Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry

Proposal to Change USC to UofSC

Proposing to change all mentions of "USC" to "UofSC" in this article and any other article that mentions the University of South Carolina for the following reasons:

1. The Univ. of South Carolina has officially rebranded to this abbreviation.1

2. Secondary sources, namely local media, now refer to Univ. of South Carolina as "UofSC" which is a requirement for Wikipedia name changes.2

3. Per Wikipedia policy regarding names, five criteria must be met. [[1]] Mainly, we need to focus on the Precision criteria: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." As we see, this isn't the case when also referring to Southern Cal.

4. A court of law ruled that "USC" is identifiable with Southern Cal, not South Carolina.3 In fact, South Carolina publicly stated that the rebranding to UofSC was to distinguish from Southern Cal.

Thus, because "USC" is most commonly used in the public to identify Southern Cal, since a court of law ruled as such, since South Carolina rebranded officially, and since it violates Wikipedia policy, I propose we move forward with the change to UofSC. Tagging @Sdbarry1: and @GarnetAndBlack: for discussion.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion really happen at Talk:University of South Carolina, since it covers a scope far greater than this rivalry? (IMO, I endorse the change, since the media have changed their styling.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Likely yes, but I addressed it here since @Sdbarry1: addressed it here first.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Have the media really changed their styling?[2][3][4][5]2600:1004:B002:2A78:11C4:B887:6E47:19B5 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's take the points one at a time:

1. This isn't the first time USC has attempted an "official rebranding" to address the USC East/USC West issue. In fact, 30 years ago, the school rebranded itself "The USC" in an effort to distinguish from Southern Cal.[6] The "rebrand" never caught on, and was never commonly used, either at the school, in the state or pretty much anywhere else. Surely the argument isn't being made that had Wikipedia existed in 1989, it would have been a good idea to change every instance of "USC" in articles dealing with the university to "The USC"? Because we are talking about the same exact thing here. Yes, the school wants a fresh identifier (primarily for social media, where their Twitter handle has always been @UofSC), but you can't force the public to simply ignore 150 years of history. And the university itself isn't even using its new "official rebranding" across the board. There are still numerous instances at the school where "USC" is still firmly in use, such as the Band [7], College of Pharmacy [8], School of Medicine [9], I could go on. For crying out loud, the university's main website is still sc.edu, not uofsc.edu.

2. Someone beat me to this one, but secondary sources such as national (CNN)[10] and local media (The State newspaper, located in the capital city and home of the university)[11] are still using "USC" as their abbreviation for the school. And why wouldn't they? These professional institutions are not in the business of marketing the school's "official rebranding", they are in the business of informing their readers/viewers. One could make the argument that is also the primary concern of Wikipedia.

3. The policy mentioned above is that dealing with article TITLES. Now if someone were pushing to have this article titled "Clemson-USC rivalry", then maybe there would be an issue with this policy, but since the title is unambiguous as to the subjects of the article, any reasonable person reading it should be able to ascertain that any shorthand (USC, SC, Carolina) used in the body of the article refers to the University of South Carolina, and not the University of Southern California.

4. Anyone doing more than a cursory examination of the legal case which was adjudicated initially in 2008 and again on appeal in 2010 would easily discover that the issue before the court dealt with South Carolina's attempt to federally trademark an interlocking "SC" logo used for their baseball program.[12][13] Southern Cal objected and filed suit due to their belief that the logo was too similar to their own interlocking "SC" logo, and they did indeed win the case (and the subsequent appeal) to prevent South Carolina from registering this logo, but the school continues to use the mark unregistered to this day. If Southern Cal had actually won a court battle granting them exclusive rights to the letters "USC" (not possible in our legal system), then why would South Carolina have been using "USC" for the past nine years since the case ruling? In fact, the opposite is true and the two institutions have an agreement not to fight legal battles over the "USC" letters dating back to the 1980s.

I believe I've made my point(s) here, but if one wants to look at some other examples of how Wikipedia handles "official rebranding", here's one that's pretty eye-opening: [14] Yes, the company formerly known as "Weight Watchers" underwent a complete brand overhaul last year, and they are now officially known as "WW". If anyone wants to count the number of times the Wiki article about the company uses their old corporate name, feel free, but it might take some time. Bottom line, Wikipedia is a project dealing in information, not a tool to be used for marketing purposes. If an official at the University of South Carolina registered an account here and set about changing all of the "USC"s in every article dealing with the school to "UofSC"s in an attempt to gain more widespread acceptance for their new campaign, I wonder what the view would be on that type of activity? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison since there isn't another company out there that Wikipedia users will confuse with Weight Watchers due to the similarity of the names. There hasn't been a court case that clearly decides on school is represented by "USC" and the other is not. You can keep calling it a marketing campaign, but this is an official policy change by the Univ. of South Carolina to distinguish itself from Southern Cal. Using "USC" interchangeable is confusing to readers and it violates the Precision criteria. The change should be made for the sake of user clarity.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, it’s like you read nothing but the last paragraph. You’re still trying to make points that are outright false (you’re utterly wrong about the trademark lawsuit and the Precision criteria only applies to article titles). Amazing, if not predictable. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a pretty simple solution; why don't we email the PR department of the university and see what the preferred name is. After all, the administration of the university is entitled to decide what it should be called. I'd imagine the official name of the university is a matter of state law, however I very much doubt the shortened form is. Sdbarry1 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how WP:COMMONNAME works, though—and I've seen this recently at articles related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where "Mormon" persists throughout the articles to make it easier on the readers, even though the church's PR department is outspoken against using that term. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

But this is a very different case. "Mormon" doesn't confuse readers to thinking about another church. Here we have two schools creating confusion, but only one is recognizable nationwide as "USC", and that's Southern Cal.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, stick to speaking for yourself. No one else seems to be as easily “confused” here as you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link that makes a better case for it.Link--LesPhilky (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen that page before C.Fred, thanks for referencing. We should go through the 5 criteria listed. The Conciseness and Consistency characteristics are, I think, a push between the two options discussed. Recognizably outside of the southeastern United States definitely favors "USC" referring to The University of Southern California. Naturalness would absolutely favor "USC" referring to The University of South Carolina if Wikipedia was intended for only, or primarily for, visitors of the southeastern United States. However this isn't the case. Both of these distinctions pale in comparison to the precision characteristic. This is where South Carolina is left behind Southern California. UofSC is a precise wording to identify The University of South Carolina, while the USC has been determined to mean Southern Cal. This is an unconscious distinction made by our society. Even if a region has a different understanding of the term, the articles should reflect the most common anglophone usage of the term, which would be Southern California. Moving on to the examples of common names in the reference provided, the examples shown are of either medical conditions, acronyms based on a foreign language, people who have chosen a different name from their given name, or something of the like. None of these would apply in this context, in my opinion, except people who have chosen a different name from their given name e.g. Bill Clinton. This is exactly what The University of South Carolina has done. The Official name of the school isn't UofSC, but the administration has decided to refer to themselves as such. If Wikipedia allows Bill Clinton to specify his preferred name, then why would a university be different? On the other side, "The State" newspaper hasn't consistently updated their style to reflect the desired name change of the university even though there are multiple articles about the name change. Sdbarry1 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You are operating under the same flawed premise as LesPhilky. The 5 criteria you are referring to, as well as WP:COMMONNAME, are Wikipedia guidelines concerning Article Titles. Let me say that again, since it doesn’t seem to be penetrating for some people...these guidelines deal with ARTICLE TITLES. Thus far no one has suggested that the title of this article be changed to “Clemson-USC rivalry”, so there is no violation of policy at issue here, as we are discussing abbreviations used in the body of an article where there is unlikely to be any confusion due to the unambiguous nature of the title. Just like readers of the Civil War (college football game) article are unlikely to confuse Oregon State for Oklahoma State or Ohio State when they see OSU written in the body, because the usage is made clear in the first sentence of the lede (the title in this case not following the Precision guideline).

Your comment regarding The State newspaper is of interest, however. Why would the newspaper located in the same city as the University of South Carolina seemingly have no interest in using the school’s new brand abbreviation in their publication? Surely if any media source has access to the university’s PR office, as you mentioned previously, it would be The State. Yet four months after the school announced their rebranding, the hometown paper still uses “USC” when writing about the institution. Why do you think that might be? It’s not because they are simply choosing to use the most commonly known local shorthand for the school, because there are plenty of national media outlets that are also still using “USC”, such as CNN, CBS[15], USA Today[16], Rolling Stone[17], among others. Finally, the university’s own student-run paper, The Daily Gamecock, isn’t even using “UofSC” in their articles[18]. Think they also just didn’t get the memo that there has been an “official rebranding”? I live in Columbia, SC, and no one I know or have spoken with since January is using this awkward abbreviation in conversation, and I believe that’s why media sources are choosing to largely ignore the change. They want to report information with terminology that is most commonly used and understood by their readers/viewers/listeners in their daily lives, and I would think that Wikipedia would choose to do likewise. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the point made already that this is not a good Talk page for this discussion; at a minimum, those who are advocating for this change should place a note on Talk page for the university so that other interested editors can participate.

I also agree that there is not nearly enough evidence that the new "UofSC" initialism is being commonly used by reliable sources. If the university's rebranding is effective then sources will begin to use it over time and we'll want to revisit this issue. But until then we should stick with the status quo (ante) and use "USC" like most contemporary sources appear to be doing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

While this particular page may not be the best place to discuss it, the University of South Carolina itself makes the case why this confusing association needs to be changed:

In the national identity research, we tested things like USC, Carolina and UofSC nationally. Nationally, and that includes South Carolina, the abbreviation “USC” was associated with the University of Southern California 70 percent of the time and with us about 20 percent of the time. “UofSC” was associated with the University of South Carolina 71 percent of the time and with Southern Cal about 20 percent of the time. Source

Simply put, the use of "USC" is too commonly used for Southern Cal and too confusing for any Wiki site referencing the Univ. of South Carolina. The university itself acknowledges this and has made it the official new brand. For the sake of clarity, "USC" should remain with the school it is most commonly associated with. GarnetAndBlack is simply cherry-picking anecdotal evidence and a few sources while ignoring the official stance of the university.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is too confusing for you, doesn’t make it too confusing for the rest of the world. There has been no compelling reason offered to this point for why Wikipedia articles with titles unambiguously dealing with the University of South Carolina need to change the most commonly recognized and used abbreviation for the school in the body of the articles. The fact that the university’s branding folks decided they want a new social media identity does not matter to this project (or most secondary sources). Johnny Manziel recently proclaimed the other week that he’d like to be called John Manziel from this point forward.[19] Go check his Wiki article and let us know what the title is, and what the discussion in that article’s Talk page concluded. No new consensus has been determined here, so this matter should be considered closed until circumstances change in the manner ElKevbo mentioned. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

People aren't confusing Jonny Manziel with another more well-known and superior Johnny Manziel, which is the case with Southern Cal. That's the problem with the examples y'all keep giving: nobody is mixing up those entities with another one. Southern Cal is the more prominent, nationally-known, and prestigious school when compared to the Univ. of South Carolina, both in academics and athletics. If another college could be broken down to the acronym "LSU", would we really entertain using both? Of course not. There's only one school the nation recognizes as LSU. There's only one school the nation recognizes as USC. Sorry, man. Even your own school recognizes a change is needed.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to follow the university's marketing guidelines. Nor do we have to enforce a restriction on what articles can use an abbreviation especially when (a) many reliable sources already use that abbreviation and (b) there is no confusion in the context of the article.

There are multiple institutions that use the abbreviation "USC" and until the majority of reliable sources decide that it refers to only one institution we'll use it refer to multiple institutions. It's a common situation and readers aren't confused when we do our jobs as writers and editors. The fine people associated with the Universities of Tennessee and Texas live with their institutions both being "UT" (and the UT.edu domain is owned by a third institution!) and until most other writers dub the institution in Los Angeles to only USC we'll live with multiple USCs, too. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is only one school in the nation that is recognized as LSU, because there is no other major university that could even be abbreviated with those initials. How about the previously mentioned OSU? Which school do you think the nation recognizes as OSU? Because I just looked at the pages for Ohio State, Oklahoma State and Oregon State, and they all use the OSU initials, but not to the degree I would have expected. In my head, Ohio State is the first school I think of when I hear OSU, but that page uses the initials less often than the other two. But somehow, despite my preconceived notions, I never found myself confused when reading any of the pages. I agree with the others who say this is a solution in search of a problem. 2600:1004:B06B:13A8:21D0:F17E:1AAA:20AC (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You are both right, at least from a chapel hill grad perspective. USC means SoCal. Period. However, in an article about UofSC, i get what USC refers to. I may chuckle a little that they use those initials, but I’m not that confused. Y’all chill and god bless college football! Clemson, we can’t wait to host you on the hill. I’m sure MJ will be there. Carolina Priceless gem. Go heels!!! Carolina Football (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Identity crisis

Is there any issues or animosities with this team and their identity? I heard SECfootballTube (gamecock fan) saying that the Columbia that Missouri plays in is the “fake Columbia”. Fans call South Carolina “USC”, but legally thats USC Trojans. Lastly, Sc has “Carolina” on their uniforms which espn uses to refer to the Tar Heels. I also See that Clemson coach said all this on live tv. Should that be something to write about? Yes I know there are numerous tigers, but only one Clemson and one auburn one Mizzou etc. Or is this even something that y’all talk about, given how lopsided this rivalry is? TheREALcolumbia (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely a lop-sided "rivalry" and really kind of laughable. SC isn't even in the same universe as Clemson anymore. I mean, it is kind of cute how they try to spin words to make it seem like we've had a close rivalry (they used to even make up a stat on here about margin of victory). However, the stuff you mentioned isn't really germane to this Wikipedia page.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

okay cool no worries. Just caught me by surprise hearing the real Columbia. I mean it’s cool lol. There are plenty of Columbias. but hearing them say they are the real usc and real Carolina made me laugh. Literally The nation knows USC as SoCal and UNC as Carolina. Secondly i thought bama was Clemson’s biggest rival. I also didn’t even know the cocks were considered “rivals”. But they aren’t a football school. More of a baseball school. So I guess it’s A holistic rivalry? Either way it sucks the cocks have to play a powerhouse every year! So credit there for not quitting. TheREALcolumbia (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Columbia, SC was founded in 1786. Columbia, MO was founded in 1821. I’ll leave it to historians to give an expert opinion, but I know which one sounds like the REAL Columbia to me. And as far as the rivalry that’s the subject of this article, don’t think I’d call 5-5 all that lop-sided, that’s the record over the last decade, not exactly ancient history. But speaking of history, you got me curious with your “thought Bama was clemson’s biggest rival” comment, so I decided to look into that history. Bama owns a 14-5 record all-time versus Clem’s Son, I don’t think playing each other 19 times in over a century of football really qualifies as a rivalry, especially when the record is so lop-sided. I would bet that Bama fans would find the assertion really kind of laughable, as the only Tigers they recognize as rivals are the ones in Auburn. 98.24.37.202 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

lol mostly good points. Columbia Sc was there first so that makes you the rightful owners to the REAL Columbia. I’m just poking fun with my name, we won so I’m happy. And yeah bama is a quality franchise, can’t argue that. It’s certainly a modern rivalry though. Just like warriors and cavs However, you saying 50/50 wins isn’t accurate. Looking at this page, Clemson is clearly over 50 percent. You can’t pick and choose what years to use for stats to make your team sound better. But no worries, mizzou hasn’t been all that great either. We also have sec fans wondering what we’re doing in the conference. So I feel you. But y’all are good at baseball, so that is something good! But anyways my point was the self identification of Columbia usc and Carolina and Dabo calling them out for it and it being something to talk about in article. Was the only interesting thing I’ve really found in this rivalry. It’s certainly not a auburn Alabama or Carolina duke, like the page suggests.im sure y’all hate each other but Clemson is just too good to make it a national interest. . TheREALcolumbia (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, all that trash talk on a page that’s supposed to be academic. It is one of the best rivalries in College Football. Alabama Auburn can get one sided too. And you guys seemed to forget that Carolina had a five game win streak before Clemson’s now defeated seven game streak. BigCheddah (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)