhere.  If UNC can ever keep all the talent in state and cherry pick elsewhere, they'd be VERY good.

There's not enough talent in South Carolina considering there are two D-1 schools there AND there are 4-6 other big time programs within a 3 hour drive.

Example, here is a link to the numbers of players drafted by the NFL by high school state since 1988:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/draft-history-graphic.htm

And here are the highlights:
California - 745
Texas - 624
Florida - 583
Georgia - 306
Louisiana - 251 (this is why LSU is such a prime job, all that talent and no competition for it)
Alabama - 178
South Carolina - 150
Mississippi - 137
Tennessee - 99
Arkansas - 58
Kentucky - 56

North Carolina has 178 since 1988, an average of 1 more per year.  I wouldn't say North Carolina produces "a lot more talent" than South Carolina, especially when you consider their respective populations.  North Carolina has 9,222,414 people and South Carolina has under half of that at 4,479,800 people.

[Speedracer]

I agree, there defense is getting to be one of the better in the SEC.  If Spurrier just gets a qb in there, they could be really good.  Wow, just read that back to myself and never thought I'd be saying that about a Spurrier team.  I think that they could beat some pretty good teams this year.

[ErieHog]

Considering the populations involved, Steele is right on;   the Carolinas, particularly South Carolina, produce a prodigious amount of talent domestically, even moreso when per capita rates are considered;  a Columbia winter is a lot easier sell to a recruit from Florida or South Georgia as well, than a winter in Durham;  recruits from the Atlanta metro are able to get away with home, without being too far away so as to develop homesickness.   

South Carolina has a higher ceiling that 95% of people are giving them credit for--- and arguably a higher *natural* ceiling than Arkansas.

[rebelbruiser]

North Carolina has 178 since 1988, an average of 1 more per year.  I wouldn't say North Carolina produces "a lot more talent" than South Carolina.

You're right.  North Carolina doesn't produce a lot more talent than South Carolina by any means, but UNC has two things going for it that USC does not.

1) Despite the fact that they have 3 other BCS programs in the state (NC State, Duke, and Wake), no school has grasped the reins of being THE football school in the state.  Clemson has a leg up on USC historically in South Carolina in that category.

2) UNC plays in the ACC.  The ACC is a much weaker league than the SEC, and there are only 3 programs in the league with the history or resources to be top level programs consistently in that league (Va. Tech, FSU, and Miami).  There is plenty of room for another program to step up and be a national player.

Also, they have the budget and alumni base to be a major program.  The only thing they have going against them is the fact that they are a basketball first school.

[The Hogfather]

You're right.  North Carolina doesn't produce a lot more talent than South Carolina by any means, but UNC has two things going for it that USC does not.

1) Despite the fact that they have 3 other BCS programs in the state (NC State, Duke, and Wake), no school has grasped the reins of being THE football school in the state.  Clemson has a leg up on USC historically in South Carolina in that category.

2) UNC plays in the ACC.  The ACC is a much weaker league than the SEC, and there are only 3 programs in the league with the history or resources to be top level programs consistently in that league (Va. Tech, FSU, and Miami).  There is plenty of room for another program to step up and be a national player.

Also, they have the budget and alumni base to be a major program.  The only thing they have going against them is the fact that they are a basketball first school.

I agree with you.  I was just disputing what NWASooner was asserting.  He was wrong.

[cbjagman]

The problem is that the Gamecock program has always seemed to have good potential but without much to show for it. Even Spurrier has had difficulty in reviving an offense that has never seemed to fully develop. The defense, however, has a GREAT coordinator in Ellis Johnson and has continued to be the strength of the team.

[Fisticuffs]

Florida was similar to SC prior to Spurrier's arrival in terms of success yet they were considered a sleeping giant. I'll say yes they are and if they were in any other conference other than the SEC they would probably be one of the better teams in that group.

[ThisTeetsTaken]

I disagree.  They will never be a giant because of their location.  It doesn't matter who their coach is (obviously).

Sounds familiar.

[NWASooner]

I went back and looked it up and darned if I'm wrong about North Carolina and South Carolina.  I had always assumed NC turned out a lot more blue chippers (4 and 5 stars) than South Carolina.  After trolling through the past 5 years worth of recruiting rankings, the total numbers are about even but that's a lot more per capita for South Carolina. 

They still have the same issues of out of state poaching going on, though.  The only difference is Chapel Hill is a MUCH better town and a much better school than South Carolina.  If those were my only two choices, I wouldn't even consider South Carolina.

[BigoBoys]

While he is pretty good with his predictions, let us not forget he is in the business to sell magazines. 

[hogfan064]

Bingo.  North Carolian produces a lot more talent than South Carolina, it just goes elsewhere.  If UNC can ever keep all the talent in state and cherry pick elsewhere, they'd be VERY good.

Not sure why, but South Carolina dominates North Carolina in the Shrine Bowl.  This is a game played between the 2 states each year matching both of the states' best HS talent against each other. 

Check out the score in 2000 South Carolina 66 North Carolina 14
http://www.shrine-bowl.com/Histories/shrine_bowl_scores.htm

[hogfan064]

I went back and looked it up and darned if I'm wrong about North Carolina and South Carolina.  I had always assumed NC turned out a lot more blue chippers (4 and 5 stars) than South Carolina.  After trolling through the past 5 years worth of recruiting rankings, the total numbers are about even but that's a lot more per capita for South Carolina. 

They still have the same issues of out of state poaching going on, though.  The only difference is Chapel Hill is a MUCH better town and a much better school than South Carolina.  If those were my only two choices, I wouldn't even consider South Carolina.

Would you want to play infront of 85,000 or 55,000?  I agree UNC has a better campus and Chapel Hill is a nicer city than Columbia, but if you want to play in bigtime CFB atmospheres you don't go to UNC.  Ever been to a game in Chapel Hill?  You can't even tailgate next to the stadium.  When you approach the stadium you feel like you are in a park, I'm not kidding.

[NWASooner]

With UNC, I get a cool town, pretty scenery, top flight education and a fairly decent team.  (Some years.)  With South Carolina, I get a tailgate party.  That's a no brainer if those are my only two options.

However, if I'm blue chip enough and from that region, I'd go to Athens and get the best of both.