THE COOL CHICKEN RESPONDS! WEAKLY!!

Actual unretouched photo of Cool Chicken.

With regards to my post on Clemson's post-national-championship probation and CC's claim that our championship was "bought and paid for," you can read his lame-ass response right here.

OMG! He's LMAO! Whatever shall I do?

Respond, that's what.

Chicken Blog begins by talking about the "arrogance" of Clemson fans, a common theme on his sad little Web site:

They all feel their championship is by far the greatest of all championships and that the NCAA as a whole should get on their knees and brokeback much thanks to the Clemson tigers.

WTF? I don't even understand this bit. I never made any statements about the relative worth of our national championship compared to others. A national championship is a national championship. How is one better than the other? Hell, it's not even awarded by the NCAA; it's awarded in a vote by various polls.

And "brokeback" our thanks? I suppose that's a reference to this "clever" fleck of chickenshit from a while back. (Man, I've never seen a "Brokeback Mountain" joke before! How original!) The theme seems to be that Tommy Bowden and Charlie Whitehurst are soooo gay. Yeah, they must be gay in that "prison" way, because they turned USC into their bitch for four straight years, occasionally pimping them out to the Southeastern Conference in exchange for candy bars and cigarettes.

Mr. Tigerpundit posted a bunch of links provided by Clemson to some how refute the known fact that their 1981 championship was paid for.

Gee, what can I say? I never realized that the "bunch of links" I posted to the NCAA's official Web site and the New York Times were "provided by Clemson." I thought they were provided by Google. (Well, he is a Cock, so of course he doesn't read very well. Or spell very well, either. Hey, numbnuts: "Somehow" is one word, not two.)

I suppose he's referring to this link from Clemson University's own NCAA compliance page that lays out, for the whole world to see, details of our past infractions. Most universities with any credibility have one; hey, let's check out USC's ..... whoops!!! Down the memory hole! How's that for credibility? Much like Commisar Yezhov, USC's infractions officially do not exist. Please move along, comrade, and whatever you do, don't read this, or this, or this, or this.

Let me ask you a quick question, if a guy accused of murder has an alibi... himself, how well do you think that alibi is going to hold up?

As I demonstrated already, most of the evidence I presented is from the NCAA and the New York Times, not from Clemson University. And what "alibi" are you talking about? I pointed out repeatedly that the violations were bad and that Clemson deserved the punishment it received. What I'm refuting is CC's weak-ass, played-out-around-1986 argument that Clemson's national championship somehow "doesn't count" because it was "bought and paid for." Well, don't you think it's important that there be conclusive proof that players who were bought, you know, actually PLAYED?

I tell you what Mr. Tigerpundit, you show me documents that state: The infractions levied against Clemson were solely in regards to James Cofer and Terry Minor. "None of the infractions had anything to do with any of the players, coaches, staff, fans, boosters and or maintenance crew who were involved with the 1981 championship season." Then, I will step back and remove my claim that the 1981 championship is as about as paid for as Heidi Fleiss. Can you do that? Nope.

Well, Mr. Chicken, you can't prove anything, either, because the records we have available leave out the names of the people involved. File a FOIA request with the NCAA if it means that damn much to you.

As I stated in my original post, yes, there were other recruits besides Cofer and Minor involved in the infractions. And based on the documents we have, we have no idea which players were involved (other than Cofer and Minor).

Furthermore, we have no idea how many of the players offered inducements actually signed with Clemson, or, if they signed, in what way they contributed to the 1981 national championship. (Remember, it's an NCAA infraction merely to offer stuff to a potential student-athlete.) I can only go with the documents that are publicly available. Again, read the NCAA's truncated report. Leaving out what most people would consider the minor stuff (rides, meals, free shirts, etc.), for a period of time that covers 1977-1981, I count about 10 actual cash transactions reported (as opposed to language about "offers" of cash or other gifts, which, while definitely against the rules, are an indication that someone said they'd give a player something).

We KNOW Cofer and Minor were two of those guys who got paid. We KNOW they never played.

Now, how many players went through Clemson during those four years? A hundred? A hundred and twenty? How many recruits did Clemson's staff have contact with? A couple hundred more? And CC is arguing that 10 or so actual payouts and several more promises of payouts make for a "bought and paid for championship"? That's a mighty poor return on investment. Please, Gamecock fans, don't let this guy handle your retirement account. You'll end up as bankrupt as his childish, ridiculous argument.

(CC had some crap here about how ironic it was that I didn't respond to something he felt was vitally important. By the way, yeah, I did paste your "whiny bitches" words onto my blog. I just didn't boldface them. So effin' what?)

Now let's wrap this thing up...

Look, anytime there has ever been a improper action by anyone in regards to South Carolina, I have been one of the first to say: "get them out of the program!" I accept our responsibility in anything that has ever happened.

Well, good for you. If you read my original post, you would have seen that I repeatedly pointed out how the infractions we were found guilty of were bad, and that we got the punishment we deserved. Go ahead. Read it again. Slowly and out loud, if you have to. (And it should be "an improper" action.)

The things people have done with this program have at times been quite annoying and embarrassing.

That surely includes Mr. Chicken's blog.

I will call them out on it in a heart beat. The problem with you (meaning Clemson in general) is that you think it is all secondary.

Again, I wrote, over and over again, that we got the punishment we deserved. No TV or bowls for three years. Scholarships drastically cut. Punishments that fit the crimes. How many more times does it have to be said? We screwed up, we got caught, we got what we deserved.

Apparently, Mr. Chicken won't be satisfied until the 1981 championship is revoked or the games of that season forfeited, which ain't gonna happen. (And "heartbeat" is one word, pal.)

Further more, when you are called out on it, you whine... bitchily.

This is really rich. Check out this page, in which Chicken Man lays out why he hates Clemson. It has nothing to do with what happens on the football field, which should REALLY piss him off. It's all about our fans and their supposed "arrogance." (Oh, and "furthermore" is one word.)

That's pathetic. The whole point of being a fan is YOUR TEAM and what it does, NOT what another team does. Unless, of course, the product your team puts on the field is subpar. Then jealousy takes over, as it's apparently done with this guy, and you end up whining about your chief rival's frickin' fans. Bitchily, I might add.

How weak is that?

Tell you what. I hate the UNC Tar Heels, especially in basketball. And arrogant fans? They've got 'em by the boatload. But I'm not going to base my blog on hatred of them, because it's pointless; they absolutely OWN us in hoops. If I were to constantly complain about the fans of a team that has kicked our butts year in and year out, I'd only look like a jackass.

But I guess that's one thing you can say about Mr. Chicken; he has definitely overcome his fear of looking like a jackass.

Start standing and accepting what you are. The only way you are ever going to change your culture is by recognizing it to begin with.

Again, this is rich. "Change your culture?" Is he referring to a culture of cheating? Well, we haven't had a major NCAA infraction in any sport since 1992; that culture has changed. USC? They got busted just last year.

Or you could just continue to be one of the most hated schools in the country and not because you are good... but because you are bitches.

Clemson is "one of the most hated schools in the country"? Yeah, only in the fevered imaginations of punk-ass Gamecock fans who wish they could enjoy half the success we've had on the gridiron. Or half the success of Vanderbilt, for that matter.

It's funny that this alleged universal hatred of Clemson stems from the incontrovertible scientific fact that we're "bitches."

Bitches who absolutely own the Gamecocks in football.

So what does that make them? Sub-bitches? Under-bitches? The bitches' bitches?