Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry/Archive 3

Role Reversal
Per the edits of Wikidbb, the average SAT scores were listed as evidence that Clemson was more "elitist" and South Carolina takes a wider pool of applicants, including the satellite universities. I believe this does back the claim and shows how SC takes more people. However, I'm wondering if the whole section should be stricken. Calling one university more elite than the other seems to be a POV perspective, and I'm not sure the section is relevant to the rivalry itself. I'm not sure those academic aspects really fuel the rivalry between the two.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The size of the student bodies or that of the incoming freshman classes of the two schools shows that USC admits more students than Clemson, and this has less than nothing to do with the rivalry discussed in this article. These are facts that are as irrelevant as the racial demographics at the two institutions. Adding extraneous information such as average SAT scores is nothing but POV pushing in an article that deals predominantly with an athletic rivalry. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I assume you would be fine with removing the entire section as it really has little to do with the rivalry and more with the demographics of each school. Naming one institution as elitist and another as not seems to be POV. How exactly are the SAT scores POV again?--LesPhilky (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and remove the chart since you just said the number of students each school admits is irrelevant.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't have it both ways. When Clemson and SC desegregated is irrelevant to the rivalry. Enrollment numbers are irrelevant to the rivalry. How many veterans they admitted is irrelevant. This information belongs on each school's respective pages. As you just said, this article "deals predominantly with an athletic rivalry." However, I'm open to you explaining how this information is relevant to the rivalry.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated in the lede: "USC and Clemson have been bitter rivals since the 1880s, and a heated rivalry continues to this day for a variety of reasons, including the historic tensions regarding their respective charters and the passions surrounding their athletic programs". History is important and relevant to this rivalry, current admission scores are not. But I'm open to you explaining how SAT scores are relevant to the rivalry. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Explain how the following are relevant to the tensions of the rivalry and not to the respective school pages: 1. When Clemson first admitted minorities. 2. SC opening doors to veterans. 3. When Clemson first accepted women. 4. Clemson's enrollment vs. SC enrollment in a chart that hasn't been updated in eight years. 5. When Clemson changed it's name to Clemson University.


 * When you can do this, you have made a case for these items to remain in the article. Until then, they are clearly irrelevant. I agree that the SAT scores are irrelevant IF these other items are as well. If these other items remain, then the SAT scores show the discrepancy between the schools' admission standards because the page is stating that SC is less selective in their admissions. Therefore, in the context of the overall academic and demographic comparison of the two schools, it's relevant. If the chart stays, the SAT scores stay, because it explains why SC's enrollment is larger. I argue they are both unnecessary.


 * But you and I both know the reason you don't want them in there is because it shows how Clemson is a superior academic institution. If you want a comparison of the schools' academically to show just how deep the rivalry goes, then let's open up the doors to all avenues. Otherwise, let's just admit that all this stuff is irrelevant, delete it, and move on. I eagerly await how you can show the itemized list I provided somehow pertains to the tensions between the two schools.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not this crap again. The back and forth between you two. Look, @LesPhilky: SAT scores have nothing to do with the rivalry. You Clemson people try to always claim you're a better academic institution with BS stats and your farcical quest for that Top 20 ranking in some magazine. USC does a lot of things better than Clemson. Enough with this long-winded arguing and let it go. @GarnetAndBlack: You let it go too. Enrollment numbers and history don't have anything to do with this. It's a sports rivalry page, for Christ's sake. You're making the rest of us look bad with this constant bickering with Clemson fans.


 * Both of you just delete this stuff and move on.--JacksonD21 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um... okay. Well, that was kind of my point. It's all not relevant unless we're taking one point. Then the other applies. I guess the stats and the recent ranking in the Top 20 (you can call it farcical all you want; we still got it) stings just a little bit for the South Carolina crowd.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great accomplishment. Some obscure magazine says you're a top 20 school. High five!--JacksonD21 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Third party opinion requested to (once again) correct GarnetAndBlack's misguided view of relevancy. Please note to the third party that GarnetAndBlack refuses to show relevancy to the section and instead continues to edit war. He refuses to engage in a discussion here per Wikipedia's policy and instead just reverts. His edits are not a product of his actual viewpoint but his continued sociopathic obsession with reverting any edit I make on this page. I believe this marks the fourth time I've had to call a third party in to set him straight on this page.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The history, enrollment charts, etc all looks like synthesis and its certainly undue weight to a (primarily) sports rivalry that long ago took a life of its own. Find me a reliable 3rd party source that says "this football rivalry is about upset farmers from the 1800's". Delete this stuff and find some attributable sources to summarize the history of the rivalry and then move on to the actual game history. EBY (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this article was titled Clemson–South Carolina football rivalry or Clemson–South Carolina sports rivalry, you'd have some valid points, but it's not. The rivalry that exists between these two institutions began before either one of them ever fielded an athletic team, and it is the unique nature of this history of conflict that is summed up quite nicely by whomever took the time and effort to detail it here, complete with attributable sources. There is no good reason to take a deletionist view toward this material which does nothing to detract from the subject of this article, and in fact, does a fine job of explaining why the rivalry is bitter to this very day in the state of South Carolina, on and off the field/court. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You yourself said this is a page that is primarily about an athletic rivalry.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is proof of nothing, and doesn't make anything I said above less accurate. And "predominantly" doesn't mean "exclusively". GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand this correctly: You refuse to prove how the removed information is relevant to the rivalry. You refuse to engage in discussion about it. Two people from Third Opinion come in here and verify that it isn't relevant, one of them being an admin, and you still refuse to allow the edit? Is that where we're at? Correct me if I'm wrong.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Third Opinion - Having looked at many of the sources. I agree wholeheartedly with User:EBY3221 that this article is full of synthesis and undue weight. It is a bloated coatrack of an expose about a barely notable athletic rivalry. The background/history section should be deleted and substituted with a single, modest paragraph. Even the athletic section is overblown and overly detailed and should be cut back as well. (And the blood drive should be one or two sentences.) The blow by blow for each game is entirely unnecessary. Yes, a bitter rivalry exists but mostly in the minds of those associated with the universities not in the mainstream press or media. If this article was properly written it would be one third of its current size. With this in mind I can not support the addition of further synthesis and coatrack material regarding admission demographics and test scores.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. While I do agree with GarnetAndBlack that there is more to this rivalry than just the athletics, most of information is very overblown. I'll get to trimming soon, hopefully over the weekend.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2014
Change the color of the 2014 victory team to orange in game results table.

64.234.105.137 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Why should this be done?  You seem to have forgotten to include some context as to why the color should be changed, and you'll need to get some consensus most likely as well... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 06:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The color has always been changed to match that of the team that won that year. A consensus isn't needed.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Recently some editors have expressed the opinion that the non-athletic history/background section of the article should be significantly reduced or eliminated while another editor feels that the length, detail and weight of non-athletic history/background section of the article is appropriate and proper. Please indicate whether you feel that the section should be a) kept as is or b) cut back and summarized or c) completely removed. As you can see, Third Party Opinion was already solicited for this topic.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as is . Trim sections per LesPhilky. The bot sent me. I'd never heard of this rivalry and I enjoyed reading all the background. In fact, it made me keep going to read the whole article. I really enjoyed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed my position to reflect LesPhiky's rationale below. Those sections not relevant to the Clemson-SC rivalry are best moved to the general articles about these schools. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you feel the information about enrollment numbers and when Clemson enrolled women and minorities have any relevance to the rivalry itself, or would you argue that these belong on the respective universities' Wikipedia pages?--LesPhilky (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * LesPhilky, It's relevant to the "perceptions" of the schools and how things changed. The mention of women and minorities takes up a couple of sentences. What would you trim? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would, at the least, cut this part: "Clemson was limited on the number of veterans who could be admitted due to various dilemmas with transferring credits and a flood of applications. Top priority, however, was given to veterans over non-veterans.[43] Clemson, however, did not admit women as undergrads until 1955 and did not admit its first African-American, (future Charlotte, North Carolina, mayor Harvey Gantt.[44]), until 1963. In 1964, the college was renamed Clemson University as the state legislature formally recognized the school's expanded academic offerings and research pursuits." The heading is "Role Reversal," which is to mean that SC became less selective than Clemson. But that doesn't fit with the mention of when women and minorities were accepted into the school. I'm not sure the relevance. Also, the enrollment chart is grossly outdated. Would we argue that the enrollment numbers somehow contribute to the rivalry? I don't think so. I've never heard anyone use that comparison as a sounding board for rivalry tensions. Clemson has always been a smaller school, and the chart patterns don't show any indication of a "role reversal". If anything, it's more indicative of a national trend where more people went to college after WWII. In fact, the whole line about SC opening its door to more students and being viewed as a less-elitist institution is unsourced therefore should be removed.


 * Some of the other historical aspects boil down to a political conflict and not necessarily one attached to the two schools. I'm sure we could find some modern day politicians feuding in SC, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with Clemson or SC.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So basically you'd like to trim any historical facts that have even the slightest negative connotations on today's view of Clemson University. Got it. 2600:1004:B05C:1C02:FC97:30AF:6C16:7AFA (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is negative about those historical facts? I'm arguing they belong on the Clemson University Wikipedia page, not this one. Also, be a man and don't post anonymously. I'm still waiting on someone to explain how these specific facts are relevant to the rivalry.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was unaware that I had to create some goofy name in order to be taken seriously on Wikipedia and to "be a man". Thanks for letting me know. 70.193.16.92 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything negative about the material, it's just not relevant to the rivalry. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unlike most major college rivalries, the Carolina–Clemson rivalry did not start innocently and because of competitive collegiate sports. The deep-seated bitterness began between the two schools long before Clemson received its charter and became a college."
 * Keep as is. The history of how this rivalry became (and continues to be) one of the most bitter in the nation is highly relevant, and as one commenter here admitted, sparked his interest and got him to actually read the article. I must admit to being puzzled as to why this same editor would now choose to deprive other readers this same opportunity. Also, there is no Wikipedia policy that states sourced, factual material can only appear in one article, so I don't understand this insistence that the material in question here should only appear in the articles of the two schools. If charts are out of date, they can be revised, but that still doesn't invalidate the facts that they presented at the time they were created. There is simply no point in taking a deletionist approach in a project where space is not an issue, as it is in a paper encyclopedia (where an article like this would never exist in the first place). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove all the Origin/Background content.-- I'm glad to see that User:SW3 5DL has reconsidered their position. While the origin/background section makes for a good story line that leads up to the modern day rivalry, it appears to be just a story. If you look at the sources it appears to be original research. The entire first section (background) is cited to one source: A book by Hollis that was written in 1951. How could that source connect events from the 1880s with today's modern athletic rivalry that has taken place during the 60 years since Hollis wrote his book?  The entire origin/background section is predicated on the following unsourced lead paragraph:
 * Really? says who? Is there a quote from Hollis that says the modern day athletic rivalry has its roots in events from the 1800s? If yes, can someone please quote it here?
 * I can only see snippets of Hollis' book in Google but when I do a search for the word "rivalry" it only comes up twice in the whole book.
 * "And today, despite the jocular rivalry between the two institutions, even the most ardent University supporter will readily admit that South Carolina has profited by the existence of Clemson."
 * "The rivalry between State institutions is costing the State thousands of dollars, and will........"
 * These are two minor mentions. Where are the quotes that support 50% of the article being dedicated to: the Civil War, farmers, Clemson's will, election campaigns and other events of hundreds of years ago and their relevancy to a modern day athletic rivalry?.  -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove unless adequate sourcing is provided. The Origin section is well written and well sourced, and it documents a notable topic. It belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps in Clemson University, History of Clemson University, or Higher education in South Carolina. But it doesn't belong in this article, unless some reliable source shows that their early joint history constitutes a rivalry, or at least that their rivalry arises from the joint history. No one has provided a reliable source despite longstanding calls for one, so I'm guessing we're not going to get it. Feel free to prove me wrong. Lagrange613 13:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The material presented in the section in question certainly appears to indicate outlines a history of animosity between two universities that goes beyond the typical college sports rivalry. The material is thus notable to the article subject and seems to be adequately sourced (although further references certainly couldn't hurt). Overall, it is this editor's opinion that the article would not be improved by deletion of the material. 184.75.114.3 (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reliable sources, "certainly appears to indicate" is synthesis. Lagrange613 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no synthesis here, and there is nothing to indicate that the sources provided are not reliable. Please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you. I've changed the wording of my original comment to avoid further confusion along these lines. 38.121.226.130 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant that the article contains no reliable source connecting the early history to the rivalry, in line with my comment above. Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough and thus made it sound like I was accusing you of saying something you didn't. Lagrange613 20:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as is - As a life-long resident of the state of South Carolina, I can attest to the fact that this rivalry extends beyond the sports played by student-athletes at the two institutions and the fans who watch them compete. As someone else pointed out in this discussion, the rancor that surrounded the contentious founding of Clemson University, and subsequent attempts to marginalize (and even close) the University of South Carolina, has been handed down from generation to generation in this state, and even among people born and raised here who don't care about or follow college sports, there are definite sides taken and lines drawn to this very day. I feel that the introductory section of this article does a good job relaying this history to those who might otherwise be unfamiliar with it, and should be kept in the article, perhaps even expanded, if that could be agreed upon by all parties involved. Doctor No9 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove Portions - Areas such as the Role Reversal and other items irrelevant to the rivalry should be removed (like info about the Citadel. Keep the history that shows origins of the hostilities and growing tensions, but remove pointless items such as enrollment numbers, admission requirements and subjective opinions about elitism.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Also the blow by blow details about individual games should be challenged and removed if they are not sourced in a timely way and after citing they should be moved to a separate article per WP:SUMMARY.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out to you once, if this article was titled Clemson–South Carolina football rivalry or Clemson–South Carolina athletic rivalry, you'd have some valid points, but it's not. The rivalry that exists between these two institutions began before either one of them ever fielded an athletic team, and it's disingenuous to suggest that the contentious history that surrounded the founding of Clemson Univ. (and subsequent attempts by its champion in state government to actually close the University of South Carolina) has no bearing on the bitterness between the supporters of the two schools to this day. And the athletic rivalry was well established in 1951, when the source you seem to take so much issue with was written, so I'm quite certain that connections with the past were well established in that book, and continue to be valid today. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then if you're so certain, I'm sure you won't have a problem providing specific quotes to support your argument.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I don't have to. This notable material was sourced when it was added by whichever editor went to the trouble to do so. If you want to go check out the reference provided to verify the material, that's your prerogative. But no one here has to prove anything to your satisfaction. That's not how Wikipedia works. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:V "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." That's why there is this inline template. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Key words from that would be "as a courtesy". I didn't add this material originally, I don't have the book in question, it's not my responsibility to provide quotes. WP:AGF would seem to apply in this case, or are you implying that the editor who originally provided this sourced material was a liar? That's also not how Wikipedia works. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Don't put words in his mouth. He's not even close to suggesting that. 2. You have been asked multiple times to show the relevance to the rivalry for the following points: A. Clemson's enrollment numbers. B. SC's enrollment numbers. C. When Clemson first opened admission to minorities and women. D. Admission of veterans post WWII. E. The changing of Clemson's named to Clemson University.
 * Why is it that neither you nor anyone else can show relevance? The refusal to do so leads me to believe you know there is no relevance and are just arguing for the sake of being obstinate.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevance is well-known and well-documented in any number of historically indisputable sources. I suggest you begin with the five volume set, "History of South Carolina" Edited by the respected historian Yates Snowden and published by Louis Publishing in 1920. Specifically refer to "Clemson Agricultural and Mechanical College, Vol II, pages 994-997, 1006, 1013, 1090, 1146, 1160 & 1159."  Pay particular attention to "Governor Tillman's support of," as detailed in the final six pages just cited.  I'd begin there, were I you, before I pursued this line of revisionist history you are attempting LesPhilky.  The entire set was written just 20-25 years following the opening of Clemson and their first football game so I believe it is safe to assume that the memory of what transpired, with regard to Clemson, from 1893-1919 was still fairly fresh in the mind of the author and written in as unbiased and friendly fashion towards Tillman and Clemson as humanly possible, even for the time. My point being, if you read those pages and still wish to pursue this line of revisionist history knowing full well where it will lead, then by all means, we'll go down that road with you and educate you on the detailed history of the rivalry in the process - and why these few minor points previously included in the article are significant.  With regard to the reverberating advantage Clemson realized during "The Early Years" of the Rivalry resulting from some of Tillman's actions, and the additional advantages realized, not just by Clemson but by all Agriculture & Mechanical Colleges of the day, (as well as the Military Institutions), proving said advantages are easy-enough simply by citing records and stats of those institutions' predominantly male enrollments, (and their sports teams), of the day.  Citing the residual political influence Tillman left as a legacy at Clemson, one that lingered well into the 1950s and 60s at the Institution, is undeniable.  What I am really hoping you push for is full disclosure in all Wiki based articles concerning not only the Clemson–South Carolina rivalry, but the Clemson University, Benjamin Tillman and Clemson Tigers articles as well.  One of the little-known historical facts, an interesting bit of revisionist history if you will, is the actual origin of the Clemson "Tiger" name and mascot, and the claim that Walter Riggs, with his Auburn "Tigers" connection, admired the Princeton "Tigers" football program of the day and adopted the "Tiger" mascot in honor of his claimed fondness for Princeton.  Historians of the day remember it differently and any peach farmer in Edgefield County is quick to dispel the Riggs/Princeton claim. (Which most I've spoken with find laughable.)  While some claim Riggs chose the mascot after his beloved Auburn Tigers' mascot, (a claim that would hold more water than the Princeton claim), the truth of the matter is that prior to Tillman being labeled with the well-known moniker "Pitchfork Ben," he was simply known as "The Trenton Tiger" or "The Tiger from Trenton" in Edgefield County.  Now, Tillman threatened to stick a pitchfork in Grover Cleveland's behind in 1996 and "Pitchfork Ben" had a nice ring to it in The State Newspaper, but the fact remains, "the hotheaded and intemperate" Tillman was "Tiger Ben" until that very year Clemson played its first football game and he still held great pull at Clemson when it came time to declare a mascot for his beloved Clemson College in 1896. References to his self-aggrandizing influence on choosing the "Tiger" nickname abound in local lore, legend and at least one paper of the time.  I know, I live here.  So, while this revelation would be no great addition to Ben Tillman's Wiki article, (it couldn't be any more indicting), it would be an interesting add to both the Clemson Tigers article and even possibly to the rivalry article given Tillman's nefarious character and his well-documented hatred for The South Carolina College, the state's flagship college.  But you continue to deny, and attempt to revise, the simplest of factual political connections that fueled, and continue to fuel, the rivalry Les.  I've got an entire bookshelf in my library dedicated to the history of this state and, what I do not have here, I know exactly where to look at the main library in our State's Capital in Richland County.  As a former credentialed journalist, now retired, I'll gladly waste my time, and force you to waste yours, traipsing down this nonsensical path you've set us all upon.  I admire your badgering tenacity to rewrite history in some misguided defense of your alma mater, or worse yet exclude those few important footnotes to the rivalry that nearly all South Carolinians are well-aware of, but we've reached a point where we are no-longer willing to concede every point of contention to you and you need to understand that before we go any further.  Because, if you force us to elaborate on every well-known fact concerning the rivalry, you will not appreciate some of the additions to connected articles that will result.  Open this can of worms if you wish or, as I have pleaded with you before, work to reach an amiable agreement with everyone concerned in the spirit of Wiki.  I'm not asking for compromise on inaccuracies, but you're splitting hairs in an attempt to wear us down and to get your way and you're about to get more than you've bargained for.  I've been wanting to change the article title back to "South Carolina - Clemson rivalry" for some time now and decided to let it go.  Yet it was easy for me, the one hour I spent at the Richland County Library, to find no less than two dozen early references in The State Newspaper, Greenville News and Charleston Post and Courier archives citing the rivalry as the "South Carolina - Clemson rivalry."  Most interesting, during my previous research, I was reminded of the Tillman-Gonzales Affair, (The Murder of State Newspaper Editor/Publisher N. G. Gonzales by Pitchfork Ben's nephew James H. Tillman who was serving as the Lt. Gov of SC at the time.), and was shocked to learn of the part of the dispute that contributed to the eventual murder, that part cited in the trial that involved both Institutions and the underlying hatred by the Tillmans for the South Carolina College. It too would make for a very interesting Wiki article as it was considered "The Crime of the Century" in its day and it too holds rivalry ramifications - particularly with regard to the subsequent suspension of the series that began in the same year of the crime itself, 1903.  The State Newspaper did quite the thorough job of documenting the entire series of events that both led to the murder and the outrage and connections that led to the subsequent suspension of the series in their articles of the day. At any rate, you choose how much more you want connected to your beloved Clemson and the rivalry.  The political and cultural historical mentions currently included in the article are minor compared to what they actually should be in my humble opinion.  The relevance of current mentions are unquestionable, if not incomplete, to say the least.  This rivalry is like no other. Why you are attempting to rewrite, deny or revise the current accuracy of this article raises certain questions Les - you're approaching it as a sports fan rather than a historian - and in doing so you are doing the article an injustice. Scrooster (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite a long response to not even answer the question. That still doesn't show the relevance of A. Clemson's enrollment numbers. B. SC's enrollment numbers. C. When Clemson first opened admission to minorities and women. D. Admission of veterans post WWII. E. The changing of Clemson's named to Clemson University. Or, rather, if they are relevant, the relevance is not communicated well in the article. The facts are just tossed in there arbitrarily. This is the only section I've proposed to remove, BTW.
 * Are you claiming that enrollment numbers do not matter where sports prowess is concerned? And are you claiming Clemson did not hold an advantage, by holding-onto their A&M male-only dominated status, until well into the middle of the 20th Century? Seriously? Is that what your case for deletion/omission/revision is Les? As I stated above, if that is your train of thought in this matter then that's easily disproved with stats and records.  Scrooster (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa. You think I'm trying to have it removed for that reason? I'm requesting removal because I personally don't see the relevance. So you're arguing that the enrollment numbers and Clemson's minority/co-ed status contributed to the athletic success? You're saying that Clemson was more dominant before accepting women and minorities? If that's the case, why is it not in the athletics section? Also, where is the solid data to prove this. Clemson has still been more dominant over all in men's sports post-WWII, so I'm not sure where that logic comes from. My point is that these facts are randomly listed in the article and show no correlation between the hostilities of the two schools. That's it. Any other assumption is reading too far in between the lines. Seriously... how is the date Clemson accepted women into the school relevant to any academic or institutional rivalry between the two universities? How is the information about Harvey Gantt pertinent to SC?--LesPhilky (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also dispute any proposed changes you would make due to your admitted intentions of biased editing. In the above diatribe, you make multiple threats. In a previous discussion, you made it clear that you intended to paint Clemson as a "second fiddle" institution. Continue this path and I will have no choice but to make it an admin matter since you admittedly bring bias into this endeavor. Seriously, though? You're still hung up over which school is listed first? I've never seen anyone so upset about alphabetical order. --LesPhilky (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made no such statement intending to edit any article with any bias whatsoever Les, and I've certainly made no threats of any kind. However, what I will do is add to each apropos article, pertinent information, historically indisputable, fully sourced and cited .... because that is the standard you yourself have set, is it not? That's what you're all-about Les, are you not?  You want pertinent information included, factual stuff, as long as every line, every claim, is sourced and cited, correct?  And you're lying - I've never typed or said or even considered attempting "to paint Clemson as a second fiddle institution," (sic).  lulz oh please, yes please, "make it an admin matter."  Now, stop wasting our time and acting like a brat. Leave the article alone.  You're obsessed with the article.  That article got-along just fine and with little to no bickering prior to your arrival on the scene.  You're obviously emotionally attached to the article Les, you live, sleep and breath it - but it's not yours.  You spend I dunno how many hours plotting on ways to slant the article towards your Clemson bias and hey, I get it, I do, but you just go too far Les.  It's non-stop with you.  So you do whatever it is that your obsessive-compulsive character dictates you to do Les, but you're not going to be allowed to run roughshod over the article anymore.  The rivalry is unique.  The rivalry is historical in that regard.  There have been many, over the past century, well-documented debates within the State's Congress concerning the rivalry.  The Trenton Tiger's many connections to Clemson are legendary and also well-documented.  I dunno what the problem is here Les ... except for the fact that you seem determined to try to sterilize and whitewash the article and that's not how this works.  BTW, that reminds me, have you taken the time to read "A State of Disunion" by Travis Haney and Larry Williams?  If not, you really should.  Matter of fact, you should take the time to track-down either, or both, of the guys and present them with some of these questions of yours - answers they may have come across during the course of their research.  They've got some good stories to tell.  More interesting are some of the things they chose to omit from the book in the spirit of good taste and in an attempt to not upset Clemson fans with ... well, read the book Les, and track Larry or Travis down and speak with them regarding the things about Clemson they chose to leave-out of the book.   None of us, no one, no editor here no book-writer there have ever gone-after Clemson with bias and negative intention Les because, well, quite honestly to do so would not only be an indictment on Clemson University but also on our state, our people and our history.  It would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.  But there are certain historically significant facts that have contributed to the intensity of the rivalry and those we will continue to fight to retain as they are relevant to the rivalry and the history between the two Institutions that make this rivalry so unique compared to others. Regards Scrooster (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On Feb. 11, 2014, you wrote, "Oh, and yes, while we're at it, The University of South Carolina is THE Flagship university of the State of South Carolina, LesPhilky. It existed eighty-eight years before your beloved Clemson was even chartered and it shall not play second fiddle, under any circumstances, to yours, or anyone else's attempts to set new title precedents here in the 21st Century. It is what it is and it is what it always shall be - and that I will prove, once and for all, and then we're going to take special steps to make sure we never have to go through this time wasting nonsense ever again." Link can be provided if you wish, but it's in the archives. Going forward, here's my final warning: I wish to have a civil discussion about this topic. If you engage in any further personal attacks, hostility, or incivility in violation of WP:CIV or the rules stated at the top of this page (assume good faith and no personal attacks), I will have no choice but to disengage from discussion with you and request that you be blocked from this page. The same goes for GarnetAndBlack.
 * I'll be sure to ask Larry next time I talk with him, although it's been a few years. Seriously, though, all I'm proposing is that we remove that one small section from Role Reversal. That's it. I kind of think a bigger deal has been made out of this than necessary.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cross-conference rivalry "unique"?
How can we call this rivalry unique in being a cross-conference rivalry, given the existence of Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate? Further, Georgia Tech left the SEC before South Carolina left the ACC, and joined the ACC before the Gamecocks joined the SEC, so it's had the status longer.

I'm boldly changing as follows: " What makes this rivalry unique is that both This is one of a handful of rivalries where the teams are in different premier conferences…" —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a perfectly fair observation and change. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Name change proposal to The Palmetto Bowl
Both Clemson and SC have agreed to name the rivalry The Palmetto Bowl. Propose that the title of this page be changed to that. This is done for similar rivalries like [|Alabama and Auburn aka the Iron Bowl]. This would also put an end to the "whose name comes first" silliness.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem: “To name this game ‘The Palmetto Bowl’ hopefully adds to the identity of this great rivalry.”[emphasis added] That makes it read like the Palmetto Bowl only refers to the football rivalry game.
 * Also, a Google search for "Palmetto Bowl" shows only Clemson's 35–17 football win last month, and not last night's 68–45 win for the South Carolina men's basketball team.
 * Finally, using the Alabama–Auburn rivalry as a parallel, the Iron Bowl article covers only the football rivalry, though the Iron Bowl of Basketball has an article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * C.Fred is correct, this article covers more than the football game. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Considering that, I think just having it in the lede is fine.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1965 Forfeited Wins by South Carolina
The series record is often cited as 67-42-4. However, in 1965 South Carolina forfeited all ACC games, including a win over Clemson, and a shared conference title. The series record should be cited as either 68-41-4 or 67-41-4. UPDATE - tried to insert that interesting bit of history, particularly how USC's use of ineligible players cost Duke the 1965 ACC championship, but all edits were deleted by user GarnetAndBlack. Everything I added was factual, but probably a bit of history that he would prefer to forget.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.94.96 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Clemson's own 2015 football media guide states the record of the series with USC as 66-42-4 and records the 1965 game as a loss for the Tigers (with no asterisk or notation), so you can go back under your bridge now. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that South Carolina forfeited all ACC games in 1965. Paul Dietzl recognized that ineligible players were used and reported it. The ACC ordered a forfeit of those games (for information: a forfeit of a win is a voluntary action, a vacation of the game is not) and South Carolina complied.

I have left the record alone after the first edit, but added the completely factual note that South Carolina forfeited that game. If South Carolina had not forfeited the game, they would have TWO conference championships, 1965 ACC and 1969 ACC, instead of ONE (on another page, there is a false claim of a Southern Conference championship). Instead, the 1965 Clemson ACC championship is listed on the stadium wall below the second deck.

The 2015 App State program (http://www.clemsontigers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=28500&ATCLID=210326721) actually tells part of the bizarre story of how Duke lost an ACC championship because South Carolina broke eligibility rules. Since Duke was the more aggrieved party, their literature is also relevant (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1149758). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.94.96 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That article makes it appear as if only the ACC counted the games as forfeits. In the absence of more sources—and given that Clemson counts the game as a loss—I see no reason to change the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The series record is recognized as 66-42-4 by both schools and the national media.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The forfeit is fact - South Carolina forfeited the game. It is noted in other relevant wikipedia articles, in the ACC Media Guides, and in newspaper articles from the time (a 2-year NCAA probation followed, based on this issue and infractions in the basketball program). The plain and simple fact of the forfeit should be noted in this article.

As an analogy, the Georgia Tech victory over Clemson in the 2009 ACC championship was vacated by the NCAA (not forfeited by Georgia Tech) because Demaryius Thomas received items from a potential agent. That game is marked as such on the page corresponding to this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson–Georgia_Tech_football_rivalry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.94.96 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Different situation, different handling. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The NCAA does not register the 1965 Carolina-Clemson game as a forfeit, and neither does either school in the official record keeping of the rivalry. The ACC took this action as an administrative way to strip USC (and Duke as a result) of a conference championship (which USC does not claim). The NCAA did not require USC to vacate any wins from the 1965 season. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The official records do not always reflect forfeits accurately. Several schools have agreed in the past to forfeit games under NCAA direction but never changed the official records (Oklahoma, Arizona State, Houston, Texas Tech, Colorado). Note that the NCAA did not control the official records at that time and did not start vacating wins instead of requesting/ordering forfeits until much later. South Carolina agreed to forfeit four ACC wins over ACC eligibility violations; the non-conference games were not affected. ACC eligibility requirements were much stricter than NCAA requirements at that time, and at that point only the ACC games were affected. South Carolina forfeited the four ACC wins, notified the former coach and players that they were no longer ACC champions, but then apparently did not change the official records. The followup NCAA investigation identified related issues and imposed severe penalties by today's standards (2-year television and post-season ban for both football and basketball), but did not ask USC to forfeit any additional games. My guess for the reason is that the players were eligible by NCAA standards (SAT scores being the main difference). The debate here is whether or not the forfeit actually happened. Clemson and NC State both recognize the shared 1965 conference championship that resulted from the forfeits. A simple note on that season, for this page and other affected rivalry pages, is a reasonable addition and not "vandalism."100.6.94.96 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that although the ACC required the Cocks to forfeit, Clemson Coach Frank Howard refused to accept the forfeit, thus both schools have kept it on the books as a win for South Carolina. Let them have it; they don't have much to hang their hat on in regards to football and their history vs. Clemson.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is just for a simple note, similar to those for other forfeited or vacated games. Not to change the "official" record. The story about Howard is a little simplified - the only quote I can find is something like, "the score on the field was 16-17," but that was as the head coach. As the AD, he accepted the ACC championship and the players received rings (NC State only recently gave their 1965 team rings; some of the SCar players returned their rings but many kept them). A forfeit is a forfeit and South Carolina forfeited those four games. The fact that they don't acknowledge it in their records is not unusual - the NCAA has been after Alabama and USC for years to change their published records to reflect vacated wins. And just to hammer home the point of why the NCAA wouldn't also require a forfeit of those games: you can't forfeit the same game twice.100.6.94.96 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that explains why Clemson doesn't change their published records to reflect an accepted victory in the 1965 contest. USC has no vacated wins as far as the NCAA is concerned, that's the whole point you seem to be missing here (deliberately, I assume). Let it go. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether Clemson changes their published records or not. The plain and simple fact is that South Carolina forfeited those games. There is no legitimate debate that can oppose that fact. They could have refused to forfeit and risked other consequences. A vacated win is an entirely different matter, and USC (Southern Cal) has plenty of those. Now if your argument is that they didn't actually forfeit the wins, while telling the ACC and public that they were, then I can't help you.100.6.94.96 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Forfeit mandated by conference to allow a championship to be awarded and vacation of wins by the NCAA are two different things. Three separate editors have attempted to explain the difference to you. If you still can't figure out the difference (or refuse to acknowledge one), then I can't help you. I'm finished responding to this broken-record IP-hopping editor. I will say that if you intend to keep edit-warring using multiple IPs to push this content, you'll find block(s) in your near future. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A forfeit is a forfeit. It wasn't solely intended to change the conference title, but to punish South Carolina for violating the ACC's higher minimum SAT requirement (800 vs 750, to which Howard was also opposed). That same issue of a higher standard than the NCAA is what led South Carolina to leave the conference a few years later. Personal bias may prevent you from understanding this.100.6.94.96 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it was not a forfeit. The ACC itself counts the game as a win in Clemson's conference record but a loss in its overall record. If the game were truly forfeited, then this disparity would not exist.
 * So, Clemson says it won the game, and the ACC says Clemson won the game. Clemson won. Whatever penalties the ACC applied may have included stripping South Carolina of credit for the win, but it was not, per se, a forfeited game. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ALL the contemporary news sources say that South Carolina forfeited those games. When South Carolina agreed to forfeit the games, they became, yes, per-se forfeited games.100.6.94.96 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bro, let it go. South Carolina won the game. Let's not quibble over something decades ago that both schools recognize as an SC win. Enjoy our current elite status and move on.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pointless arguing with a wall, but I had to attempt to set the record straight. And once someone starts making nonsensical arguments it's hard to let go. As the two Clemson football probations from the 1980s are highlighted in detail on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson_Tigers_football, the two South Carolina NCAA probations after 2000 are highlighted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football. However, the first probation that followed the 1965 forfeitures are omitted from the South Carolina page; probably for the same reasons (and persons) that the forfeits cannot be mentioned on this page.100.6.94.96 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: After some reading about football in the 60s, turns out Paul Dietzel had some definitive words to say about South Carolina's 1965 football season and their final record. He would be the head coach and atletic director who dealt with ACC and NCAA sanctions. Highly suggest his autobiography for both South Carolina and LSU fans.ArchieOCampbell (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: After some reading about football in the 60s, turns out Paul Dietzel had some definitive words to say about South Carolina's 1965 football season and their final record. He would be the head coach and atletic director who dealt with ACC and NCAA sanctions. Highly suggest his autobiography for both South Carolina and LSU fans.ArchieOCampbell (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: After some reading about football in the 60s, turns out Paul Dietzel had some definitive words to say about South Carolina's 1965 football season and their final record. He would be the head coach and atletic director who dealt with ACC and NCAA sanctions. Highly suggest his autobiography for both South Carolina and LSU fans.ArchieOCampbell (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a legitimae excuse. No offense intended. Facts are facts, and this particular fact cost Duke an ACC championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.94.96 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the deliberate omissions of facts regarding the 1965 football season, there are other errors on this page. Let's start with the enrollment numbers. The number for Clemson is somewhat above the undergrad enrollment and below the total. The South Carolina number includes undergrad, grad and professional. For professional, the usual definition is students on the path to a professional doctorate (law, medicine, pharmacy, etc.) vs. an earned doctorate (PhD, ScD). ArchieOCampbell (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree here. The chart posted is outdated and inaccurate, and arguably irrelevant to the rivalry. Shall we start a new Talk topic and work towards making the changes?--LesPhilky (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck on that. The main University of South Carolina page has an oddly trucated history. It pretty much implies that South Carolina integrated after the Civil War and stayed that way. Implies, but doesn't state. The answer will be, "you can always click on the link for the full history."ArchieOCampbell (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

USC and South Carolina
I changed all instances of using USC to South Carolina. For anyone who doesn't know, USC and South Carolina were in federal court over the moniker. USC won. In 2010, South Carolina lost rights to the initials.USC-Trojan-Pride (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide a reliable source for that. The University of South Carolina page doesn't mention it at all. Also, when you made your change, you removed a significant amount of information, such as the infobox and statistics, which is why I reverted. clpo13(talk) 22:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have found lots on a trademark dispute regarding the interlocking S and C logo, but nothing concrete regarding the three-letter acronym USC. clpo13(talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know I deleted all that!! Here's some sources http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/usc_vs_usc.php https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/20/logo http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football-news/168476-south-carolina-loses-trademark-battle-with-southern-cal

Maybe you are right though, I know South Carolina is only left with a block c now, removed the s. Maybe some reading of trademark pages or into the litigation and facts and findings would help. Regardless, Legal or not, people outside the state of South Carolina are going to chuckle seeing those initials referring the university of South Carolina. If your not from that state you can't help but admit this. Anyone who watches ESPN knows who USC is. Just saying. But whatever, cheers! USC-Trojan-Pride (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Enrollment Section
To explain changes I made to the section that discusses Clemson and SC's enrollment numbers post WW II:
 * 1. The original section portion claimed SC saw "exponential" growth immediately following WW II because it had opened its doors to women and minorities. This is false. Although SC admitted its first black student in 1873, it did not enroll any black students in the 20th century until 1963, the same year Clemson did. Thus, the claim that USC's enrollment increased due to minority admission immediately after the war is false.
 * 2. USC did admit women far before Clemson did (1894 vs. 1955); however, as we see with both schools' growths pre and post WW II, that didn't significantly set them apart. Clemson and USC's growth from 1946 to 1955 was 1.38 percent and -7.14 percent, respectively. Another false claim that USC grew post-WW II due to women enrollment as their growth actually decreased up until the time Clemson admitted females.
 * 3. The previous claim that SC opened its doors to all veterans is misleading. Both schools opened their doors to returning vets. Clemson received a higher demand due to its military school history and had more limited space, therefore some had to be turned away. In 1946, Clemson saw a 185 percent increase in enrollment from 1945. USC saw an 86 percent increase over that same time. That doesn't lend much credence to the idea that USC was more open to returning vets especially since all of Clemson's incoming 1946 students would be male and likely military-based.
 * 4. I changed the header from "Role Reversal" to "Growth Battle". This now reflects the nature of the topic more accurately. Previously, it was claimed that the schools experienced a change in their status of who was admitted, with the article claiming that South Carolina previously held an elitist status before WW II but now had become more welcoming to all students immediately after the war. We've already established this isn't true with minorities and made no difference with women. In 1941, Clemson only had 422 more students than USC. From 1923 to 1941, however, their enrollment numbers are almost identical. They flip-flop constantly between who has slightly more students. So what exactly made USC an elitist institution before WW II? That isn't exactly made clear. Neither is it made clear how Clemson suddenly transformed into one following the war. But what is the greater indication of USC's growth increase over Clemson is the introduction of the USC branch system in 1957. This growth battle and conflict is still outlined in the section (more accurately this time). Thus, this issue seems to be more of a contest of growth between the two and not an issue of any role reversals or minority enrollments.
 * 5. What else contributed to USC's growth? Take it from the school itself: the Baby Boomers making their way onto the scene.
 * 6. The chart has been redone to update the most current numbers with post-WW II enrollment to 2015. Numbers were taken from the Clemson University and USC websites I have linked previously in this discussion.
 * 7. Added updates to both schools' growths over the past ten years since growth battle between the two seems to be important to some.
 * 8. Honestly, I still believe this section is pointless and irrelevant to the rivalry, but if we're going to do it, let's do it right.

--LesPhilky (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Clemson–South Carolina rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061222165412/http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf to http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030722040816/https://www.metrobeat.net:80/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid:1647 to http://metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1647
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1369883
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/weekend-preview/2012/2613047.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Matchup
So we have an anonymous user (whose initials are User:GarnetAndBlack) claiming that the latest entry to the last matchup between the two teams in football is a POV edit. Or, as he says, are "loaded with peacockery" and "puffery", which are not actual Wikipedia terms. Here are the elements he disputes:
 * -That Clemson gained 622, the most ever by a team in this rivalry's history. This is an undisputed, non-POV fact.
 * -That is was the largest margin of victory in the rivalry in over 100 years. This is a non-POV fact.
 * -That is the largest margin of victory of an ACC school over an SEC school in history. Also a non-POV fact.

Last night's game was a historic one with firsts that are worth recording in the rivalry's history. I welcome an explanation as to how they are POV edits.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, peacockery and puffery are real terms. As well, when they were asked to fix it, they did leave the first thing listed in. While I do feel the info is sort of relevant, I also sort of agree with them: the statement about margins of victory needs some reworking, in my opinion. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the rivalry isn't between the ACC and SEC, it's between two schools, and second-highest margin of victory isn't a "first" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:b12d:5e76:7d12:ff9:74b5:78a4 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Ha, what do you know? Learn something new. Although by the definition here, my edits clearly were not "peacockery" or "puffery" I reverted it back so GarnetAndBlack can have his way. Last night was tough on him, so we'll just let it be. Thanks again for your assistance.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * why wouldn't that info be added, that's cool facts to know. Honestly these two teams rivalry isn't really known nationally. I know Clemson is a national powerhouse but South Carolina is kind of a less known not as good team. Not a very fair matchup. It's more like an ole miss miss st or Tennessee vandy matchup. I wouldn't compare them to bama auburn or Carolina duke but still cool stuff to know. You guys are crushin it with info on here. Hope Clemson takes it this year, somebody has got to stop the bama Death Star, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:5446:9800:5C95:B677:72F3:AF64 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

1965 Game
How come there is no mention of South Carolina forfeiting all its 1965 ACC games, including their 17-16 victory over Clemson, for using ineligible player(s)? According to the ACC, Clemson gets credit for winning the 1965 game. I'm not sure what the NCAA position is on the winner of record for that game. But at minimum, some mention of this should be included in the football section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.187.42 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add something on it. Make sure you link it to a credible source so certain unmentionables don't rush to delete it.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Certified SC Grown Palmetto Series Proposal
What if we add a similar colored graphic box yearly list like we do the football head-to-head results? Thoughts? --LesPhilky (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clemson–South Carolina rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114035021/http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/trads/clem-trads-nationalchamps.html to http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/trads/clem-trads-nationalchamps.html
 * Added tag to http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2007/11/14/News/Tiger.Burn.Comes.Under.Fire-3098917.shtml
 * Added tag to http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2007/11/15/News/Tiger.Burn.Update-3102793.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clemson–South Carolina rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006165516/http://secfootballblogger.com/2008/02/09/rod-gardner-push-off-video-south-carolina-vs-clemson-2000/ to http://secfootballblogger.com/2008/02/09/rod-gardner-push-off-video-south-carolina-vs-clemson-2000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

USC Fans Throws Trash from stands
I think it is pretty notable to have a fan base throw bottles and garbage onto the field and at the opposing team. Is this the first time that they have done this? Or is this a pattern of conduct by the fan base? Carolina kid (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be interesting to look into. Has this rivalry caused any additions of stadium rules for behavior like this? Any thoughts?Carolina kid (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So I'll look for consensus, anyone think it's worthwhile to look into for an included topic for behavior/incidents coming from the stand specific to this rivalry? I don't want to waste my time researching it if someone like garnet and black is just going to delete all of my discussion in talk on it. Carolina kid (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Texas and Miami have both recently littered the field with trash during a game as well. Carolina kid (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * He'll attempt to delete anything that makes SC look bad, but their fans made them look terrible on their own. I would say the trash throwing isn't worth mentioning in the "Latest Meeting" spot as it didn't affect the outcome of the game. I would instead focus just on the stats put up by the players. As for looking into it for overall hostilities, perhaps that could be its own section, but that could turn into a lot of back and forth about which fans have done what at what time.


 * But I don't know. Perhaps it's worth mentioning in the Latest Meeting to highlight the intensity of the rivalry, especially since it poured over into the game itself. Maybe explore it again and cite it.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical thought LesPhilky. I do believe it highlights the intensity. There was once a time when Duke's fans were chanting "how's your grandma" at a NC State player whose grandmother had recently passed. Neither of these are good behavior but they do highlight a desire to defend ones school and degrade the opposing. Carolina kid (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, man, I really didn't care about adding the fan behavior stuff to the article. We curbstomped em, and the behavior was already broadcast on the national news. But since someone wants to make a big stink about how you're going about just trying to even discuss it, let me help you with doing it by the book. SC's athletic director, Ray Tanner, publicly addressed the situation and denounced the fans who did it. There are loads of articles that cite it. That's probably the route you want to go with citation and articles since you have the school's top athletic official publicly addressing it as a problem and something that needs to be fixed. Happy editing.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man. I will look into it. You have been very helpful. Naturally I'll bring anything I feel is relevant and worthwhile here before editing. Carolina kid (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you’re aware that there’s not a single fan base of any school in the country that hasn’t had incidents of bad behavior at one or more athletic events, especially ones that involve their rival? Anyone who would try to claim otherwise is a liar or a fool. I had friends in the Carolina Band tell me of having batteries and cups of urine thrown at them from the stands by the fine folks up at Clemson. During the half-decade that Steve Spurrier was Dabo’s Daddy, I was flipped off by more “classy” Tiger fans than I can count, both at games and while simply driving around town. I know parents of small children who refuse to take them to a Carolina-Clemson game at either school because they don’t want their kids to hear the foul language or observe the drunken boorishness from fanatics on both sides. Just last year, Gamecock players reported some of Clemson’s choir boy student-athletes directing racial slurs at them on the field both before and during the game, but of course there were nothing but denials from the Tigers. There were loads of articles written about this incident as well, but I don’t recall anyone rushing to add that stuff here. All of this is a sad state of affairs, but it’s nothing new and despite what some people choose to believe, it happens at every sports venue in America. But you keep fighting the good fight of bringing this groundbreaking news to the world, CK, I’m sure Wikipedia will be much improved for your efforts at opening ignorant eyes. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Racial slur claim was made up by a butthurt player following a butt stomping. He couldn't give a name or jersey number, but somehow knew it was an offensive lineman. And it makes a lot of sense that a Clemson player surrounded by his black teammates would use the N-word at someone else. I'm sure that would go over just fine. It's well accepted he made it up. Players kind of have things on their jerseys that make them easy to identify.


 * While we're on the topic of fan behavior, do you want to see all the videos emerging from SC tailgates this year? Brawls, sex acts in public, some recent idiot trying to have a wrestling match with a table ala Buffalo Bills fans. It's not really relevant to this page, but y'all have problems. But that's fine, because only makes Clemson look better. Recruits see it, too. Seriously, they're fun videos. Let me know if you want some links.


 * Either way, this particular case was actually relevant to the game and the rivalry seeing as it made national news and Tanner has been forced to address it. I'm sure Carolina kid can handle it, but it doesn't really matter either way. The game's outcome is sweet enough. Never again!--LesPhilky (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * LMAO. Thanks once again for proving my long-standing point, Les. Despite 4 wins in a row and a recent national championship, Clemson and their cult of delusional fans possess the biggest inferiority complex in college athletics. Congrats! No one can ever take that crown from you dirt farmers. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll tell ya what. Let's be honest. We can get into the back and forth on the actual article of whose fans did what at what time, but we both know that's probably going to get into a mess. How about I just mention it never again. Never again sound good? And we'll just all agree to put it to rest and never again bring it up. We can just focus on game results. How does "Never Again" sound? All you have to do is reply "never again" to this and I'll hear you loud and clear. Just say the words and I won't bring up the fan behavior. Never again.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * wow. You guys are intense. What does it even mean to be "Dabos daddy". Where is your source for that? Lol. Look I am talking about fan behavior that affects progress on the field. Like Dabo being called for being mad about the trash USC threw. Look I'm from Carolina, so I don't really like any of your school. Actually les, I'm still a little salty about that offsides call on last drive of that Carolina Clemson ACC championship game 2 years back, Haha. I just thought it was intriguing. Garner and black I would discourage you from using ad homynyms. Attacking people instead of the subject is poor debate tactics. Furthermore none of this banter has to do with editing the article, like you just tried to get me banned for doing? Instead let's focus on looking at credible fan influences on the actual game. Carolina kid (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and who argues on Wikipedia? When we have a disagreement, we normally bench, squat, deadlift, or fight. But hey we're a bunch of degenerates. My point is we don't log into a computer and angry type and bash universities atheletic teams on public encyclopedias. That's weak. I certainly recommend just doing research on topics that don't pertain to you if you can't keep personal feeings and bias out of it. Okay Carolina kid is off of his soap box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina kid (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Garnet and Black, you are such an enthusiastic and dedicated editor. Unfortunately, you are letting your strong personal views and opinions on gamecock athletics and hatred for clemson athletics inhibit your ability to truly make positive progress on this encyclopedia. You can add a thousand meaningful sections, but if you let personal opinion dictate how you edit just one, you'll always be known as a biased editor. Honestly, I recommend that you take a break from this article and contribute in other areas. Hey, try Carolina-Duke! It could be fun, and frankly that article has some poor language for a prestigious university. And les, while I do think you are a level headed individual, there are still a few things that discredit your arguments.  In the future try and avoid language like "butt hurt". You'll have much more credibility if you rise above the fray. Hope none of you take this personally. Just my thoughts.
 * "Butthurt" is an incredible word and you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers! Take care.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * hahah, touché les. Didn't mean to offend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina kid (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)