USFbulls24

What is with this board and thinking this team is similar in talent or depth of roster to our team in 2009. I posted this somewhere else, but people forget that 2009 team had NFL talent all over the field specifically on defense. Nate Allen, Jason Pierre-Paul, George Selvie, Terrell McClain, Tyrone McKenzie, Jerome Murphy, Mistral Raymond, Kion Wilson, Jacquian Williams, etc. Then on offense we had BJ Daniels, Carlton Mitchell, Dontavia Bogan. In the AAC, develop your players and don't let coaching get in the way and you're bound to have a pretty good team. This team likely has better overall talent than that team but that team was peppered with experience, key talent, it had leaders, it had confidence because they had been there. This team is different, this team is building towards that. It is a team being constructed from scratch by a coach who didn't got trash from the previous coach. I dont think anyone thought so many guys from that team would be good but the individual talent statement is valid. That team was a better team in a system that had been here for years. Oh, Dontavia Bogan was not that good. I'm not sure where he became a USF great, but he was average. Mitchell was indeed better but do I think some of the young guys have more athletic ability and talent on the roster now? Yes. I loved the Leavitt teams but I'm not going to pretend they were super talented. They were just like the coach, gritty and mean on defense. Offense has always been a work in progress at USF. Wait a second... You're telling me that 2009 defense which I think just about every single player mentioned has not only played an NFL down, some been an NFL starter, or an NFL pro-bowler was not super TALENTED? Give me a break dude. Forgot to add Kayvon Webster and Sam Barrington to the list above. That's 11 players on that defense that have played in the NFL. Dontavia Bogan was not a USF great. He was a decent college football WR. He was good enough for an NFL team to take a look at him whether it was on the practice squad or not. Put it into perspective. We are talking about comparing the 2009 team to this one now. Bogan compared to what we've seen minus Andre Davis the last 2-3 years Bogan was fantastic. Helps a lot to have a QB like BJ Daniels who was super talented too. I'm certainly not claiming USF was ever the most talented team on the field or ever one of the most talented rosters in college football, but to think this team right now has more talent than our 2009 team is comical. If we have this conversation in 3 years and looking back and it makes sense fine, I'm willing to bet a lot of $ its not, but right now comparing what we have to previous collegiate all-americans and 5+ year NFL veterans is foolish especially coming off the last two seasons. I will say we have more talent at the RB position than we did in 2009. Our Oline is an absolute mess until it's not, and our offense in general is an absolute mess until it's not.

Yes, that team had very good players on defense. But, offensively, it wasn't all that. Offensively, I think this team is better. OK, the QB position is still an unknown, but the rest of the offense aren't slouches. I'm not trying to say that we are great on the talent meter; I don't smoke crack. My point is that we aren't deprived like the years after Holtz' first year up to CWT's first year. Last year we had enough talent to make a bowl, if only we had played the right kind of football. This year, we are more talented than last year. ..? Just mind boggling. I understand we're going to a new system that better suits us, but to say this team we have this year going in is better offensively than the team we had in 2009 is a big premature and a long shot.

No chance.

What is with this board and thinking this team is similar in talent or depth of roster to our team in 2009. I posted this somewhere else, but people forget that 2009 team had NFL talent all over the field specifically on defense. Nate Allen, Jason Pierre-Paul, George Selvie, Terrell McClain, Tyrone McKenzie, Jerome Murphy, Mistral Raymond, Kion Wilson, Jacquian Williams, etc. Then on offense we had BJ Daniels, Carlton Mitchell, Dontavia Bogan. In the AAC, develop your players and don't let coaching get in the way and you're bound to have a pretty good team.

I'll admit it's very hard for me to just look at the schedule and say it's easier or harder. I look for wins and losses because I think when you have a team like ours who is not very good, just because you have an easier schedule doesn't mean a whole lot. NC State went 3-9 in 2013. They came in and absolutely wrecked us last year 49-17. NC State is a better program than Syracuse, but given what we've seen from our football team there's nothing to say Syracuse doesn't come in and walk away with an easy W. Who knows maybe Syracuse has some talent they've been waiting on to develop and red shirting, etc. Maybe they don't. Maryland has us at home. I know nothing about them or personnel. I do know they found a way to beat us committing 6 turnovers and giving up a defensive TD to us on the road last year. Maryland has a new DC, we have an entire new offense with players recruited for the power run. It's easy to understand why FSU is very likely to not be as good as they were last year, but if anyone in the country has players to step up and help replace players it is FSU. They have had a top 10 recruiting class the last 5 years, and 3 of those were top 5. 2011: 2, 2012: 6, 2013: 10, 2014: 4, 2015: 3. I know rankings don't mean a whole lot all of the time, but it would be foolish to think they don't have studs waiting in the wings to come in and play. Obviously the QB is a different story, but they don't need a Jameis Winston or a Dalvin Cook to throw us to the side handily. It's nice to see people have optimism with this game, and reference the last time we were in Tallahassee, but in 2009 our roster was loaded with legitimate veteran talent who had won big games before this is about the exact opposite. FSU will wreck us. Navy went 8-5 last year playing a very similar schedule as us and returns really the only thing that matters in a triple offense the decision maker, the senior QB. That offense is going to give us fits. Agree UCF should not be as good as they were last year, and last year they were mediocre. Pays to be in the AAC. Agree Temple is better than Tulsa, PJ Walker is a heck of a football player and going to be a headache trying to deal with him. Don't see the need to compare FCS teams. If it's easier it's not by much at all. Just hope there's 6 wins on there somewhere. I don't see 6, but maybe we can catch one of these teams with a banged up QB or something.

I personally dont think Taggart has been as bad at play calling as hes been in trying to enforce the system. The choice in the system was his grave mistake. Its not a bad one, it just doesnt work here. Our problem was clearly the system, we dont have what it takes to implement the power run. He realized that now, albeit unfortunately it took 2 full losing seasons. I think play calling will take a step forward simply because of the new system. Our team will look markedly better. I for one am willing to bet 100 bucks were going bowling Having a mobile qb and a better line will pay HUGE dividends for our run game. (Mack could have an INCREDIBLE year). And our defense is supposed to be better this year also so I dont see how we can go anywhere but UP He's been pretty bad at play calling. The amount of times we ran the ball last year on 3rd and medium to 3rd and long was crazy. One instance that still sticks out to me was the Memphis game. Early in the game we drove down the field inside the red zone in a 0 - 0 game and on 3rd and 7 he ran a HB draw. Memphis averaged 30+ points per game and we were @ Memphis. He got shut out against a mediocre UCF team at home. A good play caller finds a way to put some points on the board. We don't have anywhere to go but up, but we can improve and still go 5-7. Don't think it's impossible to play in a bowl, but UCONN, SMU, and FAMU are the only games I think you can pencil in a W.

FIU beat FAU........and both prob would've beaten USF last year. I don't think you realize just how bad USF was last year. Seriously, about 6 or 7 plays was the difference between 4-8 and 0-12. Even still, USF looked like crap in all 4 of those wins There is no way USF was "6 or 7" plays from 0-12... USF was no where near losing WCU and U Conn (and the rain makes everyone look like crap)... SMU was the only game where we were one play from losing - but White engineered two great dries to win the game... Tulsa it took some time, but that second half was a thing of beauty. USF was also exactly three plays from 6-6... so USF was not "BAD" ... USF was inexperienced (as the 2nd or 3rd overall youngest team in FBS) and had problems with focus (hence so many dumb penalties)... and because our OL could not protect the QB, teams simply stacked the box against the run. Uh... I know it's been awhile since the season, but we were 6 or 7 plays from 0-12. We beat WCU by 5. Take away 1 of Mack's long TD runs we might lose. We beat SMU by 1. Took a miracle last second play (which could've been offensive PI), take away that 1 play that's another loss. We beat UCONN by 3. Take away Mike White's 30 yard TD pass and we settle for a FG we lose by 1. This was a weird game, we did dominate it, but still. We beat Tulsa by 8 in a frantic comeback. Take away 2 plays in that game and we lose. We were bad and inexperienced. Anyone in a dog fight with SMU, Tulsa, and UConn in the same year is a bad team.

So Marketing should wait for a good product before bothering to try and promote? Can you please explain to me how in the world you got ^^ from what I said? I said none of it matters until there is a good product on the field. They have to do marketing, that's the world of business. However, it's not going to make a big impact until there is a good product on the field.

None of this type of stuff matters until there is a good product on the field.

He can't get out of his own way.

Weren't the recruiting rankings rather high for USF? Highest non-P5? I think it depends on who's rankings you are looking at. ESPN, Rivals, 247... Further, is it strictly numbers based, meaning the more recruits the better or is it quality/star based? We have done a decent job recruiting when looking at numbers, but the gap is not so great, if there even is one, when you look at average talent/star ratings of our conference peers. On a side note, I am still not sold that Willie's recruits are any better than Skips. Numbers wise, they are almost the same, time will tell if the 3 and 4 year results prove to be better. But as of right now, Willie has not recruited better than Skip and his results are not either. Willie still has work to do, in my book, to prove he is the recruiter people make him out to be. Matter of perspective The class average grade are about the same between the two (going by 247 average class grade) Taggart has an edge: However you have to consider Skip was recruiting while in a "BCS" conference and coming off winning records. His 247 class Rankings: 54, 69, 53, for an average of 58.67 Taggart, in a more difficult circumstance: recruiting from a "G5" conference after a few years of abysmal records (including Skip's years) is somehow still pulling in a better average: 247 Rankings: 53, 40, 68, for an average of 53.67 Basing it on this... i would say Taggart is a much better recruiter. Your right, it is perspective, but look at the conference, are you saying that if Skip was still here we would be recruiting nothing but two stars? I don't buy the whole Skip had more to work with bit. The upper half of our conference recruits to about the same level as we do. Still, even if I take on your perspective, is a good recruiter one who gets the stars and numbers or the one who recruits players that can win? Either way, Willie has shown me nothing but recruiting hype. Hell, have you looked at Houston's recruiting class recently? They are killing it! Taggart is the better recruiter hands down. Taggart gets kids to take visits and consider us even where our program has sunk to that wouldn't even answer a text message from Skip Holtz coming off an 8-5 year in a BCS conference. With that being said, you don't need a great recruiter to win in the AAC. Look at O'leary in Orlando.. They went 12-1 and won a BCS game and their recruiting class was way worse than ours and we went 2-10. We've gotta get someone on staff (hoping we have them now with the new hires) that can develop talent. We used to develop the players we got. Now we change coaches every year, change schemes, it's a mess.. Yes, his amazing recruiting skills have helped us big time! Bottom line is that we will always blame someone for our woes. When Skippy beat Notre Dame he was amazing, when things fell apart, BJ was our problem, he just was not good enough. Now, they are both gone and what do wee need most? Some big wins and a QB, both things Ole Skippy had. So keep riding that Willie recruiting wave of glory. Wonder how these great recruits will measure up after four years of only winning 16 games, maybe. Time to stop blaming Skip and realize that maybe all these 3 star athletes are just that, average! Never said his recruiting ability has done anything for us. I said he's a better recruiter. Unfortunately, Taggart hasn't developed anyone (although, to be fair he hasn't had time to prove if he can do that or not - we will find out this year though the beginnings of that), but most importantly from our 2 years with him he seems to be lacking in a lot of coaching areas from game planning to play calling. I don't blame Skip at all. I don't think Skip Holtz should even be mentioned anymore when talking about our situation. We play in the pitiful AAC now, you don't need a stacked team to be decent and win some games. I'm one of Taggart's biggest critics on this board. Blame him for a lot of what's going on, bash him for almost anything and I'm probably right behind you agreeing, but recruiting isn't one of them. Recruiting isn't everything, just like the point you're trying to make I believe? I agree, but he is hands down a better recruiter than Holtz. If you choose not to see that, then you're turning your head for whatever reason. This seems to be the only thing we disagree on. By what measurable is he a better recruiter? As you mention, Ship recruited in the BE, I am not sure that made a ton of difference. Lets say we hired someone else other than Willie. Do you really think that our recruiting, ranking and star wise (pick your recruiting site), would be drastically different? Saying he is a GREAT recruiter means that he is better than a good recruiter. I simply believe that if you plugged in any coach, except for maybe top level P5 coaches, that our recruiting results would be the same? Another way to look at my point. When most people look at recruiting rankings they are looking at a point system that awards points for number of athletes and their "star level." This is how most services rate classes, quantity, for some reason is weighted greater than quality. Easy math example, UAB signs 40, 2 star athletes, they will be ranked higher than ECU who signs 20 athletes with a mix of 3 stars, and a couple 4 stars. Simply because of numbers. Now, lets look at Skips class numbers according to 247. 2010 = 20, 2011 = 21, 2012 = 18. Skips average class size = 19.6. Willies numbers, 2013 = 24, 2014 = 28. Willies average class size = 26 Even when compared to our conference, the only thing that pushes us so high in rankings is that fact we are signing so many dang kids. Willie is not a bad recruiter, I think he is an average recruiter. If he was really that great, we would be blowing away the competition (our current conference) in quality of recruit. I could care less about numbers. Maybe my point is lost trying to say that WIllie is no better than Skip at recruiting, fine, uncle, I give, Willie is better, but it sure ain't by a lot. If Skip was a bad recruiter, Willie is average. On last view. USF has lead the AAC in recruiting per 247 (talent Wise) the last two years under WIllie. 2013 #1 USF = 83.02, #2 = 82.59, #3 82.22... 2014 #1 USF = 84.22, 83.71, 81.08... Simply put, we are not exactly out performing the conference by a GREAT number. So, are all of the other coaches in the AAC GREAT recruiters? Further, different recruiting services did not place USF classes in the #1 position in these years, so there is that. I think USF, the stadium, location, academics, etc.. really sells itself. I am sure Willie road the "new coach, come make a difference, turn things around" hype machine and maybe he sold it good. But, I think any other average coach would have done the same. I don't think there would be a major difference if Skip was still here recruiting wise. I think the difference is 2-3 players each recruiting class (not additional quantity, but better quality players) that is different and every year that happens it adds up and will make a major difference IF Taggart can show he can coach or we bring in a good coach next year if he can't get the job done this year. For example Taggart brings in Marlon Mack, Holtz brought in Willie Davis, or Michael Pierre. You think if Skip Holtz was still our coach last year we steal Marlon Mack from Michigan/Louisville? I certainly don't. You're choosing to ignore a lot of things. Go read any articles on Willie Taggart and they'll talk about how good of a recruiter he is. From where you're standing you think all of them are lying and not one has a clue? Taggart's last year at WKU they had a recruiting class ranking of 76 per Rivals. That means 52 teams had a recruiting class worse than Western Kentucky. Do you not realize how impressive that is? Holtz just lost in the conference USA championship game and had a recruiting class ranked 78 per Rivals. You remember that Taggart pulled in a top 40 class after our team - USF, was dropped to G5 and went 2-10 right? Does that register with you? That is unbelievable. Most coaches in that situation would be lucky to pull in a top 80 class. There's another piece of evidence that he's one hell of a recruiter. By the way, UCF won a BCS game that year. Their class was ranked 74 with an average star rating of 2.65. Ours ranked 39 with an average star rating of 2.89. I get your point with the quantity that plays into the rankings, but you're choosing to look away at a lot of other things. Our program is an absolute wreck and he's pulling in the #1 or #2 class regardless of how it's determined in our conference. If he's able to get it figured out and get us on the right track that's when you'll see him blow away the conference. His recruiting hasn't paid off to this point yet, because all those guys are very young and a lot of them have red shirted so they haven't seen any playing time yet (Jimmy Bayes, Elkanah Dillon, Vincent Jackson Jr, Benjamin Knox) or red shirted and only seen a year of playing time. I do agree that if you can recruit like a beast, but you don't have a coach to coach them up it's all for nothing. You don't think he's a great recruiter, fine. However, you would be silly to disagree with the notion that he's done a FANTASTIC job recruiting given the state of our program. Coaching is another issue, but recruiting he's done better than I think anyone could've asked for up to this point.

Weren't the recruiting rankings rather high for USF? Highest non-P5? I think it depends on who's rankings you are looking at. ESPN, Rivals, 247... Further, is it strictly numbers based, meaning the more recruits the better or is it quality/star based? We have done a decent job recruiting when looking at numbers, but the gap is not so great, if there even is one, when you look at average talent/star ratings of our conference peers. On a side note, I am still not sold that Willie's recruits are any better than Skips. Numbers wise, they are almost the same, time will tell if the 3 and 4 year results prove to be better. But as of right now, Willie has not recruited better than Skip and his results are not either. Willie still has work to do, in my book, to prove he is the recruiter people make him out to be. Matter of perspective The class average grade are about the same between the two (going by 247 average class grade) Taggart has an edge: However you have to consider Skip was recruiting while in a "BCS" conference and coming off winning records. His 247 class Rankings: 54, 69, 53, for an average of 58.67 Taggart, in a more difficult circumstance: recruiting from a "G5" conference after a few years of abysmal records (including Skip's years) is somehow still pulling in a better average: 247 Rankings: 53, 40, 68, for an average of 53.67 Basing it on this... i would say Taggart is a much better recruiter. Your right, it is perspective, but look at the conference, are you saying that if Skip was still here we would be recruiting nothing but two stars? I don't buy the whole Skip had more to work with bit. The upper half of our conference recruits to about the same level as we do. Still, even if I take on your perspective, is a good recruiter one who gets the stars and numbers or the one who recruits players that can win? Either way, Willie has shown me nothing but recruiting hype. Hell, have you looked at Houston's recruiting class recently? They are killing it! Taggart is the better recruiter hands down. Taggart gets kids to take visits and consider us even where our program has sunk to that wouldn't even answer a text message from Skip Holtz coming off an 8-5 year in a BCS conference. With that being said, you don't need a great recruiter to win in the AAC. Look at O'leary in Orlando.. They went 12-1 and won a BCS game and their recruiting class was way worse than ours and we went 2-10. We've gotta get someone on staff (hoping we have them now with the new hires) that can develop talent. We used to develop the players we got. Now we change coaches every year, change schemes, it's a mess.. Yes, his amazing recruiting skills have helped us big time! Bottom line is that we will always blame someone for our woes. When Skippy beat Notre Dame he was amazing, when things fell apart, BJ was our problem, he just was not good enough. Now, they are both gone and what do wee need most? Some big wins and a QB, both things Ole Skippy had. So keep riding that Willie recruiting wave of glory. Wonder how these great recruits will measure up after four years of only winning 16 games, maybe. Time to stop blaming Skip and realize that maybe all these 3 star athletes are just that, average! Never said his recruiting ability has done anything for us. I said he's a better recruiter. Unfortunately, Taggart hasn't developed anyone (although, to be fair he hasn't had time to prove if he can do that or not - we will find out this year though the beginnings of that), but most importantly from our 2 years with him he seems to be lacking in a lot of coaching areas from game planning to play calling. I don't blame Skip at all. I don't think Skip Holtz should even be mentioned anymore when talking about our situation. We play in the pitiful AAC now, you don't need a stacked team to be decent and win some games. I'm one of Taggart's biggest critics on this board. Blame him for a lot of what's going on, bash him for almost anything and I'm probably right behind you agreeing, but recruiting isn't one of them. Recruiting isn't everything, just like the point you're trying to make I believe? I agree, but he is hands down a better recruiter than Holtz. If you choose not to see that, then you're turning your head for whatever reason.

Actually, I think we will be at least 40 spots better on offense... the differences in bad offenses are smaller than the differences between good offenses (from 116 to 80 is easier than 80 to 40, for example)... and I think we'll be a Top 40 defense as well. If you look at where they rank the other teams in this ranking... U Conn and SMU are below us... so we should be no WORSE than 3-9 based on this... but look at how closely others on our schedule are ranked: Memphis - 66 UCF - 73 Syracuse - 75 Maryland - 78 East Carolina - 79 Navy - 82 So if the 'exaggeration' is to move to 59... and I think we'll be better than that... then we could look as great as 9-3... (and I think Temple is rated too high, on the strength of their defense). At least 40 spots better on offense? Wouldn't that be nice. I think you're in lala land with that one. We will improve because we'll be running more plays and playing an offensive scheme that suits athletes (thank goodness). Still have to have good offensive coaching in order to make a jump like that. What in the world has Taggart shown you for you to believe he has what it takes to get us to improve that much? Hope I'm being too conservative, but I think an improvement from 116 to the 95 - 100 area is about right.

Weren't the recruiting rankings rather high for USF? Highest non-P5? I think it depends on who's rankings you are looking at. ESPN, Rivals, 247... Further, is it strictly numbers based, meaning the more recruits the better or is it quality/star based? We have done a decent job recruiting when looking at numbers, but the gap is not so great, if there even is one, when you look at average talent/star ratings of our conference peers. On a side note, I am still not sold that Willie's recruits are any better than Skips. Numbers wise, they are almost the same, time will tell if the 3 and 4 year results prove to be better. But as of right now, Willie has not recruited better than Skip and his results are not either. Willie still has work to do, in my book, to prove he is the recruiter people make him out to be. Matter of perspective The class average grade are about the same between the two (going by 247 average class grade) Taggart has an edge: However you have to consider Skip was recruiting while in a "BCS" conference and coming off winning records. His 247 class Rankings: 54, 69, 53, for an average of 58.67 Taggart, in a more difficult circumstance: recruiting from a "G5" conference after a few years of abysmal records (including Skip's years) is somehow still pulling in a better average: 247 Rankings: 53, 40, 68, for an average of 53.67 Basing it on this... i would say Taggart is a much better recruiter. Your right, it is perspective, but look at the conference, are you saying that if Skip was still here we would be recruiting nothing but two stars? I don't buy the whole Skip had more to work with bit. The upper half of our conference recruits to about the same level as we do. Still, even if I take on your perspective, is a good recruiter one who gets the stars and numbers or the one who recruits players that can win? Either way, Willie has shown me nothing but recruiting hype. Hell, have you looked at Houston's recruiting class recently? They are killing it! Taggart is the better recruiter hands down. Taggart gets kids to take visits and consider us even where our program has sunk to that wouldn't even answer a text message from Skip Holtz coming off an 8-5 year in a BCS conference. With that being said, you don't need a great recruiter to win in the AAC. Look at O'leary in Orlando.. They went 12-1 and won a BCS game and their recruiting class was way worse than ours and we went 2-10. We've gotta get someone on staff (hoping we have them now with the new hires) that can develop talent. We used to develop the players we got. Now we change coaches every year, change schemes, it's a mess..

Bayes. Hate to say it but he really had no business even considering us given his other offers and where our program was. He was the prize of that class prior to Mack going bananas last year on the field. Hope his recruiting hype turns into production on the field.

So that makes 3 in the last few months? Seems like people are leaving at any chance they get.

Need to develop players like the Leavitt era. We're never going to have the most talent in America at any position. Just have to develop the players we do have.

Wow, crazy stats. Hope he gets a chance in the NBA. No reason he can't be a 7th or 8th man in a rotation.

w-o-w, that's pretty optimistic for you, Shadow. Did you win a quick pick or something? The team has talent. I'm optimistic that the encouragement Taggart has received from Harlan has made Taggart smarter. If encouragement makes you smarter I would have graduated from Harvard.

No bowl. We're just not better than 6 teams on the schedule.

Ready for a nap after that.

This is simply speculation on your part. Of course. But it is informed speculation. Fact #1: CWT spent two years trying to convince anyone that would listen that his system was the best. It would take time to implement, but then it would be fantastic. After all, it's worked before. Fact #2: Harlan was clearly unhappy with the way the season went. We know for a fact that Harlan and CWT has meetings immediately after the season. Harlan publicly stated that CWT was a good young coach, and the school needed to provide him assistance to help him grow. Fact #3: After said meetings with Harlan (who has football experience), CWT suddenly reverses course on his offense and decides to implement something he has never attempted before. Several years as a HC he never let any of his coordinators even whisper about this kind of a system. He was loyal to his sytem to a fault. Suddenly he goes to the opposite spectrum of many of his core beliefs. Do you really think that Harlan had nothing to do with this? I'm about 95% certain Harlan all but ordered the specific changes. And you are probably 75% of the way there even if you don't admit it publicly. So why pretend otherwise? 95% certain?? With having no evidence whatsoever .... that's a joke and you know it. Going 6-18 under "his" system, with a talk from Harlan like Apis' indicated was probably the impetus. We're not talking about Barry Alvarez ordering "specific changes", assuming that means specific on the field stuff, to his coach... and even he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. No one knows for sure except Taggart or Harlan or someone a part of the team. However, acting like Shadow's guess is foolish is silly too. If it was presented as just a "guess", probably wouldn't have even noticed ... Saying he was 95% certain of how it went down begged for a response ... which is probably why he put it that way ... and it worked. Fair enough.

Looks to me like there's only one agreeing and two disagreeing with your 95% sure that Harlan specifically told CWT to change his offense to a version of the spread. Don't see anything in MH's background that indicates any coaching experience, which doesn't matter anyway. Probably told CWT that his 5 year contract is not written in blood and there will be significant improvement this year or they'll go in a different direction .... which is the way any decent AD would handle it. You start telling coaches how to coach and you've given them a ready made excuse for failure ... and we all should be thrilled if CWT's moves work. Why do you have such a problem with the boss being the boss? If a boss has a great employee, he/she just tells the employee the expected result. If the boss has an employee that isn't performing, he tells instead of suggests. I got no problem with that. Do you tell your failing employee, "Um, maybe you should do something different but I'm not going to tell you what, you figure it out"? Leaders lead by setting clear expectations, and clear direction when clear expectations isn't enough. That's a pretty stupid thing to say when my scenario was clearly one of a "boss being the boss". There are different levels of bosses. An athletic AD is not like a shift supervisor at McDonalds. At this level, as a head coach, you are expected to already know how to get the desired results. An AD sets expectations and if you don't live up to those expectations, you're gone. Harlan probably clarified those expectations in their meeting and that was the extent of it. To think he specifically told CWT he had to change his style of offense is pretty ludicrous and no evidence has been presented to support that claim ... Loads of evidence, you just choose not to see it. If I am an AD and I hire Nick Saban, I ask him what he needs to be successful and I give it to him. If I hire Willie Taggart and the team stinks, I provide him a whole lot more direction. The job of a leader is to ensure that his people succeed. In some cases that means removing obstacles, in other cases that means teaching or providing direction. To assume an AD stays completely out of the picture "because that is their job" is ludicrous. Harlan's job is to make the athletic department successful in whatever manner possible. That means telling your failing coach that his miserably boring offense not only isn't boring, it is hugely ineffective. If it was effective we could live with it. But it has far worse than other offenses with far less talent. So you are going to change to a system that is more effective and more entertaining at the same time. You don't like it, you can resign. If you want your money, this is what you are going to do. I specifically said he was not diagramming plays. But I would bet large dollar he forced Taggart to change the system. The interesting thing will be to see what this looks like once the bullets start flying. Does Taggart revert to his old ways, getting himself fired? Or does he listen to his new assistants and allow the offense a chance to flourish. It's pretty obvious it is make or break this year for CWT. Let's hope he comes through. I agree with your theory on Harlan pressured Willie to change something like the style of offense, but I think you're reaching on this. The AD is not a football guru, he's there to run the entire athletic program not be Willie's right hand man. I think he did pressure him to change the offense not only because of the results, but because of A-10-dance (attendance) and that's something Harlan obviously cares very much about. Also agree that an AD can help where possible for coaches, like get the $$ for better assistant coaches, work on upgrading facilities, but game planning and teaching a coach how to coach is not on that list.

This is simply speculation on your part. Of course. But it is informed speculation. Fact #1: CWT spent two years trying to convince anyone that would listen that his system was the best. It would take time to implement, but then it would be fantastic. After all, it's worked before. Fact #2: Harlan was clearly unhappy with the way the season went. We know for a fact that Harlan and CWT has meetings immediately after the season. Harlan publicly stated that CWT was a good young coach, and the school needed to provide him assistance to help him grow. Fact #3: After said meetings with Harlan (who has football experience), CWT suddenly reverses course on his offense and decides to implement something he has never attempted before. Several years as a HC he never let any of his coordinators even whisper about this kind of a system. He was loyal to his sytem to a fault. Suddenly he goes to the opposite spectrum of many of his core beliefs. Do you really think that Harlan had nothing to do with this? I'm about 95% certain Harlan all but ordered the specific changes. And you are probably 75% of the way there even if you don't admit it publicly. So why pretend otherwise? 95% certain?? With having no evidence whatsoever .... that's a joke and you know it. Going 6-18 under "his" system, with a talk from Harlan like Apis' indicated was probably the impetus. We're not talking about Barry Alvarez ordering "specific changes", assuming that means specific on the field stuff, to his coach... and even he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. No one knows for sure except Taggart or Harlan or someone a part of the team. However, acting like Shadow's guess is foolish is silly too. He could be dead on, and if I had to bet on it, I'd bet on his side of the guessing game. At the same time could be way off, but putting pieces together and in the order that they all happened, I lean towards thinking it happened the way he laid it out above. Could've been a mutual agreement, but after recruiting to fit his scheme for 2 straight years, bashing that style of play into his players heads for 2 straight years, considering it's all he has run as a coach, I just don't see Taggart making that decision without pressure to do so....

Best case scenario is 9 wins, but I will be happy at 7 wins and a bowl victory over a P5 like the year we best Clemson 9 wins? Have you watched a single game of our football team over the last two years? A bowl victory over a P5 like Clemson? Half-baked...