Commentary: SEC schedule decision unfortunate for Clemson-USC. And it shows bias
The last several rivalry games between Clemson and South Carolina haven’t been very competitive, and the Tigers were expected to be heavy favorites in the 2020 version of the Palmetto Bowl.
Clemson grabbed control of the series in recent years, winning six consecutive games against South Carolina, with five of those coming by double digits. The Tigers are at the top of the ACC and one of the top programs in the country. USC has one winning SEC season since 2014 and since winning five consecutive rivalry games against Clemson from 2009 to 2013.
But come the last week of November — or any week the game could have been played this fall — none of that would have mattered. Everyone around the state’s attention would have been on the Gamecocks and Tigers, just as it has been for more than 100 years.
Unfortunately in the Palmetto State, rivalry week won’t mean anything in 2020 thanks to an SEC decision last week. The league opted to not follow the same scheduling model as the ACC, which agreed to play 10 conference games and one out-of-conference game in order to make the rivalry matchups possible. Instead, the SEC is playing 10 league-only games.
The decision, which comes as colleges try and navigate the coronavirus pandemic, means South Carolina and Clemson will not play on the gridiron for the first time since 1909. It didn’t have to be this way.
The SEC cited wanting to crown a league champion as the reason the out-of-conference rivalry games can’t take place, as if the ACC doesn’t want to do the same.
“A lot of discussion about whether that was the right direction,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said on The Paul Finebaum Show last week. “We have great respect for the rivalries that exist across the conference, but we don’t know what the fall is going to look like and having the ability to manage our own schedule, we believe, gives us the best opportunity to play for that championship.”
South Carolina Athletics Director Ray Tanner was asked why the ACC could prioritize crowning a champion while still playing the out-of-conference rivalry games and the SEC couldn’t.
He responded: “I can’t answer your question.”
“We all wanted to play that game. There’s no question about that,” Tanner said. “We didn’t want to lose that game.”
In addition to South Carolina and Clemson — Georgia-Georgia Tech, Kentucky-Louisville and Florida-Florida State also had their rivalry games canceled.
Yes, there are only four SEC schools affected by the decision, meaning the other 10 would have had to add another game. But that could have easily been done.
The leagues could have worked together to create an ACC-SEC challenge, keeping the four established rivalry games and adding other matchups.
The Virginia Tech and Florida State programs aren’t what they used to be, but Virginia Tech-LSU and Florida State-Alabama would have been fun. The same goes for a UNC-Tennessee matchup or a showdown between Miami and Auburn.
And clearly travel wasn’t an issue as the conferences have teams in both leagues traveling all over for games. Coronavirus testing also wouldn’t have been an issue because Power 5 leagues will have the same testing rules in 2020.
Tanner and Clemson AD Dan Radakovich worked for weeks to try to make the game take place, but ultimately it was out of their hands. As administrators from different schools around the SEC met to discuss possible scheduling models, USC pushed for a “plus-one” schedule to allow the games to take place.
“Back in the day I coached a lot of games in that rivalry and part of being the athletic director is enjoying the season and the competition,” Tanner said. “That’s one of those asterisks moments when you get a chance to play your rival. I was constantly bringing that up in the scheduling conversation.”
But the SEC had other ideas.
“Clemson aggressively lobbied the ACC to include an additional non-conference game for the primary purpose of maintaining our long-standing rivalry game with South Carolina,” Radakovich said in a statement. “We’re disappointed to hear of the scheduling decision announced by the SEC, as we know the importance of The Palmetto Bowl to the State of South Carolina. We will work to fill the opening on our schedule immediately.”
South Carolina President Bob Caslen was reportedly the only president in the SEC to vote to keep the rivalry games. Tanner said Caslen pushed “fairly aggressively” for the game.
“He and I had a number of conversations. We’ve been in constant dialogue. ... This was a big deal to us,” Tanner said. “We wanted to maintain this rivalry. For people who don’t think that’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. As I sit here and talk to you, there’s a void.”
Just as South Carolina pushed for the rivalry game in conversations with SEC administrators, Clemson did the same with the ACC. The difference — the ACC valued Clemson’s opinion.
“Those games are important to Clemson and Florida State and Louisville and Georgia Tech,” Syracuse AD John Wildhack told ESPN. “I think in an environment like this where it may not frankly be directly beneficial to Syracuse, but if you can do things as a collective body and group that can benefit schools where it is important, I’m inclined to try to be a good partner and support that.”
Clearly the opinions of some schools matter more to the SEC than others.
Former Clemson coach Danny Ford pointed out that if it was the Alabama-Auburn game that was in question, the SEC would have figured out a way to play the game. Ford is right.
“People in Georgia, people in North Carolina, people in Tennessee, they don’t care about South Carolina and Clemson because it’s not hurting them,” Ford told Fox Carolina. “I just know that if it was Alabama and Auburn, they don’t have to face that situation, but they’d find a way to play.”
All of this discussion could end up being irrelevant. It is possible that COVID-19 keeps any college football games from being played.
But if there is college football in 2020, South Carolina and Clemson should play. And it’s a shame the SEC is keeping that from being a possibility.
This story was originally published August 3, 2020 at 10:46 AM with the headline "Commentary: SEC schedule decision unfortunate for Clemson-USC. And it shows bias."
