Georgia-South Carolina: If Not Ownership, Then a Lease with an Option to Buy
I begin this posting with an apology to Third Down Draw's Robert, a South Carolina fan who manages to be a strong Gamecock partisan without being delusional. He is a credit to a fan base that otherwise possesses the Southeastern Conference's least favorable ratio of arrogance to accomplishment and I mean no offense to Robert or to what I am sure are the many other Gamecock boosters like him, none of the rest of whom, unfortunately, I have had the privilege of encountering in my more than 20 years of attending S.E.C. football games.
As has been demonstrated on multiple occasions, South Carolina has the weakest football tradition in the S.E.C. Yes, weaker even than Vanderbilt's, inasmuch as the Commodores were a turn-of-the-century regional power under Dan McGugin and won their first bowl game on December 31, 1955 . . . more than 39 years before the Palmetto State Poultry won their first bowl game on January 2, 1995.

So you've beaten Ohio State in a bowl game. Name an S.E.C. team that hasn't, for crying out loud!
In his recent breakdown of the Bulldogs' upcoming game against South Carolina, Doug Gillett had, inter alia, this to say about the Big Chickens, accompanied by an adult language advisory:
We Bulldogs need to be thankful that traditional SEC scheduling hands us South Carolina so early in the year; if this season is anything like '06, the Gamecocks' lines will be a mess early but the team as a whole will manage some noticeable improvement as the season progresses, so we need to take advantage. Regardless, a defensive struggle seems pretty likely, as these two teams have averaged fewer than 28 points total in their six matchups during Mark Richt's tenure. But if Georgia can build an early lead, however small, on the Gamecocks, then they can pound the ball with Lumpkin and Moreno in the second half and potentially force Blake Mitchell to do something stupid. Georgia wins by a TD.
While obviously offered from the partisan perspective of a devoted 'Dawg, Doug's assessment seems fair, acknowledging the legitimacy of the challenge the Gamecocks likely will pose and recognizing the improvement in the Red and Black's division rival from Columbia.
Would a dude this cool give you anything less than the straight poop?
Naturally, that was not the part of Doug's breakdown upon which Cock & Fire's Brandon chose to focus. Instead, the Gamecock blogger concentrated on this excerpt from Doug's posting (which, admittedly, also makes you wonder whether he kisses his mother with that mouth):
To this, Brandon replied:
In fact, in the Richt Era, the average score of the game has been 18.0-9.8 -- slightly more than a touchdown. Take out an aberrant 31-7 drubbing in 2003, and the average score has been 15.4-10.4. Neither of those points to being owned.
In fact, among the five straight losses was the 13-7 debacle in the mud in 2002, when the Bulldogs outscored the Gamecocks 10-7 in the fourth quarter in a game that was essentially in doubt until then; the come-from-behind 20-16 game in 2004, in which Lou Holtz decided to calll [sic.] 58 consecutive quarterback draws; and the 17-15 failure to execute in 2005, a game that South Carolina essentially lost by 10 yards on flubbed fieldgoals [sic.] and a missed two-point conversion pass that would have won the game.
If you want to use games from the early 1990s or the 1980s to prove your point, that's fine. Five words for you: Steve Spurrier versus Ray Goff.
The "discernible evidence" boils down to the statistical evidence that eventually, the bounces go back your way, the luck of the other guy runs out. It's called reversion to the mean. On the other hand, 15-of-17 -- now that's getting owned.
As listeners who tuned in to last week's edition of EDSBS Live already know, Burnt Orange Nation's Peter Bean was passing through Atlanta this weekend. Peter stayed with Every Day Should Be Saturday's Orson Swindle and Orson's lovely wife, The Conscience of a Nation, and I had the pleasure and privilege of dining in Casa Swindle on Saturday evening, where I went to meet Peter face-to-face for the first time.
Orson is a gracious host (and he grills a mean halibut), but, seeing as how both of us are rabid S.E.C. partisans from rival schools, he had to talk some smack to me about Florida's recent ownership of Georgia in Jacksonville. Although I noted the streaky nature of the series, which has always seen long stretches of dominance by one team over the other ere the pendulum swings back the other way, Orson gets to give me crap about the rivalry between our respective schools, because his team won all those games.

To reiterate, if your team wins, you get to gloat and develop an attitude; if your team loses, you get to make excuses and declare moral victories.
If you're a South Carolina fan, you have to deal with these facts:
- Georgia has won five straight series meetings against South Carolina
- Georgia has won eight of the last 10 series meetings against South Carolina
- Georgia is 11-4 against South Carolina since the Gamecocks joined the Southeastern Conference
- Georgia has won 18 of the last 25 series meetings against South Carolina
- Since 1960, Georgia has gone 31-9-2 against South Carolina
- Since 1908, Georgia has gone 41-11-2 against South Carolina
- Since 1894, Georgia has gone 44-13-2 against South Carolina
- Georgia has twice enjoyed a 10-game winning streak over South Carolina (from 1908 to 1941 and from 1966 to 1977), while South Carolina has never won more than two in a row against Georgia
- Georgia has beaten South Carolina by margins of 18 (in 1924, 1970, 1983, and 2006), 19 (in 1995), 20 (in 1963), 21 (in 1967), 22 (in 1992), 23 (in 1908), 24 (in 1971, 1981, and 2003), 25 (in the Gamecocks' lone conference championship campaign in 1969), 26 (in 1939), 28 (in 1941), 31 (in 1940), 32 (in 1960), 37 (in 1920), 38 (in 1974), 39 (in 1911), and 40 points (in 1894), while South Carolina has never beaten Georgia by a margin of greater than 17 points
- The all-time series scoring has Georgia ahead of South Carolina by a cumulative 1,287-697 margin
Unfortunately, this man's record does not count toward Georgia's total.
This is why the "five words" ("Steve Spurrier versus Ray Goff") are utterly irrelevant. Coach Goff was 1-6 against the Gators, but he was 3-2 against the Gamecocks. As long as we're making an issue of our favorite teams' respective records against Florida, though, I suppose I should point out the equally inconsequential, yet nevertheless true, fact that, since South Carolina joined the S.E.C. in 1992, Florida has gone 14-1 against the Gamecocks. If 15 out of 17 is being owned, what's 14 out of 15?
It is true, of course, that many of the series meetings between Georgia and South Carolina have been close contests, but Brandon needs to decide whether he thinks that matters. On the one hand, he argues that the average score of games during Coach Richt's tenure in Athens does not "point[] to being owned." He pays particular attention to narrow Georgia wins in 2002, 2004, and 2005 while dismissing the 2003 game as "aberrant" (read: inconvenient to his predetermined conclusion) and ignoring last year's shutout altogether.
Having declared closeness a criterion in determining whether a large number of recent losses to a single opponent constitutes being "owned," Brandon then turns right around and declares Florida's recent dominance of the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party "getting owned."
Well, which is it? The last five Georgia-Florida games have been decided by margins of seven, three, seven, four, and seven points, respectively, while the last five Georgia-South Carolina games have been decided by margins of six, 24, four, two, and 18 points, respectively. Which has been the closer series lately?
Admittedly, we did have to see a bit more of this than I would have liked.
Granted, if we go back in time a little farther, to the earlier part of the Gators' current run of success in Jacksonville, we find several flat-out blowouts, by such thoroughly deflating margins as 38-7 (1990 and 1998), 45-13 (1991), 52-14 (1994), 52-17 (1995), and 47-7 (1996). There is no arguing around such outcomes; Georgia simply got stomped by vastly superior Florida squads, period.
The Bulldogs' series with the Gamecocks has tended to be much more competitive, although there have been some fairly decisive Georgia victories along the way, by such scores as 28-6 (1992), 42-23 (1995), 31-15 (1997), 24-9 (1999), 31-7 (2003), and 18-0 (2006).
While none of those games was a 30-point thumping, the fact remains that, since 1990, Florida has beaten Georgia by more than 14 points seven times in 17 series meetings and Georgia has beaten South Carolina by more than 14 points six times in 15 series meetings.
Admittedly, there was one game during that span (in 2001) in which the Gators beat the Bulldogs by exactly 14 points (24-10) . . . but, then again, that period also contains one game (in 1998) in which the 'Dawgs beat the 'Cocks by exactly 14 points (17-3). If one series has evidenced "ownage" and the other has not, it would appear to be because the person offering that assessment is looking at the world through poultry-colored lenses.
Take 'em off your glasses, slap 'em on the grill, and feast on the flesh of the enemy.
None of this is to say that South Carolina won't be a good team this year; likely, they will, which is why I included the Gamecocks among the "others receiving votes" on my preseason BlogPoll ballot. I take the rivalry between the Classic City Canines and the Palmetto State Poultry very seriously and I anticipate a good game between the hedges on September 8.
I wouldn't use the word "owned" to describe the one-sidedness of the all-time series because that simply isn't the way I write or speak about such things. The facts, though, are the facts and Doug's characterization of the relations between the two rivals essentially is correct.
Maybe the past is just history and has no bearing on the future. Maybe the Evil Genius is poised to do in Columbia what he did in Gainesville. (For the record, Steve Superior took over a Florida program that had posted records of 6-5, 6-6, 7-5, and 7-5 in the four years just prior to his arrival and proceeded to win 19 of his first 22 games with the Gators. He then took over a South Carolina program almost exactly in the same position---the Gamecocks posted records of 9-3, 5-7, 5-7, and 6-5 in the four years just prior to Darth Visor's arrival---and guided the Gamecocks to 15 wins in his first 25 games with the East Coast U.S.C. Hmm . . . the Ol' Ball Coach took a 26-21 program to 19-3, then he took a program with a virtually identical 25-22 four-year ledger to 15-10. What's wrong with this picture?)
Maybe this is the year that the Bulldogs, who have won at least 10 games in four of the last five seasons, fall to a South Carolina squad that is bound for the second 10-win season in school history. I do not deny that it could happen, although there are good reasons for skepticism.
Regardless of this year's result, however, the fact remains that the Georgia-South Carolina series has been lopsided, in the record book if not always on the scoreboard. I appreciate the fact that Brandon is a devoted partisan of his team and he may have good reason to crow about the Gamecocks' 2007 season. In that, I wish him well, insofar as his interests do not conflict with mine.

The foregoing was a "Godfather" reference, by the way. I just threw that in there; I didn't even charge you for that one.
If he wishes to criticize what Doug Gillett has written, though, Brandon needs to decide upon his preferred method of attack and stick with it. Instead, he has elected to pursue two inconsistent approaches, one of which does not withstand scrutiny and the other of which is as irreconcilable as it is irrelevant.
If "owned" is not the proper term to describe the Bulldogs' 44 victories and two ties in 59 series meetings over the last 113 years, we will opt for another description. That the Bulldogs have dominated the Gamecocks, both recently and historically, in the manner that Doug describes, though, cannot be gainsaid.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
good job
Go Dogs!
by fotodog on
Aug 20, 2007 9:52 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
There's no denying that South Carolina has . . .
We certainly have gotten some breaks (although I wouldn't call the David Pollack interception a "break" so much as a spectacular play by a three-time all-American), but so has South Carolina; 1993 and 2001 spring to mind, to cite two relatively recent examples.
As I indicated, I don't believe the 'Dawgs have dominated the 'Cocks on the scoreboard (even though most of the blowouts in series history have seen Georgia emerge victorious, which differentiates the South Carolina series from such other rivalries as those with Auburn, Florida, Georgia Tech, and Tennessee), but a win is a win is a win and consistently finding a way to emerge victorious from tight ballgames is a strength, not a weakness.
Maybe the worm is about to turn, but, until it does, Doug's assessment accurately states the historical reality.
by T Kyle King on
Aug 20, 2007 12:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
RE: Old Xanga post w/ link entitled...
Do you still feel that way about Auburn? That's quite a broad brush there. I've been around Georgia fans on may occaisions, and while many I've seen tend to be on the loud side, I've always gotten along with them well. I apoligize if your experiences with AU fans did not go as smoothly, it just seems like you have bad luck with them.
by ContrarianAUFan on
Aug 20, 2007 10:32 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
All generalizations are wrong, . . .
Since I wrote that, for instance, L.S.U. fans have gotten a lot more tolerable and there are exceptions to every rule. It remains my experience that Auburn fans, on the whole, are the most obnoxious fan base in the S.E.C., but don't feel too badly about that; I still think Georgia fans are the third-most obnoxious (and I am a contributor to that high---or, I guess, low---ranking).
Naturally, there are exceptions and the Auburn bloggers with whom I recently traded good-natured barbs both are good guys whom I respect a lot. Jay Coulter recently posted pictures of his daughter at fan picture day with Brandon Cox, which reminded me of the importance of family connections to sports loyalties.
It is, of course, completely appropriate that Jay's daughter grow up supporting her father's alma mater and, while I would not wish being an Auburn fan on anyone (I hate Auburn), I understand why folks with legitimate connections to that institution and that community love their team as much as I love mine.
Just as Robert (and, upon further reflection, Newspaper Hack) are South Carolina fans who do their fan base proud, you and the guys from Track 'Em Tigers and the Joe Cribbs Car Wash are the sort of Auburn fan of whom we need to see more.
Not cheating constantly and going a little easier on the water hoses wouldn't hurt, either. :)
by T Kyle King on
Aug 20, 2007 12:47 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Constantly?
Yes, we're the top overall, but I've heard of some shady things RE: our '57 and '58 violations. Funny thing is, while the NCAA gives a public report on every violation given on its website that I have read, it doesn't for Auburn's violations in '57 & '58.
I have also read that the NCAA was even more powerful 50 years ago than it is today, at least as far as challenging it from a legal standpoint goes. For example, even if Auburn's violations in '57 & '58 were bunk, there would have been no way to challenge the NCAA. You have any insight on this?
Oh and water hoses? Was that 1986? Be glad the NCAA rules were the way they were, or you may not have won that one (UGA defenders laying on ground to keep us from running an offensive play- nowadays they stop the clock when that happens, if I'm not mistaken). We had an SEC title on the line! But two wrongs don't make a right- turning on the SPRINKLERS was unnecessary, but it was kind of funny (I just hope it wasn't too cold that night). Be glad we were kinder to you on that night than we were to our own in '01 after the Florida game; people had to be taken to the hospital because the rent-a-cops that keep people off the field were tackling and beating the "trespassers."
by ContrarianAUFan on
Aug 20, 2007 2:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
1986
by NCT on
Aug 20, 2007 5:27 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh crap!
by ContrarianAUFan on
Aug 21, 2007 11:08 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Auburn's last major violation in football . . .
- Allegations of post-1993 payments to players made on tape by former coach Terry Bowden, who was unable to comment upon the allegations afterwards due to a severance deal that swore him to secrecy
- A clandestine plane trip to Louisville, Ky., that cost Auburn's president and athletic director their jobs and placed the university's accreditation on probation
- Allegations just last summer regarding suspicious sociology courses taken by athletes
- Allegations earlier this year about doctored transcripts for members of an Auburn recruiting class that lost several signees who did not qualify
- Subpoenas issued this summer by the New York state attorney general, who singled out Auburn as the only Southeastern Conference school to be investigated in his probe into the student loan industry
However, as long as Auburn fans are writing quality stuff like this, my institutional hatred for the Alabama Polytechnic Institute will not turn into personal animosity toward Auburn fans.
by T Kyle King on
Aug 20, 2007 7:15 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK- one at a time...
Violation Summary: Violations of NCAA legislation governing recruiting inducements, extra benefits, student-athlete competition while ineligible, academic fraud and tow additional instances of unethical conduct committed by a former assistant men's basketball coach.
2)Allegations- there were also allegations of UGA bidding on Albert Means, but allegations are- allegations
3)The trip to Louisville- that is the work of Bobby Lowder and his buds; most Auburn fans were outraged by it, and rightfully so.
Aside-I have personal reasons to hate Bobby as well. According to the former Econ chair at Auburn, there is no PhD in Econ program at AU because Lowder wanted it gone, a program that produced the current chair at George Mason U. Why is this chair "former?" He said something about Lowder and got removed, at least according to the Prof himself.
If Bobby Lowder fell off the face of the Earth tomorrow, I would be happier, and many, if not most, Auburn fans agree with me.
4)Sociology classes- Those classes were available to ALL students (I'm sure there's a few easy classes to take at UGA, too), not made specifically for athletes, which is what happened with UGA's basketball program.
5)Doctored transcripts- merely a coincidence, the players in question were leaning towards BAMA at the time the changes occurred, and the NCAA declared the players eligible. The issue has already been resolved.
6)NY state attorney subpoena- we'll see what happens, but the worst I can see coming out of that is a few employees were involved, and better oversight will need to be enacted by the Athletics Department. Best case scenario, Cuomo is the second coming of Elliot Spritzer (sp?), and is abusing his power as AG for his own personal gain to obtain higher office.
by ContrarianAUFan on
Aug 21, 2007 11:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks for the props, man
It occurred to me as I was reading Brandon's comments regarding the UGA-SC rivalry that they could've also come from a Tech fan regarding their rivalry with Georgia -- they beat us a few times a few years back, we've now won a bunch of times in a row, the games lately have been very close despite Georgia winning them, etc.
Yet I don't think you'd hear from many people who would dispute the idea that, at least lately, Georgia "owns" Tech. And that series isn't even as historically lopsided as UGA-SC (even though Georgia is 18 or 20 games up on Tech in the all-time, or something like that).
If SC fans want to believe that simply having Steve Spurrier as coach removes Georgia's "ownership" of this rivalry, it's a free country, but until Spurrier actually beats Georgia with a Gamecock squad as opposed to a Gator squad, I don't think they have a lot to stand on just yet.
Of course, I may have risked God's wrath by saying all this, and if SC does beat Georgia in a few weeks, I will take my lumps and cop to being a dumbass.
by Doug on
Aug 20, 2007 12:31 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not necessarily saying they won't win . . .
That lone South Carolina victory, though, would not change the reality of the situation any more than Georgia's 1997 win over Florida represented a sea change in that series.
If the Palmetto State Poultry win this year, O.K. That means they've won one of the last six. Historically, they've won about one out of four. How would a win this year be evidence of progress?
Let's say the 'Cocks beat Georgia this year and go on to win the East. All right, that means South Carolina has had one trip to the S.E.C. championship game, as opposed to Georgia's three in the last five years.
Let's say South Carolina beats Georgia this year, wins the East, and wins the S.E.C. championship game. Fine; the Gamecocks will have won two conference titles in their entire history . . . the same number that Georgia has won under Mark Richt.
There's no question that the Gamecocks periodically can pull off the upset; that sort of thing happens when one team regards the rivalry more seriously than the other. (In this respect, your comparison of South Carolina to Georgia Tech is exactly correct; Georgia is Georgia Tech's No. 1 rival, yet Georgia Tech probably is Georgia's No. 3 rival for everyone under the age of 55, whereas South Carolina is Georgia's No. 5 rival---No. 6 in the years we play Clemson---but Georgia is South Carolina's No. 2 rival, behind the Tigers. This may have something to do with why my reaction to a Georgia win over either Georgia Tech or South Carolina is not joy, it is relief at knowing that we aren't going to have to listen to a bunch of crowing from folks who can't handle winning because they aren't used to it.)
The bottom line is that, if South Carolina wins the next 30 games against Georgia, the Gamecocks still will have a losing record against the Bulldogs. Yeah, a lot of those games have been close, but this is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades.
By the way, you mentioned that you're never gonna change, which reminded me of the Drive-By Truckers song of the same name. You need to pick up the D.B.T. C.D. "The Dirty South" if you don't own it already.
by T Kyle King on
Aug 20, 2007 1:07 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm delusional...
Unfortunately for us Gamecock fans, just about everything you said up there is true. Doug's prediction of the 07 tilt seems like a possible outcome. I honestly don't know what this game will be like. Personally, I think it'll be a contest to see whose o-line is worse in week two. After last year, I made a promise with myself that I wouldn't pick the Gamecocks until they beat the Dawgs. 2000 and 2001 are a long time ago.
by a gamecock fan on
Aug 20, 2007 2:05 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
2 more things...
- Paul Westerdawg's take on the recruiting situation at South Carolina and just his general thoughs on USC becoming an SEC East power generally mirror my own. It's going to be difficult--USC would need to dominate recruiting in state, as well as poach certain players from Georgia's and Florida's classes. USC would also need to dominate North Carolina, IMO. I think that is what Spurrier has in mind when he wanted to set up a recurring UNC-USC matchup in Charlotte-so he could show who's boss in the Carolinas...on TV too. I think we're going to get it with NC State though. Mind you, this is all mindless speculation on my part, but it does make a little sense.
- OK here is where I'm really going to reach, but bear with me, like a judge in a bad courtroom movie. In response to Saurian Sagacity's data on winning the SEC East, the first thing I would say is that we really can't draw concrete conclusions because the data set is too small. Wait another 15 years and we can draw definitive (or as close to definitive as statistical analysis allows) conclusions about what records it takes to win the SEC East. Having said that, I reach point two. In the past, it has been either a two or three team race to the SEC East crown. Thus, a three team round robin is sufficient to determine the conference champion...and let's face it, in years past, the big boys of the SEC East dominated the "others" of the SEC East. So this is where I really get crazy. So if you add a fourth team to the mix, the metrics are certain to change. To compare, I'd like to see the numbers on the SEC West champions, but as can be seen from this ramble, I'm an idiot, and don't know where they'd be. Keep in mind this is just something to think about. I'm sure I'll have a definitive answer on whether the Gamecocks are ready for primetime or not on Sept. 8.
by a gamecock fan on
Aug 20, 2007 4:34 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
There you go, Robert
Are you devoted to your team? Yes. Do you defend your team and cheer for it? Yes. Do you want your program to succeed and envision optimistic but not off-the-chart scenarios for it to achieve great things? Yes.
You have hope---and not entirely unfounded hope---for the future. That just doesn't make you irrational about the past or a jerk about the present.
You're right about the offensive lines and the fact that we'll both know by mid-September whether our respective teams were underrated or overhyped.
by T Kyle King on
Aug 20, 2007 7:04 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To defend myself...
First of all, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Georgia has consistently gotten the better of the Gamecocks. And I should apologize (and will do privately, as well) to Doug for taking things a bit too far.
My particular difference, though, was with the phrase "owned," and I'll use a particular example -- similar, though with a difference that I'll get to in a minute.
Kentucky hasn't beaten South Carolina since 1999. They do lead the all-time series (that's the difference), but it's been nearly a decade since they won. That said, I would not say that South Carolina "owns" Kentucky, even if it's restricted to the last five years.
Why? Look at the scores:
'06 24-17
'05 44-16
'04 12-7
'03 27-21
'02 16-12
Except for an aberrant score in 2005 -- and I use that term because it is wildly off-base with the other numbers, not because it is convenient -- South Carolina has defeated Kentucky by a TD or less every time. To me, you only "own" someone if you consistently beat them by more than single score. I guess we're arguing over semantics here.
On the Florida vs. Georgia count, you've got me. That was a bad example I shouldn't have used.
I only mentioned Ray Goff vs. Spurrier as part of a wider point in that I think people draw too heavily on the past when drawing comparisons like this. (This is why I didn't bring up the implosion of Quincy "Heisman" Carter in the 2000 game.)
Coincidentally, I did not recount last year's shutout because Georgia won that game without any of the quirkiness or outright incompetence of Gamecock coaching that colored some of the games I mentioned. They were used for that point and that point alone -- not as the basis for saying the series was close, but to point out how close it sometimes is.
But 18-0 was included in the average point total I used, and I included the point total with the "aberrant" score averaged in as well so people could compare for themselves.
I don't believe I am delusional -- others might disagree. I constantly point out that the Gamecocks have no tradition of winning in the SEC or winning period. I do not see us winning the East this year, even though I think Tennessee and Georgia are both in for a down season. And while I do think Spurrier will win at least one SEC crown while he's in Columbia, I see little reason to hope for a BCS championship, something a lot of fans seem to think is a foregone conclusion.
Overall, I should have been better in saying what I was saying or, probably the best conclusion, not said it at all.
by cocknfire on
Aug 22, 2007 12:52 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Brandon, we're cool
As I indicated, "owned" isn't a term I use (simply because that isn't the way I speak or write), so I understand how you could take umbrage at it, in light of the closeness of so many of the series games, both recently and historically.
Regarding the 2000 game (which I attended, and which remains to this day the single worst Georgia football-related experience of my life), I will give credit where credit is due; yes, Quincy was awful, but the Gamecock defense (which had played well even during South Carolina's 0-11 run the year before) played a whale of a game. The score was 14-10 for much of the game (before ending in a 21-10 final), but that didn't begin to describe the gap between the two teams on that day.
I appreciate your coming by and straightening out the misunderstanding. We'll look forward to seeing y'all in Athens on September 8.
by T Kyle King on
Aug 22, 2007 1:40 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs








