USFbulls24

Not at all, but you're giving yourself that chance. Had they gone down and scored you're losing prior to the extra point whether you missed the 2 point conversion or kicked the extra point. You have the opportunity in your control after you score the TD to execute and put yourself up by 6. I don't think it's a major issue and I'm certainly not bashing him, but there was no reason not to go for 2 there. If he missed the two point conversion we are up by 4 so ECU still has to get a TD to extend or win the game and we end up winning by 4 so yes no harm, no foul.

Haha.. Missed extra points happen. You're not BANKING on anything, you're simply giving your team a chance to extend the game if the scenario of ECU going down to score at the end of the game happened. What scenario would you rather be in: ECU scores with very little time left and prior to the extra point you're already losing, or you're tied? You can say it doesn't matter, but every coach in America is going to tell you they want a chance to block the extra point, chance for a bad snap, chance the kicker just flat out misses, etc and so would I. We missed a 22 yarder or something ridiculously close in the game. Anything can happen. I thought it was a bad decision. It obviously didn't matter in the end, but there's no reason to not go for 2 there.

Beating up on 3-9 Marshall's, 2-10 Southern Miss's, 1-11 UAB's, for most of your wins doesn't mean you had a good season in my eyes. You beat up on such garbage year after year in conference USA. Hope you're enjoying the winless season which will turn out to be your 2nd in less than 15 years.

So ridiculous that these so called "experts" are claiming ucf is the better job. Word is Miami is willing to pay $4 million a season to their next coach. That''s about 4 times more a year than what ucf's next coach will get. If both coaches get 5 year deals that's $20 million vs. probably about $5 million total? At Miami with the right coaching and recruiting you can win a national championship. The most talent rich area in the world for football recruiting is right in their backyard. On top of that, at worst they're 3rd in line in Florida when it comes to recruiting and all it would take is the right coach for it to be 1A, 1B, 1C between Miami, FSU, and Florida for recruits again. ucf looks like it's 5th in line in my opinion. Miami has tradition and so many stud NFL players to come out of there to make them an even more attractive destination for recruits. Miami's division in the ACC is pretty weak. UNC, Pittsburgh, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech. As long as you're recruiting it shouldn't be difficult to be in the ACC championship game consistently. The only thing ucf could say it has an advantage with is there is less pressure to win. I would think just about every sane person would agree that $20 mil > $5 mil is better, easier to recruit > harder to recruit is better, better chance of success at a high level (BCS bowl games, national championships) > AAC anything is better, etc.

1) South Florida2) 24-203) Marlon Mack4) Chris Barr5) 380

Not giving him such a hard time. He's the one talking down to me telling me he will teach me about the forward pass. I just completely disagree with someone who says their gripe with the navy game was our defense. Our defense didn't play the best game we've ever seen, but they certainly played good enough on the road against a **** good team. Had our offense figured out a way to put some points on the board no one even talks about us giving up a bunch of rushing yards to a team that runs the triple option.

Thanks so much. You've opened my eyes and I'm really sorry. I just wasn't aware that you were not only a smarter defensive football mind than Tom Allen, but you would be an even better coach than what he is. You have shown me the light and I have no idea what I was thinking saying that this isn't on our defense. I mean when you really think about it, with our offense getting the ball back with 5 minutes left with a chance to go win the game on the road against a 6-1 team and our D holding them to 22 points (prior to that giveaway at the end) it's pretty sickening that our defense didn't hold them to one less TD. Or even better that Rodney Adams didn't return another kick-off to ensure a win. Hopefully you've emailed your thoughts to Allen so that we will be better prepared as a defense moving forward. It's crazy that all of these coaches talk about "assignment football" when speaking about how to stop the triple option and not stacking the box. They must all be fools...

A full excuse? It's not an excuse.... What did you people expect out of our defense walking into Navy, a 6-1 team, who averaged 35ppg running an offense that is rarely seen in college football?? Did you expect us to just shut them down and hold them to 6 points? That last TD is not on the defense at all. Anyone who wouldn't be happy about only giving up 22 points on the road to that team is expecting way too much. I'm not saying they couldn't of played better, but this whole bash the defense thing for that game is way off in my opinion. What does it matter how the time plays out? Our defense was on the field for 40 minutes. The stats are never going to be pretty when that's the case, period.

So... given the fact that our OFFENSE couldn't do anything which kept our DEFENSE on the field for 40 minutes, which was a major reason why Navy was able to put up so many yards and quite arguably the reason the last TD was scored by Navy since our defense was just on the field for a 10 play 80 yard 6+ minute drive and hadn't even sat down before Adam's coughed the ball back to Navy we should complain about the defense. Especially since you watched the game with 2 former Bucs players who were pointing out that a triple option run attack was having success running the football? Our defense gave up a lot of yards there is no denying that, but to not even take into consideration the way the game played out is ridiculous. I don't care what defense is playing. You put any defense on the field for 40 minutes in a 60 minute ball game and the stats are not going to be pretty. The defense did everything they could to keep us in that game. 22-17 with 5 minutes left in the game and our offense getting the ball back. If you're going to complain about our defense before you complain about our offense who couldn't sustain a drive or find a way to score more than 10 points then someone needs to take your keyboard away.

Don't disagree that the growth has taken too long. It's been painful to go through the last few years, but it's obvious that he has made an improvement in his coaching and our team has made a major improvement on the field. There is nothing wrong with people acknowledging that. We were in a bad spot and only the best of the best would have had us respectable in year 2 so.

They had the ball for 40 minutes and ran the ball 69 times. You're going to give up A TON of rushing yards regardless when that is the case. 425 is an awful lot, but they got 42 yards after Adams' fumble when Navy had just had our defense on the field for a 10 play 80 yard 6 minute drive. Our offense had the ball for a total of 6:30 out of 30 minutes of play in the 2nd half. Our defense was dead tired. Look at the big picture. The score was 22-17 Navy with just under 7 minutes left in the game. The defense/special teams kept us in the game and you're complaining about the defense. Our offense scored 10 points and obviously couldn't put a few drives together to give our defense a chance to even sit down in the 2nd half. This game is not on the defense. They performed just fine considering the circumstances. Because our offense failed to score TDs when deep in Navy territory and because they couldn't find a way to stay on the field in the 2nd half was our achilles' heel. Navy is a really good football team. They're 6-1 for a reason. We are not on that level yet. We are getting there though. Just because Tulane had a better game plan to stop the triple option doesn't mean they're better than us. That's funny though.

Take away the fumble on the kick off return and Allen and our 4-2-5 held an offense that is just about foreign in college football and an offense that was averaging 35ppg to 22 points on the road. Our defense was also on the field for 40 minutes of the 60 minute game. Your gripe holds no water.

Gotcha. I didn't see that and didn't know CWT said that. I was under the impression he was given a flag for trash talking to a Navy player.

Couldn't believe they called unsportsmanlike on Ward there. There's no way that was the only trash talking going on, and the only thing they heard. To throw it there is unreal.

We lost to a better football team who is now 6-1 on the road. We had the lead in the 4th quarter even with the missed FGs. I am the first to be all over Taggart, but sometimes even the best of game plans can't beat a superior opponent (Not saying we had a great game plan). I don't think this is one is on Taggart and I think today was definitely another sign of improvement. Last year and the year before we don't go into the 4th quarter with a lead against a team of that caliber. We are going to look really good against 1-6 football teams like SMU and I think we are going to put up good fights against the better teams we play the rest of the way. That's night and day from year 1 and year 2 of the Taggart era. We are on the right track. Our defense played fantastic. Take away the fumble on the final kick off to us and they gave up 22 points on the road to a team that runs an offense we never see and averaged 35 ppg coming into today. They did everything they could. Time of possession was sickening. 40 minutes for Navy to our 20. That's what Navy does. We were gassed at the end of the game just as any defense would've been. I would say that Taggart has got to find a way to put up more than 10 points (although it should've been 16 with the missed FGs) and that we have too many play makers on that side of the ball to be held to that, but what can he do when we only have the ball for 20 minutes. This one is not on Taggart. Chalk it up to a close one (Yes I said close, the final score is completely deceiving so don't give me the we lost by double digits stuff) where we lost to a better team.

Our offense scored 10 points. Not going to win on the road unless you're playing someone totally helpless with that being the case.

1) Navy2) 28-243) Marlon Mack4) Rodney Adams5) 395

I don't even really know how to respond to this. I don't remember anyone claiming we need to kick teams out of our conference? If you read what I've said a few times now, I understand every conference has bottom dwellers/consistently losing teams. You obviously didn't read what I posted above about BC's record. Maybe you should look that one up before you start throwing them out there when talking about the bottom of conferences in regards to the discussion about ours. The SEC is the best conference in college football any way you slice it, but an absolutely fantastic comparison on your part

I only mentioned the ACC teams because they were brought up to me that every conference has bottom dwellers such as (the teams mentioned above). Once again, I think this year we have a pretty darn good conference. When I am stating my opinion on our conference I am talking big picture/in general and not just taking into consideration what our league has done this season. Tulane went undefeated in 1998. Since then they've had 3 winnings seasons and a combined record of 65-132. Point is Temple isn't likely to be a top 25 team consistently moving forward (over the next few years). You have to look at these programs as a whole and not what they've done through 7 games of the 2015 season. Anything can happen and maybe Houston, Temple, and Memphis are top 25 football teams consistently to help this conference, but I'm not betting on that. The addition of Navy was a big boost to the quality of the conference and who knows maybe this conference turns out to be really, really good. I just don't see it that way though.

Agree. Fuente and Herman will be gone within the next few seasons if not after this season. One might even be at Miami come December.

If you read the entire post I ended it with saying "I think it's fair to claim this season we have a pretty good conference outside of the P5" which would agree with what you've said above about the AAC being a pretty good conference right now. The Big East was never a great conference, but it was head and shoulders better than the AAC. In my opinion looking at the football programs in our conference, looking at the program's histories, and even the last few years we have some seriously bad programs. You're comparing the bottom feeders from the ACC to ours? That makes no sense... I understand every conference has bottom feeders, but that doesn't make all bottom feeders equal. Boston College's record over the last 23 years is 164-124. They went 7-6 in 2014 and 2013. 7-6 in 2010. 11-3 in 2007. 10-3 in 2006. 9-3 in 2004 and 2005. You're going to compare them to SMU/Tulane? LOL Okay. Virginia's record over the last 25+ years is 193 - 153. They have been bad the last few years with a 2-10 finish in 2013, but before that their worst record over that stretch was 3-9 in 2009. 17 Bowl Game appearances over that stretch. Obviously the last few years for them have been less than stellar, but that's not the norm for them. Our bottom feeder's it is the norm. Their bottom feeders vs our bottom feeders it's not even a discussion. That's not saying things can't change, but it's not likely Tulane and SMU become consistently better football programs than those mentioned above. I am not trying to say these programs are good, but they are most certainly better than our bottom feeders which makes my point about our bottom feeders relevant when talking about my opinion on our conference being good or not. If we want to party and talk up the AAC and use the exact words of "this season our conference has turned out to actually be pretty darn good". I agree, 100% (up until this point). Still plenty of football to play though. I still think this is a bad conference GENERALLY SPEAKING. I obviously would love to see this conference turn into something really good, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

It's good for the teams that are undefeated and the prospects of us having some seriously good seasons, but it points back to our conference being bad..

My point was not that we're the only conference with bottom dwellers. I was speaking about the AAC only, and if you would like to compare our bottom dwellers with the P5's bottom dwellers you're going to find a massive difference. Not that it's a fair comparison, but if you want to have that conversation you'll have to start there.

I don't blame anyone for crapping on the AAC. It's not a good conference. The conference is a heck of a lot better than I thought it'd be this season, however it's still not good. The problem will continue to be the bottom of our conference. There will almost certainly be 3-4 teams that struggle to win 3 or 4 games a year. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, UCONN, and then the occasional USF/UCF bad year same goes for Temple and Memphis could be back in that conversation quickly. Once Lynch leaves, and Fuente is not far behind him Memphis could easily be at the bottom of the conference every year with the usual suspects like they were for decades. Memphis record since 1980 (34 years of football, from 1980-2013): 139 Wins - 244 Losses. Temple over the same period: 120 Wins - 264 Losses. Tulane over the same period: 138 Wins - 255 Losses (This includes an undefeated 12-0 season in 1998). Don't have the patience to look at SMU or UCONN or Tulsa, but I'd guess it's not pretty. I think it's fair to claim this season we have a pretty good conference outside of the P5, but talking in general terms this conference is still pretty darn bad.

I would have an absolute meltdown if Jim became the coach of UCF.