State lawmakers need to focus on more pressing issues facing South Carolina
Let’s face it: South Carolina wouldn’t be South Carolina without the classic Carolina vs. Clemson football game. With all the new changes to the SEC and ACC football conferences, there are some worries that scheduling conflicts might occur and the rivalry won’t take place. In fact, South Carolina state Rep. Nathan Ballentine is so concerned about this possibility that he introduced a proposal that would require both teams to continue the yearly matchup.
For 103 consecutive years, USC and Clemson have played each other, making it college football’s second-longest rivalry in the nation. With the new changes to the football conferences this consecutive streak may change.
The problems that Ballentine is concerned with come from both the ACC and SEC adding teams to their conference. The ACC, the conference Clemson participates in, will add Pittsburgh and Syracuse. It will also require nine conference games each fall season. The SEC, the conference USC participates in, is adding Missouri and Texas A&M. With all the extra games, there is limited space for nonconference matchups. Ballentine is a graduate of USC and so can, like we all do, understand why the USC vs. Clemson game is important. It is a game that not only grants bragging rights, but also creates business for Columbia. A law requiring the rivalry wouldn’t be bad, but the South Carolina government should be looking at real problems at hand.
Neither school would ever give up the long-seated rivalry game. They can handle arranging one of the biggest games of their season and do not need help from a government official.
Both schools would lose money in advertising and sales without the game.
Wes Hickman, spokesman for USC, said to The State that “athletic schedules need to be decided by athletic directors and coaches.”
Clemson athletic director Terry Don Phillips agreed; he told The State that Clemson does not want to “have to legislate the issue, as I cannot conceive of a realistic scenario that would prohibit Clemson and South Carolina from continuing our football season.”
He couldn’t have said it any better. Most South Carolinians would go insane without this game. The last thing we need is to make it into a legal issue.
According to Ballentine there is “precedence” for this legislation, because in 1952, the only reason Clemson and Carolina played each other was because the General Assembly required them to play. Clemson was prohibited from playing Southern Conference opponents, which included USC, after it violated a ban on postseason play. While the government might have saved this long-standing tradition that year, it hardly counts as a reason to create a law requiring the game to take place.
While Ballentine’s intentions are good, he needs to focus on more important issues in South Carolina.