Jump to content

USFsurfer06

Member
  • Posts

    88
  • Betting tokens

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    271 [ Donate ]

Recent Profile Visitors

2,584 profile views

USFsurfer06's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Great Content Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

22

Reputation

  1. Serious question, why has the long standing tradition to determine the best team(s) in college football been based on subjective rankings rather than objective statistics (W/L, Points system, etc...)? So much of what is wrong with this sport can be fixed so easily, which makes it so infuriating that no one will call it out; well the power schools know this but don't want to relinquish power or support a fair system that allows for the Cinderella stories that we love. Now that USF has been effectively relegated to the land of the "have nots" it is even more frustrating to see a sport I once loved reduced to a greedy power grab of the top 20 programs in the country and the TV companies that control them. My solution, which I'm sure someone has already proposed on the board, would be to realign conferences to 8 geographically conferences of 16 teams. Each conference has 2 divisions of 8 teams. Each team plays the 7 in their division, 2 from the other division and 3 out of conference teams (no more fcs games). The winners of each division plays in a conference championship game. These 8 conference championships will essentially be a de facto start of the playoffs. The 8 conference champions then play in the playoffs (seeded appropriately). No at large bids, this leads to the biased system we currently have. This puts the importance on winning your division and conference. Teams can celebrate milestones such as division, conference, or national champs. Takes bias and subjection completely out of the formula and lends to a merit based system. The fact that the playoffs are currently determined by a committee is absolutely absurd. Again, I'm sure this has been said in one way or another and maybe doesn't require a separate thread but I just find the ranking system completely antiquated and subjectively biased and the fact thatb its lasted this long shows that the sport cannot evolve in the correct way without some kind of massive intervention to force the power brokers to relinquish power in some way. Rant over, sorry the last month has completely shaken my interest and faith in collegiate sports and USF athletics specifically.
  2. So I guess this is him taking an "aggressive" approach? Not impressed or confident this is going to turn out well.
  3. I know the right way to go for both Kelly and Aresco is to keep everything quiet behind closed doors regarding any kind of moves but does anyone else just get a bad feeling that not enough is being done by either to be proactive during all of this. Aside from the reports a month ago that Aresco was conspiring with ESPN there hasn't been any more mention about the AAC being aggressive. You would think something would've leaked in our Athletics dept about conversations Kelly is having or out of the AAC offices that something was going on
  4. Start Fortin, redshirt McClain, set us up for the long haul. Our best years are when we have continuity at the QB position (Grothe, Daniels, Flowers). Having a guy around for 1 to 2 years does nothing for us.
  5. I love this thread and the endless speculation, therefore I shall continue it It's looking like KU to the Big 10 may be a possibility. If that's the case the Big 10 will want to select 2 more to make it even. The only other AAU qualifier that makes sense from the Big 12 is ISU. Yes, they are not good in anything right now but neither was Rutgers or Maryland at the time of their acceptance. Plus the Big 10 would then own the state of Iowa and have a good rivalry. No Iowa is not huge but hey, owning Connecticut, Vermont, and Oriental Avenue is still valuable in Monopoly even though they are cheaper properties. WVU to the ACC just makes too much sense not to happen, then the ACC reserves the 16th spot for ND if they should ever decide. That leaves TCU, Baylor, OSU, KSU, & TTU. Poach BYU (yes I know all the issues that come with them) Boise State, Army, and your choice of Appalachian State or Coastal Carolina Create 4 pods of 5 NW Pod: OSU, Tulsa, KSU, BYU, BSU SW Pod: UH, TCU, SMU, Baylor, TTU NE Pod: Temple, UC, Navy, Army, Memphis SE: Pod: USF, UCF, Tulane, ECU, (ASU or CCU) Each team plays the other 4 teams in their pod plus 2 teams from each of the other 3 pods, leaving two out of conference spots on the schedule. The top schools from each pod are then seeded in a 4 team conference playoff to determine the champ! This would be fun!
  6. Looks like KU and ISU were shot down by the Big10 Report: Big Ten may not have a place for Iowa State or Kansas Iowa State and Kansas seemingly fit into the Big Ten well but have been shot down. While the talks did not seem serious, there was at least an attempt.
  7. Has there been any word on Aresco talking with ESPN about bringing on Big12 teams and what kind of $$ they would provide to incentive those teams to come to the AAC. Also, do you think Aresco has met with AAC presidents to urge them not to jump ship as they will work to strengthen the conference by poaching BIG12 teams
  8. Does the new playoff format mark the end of independents. I would think the likes of BYU and Army would be more open to conferences affiliation with an actual path to the CFP. Also does ND finally make the move to the Big 10 being a more geographic and cultural fit then the ACC, then who else does the big 10 grab up to even the number, who does the ACC grab up to replace ND. Could be the start of a lot of dominos falling
  9. UM seems to be talking a lot of $#!t. I'd rather face them but don't want them to win anything either.
  10. 16-1, back 2 back hrs! I almost feel bad for Uf, but not really
  11. Take Boise, SDSU, & Air Force West: Boise, SDSU, AF, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulsa East: Cinci, Navy, Temple, USF, C., ECU, Tulane If you're feeling really bold also add BYU (west) and AP State (east) to get to 16. Reduces travel among divisions, with a true east and west division, gives you more teams ranked throughout the year. BOOM done!
  12. If both Strong and Taggert are let go at the end of the season does Taggart come back? Does he bring Levitt with him?
  13. The biggest detractor for adding teams out west seems to be travel and the costs (especially for Olympic sports). Is there some way to limit this by limiting scheduling across the divisions? Football doesn't play every school every year, why should the other sports? Keep the majority of the games among the divisions with 1 to 3 trips cross country. The conference can schedule schools in the west strategically (ex USF and UCF) in one trip and vice versa (Houston, SMU). There has got to be a way to make it work and with UCONN leaving this presents the perfect opportunity to go bold and be the first 16 team conference (only if the tv deal is negotiated to keep the payouts the same of course). Also eliminates your closest competition (MWC) West: SDSU, BYU, Boise, Air Force, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Memphis, (Wichita) East: Temple, Army, Navy, UCF, USF, Cinci, Tulane, ECU Adding the likes of Boise, BYU, and the service academies are far more desirable than a 12 team league with UCONN. I know most of this has been speculated at nauseam I just think it's time to go bold with a major statement or else the conference may as well throw in the towel for football like UCONN has. I think if Aresco can come up with a structural/scheduling strategy that limits travel expenses, all the schools you are looking to invite would benefit much more financially from the new tv deal and would jump at the chance for higher payouts (with the exception of BYU depending on their current negotiations). The MWC is not going to get close to what the AAC did on their next contract so why not as long as the numbers work, big "if" though.
  14. Ok guys its been way too long since we've used this thread and we've got to get to 2000 pages, plus the offseason is boring AF, so a couple of questions to consider/speculate: 1. Do we know if the new contract has provisions for expansion and if we would receive additional money for quality schools brought in (i.e. BYU, BSU, etc)? 2. Do we wait for the Big 12 to dissolve around the next round of TV contracts and pick up the leftovers or do we act now and grab the best of the rest of the G5 to solidify us as the best G5 conference (P6)? 3. There is a pretty strong consensus about the schools we should go after to strengthen our conference, but is there anything else we should do besides winning and beating P5 teams, that the conference should be doing (legal, marketing, lobbying, or otherwise) that would solidify our position among the P5? Speculate away!
×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.