Decline of SC Basketball - 1972 to 2012

Question

You hear it said so often among Gamecock fans that it's now practically a cliche - "We're a football and baseball school. No one cares about basketball at South Carolina."

I''d wager that a fair number of you have said it; many of you may well even believe it.

But it wasn't always this way. South Carolina once possessed an elite basketball program. If you had told a USC fan in 1972 that, within forty short years, most Gamecock fans wouldn't care about men's hoops - or that in 2012 Carolina fans would be infinitely more concerned about the baseball diamond than the hardwood - our 1972 counterparts simply wouldn't have believed you. They couldn't have believed you. You would have been laughed at.

And they would still have laughed at you in 1982. And in 1992. And in 2002.

Football may be King at Carolina, the last generation of Gamecock fans might have conceded. But USC basketball was important, they would argue. A distant third in the hierarchy of fan devotion? No way! More people attending Carolina baseball games than hoops? Out of the question! A dead arena and the worst program in the league - so far down the conference totem pole that even our most mediocre rivals stand head and shoulders above us? Impossible.

Yet that's where we find ourselves in 2012. Barring some sort of miracle on the order of angelic intervention, the season is for all intents and purposes over as of Saturday's loss to the Auburn Tigers. The Cocks have twelve games left on the schedule from January 25 to March 3, and if the odds were set today then we wouldn't be favored in any of them. The Colonial Life Arena will remain a mausoleum - less than a quarter full on game day (except when Kentucky comes to town of course - then it will be Rupp Arena annex).

It's all such a far cry from 1971-1972, when Carolina had a 24-5 team that was eliminated in the regional semi-finals by a UNC team that would go onto the Final Four. Or the next year, 1972-1973, when we finished 22-7 only to be bounced again in the Sweet 16 by the eventual tournament runner-up, Memphis State (in case you're wondering, John Wooden's UCLA Bruins won both years).

So what happened? How did we progress from an elite program to a laughingstock? It wasn't any one thing, but the death of a thousand cuts. And here is a timeline of the worst cuts of all:

1971 - South Carolina resigns from the ACC following years of open hostility from Duke and North Carolina, which had culminated in a blatant and heavy-handed change in league admissions requirements specifically designed to curb USC on both the hardwood and the gridiron. Ultimately, the courts would overturn the worst of these Tobacco Road abuses, but we lost our collective cool and left in a huff - primarily led by football coach Paul Dietzel. Most thought it was a temporary protest - after all, we were one of the charter members of the ACC and had traditional ACC rivalries dating back to the 1890s. The unintended result, however, was a twenty year sojourn through the wilderness of independent and/or small conference play while the ACC enjoyed a golden age during that same time period. Had we held our nose and stayed in the ACC, there is a good chance McGuire would still have been able to work his NYC recruiting magic for the rest of the '70s, and we would have attracted better players and coaches in the future.

1975 - South Carolina hires Jim Carlen as football coach. Why would a football hire impact our basketball team, you might ask? The reason was that Carlen had been promised the full control over all USC sports in his capacity as head football coach and athletic director. Unfortunately, this put Coach Carlen into immediate conflict with Coach McGuire, since McGuire ran all basketball operations. The divided athletic department, and the lack of an independent athletic director would make Carlen and McGuire's relationship adversarial rather than collegial. The two men were rivals for political and fan support, and each had different agendas. This state of affairs would weaken both programs, but particularly basketball. Had we had a unified athletic department and a fully independent, strong athletic director, we would have avoided the debilitating political infighting that plagued South Carolina athletics for five ugly years from 1975-1980, and likely would have rejoined the ACC in 1976.

1976 - secret negotiations between the ACC and South Carolina break down when the ACC demands a hefty "re-entry" fee. McGuire supported re-entry because our basketball fortunes had slid rapidly in the years following our departure. Carlen, however, opposed re-entry because the football team was enjoying on the field success - and accompanying financial rewards - playing as an independent; Carlen felt returning to the ACC would have a negative financial impact without any upside in terms of competition. Eventually, a divided Board of Trustees, combined with the ACC's ungracious demand for a substantial cash payment, all contributed to deny us a detente with our former conference mates. Eventually, we would join the Metro Conference, but that was small potatoes compared to the ACC glory days we forfeited. Had we been able to return to the ACC, we could have reversed the mistake of 1971.

1977 - USC hires James Holderman as its new president. Holderman was in many respects a visionary, with amazing political and fundraising skills, but he was also a deeply flawed and narcissistic individual. One of the many causes he adopted - and ultimately botched - was his decision to back Carlen against McGuire. With the support of influential politicians and Board of Trustees members, Holderman publicly tried to oust Frank McGuire by offering him the athletic directorship of the Coastal Carolina satellite campus in Conway. McGuire - who was under contract - refused to budge. Holderman backed the wrong horse. Carlen would be unable to sustain success, but had McGuire had the full support of the administration, it likely would have allowed him to focus on returning the hoops team back to the glory years of the late '60s and early 70s before the slide became irreversible.

1978 - Having been compelled to backtrack the year before, Holderman and his political allies make a second attempt to depose McGuire by trying to force him into mandatory retirement. This ploy also failed, but more irretrievable damage was done. On a national level, we had signaled to the sports world that the administration would not support its legendary coach; not only that, but we also signaled that politicians and Board members were allowed free rein to meddle and micro-manage the basketball program. Finally, the fan base had to divide between McGuire supporters and Carlen supporters. Distracted and under assault, McGuire's last three teams struggled to mediocre records and no NCAA appearances. It could have been different if McGuire had received the same level of unconditional support from the administration which he received from the fans. To make matters worse, Carlen became openly insubordinate and hostile to Holderman. The situation was intolerable.

Keep reading after The Jump!



1980 - Having finally wrested control of the athletic department from Carlen, Holderman and the Board were finally able to buy-out McGure by agreeing to pay the (then) insanely high amount of $400,000. In an ironic twist, USC hired former Duke coach Bill Foster to revive our flagging program. On paper, Foster looked like an inspired hire. He had enjoyed success in Durham, arriving there in '74 to revive a team that had slipped from the Vic Bubas glory days; after three lean years, he was able to recruit talent to Duke (most notably Mike Gminski) and the Blue Devils rolled through the '78 NCAA tournament - reaching the championship game (where they lost to Kentucky). Foster also led the Blue Devils to the NCAA's

Answer 1

Nice read and great perspective Atlas! Well Done!

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by Clevercock3.

Answer 2

I've never seen it summed up so perfectly. It makes a case that the program is at the point of no return, if we haven't passed it already. Hyman is at a crossroads. He can pretty much drive home the final dagger by keeping Horn another year to save a few bucks and tell the entire world that USC is giving up on basketball for as long as he is AD. Or he can make a bold move, open up the checkbook and do whatever it takes to either get today's version of McGuire or the perfect choice: Marshall. Either way, it's going to be an enormous risk, and will likely define the Hyman Era for posterity.

When someone writes the next 40 years history of Gamecock Basketball, 2012 will be the tipping point.

This post was edited on 2/17 5:44 PM by CaliCock

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by CaliCock.

Answer 3

great post and thanks for posting. always thought 1) McGuire was the primary reason that there was a basketball goal in every driveway in SC during the 70's and 2) right or wrong, leaving the ACC was the single biggest reason for the decline in basketball.

This post was edited on 2/17 6:16 PM by lexcats

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by lexcats.

Answer 4

source of the OP

Link: The Decline

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by chucktowncock.

Answer 5

You shouldve had an entire paragraph dedicated to King Dixon. He damn near ruined USC sports singlehandedly with his 2 independence bowl rejections. He was garbage. Also we couldve hired Spurrier in football from Duke.

Great read i loved it.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by ShinyPants.

Answer 6

You should begin in 1964 - the first season under McGuire. McGuire truly had a team in place that would challenged for a future National Championship with his first class and then with the addition and inclusion of Mike Grosso a year later. Within 4 years everything would've been ready for the run - with Harlicka, Thompson, Standard, Gregor and Grosso. Of course we know that Duke and the ACC refused to relent on Grosso situation, therefore we had to wait until the next big class of Roche, Owens, Walsh, Ribock and Cremins to make a more successful run. But McGuire began building immediately as soon as he got to Columbia in 1964. Also, Grosso would've played one year with Roche, Owens, Walsh, Cremins. Wow what a team that would've been.

Mike Grosso


Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by UpstateGC.

Answer 7

Trying to imagine Kevin Garnett playing for USC, would have been unreal to see one of the top 15 players of all time in the garnet and black.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by louisv...mecock.

Answer 8

Holderman and his willing accomplices on the BOT were no visionaries. Holderman was the worse PIECE of perverted **** to ever set foot on Carolina's campus. And the BOT members who supported and covered for him (some of whom were still on the BOT until recently) were just as bad and have yet to be held accountable for the failure of the fiduciary responsibilities as a trustees. It borders on criminal negligence.

This post was edited on 2/17 11:55 PM by Bosscock

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by Bosscock.

Answer 9

Holderman was South Carolinas Penn st Sanduski scandal

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by ShinyPants.

Answer 10

I always believed that leaving the ACC for no conference has hurt us along with the power struggle between McGuire, USC Board, Carlin and Holderman.

We should have left the ACC for the SEC at that time or just suck it up for several more years before leaving the ACC.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by world famous 3rd base hecklers.

Answer 11

Great article indeed, only I did not write it. I found it on some other message board and thought it was an amazing read.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by AtlasShrugged.

Answer 12

OP should have linked original article and given credit to author. Bad form. But great article.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by Cocky Targaryen.

Answer 13

This is a slanted and one-side perspective of what went down. I quit reading at "Carlen became openly insubordinate and hostile to Holderman."

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by coxman.

Answer 14

Well you missed a lot of good stuff. What do you do if there's something on TV you disagree with. I usually stick my fingers in my ears and yell nanananana!

This post was edited on 2/18 10:43 AM by simms2000

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by simms2000.

Answer 15

There may be some flaws in the argument this piece puts forward.

Namely that the McGuire era was the anomaly, not the past 40 years.

How good was USC pre McGuire?

Obviously we've seen the past decades. But the only time USC has ever been close to elite was with McGuire and his largely NYC players.

I just don't see anyone duplicating that again. Obviously we could get a coach who is a lot more effective than Horn, but he is going to have to be a heck of a recruiter to get anywhere near what McGuire had.

Just saying I don't see any reasons to say we are some kind of potential powerhouse in basketball. What fundamental edge do we have over any other teams, even in the Southeast? Lots of teams have very good facilities, not just us.

You mentioned Garnett. Guess Ray Allen and Stanley Roberts should be mentioned too. But it's been 16 or 17 years since Garnett. A lot longer for Roberts. I'm not seeing much evidence South Carolina is particularly good at making star basketball players, the only problem is they go out of state.

Also if you are a potential superstar, and actually want to play instate, an ACC schedule looks a lot better than playing Georgia, Mississippi State, and Alabama.

Those schools, and the whole conference really besides Kentucky, and to a lesser extent Missouri aren't really a draw. Florida won two titles, and people have always seemed to want to see Kentucky more than them honestly.

I think this article looks at the whole thing with rose colored glasses. Obviously McGuire had a good thing going, but that was the anomaly, not the past 40 years.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by achilles#.

Answer 16

I don't think I really communicated what I wanted to say.

Garnett was a special talent.

But tell me, if USC could have gotten absolutely any and all of the top players in South Carolina to sign with us the past 15 years, exactly how good would we have been?

I'm not talking about coaching so much, simply how much talent that roster would have had compared to a typical Kentucky, Duke, or UNC team?

I know all those teams recruit out of their respective states, it's just that my impression is South Carolina isn't actually a good state for producing prospects compared to Indiana, New York, and others including North Carolina.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by achilles#.

Answer 17

I don't know about other years but at the time Garnett would have been at SC, like a previous poster said, we had some really good ball players already. We went 15-1 in the SEC and were a #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. It would have been fun to watch.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by funktavious.

Answer 18

I think he forgot to say he copied it.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by nc gamecock.

Answer 19

Correct. Great article in any event.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by AtlasShrugged.

Answer 20

Had USC remained in the ACC, we likely would have excelled in men's basketball over many years akin to Maryland. For all other sports, independence, Metro (which purposely did not sponsor football), or ACC would have made no difference. The 3-5 year anomaly period ended up an anomaly only because we left the ACC (IMO).

Prior to McGuire, USC basketball basically sucked with the exception of 1933-1934. USC "imported" a couple of brothers from Texas by the name of Tompkins who led the Gamecocks to the Southern Conference championship.
Okay, we did lose to UnCarolina in the 1957 ACC tournament finals (our only final appearance pre-McGuire. Has Clemron ever made it to the championship game?). We also had the 1957 national scoring champ - Grady Wallace - on the team.

McGuire found a "loophole" in the recruiting regulations to bring in Grosso. It was less about Dook & UnCarolina ganging up on USC and more of a public feud between McGuire & Dook AD Eddie Cameron (who has an indoor stadium named for him) which goes back to McGuire's days in Chapel Hill.

True, it was unfair for the ACC to institute a "guilty unless proved innocent" policy via a vis USC recruiting which would not apply to the other 7 members. Even with that, McGuire still brought in Roche & Owens the following year, and we know all too well how that worked out - an anomaly.

The last ACC expansion significantly watered down their product. The upcoming one will water it down even more. While we can't go back, I would like to see us schedule some more of our old ACC rivals in more sports nonetheless.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by atl-cock.

Answer 21

While considering the possibility that the McGuire era was an anomaly, it might also be worth re-evaluating our assessments of the coaches holding the reigns of the program post-ACC days. Those coaches: won a National Title, went to the Championship Game, went to the Sweet Sixteen (two of them), and to the Elite Eight ... all at other schools!
Collectively, in the last 40 years, those coaches managed to win one NCAA tournament game at Carolina and only made the tournament 4 times in the last 25 years - losing in the first round each and every time.
So, did all these coaches suddenly forget how to recruit, or coach, or lose their desire to win while at Carolina? Or perhaps there is some other element present at "successful" programs that is not present in Columbia? Perhaps not? But if so, what might those missing elements be?

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by 3puttbogeyman.

Answer 22

Holderman was a pervert and a crook. He fired Carlen because Carlen wouldn't give him athletic department money without signing for it. The idiot who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about when he says Carlen was insubordinate and apparently you don't either.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by coxman.

Answer 23

That was excellent Atlas. Great perspective. Well done.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by picock.

Answer 24

As a young kid I became a Gamecock fan because of USC basketball. Can remember sitting in the car with one of my dads friends listening to the great Bob Fulton calling the games. I don't buy the argument that it is so difficult to build a successful basketball program again. We just don't have the right guy leading the charge.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by picock.

Answer 25

Frank McGuire was the Coach K of his time. He made the Tar Holes what they are today, left for a brief Pro job, then came back to do the same thing for South Carolina (very similar to Coach Spurrier's path). He was well on his way too. That's when the tobacco road thugs drew the line and beat us out the door. Like it or not, that's how alot of these "storied" programs got their winning tradition. No one speaks about the dirt, only the wins. Bear Bryant was another one that broke every unwritten rule he could. Rules that most thought didn't need writing among honorable men. That's also why cLIMPson cheated to win a Natty. They were just following the playbook and imo they still are.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by GameCockDiehard.

Answer 26

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by GamecockTripp.

Answer 27

I think the basketball program would have been better if we had joined the METRO in 1975 when it was formed, instead of 8 years later. That was just too long to stand alone. McGuire would have still been here in 1975 and the basketball was still having some success.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by SpartanSpur.

Answer 28

A great point. Did they have room for us? Were they not at 8 teams already.

The fact is that we thought too highly of ourselves at the time to stoop to the Metro.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by AtlasShrugged.

Answer 29

No, they only had 6 teams. Cinn, GT, Louisville, Memphis St, St Louis, and Tulane. FSU joined in 1976. VTech in 1979. Not the ACC, but better than being independent. Plus it allowed the school to stay independent in football, which was the reason not to rejoin the ACC in 1976.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by SpartanSpur.

Answer 30

Thanks for sharing. Pretty accurate. Politics killed basketball. Interesting that he left Cremins out of the mix in 1980. He was at Ap. State, but no way were they bringing one of McGuire's boys in. I've stated it before and I'll say it again, Holderman is the worst thing that ever happened to USC...easily. I really just hate thinking about the whole sorry state of the basketball program.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by ib4uscru.

Answer 31

BINGO. Plus Frank McGuire's boy's thought he was pushed out at the time instead of McGuire retiring on his own and Frank's players like Owen's,Dunleavy , Winter's currently do not want anything to do with USC because of the way Frank McGuire was treated.

Originally posted on Fighting Gamecocks Forum by pepsicock.