Tigers aren't coming, but USC would benefit if they did
There's a reason Ray Tanner and Steve Spurrier have supported Clemson joining the Southeastern Conference.
It would be a good thing for South Carolina.
The perception is USC would lose a recruiting edge with Clemson in the league, especially after Jadeveon Clowney spoke so positively about Clemson and implied he would've signed with the upstate school had it been in the SEC. Also, Clemson joining the SEC would eliminate the sense of superiority USC fans feel with Clemson residing in the easy-to-denigrate ACC.
However, put partisan arguments aside and the facts become clear: USC would gain a great deal if it shared a conference with its rival.
While football may be the catalyst for expansion fever, a good place to start would be men's basketball and baseball.
The annual Clemson-Carolina basketball game has been an afterthought recently. In 2008, the game was foolishly played in Columbia on Dec. 30 with students on winter break and fans on both sides in Florida for New Year's Day bowl games. In 2009, it was played in Clemson a day after the Tigers made their first appearance in the ACC Championship Game. In 2010, the game came in Columbia the day after USC's first-ever trip to the SEC title game.
If the two schools were in the SEC, the games (there would be two) would be after the football spotlight has dimmed. Whether at Littlejohn Coliseum or Colonial Life Arena, the atmosphere for the games would be electric. The added importance of a game in the league standings would help restore some luster to the rivalry. Heck, there could even be tailgating.
With baseball, I don't know how much intensity could be added to a three-game series, considering things are rather intense already. However, Clemson joining the SEC would open the door for more regular season games between both teams.
This past season, Ole Miss and Mississippi State played a game at a neutral site that had no bearing on the SEC standings. Alabama did the same against both Georgia and Auburn as well.
Such a scenario would be perfect for USC and Clemson. You'd have a three-game conference series in Columbia or Clemson and one or two games at a neutral site. We know Greenville can host. Charleston looks like a likely host. There's no reason why Rock Hill or Myrtle Beach couldn't as well.
Football drives the bus, though, and that's all anyone cares about when it comes to conference expansion. There are definitely advantages for USC when it comes to football.
Getting Clemson as a league game would mean nonconference scheduling flexibility for Spurrier and Athletics Director Eric Hyman. The Gamecocks could play North Carolina, N.C. State and Georgia Tech on a rotating basis. USC could also take a page out of Georgia's playbook and play road games on the West Coast. Recent losses to Oklahoma State and Colorado defeated the purpose for UGA, but such trips would be beneficial to recruiting.
Having a fourth game free opens the chance to play TV-friendly neutral site games. USC has been hesitant because playing only six home games would hamper both the athletic department and city financially. Get Clemson as a league game, and seven home games every fall are guaranteed, plus a potential trip to Charlotte, Atlanta or wherever an attractive opponent and payday may be.
In terms of the rivalry game, the added wrinkle of conference play would make it that much bigger. Fans always lament how USC-Clemson is relatively overlooked on a national scale compared to games like Alabama-Auburn, Ohio State-Michigan and even Oregon-Oregon State.
Sure, those games have had national championship implications in recent history. But even without such stakes, they draw more attention on an annual basis. A large part of the reason is the fact these rivalries are also conference games. In a way, they mean doubly more because of that. USC-Clemson would get that rub as a conference game.
Last, a Clemson move to the SEC would once and for all prove which school indeed is athletically superior. It would be Carolina's moment to finally prove itself in all sports.
The suggestion USC would be forfeiting a recruiting advantage with Clemson in the league smacks of unreasonable panic. The two schools have completely different identities. A league affiliation will not suddenly make one the carbon copy of the other. In fact, putting the two schools together could only magnify the differences. Given whatever preference a recruit has, it could end up being an asset for USC.
Clemson is not going to join the SEC; simply put, the Tigers are is happy where they are. But if it were to happen, Carolina should embrace the move, not condemn it.
USC fans tend to trust Spurrier and Tanner on everything. There's no reason to stop in this case.