Storms in the Southland - The Dietzel Era Begins
* An excerpt from the forthcoming book "The Wilderness - South Carolina Athletics in the Independent Era (1971-1991)"*
Part 2 of a 3-part series on GamecockCentral.com.
Part 1 - Why South Carolina left the ACC
----------
“A New Era In USC Athletics Begins”, proclaimed the headline of The State newspaper on the morning of April 7, 1966. At 41, Paul Dietzel came to Columbia from the United States Military Academy, where he led his Army team to a 21-18-2 record in four seasons. He was the first non-graduate of the Military Academy to become its head football coach.
Prior to his post in West Point, Dietzel enjoyed a highly successful run of seven seasons in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, leading the LSU Tigers to an overall 46-24-3 record and a national championship to conclude the 1958 season. The ’58 championship team followed a rocky start for Dietzel in the Bayou during which his first three teams all resulted in losing seasons, compiling a three-year record of 11-17-2, and finishing no higher than 7th in the SEC. To address the fatigue of his players in an era when many played both offense and defense, Dietzel developed a platoon system prior to the ’58 campaign, in which he would substitute 11 men at a time. The second platoon defense became known as the “Chinese Bandits,” a rugged, if less talented squad, who played with great effort and became fan favorites and LSU legends.
The platoon system, unconventional though it was, worked. Dietzel’s final four seasons at LSU were all winners, highlighted by the ’58 Championship team, and an 11-1 1961 squad, which won a share of the SEC title and brought home an Orange Bowl win over Colorado in his final season at LSU.
Earlier in Dietzel’s career, as a young assistant coach at Kentucky, he had worked under the great Paul “Bear” Bryant, prior to Bryant’s move to Alabama. The credentials were sterling, and another championship coach had found a home at USC.
Tall and trim, with blue/gray eyes, wavy blond hair and a boyish smile, he was movie-star-handsome. Dietzel possessed an infectious enthusiasm, a championship resume, and represented another banner hire for the University of South Carolina.
It was the opportunity to take on the dual role of head football coach and athletic director, which ultimately lured Dietzel to Carolina. In his opening press conference at the Rex Enright Athletic Center, affectionately known as “The Roundhouse” for its circular design, Dietzel fired a preemptive salvo at the South Carolina General Assembly. “I’ve worked in a state capital with a state university before, and I’ve learned that politicians are wonderful people. Those who aren’t don’t remain politicians very long. But I don’t intend to tell them how to run their business.” The implication was clear. Dietzel put everyone on notice that he was to answer to one man and one man alone – the president of the university, Tom Jones. It was a message that was received well by the press and fans alike.
Dietzel outlined a three-point plan to guide him in his new post. First, everything would be done by the rules. Second, “we” (Dietzel and Jones) both wanted a winner. Third, the athletic department would operate in the black. It was a solid strategy. The first point, no doubt, addressed a controversy, which would become Dietzel’s first order of business upon stepping away from the press conference.
Just a few months later, the ACC concluded an investigation into recruiting improprieties within the football program under former head coach, Marvin Bass. Dietzel, as directed by Jones, worked internally to cooperate with the conference during the later stages of the investigation, granting access to requested documents and interviews with former Bass recruits still with the program. On July 30, 1966, the ACC revealed that USC had provided financial aid to three athletes who were ineligible to receive assistance because they did not meet the conference’s minimum college board score (800 on the SAT) to qualify for a scholarship. The players, two varsity and one freshman, were not named in the investigation by either USC or the ACC.
Reached for comment from his new post in Montreal, Bass took responsibility for the violations, going so far as to say that he had assisted the freshman player, not with university scholarship money, but out of his own pocket. Bass went on to speculate that Dietzel’s role in the investigation and resulting penalties may have been of benefit to Dietzel himself. “If Coach Dietzel wanted to go in with a 1-9 record [rather than 5-5 before the forfeits] so he couldn’t possibly do anything but improve it this season, I wish him luck. I hope he can live in good faith and look people in the eye. If I was going to conduct an investigation, I would have had the courtesy to contact the guy who was there before me.” Bass later expressed regret over the remarks and shouldered all the blame for the violations.
(In hindsight, Bass’ comments about Dietzel’s motivations may not have been totally without merit. In his 2008 memoir, “Call Me A Coach,” Dietzel notes that the football program at USC had become “an embarrassment,” further noting about the program: “It had to be rebuilt from scratch. The season prior to my arrival, the Gamecocks’ record was no wins and ten losses. The team had never won a conference championship and had not received a bowl invitation in twenty-five years.” While the program was certainly in need of upgrading upon Dietzel’s arrival, the picture he paints is not completely accurate. There is no mention of USC’s share of the 1965 ACC title, though that would be forfeited. He also mentions the team he inherited went 0-10 in 1965, though Bass’ final team actually went 5-5 (4-2 ACC). With the four forfeited ACC games, Carolina’s record became 1-9 in the eyes of the ACC. Though the University does not recognize the ’65 ACC Championship, the USC Football media guide still reflects a 5-5 record for the 1965 season.)
The ACC handed down stiff penalties, which included a $2,500 ($20,000) fine, and of greater consequence, voided wins over Wake Forest, NC State, Virginia and Clemson. USC had won a share of the ACC Title in ’65 along with Duke. The penalty cost the Gamecock program its first ever ACC title. NC State and Clemson, whose conference records improved to 5-2 by virtue of the forfeits, now claimed the ACC Championship. For reasons unclear, Duke and South Carolina played one fewer conference game that season than did NC State and Clemson (USC did not play UNC, and Duke did not play Maryland, while the Wolfpack and Tigers played a full slate). Thus, Duke by no fault of its own, lost a share of the conference title.
Even more consequential to Carolina’s long-term affiliation with the ACC was the second of a four-part reprimand released by ACC Commissioner Jim Weaver, on July 25, 1966, which read:
“It is for this flagrant disregard for constitutional authority, that this office… Declares that any student-athlete presently enrolled or incoming at the University of South Carolina whose eligibility is questioned be withheld from participation unless and until it is established to the complete satisfaction of the conference that there has been no violation in each individual case.”
It was tantamount to guilty until proven innocent. It was this mandate, which applied to the University of South Carolina and to no other ACC institution, which would ensnare Frank McGuire’s highest-rated recruit, Mike Grosso, as well as many of Dietzel’s recruits in years to come.
Keeping the “Also-Rans” In Check – The Grosso Controversy
“also-ran.” Merriam-Webster.com. 2017. 2. a contestant that does not win. 3. One that is of little importance, especially competitively
In his excellent and thoroughly-researched 2011 volume, “ACC Basketball,” which chronicles the first two decades of the Atlantic Coast Conference, historian J. Samuel Walker manages to encapsulate the antipathy of the Big Four North Carolina programs toward their conference “step-sisters.” The title of his sixth chapter, which documents the rise of Virginia, Maryland, Clemson and, most notably South Carolina, to competitiveness within the ACC is titled “The Revolt of the Also-Rans.”
Indeed, the University of South Carolina had not achieved particular distinction on the field or the court during its first 13 years in the ACC. From the outset of the conference in 1953 through 1965, South Carolina had compiled conference records of 38-41-3 in football, and more dismally, 46-118 in basketball. In short, the Carolina fan base was hungry for a winner. With McGuire and Dietzel now leading their respective programs, visions of championships took hold of coaches, players and fans alike.
McGuire was firmly entrenched, one season under his belt with a fine sophomore class of Frank Standard, Jack Thompson and Skip Harlicka ready to begin varsity play for the 1965-66 season. Three games into the season, McGuire achieved the first of what would be many signature victories at USC in a thrilling 73-71 win against Duke at Carolina Fieldhouse. Although the Gamecocks would end up with a losing tally at 11-13 on the season, the squad was competitive throughout and played with a toughness that was a hallmark of McGuire teams. It would be McGuire’s last losing season at South Carolina.
Meanwhile, on the freshman team Mike Grosso was enjoying a banner season and dominating the competition. He averaged 22.7 points and an unbelievable 26 rebounds per game. The freshman squad often enjoyed sellout crowds, unheard of before, and excitement continued to build around McGuire’s program.
As Grosso led the freshman squad and Gamecock fans salivated over what was to come when he joined the varsity, a controversy unfolded over his eligibility. The ACC had adopted a rule in May 1964 which set a standard score of 800 on the SAT for incoming athletes to receive a scholarship. In Grosso’s efforts to qualify for admission to South Carolina, his highest SAT score was a 789 – high enough to earn admission into the school but not enough to earn a scholarship. Under ACC rules in place when Grosso enrolled at USC, athletes scoring less than 800 on the SAT were permitted to play basketball or football, so long as they were not awarded a scholarship.
Grosso could have gone to any school of his choice outside of the ACC and qualified for a scholarship, but he wanted to play for McGuire. Grosso’s family was of modest means, but his uncles owned a bar and grill in New Jersey where Grosso worked during the summers. The uncles agreed to pay Grosso’s tuition until he could attain eligibility for a scholarship. Meanwhile, Duke’s Athletic Director Eddie Cameron – who also chaired the conference basketball committee – maneuvered behind the scenes to encourage ACC Commissioner Weaver to look deeper into Grosso’s recruitment. Weaver was uncomfortable with the Grosso situation, but had not choice other than to allow Grosso to participate under the rules then in place.
With Cameron’s prompting, the ACC changed eligibility requirements to stipulate that a player must attain a minimum of 800 on the SAT to participate, not just to receive a scholarship. Although the action did not apply retroactively to Grosso, the controversy would not die. During Grosso’s freshman season (1965-66), Cameron announced Duke would refuse to play against South Carolina when Grosso moved up to varsity the following season, potentially forfeiting those two games to make a statement. Cameron’s statement, according to him, was about upholding the spirit of the academic standards established by the conference. However, the personal acrimony between Cameron and McGuire, which intensified when Grosso spurned Duke for South Carolina, was glaring.
Meanwhile, as the investigation into violations within USC’s football program unfolded, Weaver obtained the means he needed to head off Grosso’s eligibility. In penning the sanctions levied against USC for the football team’s violations, which would hold athlete’s “whose eligibility is questioned” by the conference ineligible for competition, Weaver cast a broad net, covering not just football, but any South Carolina athlete. Weaver’s ruling was nebulous yet effective, and almost certainly crafted with Grosso in mind.
On October 28, 1966 Jones and McGuire along with Assistant Athletic Director George Terry attended a meeting of the ACC executive committee at the Triangle Motel at Raleigh-Durham Airport to appeal Weaver’s decision on Grosso’s eligibility. After meeting for four hours, executive committee head Ralph Fadum of North Carolina State advised the USC contingent that it saw no cause to overrule Weaver’s decision on Grosso. Neither Weaver nor Fadum provided an explanation regarding why Grosso was ruled ineligible. A report titled “The Offcourt Uproar in Dixie” which appeared in the November 7, 1966 edition of Sports Illustrated noted that McGuire had to be “physically restrained by Dr. Jones” following the ruling. McGuire saw the ruling as a personal vendetta against him by old ACC enemies. Grosso, McGuire believed, was unfairly caught in the crosshairs with the start of his varsity career just weeks away.
In public appearances during the coming days, McGuire complained bitterly about the Grosso decision, calling ACC officials “skunks” on several occasions and insisting that the investigation and ruling arose from personal vendettas. McGuire’s remarks drew sharp criticism and calls for a reprimand from coaches, athletic directors and presidents of other ACC institutions. North Carolina State Chancellor John Caldwell told Jones he had “some repair work” to do, adding that nothing short of an institutional apology could remedy the situation, insinuating that even that might not be enough.
Indeed, the Grosso affair and McGuire’s subsequent public disparagement of ACC officials had opened a deep chasm between South Carolina and the other member schools. Despite his own misgivings about the ACC’s handling of the Grosso affair, Jones’ mercurial basketball coach had become a loose cannon, putting USC’s president in the awkward position having to make amends on behalf of the university.
During a meeting of ACC presidents and athletic directors in early December, 1966, Jones offered an apology for McGuire’s comments, which he described as embarrassing, both to the University and the conference. He went on to note that McGuire had been reprimanded; giving his personal guarantee that such behavior would not be repeated. This mea culpa had the intended result of reducing tensions, however ACC officials did not reciprocate Jones’ attempts at reconciliation. Conference officials issued an unprecedented announcement that members could choose to cancel their basketball games with USC during the 1966-67 season without forfeit. Duke was the only school to take advantage of this option. Duke further opted not to play South Carolina during the 1966 football season, although the two schools would square off on the baseball diamond during the spring of ’67, resulting in two wins by the Gamecocks.
The Grosso ruling prompted calls from university alumni to withdraw from the ACC. The clamor became boisterous enough that President Jones and McGuire issued a joint statement to address the matter – both supporting continued membership in the ACC. This quelled a growing rebellion for the time being. But irreparable damage had been done, both to the University’s relations with fellow conference members, and to the perceived value of conference membership among South Carolina alumni and boosters.
Supporters of the University saw the ruling as further evidence of political dominance by the North Carolina schools within the conference. The leaders involved – ACC Commissioner Weaver (Wake Forest), ACC Basketball Committee Chairman Cameron (Duke) and Executive Committee Head Fadum (N.C. State) tend to bear that out. Indeed, the power structure of the ACC was firmly entrenched along Tobacco Road.
It would be naïve to deny that politics were in play in the Grosso affair, given the Big Four-centric governing body and the bitter feuds between McGuire and those same conference leaders. Set against the backdrop of the Gamecocks’ competitive emergence within the conference, elements of politics and spite among ACC leadership cannot be ruled out. However, it is helpful to set those elements aside and examine the facts surrounding Grosso’s eligibility.
While a high school senior in New Jersey, Grosso’s SAT scores never reached 750, the minimum for competition in the ACC at the time of his recruitment. Upon his graduation, he took the exams again, this time on the campus of the University of South Carolina. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, N.J. was the governing body which prepared and administered the board exam. ETS guidelines dictated that it would accept and recognize one college board exam taken under university auspices. Grosso’s first attempt at the SAT in Columbia resulted in a 706 score, still leaving him short of qualifying. This score was sent to the ACC offices and was the official score recognized by the ETS.
Grosso took the SAT once more in September 1965, again on the campus of the University of South Carolina. This time he scored 789, which would qualify him for competition in the ACC. Under the rules of the ETS however, only one exam taken under the auspices of a university was recognized. Thus, Grosso’s second attempt was not recognized by the ETS, and was not sent to the ACC offices. Therein lies the fly in the ointment for South Carolina. While the University contended that Grosso met “our requirements” for admission, the ACC maintained that he was ineligible for competition on the basis of his first, and only official College Board score.
Would the Grosso affair have evolved as it did without the ill will between McGuire and Cameron and Weaver, et al? Likely not. Did the ACC’s Grosso decision hinge on an obscure technicality? Most certainly. But it was enough to keep Grosso out of the lineup for the opening game of his sophomore season against Erskine in early December, 1966. His varsity career at South Carolina now seemed tenuous at best, though he continued to practice with the Gamecocks while the university appealed his status.
The death knell to Grosso’s tenure at USC came on January 8, 1967, when the NCAA announced the results of its own investigation into the football and basketball programs at USC. The investigation had centered on the financial assistance South Carolina had provided the three football players during Coach Bass’ tenure. The NCAA also voiced support for the ACC’s position on Grosso’s eligibility, citing the irregularities around his second board exam under university auspices. Further, the NCAA determined that Grosso’s expenses had been paid by “a corporation upon which the student-athlete was neither naturally or legally dependent.” The “corporation” was a reference to the bar owned by Grosso’s uncles and the tuition assistance provided by them.
The penalties announced by the NCAA were harsh. The university’s football and basketball teams were barred from postseason tournaments or bowl games and could not appear on NCAA-sanctioned television broadcasts for two years. Further, and most devastating, the NCAA made it clear that if USC did not get its house in order quickly, the university could be suspended from NCAA membership. It was a humiliating ruling and a black mark on USC’s credibility. President Jones admonished McGuire to refrain from comment on the investigation and to follow the “letter and spirit” of the ACC and NCAA rulings.
In the aftermath of the NCAA’s announcement, McGuire used his connections to help Grosso transfer to the University of Louisville, where he received a scholarship and played behind the great Wes Unseld during his first season before starting his final two seasons. Grosso averaged 16.2 points and 14.2 rebounds per game during his time at Louisville. The young man whose college career began with such promise never suited up for a varsity game at South Carolina. Rather than leading the Gamecocks to championships as McGuire had boldly predicted, Mike Grosso is a footnote – albeit a significant one – in the athletic history of the University.
In the wake of the Grosso controversy, South Carolina’s new football coach and athletic director would develop his own misgivings about the ACC’s admission standards which would ultimately determine the university’s path toward major independent status.
Next: Part III – From Simmer to Boil
----
• Not a subscriber? Learn more about Gamecock Central here!
• Watch our live show and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
• Sign up for Gamecock Central's FREE news alerts and daily newsletter.
• Subscribe to our podcast on whatever podcast platform you prefer!
• Follow us on Twitter: @GamecockCentral, @GCChrisClark, @WesMitchellGC, @CollynTaylor.
• Follow Gamecock Central on Instagram @GamecockCentral.
