By Ron Aiken

Best. Bowl. Ever.

Last week, many Gamecock football fans witnessed what will go down in history for them as the greatest best bowl game ever played, and it wasn't the Liberty Bowl victory over Houston.

Nor was it the Music City Bowl, in which Clemson looked lost and pathetic.

It wasn't even, as you may be supposing, the relentlessly thrilling Fiesta Bowl between Boise State and Oklahoma.

Rather, it was the lopsided Sugar Bowl, a 44-14 LSU rout of Notre Dame. How is it that this boring game trumps USC's own bowl victory in terms of long-term importance?

There is a very good reason for this ‹ or rather, nine of them.

Until the final seconds ticked off the Superdome scoreboard, the University of South Carolina held the dubious national distinction of owning the country's longest bowl losing streak at eight losses (along with West Virginia which, in a nice turn of irony, handed USC its first bowl victory in 1995's Carquest Bowl to snap the streak). Most painful was that the streak of eight losses comprised the school's only eight bowl appearances to that date, a thoroughly embarrassing span of 49 years dating back to a 26-14 loss to Wake Forest in the 1946 Gator Bowl. West Virgina's streak, by comparison, was only from 1987-1998.

For USC fans under 30, it may be difficult to realize what a horrific, apocalyptic disgrace the 0-8 record was to those who suffered through the losses. The streak was a shameful albatross, a seemingly never-ending nightmare that hung over the entire program's century-long ‹ and almost entirely fruitless ‹ quest for gridiron respect.

It was a statistic that always seemed to come up when it was farthest from one's mind. Whether referenced on television to add perspective during one school or another's losing bowl streak or, worst of all, whenever a hair was out of place on a Clemson fan's head. I recall the "Honk If You've Won a Bowl Game" bumper stickers were particularly brutal.

In short, nothing so encapsulated the latent fears and debilitating hopelessness of USC fans as that one, sorry statistic, one so powerful in its ability to deliver crippling debasement that such a patently ridiculous notion as a supposed "chicken curse" ‹ a phrase invented solely by The State newspaper's television writer, Doug Nye ‹ could take hold among Gamecock fandom as being a real entity with a will as cruel as its reach was long.

No more.

Now, in USC and West Virginia's place stands the previous paradigm of pigskin power, Notre Dame. What's more, in another remarkable bit of irony, Notre Dame's head coach, Charlie Weis, is a former USC assistant coach from 1985-1988 and was on the sidelines for bowl loss number seven (1987 Gator Bowl, LSU 30, USC 13) and the record-setting eighth (1988 Liberty Bowl, Indiana 34, USC 10). Another smaller droplet of irony rests in the fact that former USC coach Lou Holtz delivered the first two of Notre Dame's nine-straight losses while he was head coach in South Bend, losing to Colorado in the 1995 Fiesta Bowl 41-24 and dropping a 31-26 decision to Florida State in the 1996 Orange Bowl.

Nearly every article written about this year's Sugar Bowl contained a paragraph mentioning South Carolina and West Virginia's previous postseason shame (now it's just our respective educational systems), and with any luck, it'll be the last time USC is synonymous with football ineptitude.

With Steve Spurrier at the helm and already possessing a slew of school firsts, it is unlikely the Gamecocks again will plumb such depths. As Spurrier has stated, South Carolina should ‹ should ‹ compete next year for an Eastern Division title. That could mean anything from a first- to a third-place finish and likely New Year's Day bowl trip. I think a second-place finish seems most likely, if not a bit on the optimistic side.

But with the recruiting classes Spurrier has assembled, the youth and talent that has aged under fire the previous two seasons and the play-calling, game-management wizardry of the visored one himself, it's just hard to imagine USC not having as much a shot at the No. 2, if not No. 1 spot, as anyone else when you look at returning rosters for 2007.

But in the meantime, USC fans, I'd encourage you to be thankful of Notre Dame's wresting the title of worst bowl team in the country from Columbia. And in the meantime, if any USC fans own a bumper sticker printing operation, might I suggest "Honk if You Beat Kentucky"?

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

He is Risen! He is Lord!

So God is alive, after all.

It sure didn't seem that way during the first two quarters against Clemson, and at halftime He and I did have words outside The Wild Hare. Some pretty serious stuff, I'm here to say, which I think I got His attention. I may have said something about never going to church again, and at the time I sure as hell meant it. I mean, for the love of Christ and all that is holy, that interception return for a touchdown right before the half was enough to dampen anyone's faith.

And His little trick of letting us get our own D-line interception return only to have the ball knocked away through the end zone, well, I wasn't amused and let Him know about that, too. But now I realize He did it only to excite the passions of the Clemson legions so as to make the loss even more painful. Thank you, Lord!

Eventually, the better football team prevailed and there was nothing God nor anyone else could do about it. There's not a shadow of a doubt that even had Jad Dean's kick been true, USC would have outscored the Tigers in overtime.

That Clemson was in the game despite getting outplayed in every sense was a miracle in itself. Not in recent memory has USC so dominated Clemson in every aspect of the game except fluke long touchdowns. And that the Gamecocks rushed for more yards than Clemson's vaunted rushing attack just made it even sweeter. I mean, USC quarterback Blake Mitchell rushed for more yards (33 on seven carries) than the Tigers' All-American candidate James Davis (19 on 11 attempts). Wow.

The Gamecocks overcame every bit of adversity thrown their way, a trait any USC fan will tell you has been in short supply in Columbia for decades. Three first-half interceptions, one returned for a touchdown for a 14-point swing just as USC was driving to take the lead before halftime. A defensive penalty that kept a Clemson drive alive. Three touchdown plays of 76 yards or more. Another 31-yard run following a failed fourth-down attempt. The list goes on and on.

And yet, in the final tally this game wasn't even close in terms of who was the better squad. Once Clemson crapped out all the horseshoes they'd stuffed up their orange pants before the game, the gig was up. Four hundred ninety-two total yards by the 'Cocks. A 100-plus yard receiver (Sidney Rice, 8-103) and rusher (Cory Boyd 16-106). A rejuvenated Mitchell who overcame his early mistakes to throw for 268 yards. An offensive line that proved stouter than Clemson's heralded line (zero sacks allowed to Clemson's three, including the crucial fourth-quarter sack to back up the spaghetti-legged Dean). One punt to Clemson's five. One made field goal to Clemson's zero. Twenty-eight first downs to Clemson's pitiful 15. Seventeen unanswered second-half points.

Given the dominance of the numbers, one might think God himself was doing everything He could to keep Clemson in a game against a team it had no business being within 14 points of, and on the Tigers' home field, no less.

The real story here isn't that USC won, it is that since the second half of the Arkansas game, USC has played like a Top 10 team. Florida upset USC. Take a minute to let that sink in. USC outplayed Florida just like it did Clemson and Arkansas in the second half, and it took a one-in-a-million block by a guy who a week later was suspended for drug use to get it. The mighty Gators were more than fortunate to win at home, and when those circumstances occur in sports it is called an upset, no matter what the records or rankings say beforehand.

It was on that chilly night on Nov. 4 when the Steve Spurrier era truly began, when his offense began playing like he designed and the defense and special teams did their part. Besides three teams (Michigan, Southern Cal and Ohio State), I don't believe there's a team in the country USC couldn't line up against right now and defeat.

That's what's exciting about next year and the years after, and that's what Clemson fans should fear. Sure, Spiller is coming back. Maybe he'll have a gazillion yards next year against USC and score two touchdowns that won't be enough, just like they weren't this past weekend. I do know they'll be replacing three starting linemen and a quarterback. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, the Spurrier era is at hand, and God, though I had to rouse Him from His slumber, has risen to walk with His chosen people toward the promised land of an SEC Championship. Amen.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

USC Loss = God is Dead

It is not often as a sports columnist that one may write purely as a fan. When dealing in analysis, objectivity provides the clearest possible lens.

But just as for every rule there exists an exception, such is the case with this column. For this piece, I no longer am multiple award-winning (all first places, mind you) sports columnist (who else was going to tell you?). I am, simply, a USC fan, same as I have been since the day of my birth and same as I will be until eventually claimed by the hereafter.

Notice I did not say "until called home by God" (one of my favorite obituary clichés), because if ever there was direct evidence of Satan's rule on Earth, surely Clemson's unholy recent football success against USC is proof of it. What other reason, besides the absence and/or death of God, can explain how such mischief can occur? Such reeking, unwashed orange filth? You think it's coincidence that Clemson's orange is the color of fire? The kind that burns in, I don't know, hell?!!

Thus, the outcome of Saturday's game is a referendum not on such trivial subjects as the Iraq War or national politics, but on whether or not there is a God in Heaven and if He still cares for us. That's what's at stake.

Surely, not even the Jewish people have suffered as USC fans have. At least they had a time when they were champs (King David, for one, if in fact he ever existed, which is subject to debate), and they're back on the international stage now, definitely ranking among the world's Top 10 in military firepower.

USC has known no such Top-10 finish, no such laurels. Instead, Gamecock fans have a 110-year football holocaust of grief and loss that, instead of getting better, has gotten worse over the past decade. Since a 34-31 victory at Memorial Stadium on Nov. 23, 1996, USC has dropped eight of nine games to the Tigers, a.k.a. the most penalized program in South Carolina for cheating at football. Have you ever gone back and looked at the nature of the violations Danny Ford's program committed during their "glory years?" I have! Here's a sample: improper financial aid and transportation, improper extra benefits, improper recruiting contact, improper employment, improper entertainment, improper inducements, improper lodging and transportation, improper tryouts, excessive number of official visits, unethical conduct and improper certification of compliance. These were dated Nov. 22, 1982, and reflect directly on Clemson's obviously, inarguably tainted, poisoned and otherwise "improper" national championship.

The report goes on to state that Clemson should be "publically reprimanded and censured," to which I wholeheartedly agree. I won't go into specifics from the report, which include offering a "substantial sum of cash and an automobile" to one recruit, another "substantial amount of cash" and "several other gifts" to another recruit to go with numerous cash gifts and credit card authorizations all dating from 1978 to 1981. And there weren't just one, or two, or five, or even 13 violations cited. There were 25.

This is the nature of the enemy USC faces ‹ like the Japanese and Germans in World War II, their history clearly shows they will stop at nothing to win.

Thankfully, God delivered the world from the Japanese and Germans in World War II through His involving American might and right. And yet, with world affairs settled, apparently He has been asleep at the wheel ever since.

USC fans have a history, like the Jewish people, of occasionally, when events were most bleak, of searching for a messiah figure. It's what oppressed peoples do. And, like the Jews, we've had our share of duds, from Sparky Woods to Brad Scott to Lou Holtz, each of whom was to come in and right the wrong of Clemson domination but who ultimately were dismissed as charlatans, hucksters and skunkbellies.

Enter Steve Spurrier, messiah-in-residence. The 13-9 loss last year was difficult for fans, especially since the Gamecocks had plenty of chances. But what that game did provide was hope, because it easily could have gone either way despite Clemson's enormous talent difference in that game. This year, the talent is closer to even. But what's more, Spurrier finally is running an offense to his liking, the kind that is painfully difficult for opposing coordinators to stop.

It is for that reason that I, for the sake of the thousands of God-fearing USC fans worldwide, pray for a divine judgment against evil Saturday and the coming of our deliverance from the tyranny of hell. If such does not happen, then, well, I submit to the world that God is dead and His Son has abandoned us.

At least, that is, until next year.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

Zen and the Art of Toilet Bowl Maintenance

Flush Florida.

That's what USC head football coach Steve Spurrier advises, and I second his motion.

And while you're on that emotional toilet, you might as well go ahead and give a safety flush to make sure no refugees from previous efforts on the pot ‹ close losses to Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas ‹ come be-bopping back up the pipes, either.

After the Georgia, Auburn and Tennessee losses torpedoed any hopes of a top-tier bowl game and/or a shot at a division title, the season became a struggle for two things: respectability and bowl eligibility. A win over Middle Tennessee guarantees bowl eligibility (if not a bid), and the nature of the losses to Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida ‹ each coming by an average of a meager 5.2 points ‹ has assured respectability across the country for Spurrier and company.

Clearly then, this season should be viewed as a stepping stone toward competing for championships. Defeat the Blue Raiders, and a losing season is avoided. But to ensure a winning season (and at least equal last season's win total), one final, enormous orange carrot still hangs at the end of this season's stick.

Gamecock fans can make their bowl reservations now: The date is Nov. 25, and the opponent is Clemson at Memorial Stadium. That is USC's bowl game, and its importance could not be greater if this season is to be considered anything other than a stupefying string of disappointingly close losses.

Should USC lose, the chance of going to a bowl as a 6-6 team is not promising. That the Florida loss was particularly bone-crushing ‹ coming as it did because of numerous breakdowns on special teams and one monumentally destructive illegal procedure call on Jamon Meredith ‹ cannot be changed. What can be changed is what lessons one takes from adversity. Do you wallow in pity, or do you inspire yourself from within and realize there still is much on the table to play for?

That USC was even in a position to beat Florida tells you this team employs the latter strategy, one that comes from Spurrier down. I believe Clemson is going to be in for a hell of a game. I say that first because the game is at Clemson (this USC team plays horribly at home), and second, because neither Arkansas nor Florida could stop USC's offense with Blake Mitchell under center.

Since his return, Mitchell has been an entirely different quarterback ‹ focused, poised and confident. In short, he is everything he was not earlier in the season. His numbers are extraordinary: Since relieving Syvelle Newton against Arkansas, Mitchell is 39 of 54 for 488 yards and two touchdowns. That completion percentage is a whopping 72 percent. The league leader, Jamarcus Russell of LSU, is completing 70.8 percent. Behind him is Tennessee's Erik Ainge at 66.7 percent. You get the idea.

Now, there's still a problem that needs to be addressed: the return game. USC doesn't have one. Good teams, teams that win close games, do. The Gamecocks' punt and kickoff returns are disgraces to modern football. USC is ninth in kickoff returns in conference, 10th in punt returns. With the defense forcing next to no turnovers, what that means is that practically every one of USC's drives must go 80 yards or longer. USC's two touchdowns against Arkansas came on drives of 92 and 99 yards. The two touchdown drives against Florida each were 80 yards.

Methodical, plodding drives are wonderful clock eaters, but they don't allow you to score quickly. And when your defense can't put you in better field position through three-and-outs, turnovers or punt returns, it makes getting points lengthy, difficult propositions.

That USC has been doing it the hard way is stunning. But the final results ‹ tough close losses that come down to one or two plays each game ‹ show how difficult it is to earn victories that way.

The Gamecocks can win out and play in a nice bowl, but first they must fix their fatally flawed special teams and find ways to get the offense the ball past its own 20-yard line. If they can, it's sayonara to the offensive constipation that has USC averaging only 21 points a game. If they cannot, it's back to the off-season laxative fans know so well labeled "coulda, shoulda, woulda, didn't."

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

Wait Until the Year After Next!

Few things in life are as tempting as the short view. It's so alluring because we all want to be the first to say a thing everyone recognizes as true. We all sprint to be the first to spot a trend, notice a weakness or, most often, state the obvious. We pat ourselves on the back when we're first to call in, post a thread, write a column or hit the air.

And, just as the truth of this desire is inescapable, so is the fact that short-sightedness inevitably leads to conclusions that fragment over time, sometimes as rapidly as they congealed.

At least 12 times a year, every fan, beat writer, columnist, Internet blogger, player, coach, announcer and Boy Scout is bound to inform someone else how he or she believed the game went down. It is a compulsion, an obsession to commiserate in the immediacy of the moment's strong emotion with those of like mind through the offering of their (not so) humble opinions.

Unfortunately, it also makes people say very foolish things, for the nearer to the trigger of the emotional response you get, the stronger and less-reasoned the reactions become. It is a law of nature that people are far more prone to succumb to wild hyperbole following a disappointing football game than at any other moment in their otherwise conservative, Christian lives. In that head, coaching staffs need to be fired, players benched and their scholarships revoked.

I say all this because had I written this column Saturday night after the Tennessee loss, this likely would have been a far different piece. My postgame notes beg me to draw comparisons to USC teams of the past, to other underachieving performances, to other disappointments.

And yet, even as the drone of hyperbolic callers and fatigued hosts stretched into the night, I began thinking of a conversation I had on the field prior to the game.

There, I had the opportunity to speak with Steve Spurrier's older brother Graham. He drives to every USC game, home and away, from the family's hometown of Johnson City, Tenn. I was impressed by his overall enthusiasm and palpable optimism about the future of the program. We were talking about the likely outcome of the coming game, and he shrugged off the idea of it being overly important.

"He's still building," Spurrier said of his younger brother. "He doesn't have everything he wants yet or everything he's going to get.

"Two years. Two years from now, that's when you'll start to see him competing for championships. USC fans better learn to get used to winning."

Spurrier and I talked about their relationship, and I asked him how long he really thought Spurrier would coach in Columbia.

"He's retiring here; he'll never coach anywhere else," Spurrier said matter-of-factly. "He loves it down here, the school, the people. He's not going anywhere. He loves the fans and wants to win here. No matter what happens tonight, the future is exciting to me. I can't wait to watch him do it."

There's a lot of wisdom in the elder Spurrier's approach. In the long view, the result of the marathon that is reasoned judgment, USC fans have to recognize that it never has had a coach, a winner, of Spurrier's magnitude. Appreciate how much he did last year with so little, appreciate how out of the horror of a one-touchdown-in-two-games offensive performance to start the season he created a team that can challenge the nation's elite units to within a touchdown ‹ and that with the breaks going against them.

Two more years. It seems like such a long time, though in football years it's the blink of an eye. For a major head college football coach, if you're absolutely horrible you still will get five years of support and hundreds of thousands of dollars before anyone cans you. Besides president of the United States, what other job allows a person to fail so miserably for such a long time before action is taken to right the course?

It is so because the job is so difficult ‹ building the right mix of talent, chemistry and coaching is extraordinarily hard, fraught as it is with all manner of demons: injuries, academic casualties, drug test failures, transfers and the inevitable trickle of suspensions and/or arrests.

This is why Spurrier should be so appreciated. He has climbed these mountains at places no one thought you could win championships: Duke and Florida. He knows how to do it and, what's more, is motivated and dedicated to doing it here. So sure, take the short view. Get ticked that USC lost to Tennessee, kick the dirt and mutter about how USC always seems to lose the big games.

I'm with Graham. I'm taking the long view. Remember that, when USC is in the conference championship game two years from now, you heard it here first.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

How Good Can USC Get?

Reading the cards for USC's fortunes down the stretch is no easy trick. For as close as it played then No. 2-Auburn as well as Div. 1-AA Wofford, South Carolina (5-2, 3-2) remains something of a garnet-hued enigma. Are they a team on the cusp of a national ranking and shot at the SEC East, or are they going to be fortunate to win one game against Middle Tennessee State the rest of the way to get bowl-eligible against a titanic, merciless, soul-crushing schedule?

Like most things in life, the answer is in between those two extremes.

Clearly, USC is playing its best football at the right time of year. The switch in offensive play-calling philosophy, coupled with key personnel changes, has transformed an ineffective, error-prone unit to one the Auburn coaching staff feared enough to attempt an onsides kick against. Senior Syvelle Newton is playing the best football of his life, and his passing has improved tremendously ‹ witness his pass-efficiency rating of 159.5, good enough for second in the conference behind LSU's JaMarcus Russell. His elusiveness and success breaking out of the pocket mean upcoming defenses will be forced to dedicate a linebacker or safety to shadow him at all times. What that does is open up the perimeter of the field, as nearly any feint by Newton upfield will collapse the defense toward him.

Junior running back Cory Boyd is a weapon on par with the thus-far underperforming sophomore Sidney Rice, and sophomores Kenny McKinley at wide receiver and Mike Davis at tailback provide better-than-average depth behind those two playmakers.

With three potential all-conference gamebreakers (Newton, Boyd and Rice) at his disposal to confound defenses, Spurrier's own playcalling has improved following his decision to feature them in a run/scramble-first offense that constricts defenses with the rushing game before stretching them deep with Rice's nearly unmatched ability to run down deep passes.

Having said all that, I must say that unsung among the choir of praise for Newton, Boyd and Rice are voices sufficiently lauding the team's two clear strengths ‹ defense and the kicking game. One can easily make a case for sophomore kicker/punter Ryan Succop as the team's overall MVP. He is in a class by himself in USC's history for accuracy of field goals, punting average and kickoffs blasted through the end zone. The Gamecocks simply never have had a weapon his equal in all phases.

And quietly, the defense has allowed opponents only 14 points a game. Vanderbilt got 10 points last week off turnovers that put the defense in a poor position with its back to the goal line. And even then, it took a spectacular fourth-down individual effort to get the touchdown and the Commodores had to settle for a field goal on the other occasion.

While the defense isn't forcing many turnovers or leading the league in any categories, what it is doing is limiting opponent's third-down conversion percentage to 29.7 percent, third-best in the conference, thanks in no small part to a pass defense that's the league's No. 2 unit. Add the monster Brinkley twins and unexpected sparks from freshmen Eric Norwood (DL), Rodney Paulk (LB) and Captain Munnerlyn (CB), and you have a cohesive, motivated unit that has been embarrassed by no one.

All of which may change with the likes of nationally ranked Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas and Clemson coming up on the schedule. However, if USC's points allowed per game can remain between 14 and 21, a vastly improved offensive unit has the ability to significantly boost USC's scoring output.

It all begins with Tennessee. Of course the Volunteers are out for revenge, but like nearly all football played at any level, third-down conversions, turnovers, defense and the kicking game decide outcomes, not anger.

Can Spurrier continue his magic against Phil Fulmer and the burnt orange of Tennessee, or will the true difficulty of the remaining schedule simply prove more than USC is ready for in Year Two of Spurrier's reign? For the answer to that, all I can scry is the fact that with a team in almost every respect inferior to the this team, the 2005 squad won out in conference. That leads me to believe the Gamecocks somehow will find a way to win three of the next five and eclipse last year's win total by at least one, if not two should a bowl win be in the deck of cards Spurrier seems to know how to play better than any other coach in college football.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

What Would Jesus Boo?

I love it when fans turn on each other.

It's inevitable during the course of a season, and for USC it happened this past weekend. In the second quarter with the Gamecocks leading 28-6, quarterback Blake Mitchell, fresh off a one-game suspension for his alleged role in a late-night Five Points incident, entered the game. Seconds later, he was sacked and fumbled. Head coach Steve Spurrier had seen enough and Mitchell was pulled from the lineup, not to return.

At this point, as Mitchell was leaving the field, some fans booed.

More than anything else that has happened on the field or off this season, the booing of Mitchell produced a firestorm on Internet message boards and talk radio from fans claiming to be disgusted by the booing and from talk show hosts chiding the boo birds and saying, to paraphrase the words of one, 'USC can no longer claim to be the best in the nation. They should be ashamed of themselves."

To which I say: Boooooooooooo!

Telling another fan what they can or cannot do or say at a game, short of yelling 'Fire,' is a preposterous manifestation of self-righteous behavior that's more shameful than the booing itself they berate. Who the hell is anyone to tell someone else what they can or cannot yell at a public event designed for such conduct or judge what distinguishes a 'good' fan from a 'bad' one?

In my book, a good fan goes to the game. There were plenty Saturday who did not or who left early, including one of the talk show hosts who was so quick to criticize the fans. Further, a good fan yells at a game to express his displeasure or excitement.

But God forbid someone boo an under-performing player. To hear these people talk, they may well have been booing Jesus himself. And I'm sure none of the offended, disapproving fans ever booed an official in their entire lives, right? At its heart, it's a cultural problem. Our society is all about passing some everloving judgment on something or someone we don't condone. The irony is that the same people who harrumph disgust at anyone with the audacity to express an opinion that contradicts theirs are themselves guilty of one of the most fundamental un-Christian behaviors: passing judgment on other human beings. I'm fairly certain Jesus was pretty specific about not doing that.

Besides, these aren't minors playing high school football where everyone can participate. These are athletes selected and compensated for their football skill to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships and coaches paid in the millions of dollars to produce successful football teams. Fans pay $25 a ticket, much more to belong to the Gamecock Club to be able to buy that ticket in the first place and even more to park and tailgate at each home game, not to mention the money spent on team clothing, accessories, etc.

I have no problem whatsoever with a person booing their sorry head off from kickoff to conclusion if that churns their butter.

I do have problems with hypocrites who hide behind labels such as 'class' and 'good fan', using them to demonstrate behavior indicative of neither.

Secondly, such inane, heated fan arguments happen at every school every season. Show me a school that plays major college football and I'll show you a fan base that has booed at one time or another, more than likely in the very recent past, whether it was Clemson wanting to oust Tommy Bowden after a Wake loss or the entire USC fan base groaning in unison after another Lou Holtz quarterback draw.

Sports is entertainment, a discretionary expense and exercise. If a person is so easily offended that another fan booing an athlete's on- or off-the-field performance has them steaming for days and lashing out in public, maybe it's time to pull that Bible out and ask yourself, what would Jesus boo? The answer, for those souls, is the person in the mirror.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

Smelley Answer to Stinky Offense

By Ron Aiken

English poet and colonial apologist Rudyard Kipling once wrote:

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs … Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it."

I prefer a variation of that quote, which goes: "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you clearly don't understand the situation."

Such is the case with South Carolina's offense this season. Now is not the time to stay the course, to convince yourself nothing is as bad as it seems and to persevere with fortitude. The Gamecocks offense is as bad as it has looked, and the radioactive stink permeated both Williams-Brice Stadium on Saturday night and television sets nationwide.

Strong measures are required to salvage this offense and this season, and that process begins with replacing junior quarterback Blake Mitchell immediately.

Mitchell is in his second year with Steve Spurrier's offense and has started 13 games. Through those 52 quarters of football under the game's best quarterback coach, it is remarkably difficult to demonstrate improvement. In fact, his numbers have deteriorated. Since the Arkansas game last season, Mitchell has thrown seven interceptions to only three touchdowns, and I'm going to be generous and not count his costly fumbles and bungled snaps over that stretch.

Through two games this season, Mitchell personally has led zero scoring drives. Nil. His overall career numbers are equally uninspiring, as he has completed just 58 percent of his passes, throwing 16 interceptions to 18 touchdowns.

Patience is not an option in college football. There are only 12 games on the schedule, and each second of them is precious, each game providing memories that last lifetimes and define achievement not just for one player, but for an entire team. If a player at any position is not playing well, he should be the first to make room for someone who can. That time is now, and the quarterback should be true freshman Chris Smelley.

The main reason is that while Mitchell's progress has stagnated, there is an enormous upside to Smelley, who already has demonstrated a confidence and poise it appears Mitchell never will locate. What's more, USC has two games against inferior competition to get Smelley up to speed for the remaining — and crucially important — Southeastern conference schedule.

Heading into last year's Auburn game, USC had to make a change at quarterback when Mitchell was injured, and fans saw what can happen when that quarterback isn't ready to step in. This season, Spurrier has eight quarters to prepare the quarterback of the future for Auburn. Time is too short in a college football season to give quarterbacks the benefit of the doubt, especially when the result is an embarrassing shutout on national television and in front of almost 100 unimpressed recruits.

Such a performance simply cannot stand, and Spurrier needs to recognize the greater good of giving the most highly touted quarterback to come to USC since Steve Taneyhill an opportunity to get his feet wet against Wofford and Florida Atlantic.

And Taneyhill is a particularly appropriate reference in this case. He was thrown into the SEC mix as a true freshman in 1992, displaced an underperforming entrenched starter and led the team to five wins in his last six games, the only loss a close 14-9 decision in Gainesville to Spurrier's unofficial SEC champions.

More than point guard, more than pitcher, more than goalie, the quarterback of a football team is the one individual most responsible for his team's success. If he cannot lead, if he cannot distribute the ball effectively and make split-second decisions under enormous pressure, the results are catastrophic. USC's defense held Georgia to 16 points — the offense handed the Bulldogs two thanks to a ridiculous safety. That should have been more than enough to win, just as the Gamecock's holding Clemson last year to 13 points should have been enough. But with Mitchell at the helm, it wasn't.

Mitchell isn't a disaster on the order of an Antonio Heffner or even a Dondrial Pinkins, and this column is in no way an indictment of Mitchell personally. Mitchell is a likable fellow, and it is my opinion that he could make a tremendous backup; he may even improve more that way, being on the sidelines next to Spurrier, signaling in plays and helping Smelley improve.

But the thousands of fans and 100-odd players whose lives are tied to the outcome of USC football seasons deserve a team with the best opportunity to win, and that chance simply is greater with Smelley under center than on the sidelines.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

Braggin' Rights

By Ron Aiken

With college football season here, fans will be devouring a smorgasbord of game stories, columns, notebooks and takeout features. Those of us in the profession will be writing them. So it is to my fellow sports writers, especially you younger writers heading out to games for the first time, that I address the following column on behalf of readers concerning clichés I personally hope never to see in print again.

• "Step up." My God in heaven am I sick of this. Athletes say it, writers write it and it unfortunately has become stitched into the fabric of everyday sports diction. It also is a phrase that should disappear forever, and here's why: It is meaningless. From what I can gather, to "step up" refers to the fact that you should perform your job. That's it. Think about it — whenever someone says so-and-so needs to step up, what they mean is they need to execute their job duties as they are supposed to. It does not indicate above-average performance, but rather is an expression rewarding mere competence. As in, "Hey, I stepped up and came into to work this morning." Congratulations. You did the job you were brought in to do. You want attention? Do something special. Throwing touchdown passes, making tackles — these are not examples of "stepping up." They are responsibilities.

• "Solid, if not spectacular." Speaking of performing at an average level, this is another lazy cliché. A Google search of these words returned 31,500 hits, used to describe everything from stocks to retail sales to singers to athletes. In sports, it almost always refers either to a team or individual's performance, often in a debut. While the meaning is clear — great things were expected, but only average results delivered — please do readers the service of consulting a thesaurus. There's a wide world of words out there, and readers deserve better than canned expressions.

• "It was a tale of two halves." Do I even have to describe how lame and contrived this is? This is the ultimate hack giveaway. You may as well start your story with "Webster's dictionary describes 'exciting' as…" and other such fifth-grade openings. Every game is a tale of two halves, and you're not Charles Dickens.

• "These two teams don't like each other." Really? No s#!t. Also include the cliché, "There's no love lost between these two teams!" under this heading. Oh, and while I'm on this topic, every game ever played in any sport is "for braggin' rights"!

• "Drew first blood." Young writers love this one. Unfortunately, over the past century there have been many young writers, and the phrase is static and punchless. Use something active instead, such as "struck first," or simply state what happened, as in "scored first." Don't rely on re-tread phrases and bad movie titles when good words are waiting.

• "Literally." This is an actual quote from The State newspaper's coverage of USC baseball: "Yaron Peters literally put the Gamecocks on his shoulders during the College World Series." Literal means factual. It's often misused by writers thinking it adds emphasis. You can say someone "put the team on their shoulders" if you must, which is a wretched cliché itself, because that implies a figurative relationship. But using the word "literally" means the relationship is fact. Yaron Peters was a big guy, but I doubt he could literally put two players on his back, much less an entire team. When you use words or phrases, know what they mean. Otherwise, you look like an idiot.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for starters. The good news is that football season finally is here, and for as hard as players and coaches work toward achieving success, here's hoping writers do as much to hone their own craftsmanship. Fans and readers deserve nothing less than our giving 110 percent, and as long as we take it one story at a time, eliminate the mental mistakes and grammatical turnovers and play our own game, then we can step up, get in the zone and take it to the next level.

Let us know what you think: Email editor@free-times.com.

The Beautiful Shame

By Ron Aiken

Fat people are more stupid than skinny people, don't you think? I mean really, on the whole? They can't get themselves to a healthy weight for one thing, which anyone will tell you isn't very intelligent. And second, it is uncanny how the most consistently off-base pundits, sports or otherwise, seem to exhibit a stronger relationship with gravity than gravitas.

It was while watching William Rhoden of The New York Times and best-selling sports author John Feinstein on ESPN's misnamed The Sports Reporters (the guests are longtime columnists, in some cases decades removed from actual reporting) that I was forced to indulge such wild, patently unfair generalizations. I'm all for hyperbole when used as a device to make a valid point. But here were these two writers — individuals who unarguably stand at the top of the entire profession — on national television expressing anti-soccer opinions bordering on the criminally retarded.

I realize not everyone likes soccer. That's peachy. Like most Americans, I only really follow it during the World Cup. But their bile-laden, pompous harrumphs about how ridiculous soccer is as a human adventure (the fans only sing because they're so bored); how FIFA — the sports international governing body — could improve the sport by eliminating the offsides penalty (a point demonstrating a profound ignorance of the sport); and, of course, how the abomination of allowing tie scores undermines the sport's relevance to society and the purpose of competition are all just too much.

What bothers me most is not that such shortsighted assertions are that awful by themselves. It's that such foolishness, coming from the top of the field, gets parroted ad nauseum on down the sports food chain without end. Just as every four years the World Cup provides the planet with its greatest sports stage, it also unleashes upon the American reading public column after column decrying the sport. It's the journalistic equivalent of a straw dog, and judging by popularity of the exercise, it is one Americans relish.

All of which led me further to evaluate why it is we seem to loathe soccer so much as a country. Maybe it's the fact that you can't take steroids to get good at it that discourages America's best athletes. OK, that's probably a bit harsh. I think it has more to do with the fact that the past 25 years or so, we've somehow let ourselves become a nation of bullies — of smug, underachieving C-students who enjoy picking on the rest of the world and things we don't understand. Too often, those are the same thing.

We have grown up believing in our hearts that we're better than the rest of the world, and our three most popular, financially lucrative sports are the ones that reflect those values, the sports that are uniquely ours. It's not coincidental that over that quarter-century timeframe baseball, long considered a thinking man's game, has ceased to be America's pastime and has become a coven of juiced-up no-necks looking to mash the long ball. And football, which has emerged as America's undisputed passion since the debut of Monday Night Football on Sept. 21, 1970, is at its heart a sport made for bullies. We all love it, but let's not kid ourselves. It's about pushing the other guy to the ground. Where soccer is about patience, fitness and strategy, football is a fistfight.

It's not a knock, just an observation on our culture that seems to prize simplistic solutions and revel in tearing down worlds outside our pale. And it's a real shame that such tendencies are exhibited by the shining lights of the profession toward a sport and a world infinitely more complex than they have taken the time to examine.

Soccer unquestionably, unarguably and unequivocably is the world's greatest sport and should be given its fair due — nothing more and nothing less. Only then can we move on to discussing what is the greatest sport in the world with any credibility. That distinction belongs, of course, to college football alone. I'm American after all, and know that no sport in the world beats a good fight between college students.

Women Should Support Their Sports Teams

By Ron Aiken

A sports journalist colleague of mine once said women's sports are like funerals — only friends and family attend and everyone is glad as hell when it's over.

He was dead right.

Flipping through the sports channels the other evening I came to a dead halt. On my screen were athletes, the best of their kind in the world, playing at the highest possible level on national television and the stands were pathetically empty save for the first few rows, which I presume were the domain of family and friends. Such is the state of the WNBA, which turned 10 this year.

This is the problem I have with women's sports: The very women who argue vehemently in favor of them don't support them financially. Sure, they back them in theory, in talk. But when it comes time to open their pocketbooks for the teams and leagues they demand, suddenly they're nowhere to be found.

I doubt the majority of women could name more than two WNBA teams' cities and nicknames. I doubt they even know the WNBA is under way at the moment or could name more than two players on the league's all-decade team. And yes, they have an all-decade team.

Women need to start walking the walk. If you support women's sports, then be a dadgum fan. Pick a team that means something to you and learn that roster backward and forward. Buy stupid crap with your team's logo and wear it to inappropriate places, such as church or nice restaurants, like men do. Go crazy when your team wins a big game. Sulk around the house all day when they lose. Tell your spouse you can't cook tonight because the game's on, then watch it all the way through and get angry when he steps in front of the television during the action to "talk."

Otherwise, stop crying that women's sports don't get enough coverage on television. In truth, there are only two other ways to increase interest in professional women's sports if women don't choose to become fans. The first is to combine women's sporting events with elaborate shoe and dress sales in the concourses. But this doesn't do much for promoting the action on court.

The second, and more realistic, is to have women's basketball and softball players compete in bikinis. I'm not kidding. It's the only way to get men, the ones who pay to support teams, interested in those two outlets of female competition.

My penultimate proof for this is the undisputed popularity of women's beach volleyball at the Olympics. There is no other reason, save bikinis, that men care about women's volleyball. They surely don't show up to indoor matches of any kind, barring a familial rooting interest.

Sure, there would be some initial hiccups. For instance, many female athletes (catchers in softball, centers in basketball) aren't flattered by bikinis. Some would have to either shape up or lose their roster spot to a more flattering figure. Tough luck. But I guarantee you one thing: Ratings would be through the motherloving roof for a basketball game played by women in bikinis. Posters of talented female athletes would adorn young men's bedroom walls across this great nation, easily displacing their male counterparts. And if there happened to be a "wardrobe malfunction" during a game, well, bingo! Instant television history and popularity worldwide.

I'd even wager that more women would watch and go to games if for no other reason than to keep up with their husbands' goings-on. And think of it, here would be a sport that man and wife could enjoy equally, even if they're enjoying it for different reasons.

If any of the above offends you, there's one way to do something about it. Chances are, though, you won't, and that's the biggest insult to women athletes of all.

When Knees Meet Jerks

By Ron Aiken

Fire Dave Odom, and fire him now.

That's all anyone listening to local sports talk radio could hear for the better part of this basketball season, as various pundits and callers weighed in on the terrific, apocalyptic disappointment the USC basketball season had become. The team clearly was, by turns, an embarrassment, a disgrace, horribly coached and full of JUCO (junior and community college) losers and recruiting busts. How the team managed to dress itself out and show up each night to play without quitting from pure shame was anyone's guess.

I've always thought it must be nice to know the future. Specifically, to know that this bunch of sad sacks ultimately was capable of nothing more than to royally disappoint everyone in new and startling ways until the calendar mercifully ended further opportunities to degrade the integrity of the USC basketball program in the SEC tournament.

Then, according to the prophets of rage, having utterly failed themselves, the school and the fans, USC athletics director Eric Hyman easily could go about cutting Odom loose and bringing in someone a bit more up to the task.

Of course, none of those things happened, as South Carolina closed its season with a 9-1 run to a second NIT championship — beating Michigan 76-64 at Madison Square Garden on March 30 — that brought the program positive national exposure it could not have dreamed of receiving prior to the SEC tournament.

And that's the fundamental problem with prophecy: You can't know how something will end until it is over, because you don't know and can't know all the factors involved in such complex equations as team chemistry, scheduling, injuries, breaks and the wild caprice of the human spirit.

That also is the fundamental problem of anyone eager to rush to judgment and capitalize on the prevailing wind of fan sentiment, which, if anything in the world is more fickle, it has not yet been discovered.

Passing judgment in a court case before all the facts are in is criminal, and yet the kangaroo court of radio and Internet fandom and tertiary media had Odom convicted and hung long before the season was through.

Clearly, what frustrated most fans and barstool loudmouths was why USC took so long to play well, to suddenly become very good only after the games of most importance to an NCAA tournament bid were in the loss column. That's fair, but only to a point. Every team develops differently, and Odom's teams have shown a tendency to catch fire late in the season. But close early losses kept USC from a dance ticket, and what speaks more highly of Odom than anything else is the way that, when this team could have, should have quit, it never once gave up on itself even though most fans and on-air personalities had.

What South Carolina fans should expect from their basketball program is precisely what Dave Odom — without nearly the amount of love from fans that baseball coach Ray Tanner and football coaches Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier enjoyed — has delivered: consistent postseason appearances. Let us not forget the records of Eddie Fogler's last three teams: 8-21, 15-17 and 15-15 in 2000-2001. The only postseason appearance during that lousy stretch was a first-round NIT loss to Connecticut. Only three of Fogler's eight seasons produced winning overall records.

Meanwhile, in Odom's five seasons he has had a losing record just once, a 12-16 (5-11 SEC) mark in 2002-2003. Each of his other four seasons has produced at least 20 wins and a postseason tournament appearance of some kind. That is a remarkable achievement, one that deserves more credit than it has been given. Take a look at the programs USC has defeated in the past couple of years under Odom in postseason tournaments alone: Kentucky, Georgetown, Syracuse, UNLV, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami and Florida State. That's a lineup with strength.

It has been reported that Hyman will not give Odom an extension. If this proves to be true, it is a poor decision and merits revisiting. Odom deserves an extension for as long as he wishes to be coach here.

USC's past is littered with knee-jerk coaching decisions and premature fan and media outrage. Odom has earned his tenure. For once, USC should reward someone of his caliber and commitment to the school with longevity and the full confidence of a new athletic administration.

The In-State Fallacy

By Ron Aiken

Every recruiting season and head coaching change, USC fans talk about how important it is "to keep the in-state kids home." Failure to do this is seen as failure to put recruiting priorities where they belong, and much is made when either USC or Clemson supposedly "wins" the in-state recruiting battle.

This idea couldn't be more wrong.

The bottom line is that big-time high school football in South Carolina is good in the Upstate on a consistent basis — but not anywhere else. But don't take my word for it; feast your eyes on the state high school league record book. In Class-AAA since 1990, 10 of 15 champions are from Upstate schools. In Class-AAAA's Division I, it's a startling 12 of 15. In Class-AAAA Division II, it's 8 of 15, including the last three in a row. That's a tally of 30 of 45 — not shabby. What this points to is that South Carolina simply doesn't produce enough high school football talent to support one university, much less two. And when the best players year after year are in Clemson's backyard — well, if you don't make out-of-state recruits your priority, you're either ignorant, stupid or both.

Think about it: USC's best players traditionally come from out of state, especially Georgia. George Rogers and Sterling Sharpe, perhaps USC's best all-time players, came from the Peach State. Steve Taneyhill was from Pennsylvania, Todd Ellis from North Carolina. It's not because high school football is better in neighboring states, it's simply because more people play it.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Florida has 17.3 million people, Georgia 8.8 and North Carolina, 8.5. South Carolina's 4.5 million is the smallest of any SEC state. State loyalty aside, those numbers alone should preclude any coach from limiting his or her horizons to third-rate players just because they're local. It often is said that more people play high school football in Atlanta than in the entire state of South Carolina. For that reason alone, Georgia should be a coach's No. 1 priority. UGA and Georgia Tech can only take so many, and often the top kids want to go somewhere out of state to play — though not too far. The Gamecocks should be all over those kids. North Carolina also should be fertile, with no dominant football program to lock down Tar Heel talent each year. Focusing too much on in-state talent is the equivalent of saying, "I'm only going to recruit from the Class-A ranks." South Carolina, effectively, is a Class-A state. Sure, there are some nice players that come out of Class-A each year, but not enough to fill a Division-I roster — much less compete for major conference championships.

When I was an undergrad at USC, I always was amazed by the number of students from the Northeast, especially New Jersey. USC's athletic office should have a permanent bureau in Trenton. College football there is awful and takes a back seat to nearly every other pro sport, and what USC has to offer — weather, attractive coeds, a priority on football — should be as easy a sell as you'll find. Instead of moping over lost in-state players, coaches should be mining like-minded gems in neighboring states. It's not as if UNC and Duke only take North Carolina basketball players. They recruit nationally, as do the powers that be in SEC football. Trust me, once a program starts winning, those in-state studs will give USC far more consideration. Thinking kids should come to a mediocre program out of nothing but state pride is ludicrous.

So give a rest to all that "you gotta lock down the in-state talent" baloney. It's garbage from start to finish. There's precious little of it to start with, and it's counterproductive to waste time on guys who have negligible interest in staying in-state anyway. Steve Spurrier understands this as well as anyone, which is why Spurrier signed as many players from Georgia this year as he did from South Carolina. Heck, he went out-of-state himself as a prep quarterback, and it certainly worked out all right for him.

Though it is difficult for USC fans to admit their home state lacks sufficient talent to support its flagship university, it's time to face facts and stop getting so angry at players who go out-of-state (traitors!), their high school coaches, whom they accuse of steering players away (that Camden coach hates USC!), and college head coaches who had no shot in the first place of ever signing in-state studs (Raymond Felton, Dekoda Watson) who grew up lifelong fans of neighboring elite programs. It's loser talk and excuse making, and it isn't remotely fair to the athletes and coaches who devote their lives to making themselves the best they can be.

Ron Aiken is a local writer. He covers USC football for The Side Line, a Free Times publication.