Talk:Carolina-Clemson rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	College football Portal Carolina-Clemson rivalry is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) This page is basically full on inaccuracies and has an extreme University of South Carolina slant. Can someone edit this page from a third party perspective? Gamecock fans just can not edit without showing bias because of years of athletic and academic inferiority. USC has one NCAA National Championship, yet it is consistently being changed to 6 claiming a tournament that does not crown a national champion (The NIT) and Equestrian championships that aren't even recognized by the NCAA as a sport. It would be like Clemson claiming ROTC Championships and Concrete Canoe Championships. The page doesn't even focus on the true facts of the rivalry.

Contents 1 Neutrality 2 Notable Games 3 Footnote about state population 4 Rivalry Among South Carolinians 5 Proposed move 6 Battle of the Palmetto State 7 Palmetto State Rivalry 8 "Wide Left" and "The Kick" 9 Oh yeah, but what about this... 10 Blood drive 11 Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png

[edit] Neutrality

The reason I tagged this, is because I read the article that most of this information comes from, and it's pretty biased toward Carolina, in my opinion. Much of the "interestingly enough" stuff is more of opinion than anything, and is mostly copied from the author of the article, which is more opinionated than news-based. Zchris87v 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A rivalry article needs real-life stories ("interestingly enough" stuff) to explain the passion of the participants, and although some of the stories may be a little embarrassing for a Clemson fan, they are facts, not opinions. On the other hand, there are plenty of facts in this article that make Clemson look good too, so I really don't know what you are complaining about. If you dispute something, then be specific on this discussion page. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a tag could be placed on the article. 65.4.96.64 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the "interestingly enough" stuff entails a story, such as the fact that fake tickets were handed out, and ends with "Carolina won the game" or "Clemson won the game" - unless it has something to do with the play of the game, how important is that? I mean if it was under a new coach, sure. But stuff like ticket sales? The outcome shouldn't exactly matter in that case. Zchris87v 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Clemson leads the football series 63-37-4. However, the series would be tied if only 13 games of the 104 had gone the other way. Considering the Tigers have tied or won by less than a touchdown in almost twenty games, this series is much closer than the record, which explains the fans' passion for this game."

Good call on this removal, it's basic math. 63 minus 13 is 50. 37 plus 13 is 50. Woohoo. Also, the removal of "game would've gone into overtime" - if you're familiar with football at all, you know a field goal is 3 points, if you have the final score and add 3, you would get equal numbers. Dee dee dee Zchris87v 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina forfeited their 17-16 victory in 1965 for the use of an ineligible player, so the record is technically 64-36-4. Even counting that game as a victory, 19 of USC's 37 wins against Clemson (as opposed to 16 of Clemson's "63" against USC) were by a touchdown or less. To drag up this anecdotal tidbit but ignore its flipside bespeaks of bias. KingmanIII 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The alleged forfeit is not recognized by anybody and is one of many reasons the Gamecocks left the ACC. (See the official NCAA records and the media guides for both programs.) To use such info to discuss bias certainly shows a lack of neutrality on your part. 70.144.2.98 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I really was biased, I could've just vandalized the page by providing a link to "This Is South Carolina Football." And any perceived biases I may have is a moot point since I didn't even edit the article.The forfeit wasn't the gist of my objection, anyway, which was already addressed in the most recent edit, so this is a moot point.KingmanIII 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You initially argue 16 vs 19 close wins while bringing up a bogus forfeit to show the "flipside," then you act like you made your point by not vandalizing or making any edits. Kind of odd reasoning, but thanks for not being a dick. 68.154.130.31 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I repeat, the alleged forfeit, justified or not, was not the gist of my objection. I didn't bring it up as part of my argument, just as a side note. The article has been edited anyway, so it's a moot point. 75.87.110.147 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to start a major argument here, but I'd like to see a full justification of the supposed non-NPOV material removed from user 76.26.192.86's recent edits. At quick glance everything stated appeared to be factual and with little bias, but with this section of the article having more mention of notable USC wins, these contributions seemed to add some balance. The fact that USC beat Clemson in the 2002 CWS is frequently removed and re-added, but the information that this was in the prior format of the tournament is relevant (to both Clemson and USC's chances for the title). Anywho, I've always thought that the notable events section needed some serious cleanup and maybe its time for a complete re-write. What does everyone else think?Arwalke 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Recent addition stating point spreads in football is not cited and is worded with a bias towards Clemson. Please do not revert back unless you are willing to find citation and rewrite in a unbiased manner. 70.144.12.91 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see an innate bias towards Clemson, but I take your point on citing. I've added a comparison table in the history section (from the article about the Georgia Tech-UGA rivalry, Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate). While the article is titled the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, I'm of the opinion that it should simply be more neutrally titled, "The Battle of the Palmetto State" as commentators have recently taken to calling it. The title of the game alternates every year depending upon the host (host is always listed second) anyways. The table is in alphabetical order, as the GT-UGA article is. The Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate article is what this one should aspire to be, well cited, clear, and relatively free of clear bias. Arwalke 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll create a rediirect page for "The Battle of the Palmetto State", if it hasn't already been done. I don't think there's any bias in it, as I created the article. Had I called it "Clemson-Carolina" rivalry (which is in actuality a much less common way of saying it), people would've cried "bias" on my behalf. Nevertheless, that wasn't the reason I created it like that, it was simply the most commonly referred to name. Zchris87v 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I live in SC and hear the rivalry called "Carolina-Clemson" a lot more than "The Battle of the Palmetto State." "Clemson-Carolina" is rarely, if ever, spoken... I like your comparison chart and agree with your goal of an article "relatively free of clear bias." The bias I mentioned previously was more about the wording than the alleged facts about point spreads. If such facts can be verified, then they could/should be added. However, wording such alleged facts to make it look like Carolina hasn't had any success on the football field is what I believe to be bias in favor of Clemson. 70.144.12.91 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are y'all talking about? Didn't y'all mean "Clemson-Carolina" is easily the most common saying and "Carolina-Clemson" is rarely, if ever, spoken or heard? And that you never, ever, ever, ever hear "The Battle of the Palmetto State"? I was born and raised in South Carolina, and I know that this rivalry is only known as the Clemson-Carolina game, and not ever as the Carolina-Clemson game. And definitely not the "Battle of the Palmetto State." I've only seen that one in the Madden game and I can't figure out why it's there. I always grew up with it like this, even among the Carolina fans. And, on a similar note, I also grew up with the Georgia-Georgia Tech game, and certainly not the Georgia Tech-Georgia game. And I like Georgia Tech a heck of a lot more than Georgia. The current title of this page makes it sound wrong and look like it needs to be switched around. 130.127.44.28 07:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point on the naming of the rivalry and will leave it as is for now, there are more important things to fix with this article. This article is plagued by hidden attempts at biasing it one way or the other (history previously written from an anti-Clemson standpoint, football statistics manipulated one way or the other). Ideally, I think a table for the football section should just be added to settle the issue for good and only a few noteworthy facts be mentioned (examples: win/loss records for each team at home and away in the series, coaching comparisons (should be added for the three major rivalry sports), total number of games under 7 points difference). The football section is just a collection of "memorable" moments in the series...not quite encyclopedic material. A table would allow people to draw their own conclusions and just be the facts. Arwalke 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added that the University of South Carolina's original construction was funded by the sweat and blood of enslaved African-Americans, or that it was founded by a South Carolina government that mostly consisted of slaveholders. After all, we're mentioning the fact that Benjamin Tillman was racist. Zchris87v 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the USC Football topic box at the bottom of the page? Shouldn't there be one for each team if there's one for either? For the record, I've always heard Clemson-Carolina not Carolina-Clemson, even from Carolina fans and students, but it probably has more to do with where you grew up. I grew up and live in the upstate. Disclaimer: I graduated from Clemson. --68.115.224.12 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with USC having 6 National Championships? Both Clemson and USC are members of the NCAA and the NCAA doesn't recognize the NIT champion as the National Champion. You have to be in the NCAA Tournament to be crowned National Champion. In addition, The NCAA does not award a National Championship in Equestrian (You can look it up at - http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html). It would be like Clemson claiming National Championships in Concrete Canoe (We have 3!). Don't try to claim things that don't exist. It makes you look needy. And BTW, I don't really care but NO ONE says Carolina-Clemson. Its always Clemson-Carolina. Whatever it takes to feel important though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.48.40 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Games

On the same thread, was the 2006 game really notable enough to be mentioned? Aside from the fact that it was the first win in five years, I don't see what the big deal is. Moberho 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the '81 championship enough to claim elite status for all-time? Obviously not. The only reason anything in this rivalry is notable is because neither school has much else to talk about (as far as athletics). 68.154.130.31 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section has been edited to add "the first time either team had made it to a national championship", making it more noteable. Also, the fact that the 2006 game was mentioned could be in part due to the fact that '05, '04, and '03 were all mentioned. If someone could create a table with all the scores and years on it, we wouldn't have to have anything other than an asterisk besides noteable games with a footnote under the table. Zchris87v 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding "the first time" comment is totally unnecessary and completely untrue. Besides, the fact that Clemson won a championship that year is notable enough. As for the '06 football game, it's notable for Gamecock fans for many reasons, including their first win at Clemson in 10 years. See the following link for an incomplete but easily accessible table: [1] 70.144.13.83 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, "the first time either won" perhaps. Zchris87v 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the years of the 'notable games' in the Football section to the left of the heading. Makes a little more sense, and makes the table of contents more readable.--CobraGeek (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote about state population

Does it actually pertain to the article? Zchris87v 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence about how it's unusual to have two major universities competing for recruits in such a "small" state--SC is in the top half in population (at #24 of 50) in the US and there are several smaller states that have the same "problem." --Littledrummrboy 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalry Among South Carolinians

Since the article already established that the rivalry stems from socio-economic conflict within the state, not just athletics, I think it would be a good idea to have a section discussing how the rivalry manifests itself among the population of South Carolina. I just don't know where to find sources. Agree, disagree? ColonelDEH

Disagree. I find absolutely no evidence in everyday life that this is any means of socio-economic conflict. I live in both Columbia and Clemson and spend time nearly everywhere in-between and so many places around the state. There is very little to support this claim. I see as many beat-up old cars driving around with Gamecock stickers on them as I do new Escalades with the same stickers on them. The exact same goes for Clemson - of the people I work with, none went to college but a couple are USC fans, a couple are Clemson fans. The colleges are too big and too close to merit this. Now, if there was some school as prestigious as MIT in South Carolina...that'd be a different story. But if anything is evident through this article, it's that these schools are similar, which makes the rivalry so strong. If there was a South Carolina-Furman rivalry, well it wouldn' t even be notable, unless there was some odd circumstance. Zchris87v 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

additionally...how the rivalry "manifests itself" seems to be a quite random pattern - literally. My friend's supervisor is a Clemson fan because he had a friend who had a Clemson mug, or something to that effect. Not even a real reason, just a luck-of-the-draw type scenario. Obviously, the closer you are to the school, the more fans there'll be. But I'd say the ratio of Carolina fans to the population of Pickens county (where Clemson is) is around the same as the ratio of Clemson fans to the population of Richland county (where Carolina is). And about the rambling sentence above...IFurman is a more expensive school than Carolina (and I believe private), hence there may be some sort of conflict with economic class there. But since Carolina and Clemson are just the two largest schools in the state, it's natural for people to either choose one to pull for, or already be pulling for one for whatever reasons there may be. Hope that ties my thought together more. Zchris87v 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that ColonelDEH was referring to the original conflict within the state in the establishment of Clemson as an agricultural institution. This conflict is no longer the primary reason behind the rivalry. Like Zchris87v has said, the rivalry stems from the close proximity of the schools and their many similarities and the almost natural inclination of South Carolinians to choose sides. It is worth mentioning that South Carolina lacks a major professional sports franchise and this likely contributes to the interest in collegiate sports in the state. Arwalke 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Clemson was founded as a school for farmers and is still better known for its agricultural school than any other program, while USC was originally a school for the elite and is still famous for its business school. This blue collar versus white collar distinction played itself out in the state's General Assembly in the early days, but it is now played out on bumper stickers and t-shirts (eg, a picture of hick and his son with the heading "Clem's son"). Of course each school has some sophisticated fans and some not so sophisticated. However, it is interesting how the hick-factor continues to be one thing that USC fans point to about Clemson and how USC's football program seems to be the Achilles’ heel that Clemson fans like to harp on. The section suggested by ColonelDEH could be a collection of the different jokes, sayings, bumper stickers, and t-shirts related to the rivalry. 74.249.3.253 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand this, but a collection of bumper stickers and shirts doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Perhaps an image of one of each side or something (which must be used with given permission) as an example of the bitterness of the rivalry. After the above statement, I can perhaps understand about the whole socioeconomic difference may be the root of the rivalry, but like I mentioned before, it doesn't seem to prevail today. For example, I saw a new Bentley going down the road a few months ago with a Clemson plate on it. Not saying that this makes USC a "non-white collar" school, but a Bentley is far from a blue-collar vehicle. And I've seen just as many beat-up cars in Columbia with USC stickers on them as I have expensive cars with Clemson stickers on them in Clemson. Perhaps a mention of this difference would be in order, but a needed mention would also be how it doesn't seem to be pertinent today, as engineering has become one of the most popular majors (at both schools) and it seems to "even out" the scales between USC's business school and Clemson's agriculture school, making neither quite as prevalent today. Zchris87v 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot - this section is titled "Rivalry Among Average South Carolinians"; that would be assuming that the definition of "Average South Carolinians" would encompass either going to Clemson, Carolina, or attending neither and being a fan of one (obviously). With this in mind, it seems that most people who don't attend college or go elsewhere just pick a team, as I've noticed. Around Columbia, people will obviously support USC. Otherwise, they may just watch a football game and decide they like one team over the other. But it doesn't seem that in real life, not just on written text or statistics, that there is no real trend that tends to separate Clemson and Carolina fans based on economic status. I go to Clemson, my sister is likely going to Carolina. You can't say there's much of an economic separation between two people in the same household, can you? Zchris87v 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article, as of August 1, 2007, does a good job of explaining how the rivalry got started, but it needs to expand on how the rivalry evolved and continues. The last paragraph of the Origin section alludes to "turf battles" but doesn't elaborate. Obviously the rivalry is no longer socio-economic and more about which university is better suited to serve as the flagship university of the state. Although USC is already the flagship, it's strange how it struggles with some sort of inferiority complex. For example, USC bumper stickers indicate that it is "The" University of South Carolina. This kind of advertising is a direct shot at Clemson and could mean that USC is proud of how its programs educate a broader range of South Carolinians and/or that USC feels that Clemson is encroaching on this mission. However, why does USC feel like it has to produce such advertising? It has many distinguished programs and many accomplishments that Clemson cannot even touch, but you don't see Clemson producing such bumper stickers. Perhaps the long history of the General Assembly's support for Clemson has put USC in a permanent defensive mode. Whatever it is, it goes beyond athletics, and exploring it would be an interesting way of expanding this article. 70.144.6.86 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"THE USC" was a marketing campaign from about 15-20 years ago, I think. It started when USC played the University of Southern California at Williams-Brice. Since both teams use "USC" the scoreboard read "USC" for So. Cal. and "THE USC" for Carolina. (The Cocks won the game, by the way.) Even if it were a shot at Clemson, it would be true. USC came first and is, in fact, the flagship school of the state. But this seems to be a recurring theme on the discussion page of any Clemson related article. Taters clamor that a page is biased untill a few objective editors (which I obviously am not, as I am a Carolina alumnus) tell them to shut their mouths. Perhaps the articles seem biased because the actuall history of Clemson, what with it's founding by rascist extraordinaire Tillman and its fanbase growing from there, shows Clemson to be what it is. 208.104.77.17 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"The" University of South Carolina is different from "The" USC and more recent. Having lived in SC for a long time, it strikes me that the Carolina community wishes to pigeonhole Clemson as a farm school because, as 70.144.6.86 indicated above, Clemson has encroached on Carolina's turf. Clemson has grown to compete with and surpass Carolina as a liberal arts school. However, this in-state competition is not healthy. Resources are spread thin and wasted on duplicative facilities and programs. Similar programs are watered down instead of being top-notch (exceptions being Carolina's business school and Clemson's agricultural school). The result of this overlapping of missions is lots of antagonism between the two universities and among the state's citizens. It's counterproductive and continues to generate unreasonable behavior and sometimes deadly consequences (eg, Carolina fan shoots Clemson fan for not paying bet). The rivalry is just one of many examples of why the state needs to be restructured. 65.4.79.181 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Clemson has passed South Carolina as the best institute of higher education in the state. The old adage of Clemson being an all Ag school is just that. Clemson has more Palmetto Fellow and Life Scholarship winners (eg: best students in the state) than any other school including South Carolina with an enrollment of over 10,000 more students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.48.40 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

To settle which comes first, I propose a page move to "The Battle of the Palmetto State", as this seems like a better suited name. The Georgia Tech-UGA rivalry article is named "Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate" after the name given to the rivalry, so I feel moving the page to the name of this rivalry would be appropriate. Yes? No? Zchris87v 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The game has rarely, if ever, been referred to as the Battle of the Palmetto State. Instead, the Battle of the Palmetto State should probably redirect to Battle of Rivers' Bridge since it was fought for control of the state. There is no nickname to the rivalry, so just leave as is. -- Gamecock (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought for some time that this article should be moved. A number of other rivalry games, Georgia-Florida, Georgia-GT, etc. use "neutral" names on Wikipedia. As long as there's a redirect from Clemson-Carolina (how I've always known the game) and Carolina-Clemson, I think it would amicably settle this issue.-- Arwalke (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone. I live in SC, and nobody refers to this rivalry as the Battle of the Palmetto State. That's even more ridiculous than Clemson-Carolina, which has its own problems because it sounds more like an address than a rivalry... It has always been referred to as the Carolina-Clemson game, whether it's football, basketball, baseball, or whatever. That's just the way it is! People should relax about who is listed first. Carolina is listed first only because it's the older school. Whoever is suggesting other names needs to get a life. 68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that the person suggesting this move is a Clemson person. That figures! Any change to this article's name will be met with much resistance considering the bias source. 68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making biased statements. The same "Clemson person" who is proposing this move is THE ONE WHO CREATED THE ARTICLE. I did so out of a need to describe the rivalry and its surrounding information, and it seems a dispute has arisen because of the name. I have only referred to this as the "Carolina-Clemson Rivalry", but I did not take into account that I grew up in Columbia. This may partially be the reason why I never heard of it being referred to otherwise. However, here it is referred to as the "Clemson-Carolina Rivalry" sometimes. I suggested the page move to meet neutral grounds, and though not a real strong basis, it has a "nickname" given to those who may live outside of South Carolina - people that may refer to "Carolina" as UNC or something. In that case, they may know it as "The Battle of the Palmetto State". Zchris87v 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as "get a life". These will result in a warning, and repeated attacks will result in being blocked from Wikipedia. Carolina is not listed first because it is the older school, it is listed first because that was the way I remembered it being said in Columbia. Of course they wouldn't call it the "Clemson-Carolina" game in Columbia, it's the heart of Gamecock country! You also must've not seen the edit by the user "Gamecock". Clearly he is a South Carolina fan, so surely his opinion must not count and his edits met with equal resistance? You must consider your own personal bias. I assume you live in or around Columbia, hence why you have not heard of "Clemson-Carolina". I hadn't either, until I came here. Many places in the Upstate do the same. If you were to search for "Clemson Carolina game" and "Carolina Clemson game" on google, "Clemson Carolina game" actually turns up more hits. In fact, one article from dailygamecock.com quotes South Carolina baseball coach Ray Tanner as saying "Clemson-Carolina rivalry". It appears then that the name of this article is not as widely used as I had previously thought. Please consider this before turning down the idea of a page move - it was suggested to reach a more neutral grounds. Zchris87v 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Although a Clemson student myself, I have to agree with Chris that "The Battle of the Palmetto State," while less common of a title for the game within South Carolina, is likely the most neutral title and would likely be what a neutral Wikipedia administrator would agree with. I've grown up only hearing "Clemson-Carolina" and see both names used consistently in print and online media as well as when talking with both USC and Clemson fans. "The Battle of the Palmetto State" is a newer name for the rivalry, but I have seen it referenced frequently in national media (likely to reduce confusion). The original name may also be a little misleading, as Clemson did at one time consider UNC-Chapel Hill (more commonly known as "Carolina" outside of South Carolina") to be a football rival (albeit, a lesser one). It is important to remember that this is an international encyclopedia and we must keep that in mind.

Engaging in personal attacks is not what we need here, we are editing an encyclopedia and we must all keep in mind our respective biases (which can be done despite our particular allegiance to our respective schools) and the tone should remain civil. I've always felt this article leaned towards a USC bias simply because there are a greater number of USC wikipedia editors out there (just look at the higher quality of the USC wikipedia entry over the Clemson one). However, I think this is one small issue where it is fairly clear what should be done to maintain a neutral point of view and I believe that it removes bias from the article. Arwalke (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how overly sensitive the Clemson people are in this discussion. Respectfully, I don't believe I ever personally attacked anyone. I simply pointed out the clear bias of the Clemson people's suggestion to move this article and made a general remark about how someone (not anyone in particular) needed to "get a life." However, for the Clemson people to get all worked up and allege personal attacks seems to validate my original "get a life" comment. 68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one is getting "worked up" over anything. And again, you have indirectly told someone (specifically myself and Arwalke both to "get a life"), something that is not just encyclopedic but does not make yourself look all that credible. Someone who can't make a valid point without making suggestions as to what one should do with their life isn't the kind of person to be editing an article. Going to the Clemson Tigers article and adding that Tommy Bowden chose to stay at Clemson is fine. Adding something like "He should have gone to Arkansas" is not. In the same sense, discussing your opinion of a suggested move is fine, but suggesting that I "get a life" is not. And again, how exactly is this biased? I created the article with a CLEAR bias toward Carolina because I had grown up there and hadn't yet heard of it referred to as anything EXCEPT what my parents, both of whom are Carolina alumni, refer to it as the Carolina-Clemson game. Saying it now, it's hard to hear it any other way than "Clemson-Carolina". I've made a(nother) neutral suggestion at the bottom of this page ("Palmetto State Rivalry"). It could be said that because "Carolina" comes first that this article is "clearly biased" that way. And as for how big the rivalry is? The Auburn LSU Rivalry article doesn't even have any talk page edits (not done by bots). You'd think someone would suggest a bias. I say we just link to this article to show how deep the rivlary stems - we even argue about the name. Zchris87v 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Noone inside or outside of South Carolina calls this rivalry by the proposed name. People searching for "Carolina" or "Clemson" or both are able to find this article, but changing the name to "the battle of the palmetto state" would not be as easily found in a typical search. In addition, "the battle" implies only one game, such as the annual football game, but the rivalry goes beyond football or even sports. See the origin section of this article. It's quite clear that the rivalry is about a lot more than one annual "battle" and making the proposed move would only serve to water down the historical significance of the overall rivalry. Whitesquire (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did "The Battle of the Palmetto State" originate? I have never heard the rivalry called by that terminology. The South Carolina state library offers two books that detail the rivalry:

• Griffin, John Chandler (1998). Carolina vs Clemson, Clemson vs Carolina: A Century of Unparalleled Rivalry in College Football. Summerhouse Press. 
• Barton, Donald F. (1967). The Carolina-Clemson game, 1896-1966. State Print Co. 

I would think that an article title of "Carolina vs. Clemson, Clemson vs. Carolina" would be more appropriate than "The Battle of the Palmetto State". Gamecock (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zchris87v, just because you started this article doesn't mean that you gave the rivalry its name. It's been called the Carolina-Clemson rivalry longer than you've probably been alive. It's silly to suggest moving the article under a name that noboby's ever heard of and would never find under typical searches. I agree with Gamecock, Whitesquire, and the anons who all expressed many good reasons for questioning the proposed move. The article is fine as is and does not need to be moved. 74.249.12.248 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey [please register and stop using an anonymous IP], I started this article because I had only heard it with this name. As stated, this so happens to work well with you since you favor the one that comes first. I have recently heard "Clemson-Carolina" more, and this is of notice. "nobody's ever heard of" suggests something against WP:COMMON, since it may be common sense for you to think it is fine like it is. I would like you to find me some sources to verify yhat no one has heard of The Battle of the Palmetto State. As for the point made by Whitesquire, I agree & hadn't thought of that. It would make it singular and thus suggest only one game is played. Additionally, I think the blood drive may be worth mention, as it's become something somewhat traditional as well. 130.127.78.139 (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in above Zchris87v 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And in accordance with the editor with IP 68.154.142.52, your edits should not matter because you attend or attended the University of South Carolina, therefore automatically making you biased. Hey, if I can't state my opinion because it doesn't agree with someone else's, no one should be allowed to. And as for you saying the article is fine like it is, please include that you feel it is fine like it is. If there are people suggesting a page move or rename, then obviously all isn't "fine". Zchris87v 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no one has mentioned this, but for what it's worth, ESPN2 used the phrase "Palmetto State Battle" verbally and in their graphics during the game this past saturday. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Move. Most all rivalries have names associated with them. TV networks like to have a name to call the game, it adds flavor. If we don't being calling it something specific, then the networks will. Battle for the Palmetto State is fine. It's also better than calling it the Battle for the Hardee's Trophy - Jober14 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Palmetto State

This was removed, as it was stated that it "was not and has never been referred to" as that name. However, I found three sources in about 10 seconds that mention this: [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. The removed line was "(sometimes dubbed The Battle of the Palmetto State)"; clearly, it has been referred to as this. I propose this be added back to the football section of the article. Zchris87v 09:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palmetto State Rivalry

It's a rivalry, and it's between two South Carolina (the Palmetto State) schools. Maybe this is better than "The Battle of the Palmetto State" because it refers to the rivalry instead of a singular game? However, I still stand by my views that the sentence mentioned above should be re-added, as the annual football game has been dubbed "The Battle of the Palmetto State" before. Zchris87v 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, when this page is no longer protected, someone please add "Category:College football rivalries"" to the bottom of it. Thanks. Zchris87v 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wide Left" and "The Kick"

I feel that recent history is just that - too recent - to add in names for such games. Being that the others were in a sense "mile markers" in the history of the rivalry (most points scored, highest combined ranking, etc.), I feel that the last two years really weren't any special milestones in the rivalry. What I propose is a "recent history" section that describes the outcome of the recent games. Reason being is that it is hard to believe that 40 years from now, either of the past two games will be remembered as being "historic" by any means. As visible by numbers, the series is always close - close games don't hold much meaning in this rivalry. The problem I see is not now, but an additional section describing the key play in each of the succeeding games from here on out - we'll have those ten lines or so from 1896 to 2003, and then just a long string of outcome descriptions afterwards. I think the brawl is notable, and the 4 wins for a QB is notable, but since neither "wide left" nor "the kick" held much significance, I think those years perhaps could be combined or removed. I do understand that Spurrier's first game was part of the reason 2006 was important, but since many coaches have come and gone, I find that one as notable as Tommy Bowden and Lou Holtz's first games - there have been many coaches in the history of the rivalry. As for the first time that a game-winning play was made as the clock hit zero (2007), I think this might be somewhat significant, as I hadn't seen it before. However, I don't believe it is deserving of its own section. Perhaps something as I mentioned above (Recent History) or a section entitled "Other Milestones" would be more appropriate for less significant games. Of course I'll get called out as being biased because I proposed this, but compare this to the other games, and just think for yourself which ones will be remembered 50 years from now. Zchris87v 09:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"4 wins for a QB" really isn't that notable either, especially as Whitehurst wasn't the first QB to accomplish the feat in the rivalry. Tommy Suggs beat Clemson 3 years straight (1968,69,70) as starter for the USC varsity football team, and also in the JV game as a freshman (1967) which was common in the days before redshirting became almost standard operating procedure for promising underclassmen. Most schools fielded JV squads back then, in this case Suggs led the Biddies to a win over the Cubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.149.230 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts after editing. In response to this - "4 wins for a QB" is in reference to Varsity football. JV is not in the same category and is not recognized for any numerical contributions to the varsity football rivalry between the two schools. If Cullen Harper beat South Carolina 4 years in a row at tiddly winks and then beat them at football his last year, does that mean he won 5 in a row? Zchris87v 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh yeah, but what about this...

The comment regarding probation following Clemson's National Championship is just more of the same old "Oh yeah, but what about this" mentality that has gone on in this series. One year it was, "ya'll pushed off to win", another year it was "ya'll won again, but ya'll started the fight by standing over our QB", and another year, "yeah, ya'll won a National Championship, but you cheated to do it". The probation comment, as I mentioned in the edit summary, violates Wikipedia NPOV guidelines on neutrality and is controversially assertive. Controversy can be presented, as long as it is not advocated, and as long as it can be accepted by both sides. This is the bar that the edit must meet, and in the referenced edit, it does not rise to this level.--CobraGeek (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood drive

Though not a rivalry "game", the annual blood drive is always a competition (in this case, for a good cause) between the two schools and has been going on since the mid-80's, I believe. I think the fact that the rivalry even extends to a blood drive is something worth noting. I proposed adding it before, but got no response, so I'll propose it more clearly this time. Zchris87v 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png

The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)