Ignoring the 'other' issues implicated in the thread title, what possible benefit to USC could this plan have, presuming they sell out every game anyway?

15,000??? That is more than SC State averages at their OWN home games. I don't know one university that offers visiting fans that many tickets. We give A&M fans one small section...maybe 5,000 to 7,000 tickets when they come to Austin......and that game is one of the top rivalries in college football.

SC State is a Div 1 AA football program that is getting paid a substantial amount to play USC........shut up and quit whining.

First off, I graduated from USC, not SC State, so as an alumni, I have the ABSOLUTE right to say what I have to say regarding the school I graduated from.

Second, I have many family and friends who graduated from SC State and support their football program. This will be a big deal when this happens and there will be a lot of SC State fans who will support this event. Knowing this, giving them more tickets in my personal opinion would be good and that will give their fans an opportunity to cheer on their favorite school.

And yes, this game is A BIG DEAL! Especially in the African American community. This is the first time both of these teams have played each other and this will give many fans, especially African Americans, to see how small SC State will face against the all mighty USC.

Besides, I heard on the news that the USC Athletic Dept. has decided to give SC State 2,000 tickets. Case closed. But trust me, there will be more than 2,000 SC State fans at Williams-Brice.

finally the SC State AD makes a statement

I still feel this series of games against instate Div-1AA schools are pretty much a waste of time. If Spurrier and his players have their $h!t together none of them should come within 30 points of USC...if somehow one of these schools beats USC then it pretty much ruins our season, we could have scheduled another power conference team that could have improved our reputation on a national scale on brought in some TV money, instead we are giving away $200,000+ to play an instate school that we should wipe the field with...absolutely pointless

Every school is going to play worthless, no contest games. Its no different for teams like us (Texas), when we play Sam Houston St. and beat them 80-3.

Okay, is all that REALLY neccessary?

It's a shame that people can't discuss opposing issues without someone getting their panties in a bunch and resorting to such childish behavior.

:rolleyes:

Exactly, jitterbug. This is the first time the teams will be playing against each other, so people probably assume that there won't be much of a crowd. But even while driving around in Columbia, I see almost as many State license plates as I do USC plates.

Of course I have loyalty to my alma mater, but I think that the issue should be discussed more, and since the game isn't until 2007, there's plenty of time.

Not to mention, an election cycle :)

^^^^
Well, the person who proposed this is not up for re-election. As a matter of fact, none of the State Senate is. This year, we vote for Governor, Lt. Governor, other major state offices, and State House of Reps. We'll vote on the State Senate in '08.

There are things I like to sugarcoat about USC Football and there are things that I don't. This is something I won't sugarcoat. There have been many years in recent memory that SC State has done better in football than both Carolina AND Clemson (last season was one). If Carolina continues to play the way they have been and SC State contiunes to improve the they way have been the last few years, SC State MAY give Carolina a run for their money. Even though I would like for Carolina to win, but I have to be realistic. And also, a lot of USC players who feel like they don't get enough playing time or get kicked off the team DO transfer to SC State. And their current coach was a former USC assistant.

It would be very difficult for a 1-AA school to beat a 1-A school. You can't even start looking at records when comparing schools; the 1-A school (especially one like South Carolina) plays a much higher level of competition than the 1-AA school. Upsets happen on that level, but they are VERY few and far between.

Maybe I'm not seeing this the right way; a school that has trouble drawing for their own games (10,000 average attendance) wants a school in a higher division, that doesn't even have to play them, to give them a large amount of tickets. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from South Carolina's perspective to amp up the number of tickets for SC State.

I understand where SC State fans are frustrated, but the school is getting money for playing the game, and South Carolina is doing SC State a big favor by even agreeing to play them. The money will make a difference at the school. Also, the recruiting help (athletes may go to SC State if they know they can play against at least one D1 school) could be priceless.

There are always wars among colleges re: how many tickets visiting fans should be allotted. Fans continually find ways around it.

Ebay is a beautiful thing for those who really want tickets.

This is exactly what I'm saying - there are really two options:

a.) USC sells out every game (or this game specifically)

In this scenerio, there's no reason to take tickets away from their fans, for their home game, and give them to the visiting school - there's no monetary benefit, there's no secondary benefit (since I doubt USC will be playing at SC State any time soon), and it is bad news for their own fan base.

b.) USC does NOT sell out

In this case, there's no need to give more seats to SC State to sell through their own athletic office, because SC State fans can simply head to the ticket window and purchase them for themselves . . . maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly, and I can see why people feel the way they do, but I just don't see any reason for USC to treat this game any differently.

stubhub beeyotches!

-Rudey

It's not racial, it's economic.

One of the problems with the big time programs is that their first priority is often to please their alumni who suck up the majority of the tickets.

Their own students often rate a poor second -- let alone people from a visiting school.

The good news for the later school is that they get a lot of dollars from the gate just playing in the big stadium if their athletic department is good at negotiating.

For the past several years, Ohio State has played an Ohio based Mid American Conference school each non-conference season. (They've actually been fairly entertaining for the most part.) Why let all of that money go to Southern Idaho Polytechnic?

I went to the Ohio University/Ohio State game a few years ago, and we (O.U.) actually led 11-10 going into the half. I think the final was something like OU 11/OSU 41 at the end. It was still fun, though.

Thank You for this post!:cool:


It is Called $$$$$$!:eek:

There are rules of who gets who and Div. are different and the amount of tickets that are available.

If a person wants to Play The Race Card, that is His decission, no matter how stupid He may look.

Based on the article, it doesn't seem as though the elected official was saying that SCSU was being discriminated against based on race.

He is saying that those who are loyal to SCSU (majority black) would be excited at the opportunity to play USC (majority white). This is the same if any 1-AA is playing a 1-A. The students, alumni, and supporters of the 1-AA will ALWAYS be more excited at the opportunity than the students, alumni, and supporters of the 1-A. This means that the 1-AA may want to have some extra tickets available since this IS perceived as a once in a lifetime opportunity that will get a lot of attention--hence, the request for an exception. This elected official just happened to mention the race of the majority of people involved on both sides, as opposed to leaving it as a given. People being people harped on that instead of the main point.

This isn't to be confused with someone playing the "race card" (stupid phrase). The people who know about the logistics and policies behind the matter know that it is an economic issue and not a race issue.