Matt

33-37 total, I suppose. But that's because he inherited Brad Scott's dumpster fire.

If Spurrier's seat is hot, it's because he lit his own fire under it. Do you remember who coached before him? If that guy could go 33-26, I'm pretty sure they won't fire the winningest coach in school history either.

They played in 2005. Spurrier's first season.

I've said it since before this season, but Davis is not the feature back. I'd place him third on depth or maybe make him the fullback/goal line back. Give Wilds the ball.

I couldn't agree more. A lack of superstars is making some of Carolina's coaches look pretty bad. I'd be okay with a new special teams coordinator, and I'm not sure how many more weeks Lorenzo Ward thinks he needs to motivate the defensive talent.

I'm saying Missouri is going to have their hands full with Georgia, even though they're playing the game in Columbia. It's not a gimme just because it's a home game.

The box score from 2012 shows Franklin completed 11/18 while Berk went 7/8. I do believe Franklin played a lot in that game. Watch it again. Thompson really wasn't that poor in his three and a half quarters. Mike Davis's two fumbles were inexcusable, though. Also, there's no need to defend Mauk. He's sensational, and I'll happily admit that I think he has more raw talent than Thompson, though Thompson has been there when we've needed him. I recall the time I told one of Pinkel's daughters-in-law that I believed Mauk was the real deal, and she was the one who pushed back and said maybe. That was after the Cotton Bowl, by the way.

Home field is an advantage, but as a Gamecock fan perched comfortably in the donor section at Faurot Field last October (with fancy backrests even), I can say that it's still not the same level of hostility (especially factoring the history between the programs) as Georgia faced playing in Williams-Brice. While I will never get that Fall Out Boy song out of my head--and every time I do hear it, I picture all those shirtless kids across the field with black and gold body paint screaming along--it's just not as difficult for the opposing team to play in Columbia, MO as it is to play in the other Columbia or in Baton Rouge at night or in Athens (when the team isn't all banged up).

When Missouri has played a conference game (or two), it will be easier to determine where they fit in this conversation. It's not a slight. It's just that there have only been 3 weeks of football. And Missouri likes to frontload their schedule with all the non-conference opponents before showing anyone how they stack up against conference competition.

Speaking of rabid, the Georgia fans were on here en masse for a hot minute. They came out to bark one week and mostly just whimpered the next.

Don't focus so hard on one sentence, ladies and gentlemen. Notice that Missouri is expected to roll easily. There's work still to do on defense? Did you happen to see that score between SC and UGA?

That's funny, because I was hoping they'd beat Georgia to ease the pain of that A&M loss in week one.

I don't know whether I love defense, but I sure miss the days when the Gamecocks had more.

Even when they show Missouri some respect, it's still heard as disrespect, eh?

Not to start a war, but South Carolina was able to run it quite a bit by the 4th quarter, and I think Auburn's run game is very superior to the Gamecocks' run game. But I also think Pruitt noticed and has already begun working on that. I'm very much looking forward to both of Auburn's matchups with East teams. Should be good games.

Not according to anyone I know under the age of 70 who lives here. (Here being Kansas City, MO.)

I don't know the context, but he was reported to have stood up on a table and shouted, "F--- her in the p----!"

Well said. Even if she does pronounce it "Missouruh."

On the flip side, if Clemson wins this game and then loses to SC, it only makes SC look better when all is said and done. I personally cheer for every team on South Carolina's schedule to be undefeated except for the week they play the Gamecocks. It looks best when your team beats a lot of teams that beat a lot of other teams.

If I want to read political opinions, there are plenty of sites I could peruse. This is one I use to escape everybody's "right" to share their opinions on that crap. And for the record, I hope Auburn smears Snyder's team tomorrow night.

You'll have to wonder. But I can definitely say that the comments section on here gets nasty enough without having to bring up politics.

I'm not buying any Clemson stock right now, so if they beat FSU and then lose every other big game (Georgia, possibly UNC if they get too excited after a win this week, and SC), who would represent the ACC in the playoff? Call it homerism, but that's a real question, I think.

Remember when the Heisman was about who players were off the field too?

Don't tell me.. You're white. Unnecessarily calling racists those who unnecessarily call others racists isn't helping to fix anything.

Likely in the first possession.

I'm not sure visitmo.com gets a ton of hits either. Says this KC resident.

Bobo is the same as he's been for a while. I'm more surprised that Pruitt's heralded defense allowed 447 yards by Carolina after limiting Clemson to 291 in week one. Is he really who everyone thought, or was his success at FSU more a commentary on the strength of the ACC?

I'm thinking anything less than an undefeated Gamecock squad from here out will be less than contender. But based on your previous comment to ZouTideFan, I see more of your logic on this post. I was reading it as a good vs bad instead of great vs good.

Seriously? The turnaround on defense in the two weeks (and two days) from A&M to UGA--holding Georgia to fewer yards than either team Carolina played before them, despite their near top-5 ranking--isn't impressive? I'm not saying that they're contenders. I want to see much more from them before that word gets used. But not being elite doesn't make them a joke like UCLA.

Exactly!