SirBigSpur

It's the time of year for filler sports--stuff you try to convince yourself you enjoy but are really killing time.

Baseball is number one. 162 games in a season? Even if I wanted to care, it's the epitome of meaningless games. And all the arguments about how close things are a playoff time makes no sense. It would be just as close with 80 games and each game would be exactly twice as meaningful. And as far as college, I firmly believe the only reason 80% of Gamecock baseball fans exist is because that's the only sport we're consistently relevant in. Take a survey of actual fans (not nutcases on message boards) and I bet the vast majority would give up our entire baseball program for a run like Clemson football.

NBA playoffs are solid. All 3 months of them.

Hockey is definitely a sport (in comparison to baseball) but it's just a cluster. I know some Northerners will argue I don't get it, and that's fine, but it's just madness for a while and then there's a goal followed by more mayhem.

Soccer I can get behind. EPL is in the home stretch and every game matters. Champions League is just fun to watch and women's soccer is a very good product. To me, in comparing high level professional sports between genders, soccer is the closest. For disclaimer, I just recently started watching it (the past 3-4 years), thanks to my oldest kid playing it.

So, for optimism: If you actually like baseball, it's cool. If you're just a gamecock fan, like me, I just hope to hit the ballpark a few times, let my kids run around, and drink some beers at the Fireflies. It'll be a successful season if I get a face sunburn a few times and the Gamecocks make it out of a regional. Soccer is fun. And you can grill anything and it smells great.

One man's stubbornness is another's commitment to details. And I'm just wagering Muschamp or anyone else aren't losing too much sleep over cheerleaders. And let's be honest--who was that building built for?

And it's all perception. He's hardheaded when the offense goes stagnant against UF but is willing to change when we play Mizzou? He's hard headed because in his first season he played three QBs and started two freshman? Was anyone complaining about Scar starting when the UF game started or the Clemson game?

There are pluses and minuses with every coaching and managerial style, but if you going to put the ship into someone's hands, I want them to be confident and sure enough of themselves to not bend at every breeze. Does that mean he shouldn't listen to advice and pick his battles? Absolutely not. But that does mean that when the buck stops with you, you've better have the stones to piss some people off.

We don't deserve to be. We finished the season with a thud and tried to take some sort of positives away from Bentley tossing the ball around Clemson while we still couldn't run the ball and Clemson continued to do whatever they wanted to us.

Next season, to me, is just a wash. I hope to be competitive, come out with a winning record, and not get embarrassed. We're out of our depth with the schedule and even with substantial progress will take a lot to come out with a better record.

I actually don't know how I feel about this. Is Dabo lying? Yeah. I don't doubt it. Maybe they unwittingly gave them an illegal substance, but they knowingly gave them something sketchy. I also don't feel it's as nefarious as it's being made out by some Gamecocks. It feels like they were trying to operate in the grey areas and stepped a little over. I'd rather do that than be squeaky clean and keep falling behind. Maybe there'll be a smoking gun, but I seriously doubt it.

My opinion, there are tons of reasons to hate Dabo and Clemson. His little rant. The abuse of Christianity for football recruiting. The entitlement. Playing hurt athletes. Buying his way into a top team. This ostarine thing is low on the list of way he's as douche.

They deserve the punishment for being so effing stupid to admit to wrong doing when the NCAA had nothing.

On the plus side, now that it's been confirmed that Mizzou is in the running for most racist university in the SEC east and cheats (all be it like a toddler), then they must feel part of the SEC for real.

I'm too ADHD to scan through the Rant. I tried but there is too much about other teams. I only have a few minutes scattered throughout to keep up with my own team.

As far as Spurticus, he's the epitome of "Get off my damned lawn" moderator.

I've been banned a few times by him. Once, and I still stand by this, is that Wesley Saunders is a douche bag. The other times I never got an explanation other than I stepped out of the company line.

Maybe it'll get more active around here on the Gamecock news front, which is really what I enjoy.

First, let's talk about police reports in general. From what I can gather, an initial police report is public record but subsequent investigations and interviews are not unless used in a trial? And the initial report is simply one officer's interpretations and recordings of an event. So let's say in the heat of the situation, a person exaggerated or diminished something, then the only information given to the public is that. In this case, let's say the woman said he actually had a gun. That new information wouldn't be public. Or let's say she said he never actually laid hands on her, that information wouldn't be public either unless she made it so--and then, in either case, the information is viewed as suspect because it's in antithesis to the original report.

Long way of saying, I don't know how I feel about original police reports being public record until a court case is pending. Let's say she recants the statement and it's just the property issue--shouldn't the report be redacted to not falsely accuse someone? And vice versa, too.

Anyway, lessons here: 1. If you're blowing up your girlfriend at 2 am and she's not answering, don't show up at her place. It's only going to make things worse. 2. If you do show up and somehow get inside and find her with another dude, feel free to make an arse of yourself, but end it all by walking away before you lay hands on someone. 3. If you decide to ignore the first two rules, while you're sitting in your car, call a lawyer.

This will be an interesting development.

I'm not sure who will emerge, but I don't think you can necessarily look at who I the best 'back'. If McClendon is true to his word for a faster offense and if there are more 4 wide sets, it'll simply be the back that doesn't screw up. I'd take a lower average per carry with the guy who knows where to line up and pick up a blitz over the RB who can break one every game. However, if McClendon wants more versatility and moves the RB out to the line or tosses more wheel routes, who knows?

I know he's only been out of Florida for a bit, but I guess I'm thinking of myself as an example. I was young when I got my first real job, but it was after a lot of school. Coming in, I was wowed with what they put on the table, but soon learned that everything wasn't quite what I thought. The next job I went to, I knew what I needed, what I didn't, what fights I should fight and which ones to let go. I understood the importance of staffing and relationships--how to be an effective manager and still, I try at least, being personable.

It's one of those things, I think, that you don't know what you don't know. Some head coaches are lucky and kind of fall into greatness, but most have to learn on the job what does and doesn't work. I'm praying that Muschamp now understands why he failed at Florida, what he would do differently, and can apply those lessons at USC.

Ask me 6 weeks ago who I wanted, he wouldn't have been near the top of the list, but the landscape changes. Personally, I still think there are a few candidates out there I would consider strongly over Muschamp, but it's just as a fan and not behind the scenes.

New to the board, but wanted to jump in the thread with just opinions.

I usually ascribe to occams razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

So, to me, the 'smokescreens'etc. is just too much. Not only that, but say we do get Muschamp and things fall apart in 2-3 years. Where would we stand with Riley or other 'smokescreen' candidates. You play the game, but you don't burn bridges.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that this thing, at least behind the scenes, isn't over. The search firm should have done all this leg work prior. What I hope, and should be, going on is the final interview process. 3-5 candidates with the top choice already in Tanner's mind and what would be needed to make it happen.

I firmly believe our number 1 choice is coaching this weekend; otherwise, waiting is only hurting the new coach to put together a staff. You can't hire or recruit OC's if you're Muschamp unless you've sign the contract.

To me, the simplest answer is that Muschamp is the safety valve now if the number one backs out after the games Saturday. Be it Fedora, Herman, or (and I haven't heard much about him for USC) Rhule.