re: Gamecocks, was it worth it?

quote:

---

Trading a powerhouse baseball program and an above average football program, to have a dominant women's basketball team?

We cant even discuss yall when we are talking SEC dominance in baseball anymore.

WTH is Tanner doing to yall?

---

The baseball program will be back soon enough - beyond Hill we have a totally new and young staff, so it will take a while to develop the pitching, but so far we've seen improvements under Kingston, and those will continue.

As for football, it's true we're climbing out of the hole that Spurrier left the program in, but we are climbing. USC still has an above-average FB program: we've won 9+ games a season 5 times out of the last 8 seasons, and only Alabama, LSU, and UGA can make the same or better claim:

West
Bama: 8/8
LSU: 6/8
Miss St.: 4/8
Auburn: 3/8
Texas A&M: 3/8 *-once in the Big12
Ole Miss: 2/8
Arkansas: 2/8

East
UGA: 5/8
USC: 5/8
UF: 3/8
Missouri: 3/8 *-once in the Big12
UTjr.: 2/8
Vandy: 2/8
UK: 0/8

Projections are strong for USC making it 6 out of 9 seasons this coming season, while Arkansas' FB projections......well, heh heh. It seems that Arkansas has traded all of its sports - FB, BB, Baseball - for T&F. Now that might just be a bit more pathetic....