Meeps

Just now, puc86 said:

So you said you guys to footfan but meant people that do not include him? For someone that is so often wrong you really struggle to just admit it and move on.

Is this your version of TripleB'ing the conversation? This is a usf board, the whole comment showed parallel's between UCF and usf. God forbid I used "you guys" and didn't specifically say usf. My fault. I forgot this audience can't think past the literal, and even that is debatable. Especially when you make up things like being "often wrong" after you have been bombarded with facts that prove otherwise. Then again, you did say you live in your own world and I guess that involves denying the obvious.

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

You responded to footfan1 with the below  what does the “you guys”  refer to in the penultimate sentence?

 

 

Jesus christ, was that not inferred? Wow.....

11 minutes ago, puc86 said:

@Meeps since I know I have to explain a lot to you and it takes a while to sink in @Triple B is rolling his eyes at you because @footnfan1is one of you people and not one of us.

Let me break it down further since it's clear you're misinterpreting. When Footnfan1 offered his opinion, and I said you guys. You guys didn't mean footnfan1's team. You guys meant usf. Why that's difficult to understand is beyond me. 

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

@Meeps since I know I have to explain a lot to you and it takes a while to sink in @Triple B is rolling his eyes at you because @footnfan1is one of you people and not one of us.

Puc, I know I have to break down everything for you as well. Like why it's irrelevant who Footnfan1 roots for. He offered an opinion, and I explained in detail why it was an inaccurate one.

I never questioned TripleB's emoji or inquired about it. Paranoid much?

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

It’s not that we ran four times plays we literally ran the ball four times, had you punted on fourth and long we would have taken a knee but if you didn’t want to quit why should you dictate when we do?

Uhh.. You scored with 11 seconds left on the clock after the game was essentially over and you were up by 10. It was a deliberate move to run up the score. But feel free to justify it however you want.

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

After our coaching change you guys beat us at home on a kickoff return while our win after your change was a blow out, would you say there was a 40 point difference in the situations? We started off the decade you wish to compare at rock bottom of our program which led to you winning twice but within two years we were right back to beating you. As for Frost’s post game wining and temper tantrum it’s widely reported and you can google it as well as I can. Basically Frost didn’t like us running 4 plays and scoring after you were sacked on 4th and long. He asked why Willie didn’t take a knee and Willie said well why didn’t you punt?

I don't think that's tantamount to crying. When the game is won and the time is just about up, teams with a little bit of class don't continue trying to run up the score. Frost being the OC at Oregon for several years probably wasn't used to seeing other teams pulling $h*t like that.

Call it what you will, it's a rivalry game, but what he said wasn't unwarranted. We could have just as easily done the same in 2018 with the game in hand. We had 55 seconds left and could have just as easily ran 4 plays. But Heupel called the game.

1 hour ago, footnfan1 said:

I don't think he had to rebuild the team from scratch. That is a bit of a stretch. He had to make the game fun again for them, that is nor rebuilding, in my opinion. 

While it's true Frost had George O'Leary players, he also had plenty of his holes to fill when he came in that he did with his own recruits. There were plenty that were directly responsible for the win. McKenzie Milton was one of those. Furthermore, the team had effectively mailed it in and he had to sift through the not good enough (NGE). Then he had to do a complete culture change. We changed defensive schemes from a 4:3 to a 3:4, the offense went from Pro style to Oregon tempo. It wasn't a complete rebuild but it was light years compared to what Strong inherited with Taggart's recruits. You guys are going to see first hand the growing pains from going from an anemic offense to what Bell is trying to install. There is 100% a learning curve. Whereas when Strong came in, you guys actually dumbed down the playbook. The transition was far easier.

19 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I was not bragging about it just pointing out your coach cried about it. Strangely we switched coaches after that year and for some reason in your mind that doesn't discount your major current two game winning streak, odd. Sure maybe you will take the overall lead in a few years but there is also a pretty good chance the gap will widen. 

Actually, there isn't a pretty good chance the gap will widen. I have no doubt Kerwin Bell is going to do good things for your offense, but UCF has consistently had better recruiting classes, Strong is 0-3 vs UCF and we landed a QB that is light years ahead of whatever QB you guys have/will have. Heupel is locked in for for another 2 years before his buyout is somewhat palatable which means stability in recruiting and confidence in the staff by the players.

I can see us starting with Wimbush but our true Freshman QB Dillon Gabriel will end up becoming the starter at some point because he has Trevor Lawrence level swagger. Heupel was a Heisman QB, he knows how to coach QB's. Dillon Gabriel is absolutely going to be a machine. We have one of if not the best offensive line in the conference and we just got some studs on the D-line. You guys have a tough start and a tough finish, that should play nicely in our favor.

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

I was not bragging about it just pointing out your coach cried about it. Strangely we switched coaches after that year and for some reason in your mind that doesn't discount your major current two game winning streak, odd. Sure maybe you will take the overall lead in a few years but there is also a pretty good chance the gap will widen. 

I didn't discount it. I just find it hilarious that you think you're two wins this decade is impressive. One was a freebie (2015) and 2016 was a 1 score game at half-time. Given the circumstances that the team came off a winless season and had a brand new coach, I would say it was pretty impressive that they managed to hold the game that close until you guys pulled away in the second half. I was expecting a much more lopsided game.

Are you insinuating that because Strong came in 2017, that is comparable to our 2016 situation? Strong inherited an 11-2 team with the best QB (Quinton Flowers) you guys have ever had. Frost had a true Freshman QB and basically had to rebuild the team from scratch.

Where is this proof this proof that he cried about it afterwards?

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

It was 3 years ago against your best coach in program history as we had just won for the second time in a row. Now you guys have managed that same winning streak and you think it will somehow waterfall into winning from here on out, spoiler alert it probably won't. 

You're bragging about a 48-31 win after coming off a winless season and having a new coach? Ok. UCF fans are fully aware that this could be a down year depending on how Wimbush performs. But in no way do I think we lose more then 3-4 games this year. We also have a freshman QB that is outperforming a senior that put Tua/KZ to shame in stats. As long as you don't take him out as well, there is a good chance UCF ends up with the overall record in the next 3-4 years.

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Multiple times you guys have lost every game and now you think you may never lose again. Being in the P5 gives you the money and stability to right the ship where as there is nothing in the control of any AAC team that will give them the things the P5 have. The P5 learned that they can make a ton of money and harness all the power by having their own playoff system, maybe they will decide to toss the G5 a bone but more than likely they will have learned that they do not have to and they can make more money if they don't. Baylor has had success, so has Rutgers, Wake Forrest and just about every team you mentioned. If they think they are a coach away they can take your coach tomorrow you on the other hand would need to build 30 of your current stadiums at your current success to even come close to the dollars they get just for being in the conference they are in. Football success is temporary and cyclical for most programs (some shorter cycles some longer cycles) but P5 money just seems to be going up, no one on the planet would trade that financial security and program stability for any amount of wins over a short run.  

Tell that to Scott Frost who turned down multiple P5 programs to come to UCF. Coaches are willing to come to G5 teams where the probability of winning is higher due to recruiting advantages; than settling for cellar dwellar programs like Wake and and Vanderbilt that have little to no chance of being successful. And no, none of the teams I mentioned are relevant or have been relevant 30+ years. 

Also in case you missed it the first time, stadium cost is not proportional to the money spent versus what you get. Are more expensive stadiums nicer? Sure. Are they exponentially nicer? Nope. The only success Baylor had was eviscerated by the 2013 UCF team before falling back to mediocrity.

Football might by cyclical but in the history of your program, you have never won a BCS/NY6, Conference championship, division title or anything of note. So I guess you're right, that cycle continues on and on.

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I’m sorry for not consulting you on what date range you would like to self select. I get that you believe your very recent success will be eternal but history doesn’t exactly speak to that. The season prior to your current run we beat you down so bad your coach literally cried about how bad we beat you. You have two years of success and now you act like somehow you have become a dynasty like Alabama even though probability suggests this is but a flash in the pan.

You should be sorry. You have 2 more overall wins on our program. And yet, there isn't a single bull on this board that if afforded the opportunity to trade those 2 extra wins for all the hardware we've acquired, the notoriety from the national media, GameDay visiting the campus and the prestige of the program, would they elect to hold onto those wins. So yes, your point is moot. But, continue holding onto the overall record as if that trumps the latter.

Meanwhile, the trend based on what is actually happening now and going forward shows that we are better positioned to maintain the success. But wait, pardon me, you guys have a new division II OC that is going to not only wipe away your abysmal 6 game losing spree, and now you're going to beat all your hard games without his offense being played vs a single Division I team. You'll have to excuse me while I let out a hearty chortle. We beat you all badly with a backup QB who had next to no game experience. And the player you guys took out last year? He'll be on the sideline juicing up the team come black Friday. 

Our coach cried about it? Looks like you beat us good in 2015. The same year our HC quit several games before we played you. Congratulations, dominating a winless team without a HC. I guess you'll have to take the small victories as you get them. Don't forget, you guys also are the national champs in mascots!

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Money may not be synonymous with records but it is synonymous with viability. As they continue to make more of it and more than likely continue to separate themselves from the NCAA and the G5 things will continue to look increasingly bleak for the P6 business model. There isn’t a team in the P5 that would trade their position for your recent success because time is on their side, while we are in the AAC it’s not on ours.

I don't buy that for a second. Rutgers is never going to accomplish anything other than being a doormat. Same goes for Vandy, Duke, Wake Forest, Baylor, Iowa State and the list goes on and on ... Some P5 are P5 in name only. I don't know of a single person that would rather watch their team strive to be bowl eligible as a barometer of success versus be in the national spotlight being undefeated and constantly on the lips of ESPN.

As far as things looking bleak, I agree there is more of a separation occurring more than ever before. In the end, I think the playoffs will expand to 16 and the glass ceiling won't be so low as it is now. It is true that more money allows for a multitude of advantages, it is not the primary thing the equates to success. Geographic location, smart investments into athletics and good hires are far more important than having more money than you know what to do with it. 

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

And yet somehow we beat you more often than not. 

And yet in this decade we are 4-2 with a high probability of being 5-2. Enjoy the record while it lasts. We also have dominated you every War and I4 since it's inception. The pendulum has completely shifted and you're living in the past recalling the glory days.

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Because that is a tenth of what the teams we are trying to compete with are bringing in, at some point something has to give. Maybe there will be a luxury tax that allows us to play small ball but more than likely the P5 will continue the move they have already started in separation that will continue to grow the wealth disparity and g5 schism until its no longer sustainable. 

UCF beat Baylor and Auburn and almost LSU with a fraction of the resources they have. Money isn't synonymous with records. Look at Texas, they make more money than any other program and its a landslide. They haven't been relevant since the early 2000's. There are too many P5 programs to list that literally have ZERO to show for the massive amount of money they generate. If UCF didn't win in 2017, there is no doubt in my mind you guys would have had a great shot at downing Auburn.

4 minutes ago, puc86 said:

My math was working backwards to how much you would have to pay every single month for you to pay the stadium off in 30 years so while yes less would be going to principal at the beginning the payments and net loss would be the same. Also there are more expenses to ownership that are not being captured and expenses are always more than estimates. Once again if the stadium was an obviously profitable idea it would have been built hundreds of times over yet for some strange reason it hasn't. We don't need to downgrade to a ****** stadium and take debt just to make you be able to sleep better with the choice your program was forced into.   

This is EXACTLY what i'm talking about. It is and CAN be profitable. You guys are just trying to build something that doesn't make any financial sense and so you sit there doing nothing. At the end of the day, as a fan - we have no say in what either administration does. I just find it laughable how you think the powers that be automatically always make the right decisions. 

I could argue that the profits might be higher, donations might be more. The bottom line is, it can be done and is being done. There is precedent. It doesn't make me sleep better or worse watching your program flounder. But it does bring my significant joy watching your team get beat. Speaking of which, we you owe you all another one for taking out our QB. I saw a comment how you guys think you're going to topple GT/Wiscy and UCF this season. It always amazes me how little information there is to base this off like your going to be world beaters every year and then like always - come up short.

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

My entire argument has been entirely fiscal and I have not moved the goal post once. We are in the minor leagues and I do not think in the current college football landscape the AAC can survive in its current form. Taking on massive debt with absolutely no exit strategy wouldn't be prudent and not something we should do since we have options. Should your options not have dried up your institution would also be continuing to rent. I also believe that should expansion present itself again our current stadium situation will be viewed preferable to yours. As for Colorado State's stadium being superior it didn't need millions in required repairs within its first decade. Perhaps your stadium will hold up long enough for your to realize its financial benefit but the start has not gone particularly swimmingly. 

Please elaborate how it can't survive. The AAC has done fine on $2 million annually. But it can't sustain itself after getting a 3x+ raise at $7 million on average? More than any other G5 conference by far? How do any of the other G5's survive in these apocalyptic conditions?  I don't see any other program closing its doors other than UConn but that's because their administration is completely inept.

You're right - taking on massive debt in the AAC is dumb. That's why building something that GENERATES money makes even more sense from both a short and long term perspective. Should expansion present itself, boom - now you can offset a massive stadium capacity upgrade through increased conference revenue.

As far as repairs are concerned, UCF didn't pay those millions of dollars in repairs.  In September, the school sued contractors and architects who built the stadium during an 18-month period. While its unfortunate that there was structural issues, it didn't cost UCF more money to have the issue rectified, so the point is moot.

9 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Also because if you build a $250,000,000 stadium and have a 5.99% apr you would have to pay $17,967,232.68 a year to pay it off in 30 years which would be a net loss of $6.3 Million a year after debt service. 

Actually, it wouldn't be a net loss of $6.3 Million for 30 years. The interest goes down as the principal goes down. FAU has a VERY respectable stadium that cost them $70 million. You guys could do something like theirs but with increased capacity for around $90 million. The interest on that is $5,391,000 leaving you with a NET profit of $6,309,000. You could kill two birds with one stone. You get to flaunt that your stadium is better and you could make money your program sorely needs.

Just now, puc86 said:

You have to come find out for yourself. I suppose in your mind owning a trailer is better than renting a $15 Million condo, some people value ownership more I guess while others seem to care a little bit more about quality. 

Nah, in my mind - I would buy a house I could afford, build equity and upgrade as it made financial sense. You on the other hand seem to think renting at the top end of your budget makes sense. One scenario ends up with someone retiring early, the other one works till they die.

Show me how the quality of Spectrum is 5x less than Colorado State's stadium. Do they have leather recliners instead of bleechers? From a fan standpoint, there isn't going to be a dramatic difference that warrants the massively inflated price tag. You guys are honestly just spoiled and want to move the goal posts whenever someone shows you evidence of it.

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

Actually in Puc's mind "imagine how ****** a stadium must be when it costs less to make it 4x bigger than ones that were a quarter of the size". Answer: "pretty ******* ******".

Ahahaha, Puc - you kill me. Yeah I guess in your mind a Bugatti is also 125x better than a Honda Accord. Sorry, but that's complete BS. There is 1000% a diminishing return on the price differential as stadiums stay small but balloon in cost regarding $200 million stadiums. They aren't inherently 4-5x better. When you sit down at Ray Jay, does it milk your prostate? Because that's about the only way you're going to convince me. 

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

Your argument is in regards to expansion. Sure if you want to settle on being in the AAC (well for you its a step up so it probably doesn't feel like settling) then your stadium is a fine little stadium. You really don't understand how  having larger attendance and a better set of amenities is more valuable to a conference than hey but we own it and we can sometimes get loud? I have been to your stadium for USF games in the past and for some reason the atmosphere was short of electric. Also you ignored the link that showed high school stadiums being more expensive, better constructed, nicer looking and providing more amenities than your less than a HS anchor you have attached yourself to. 

Oh I didn't miss it. I ignored it because it didn't prove anything. There aren't any high school stadiums that have remotely 45k capacity. Texas is a die hard HS football state, and just because there are some high school's that shell out 60-70 million doesn't make their stadium inherently better. Not only that, but you are talking about TWO High schools in the whole nation that spent more than we did (60-70 million respectively) and they hold - wait for it, 11,000 and 12,500 people. I can imagine in Puc's mind that because the stadium was so expensive, it's inherently a far better atmosphere despite being 1/4th the seating capacity as our stadium.  The best part is?  One of the most expensive U.S. high school football stadiums ever built is set to reopen this month after undergoing millions of dollars ($10 million) of repairs to fix structural problems that had made it unsafe, officials in the Dallas suburb of Allen said on Monday.

But wait, these stadiums cost more, they must be better! Hmm.. Maybe cost isn't directly proportional to how great a stadium is.

Perfect example: UConn, they spent $91.2 million in 2003 ($124 million in 2018 dollars) and that place is a joke. It's surrounded by cracked concrete everywhere, the stadium is just a bunch of bleachers and its located in the middle of no where. If you've experienced it first hand, you would laugh if I told you how much was spent to build that. Baylor spent $266 million on a 45,000 seat stadium. Colorado state paid $210 million for a 41,000 seat stadium. So I guess the point is, spend way more than you have - because well ya know, it can't compare to 0.01% of HS stadiums in the US.

Oh and BTW, as I was looking for data on these stadium costs - looks like your feasibility study shows that an OCS can turn a NET profit.

"Overall, it is estimated that a new (on-campus stadium) could generate $15.8 million in net operating revenue and incur $4.2 million in operating expenses," the study says, "resulting in a net income of roughly $11.7 million before debt service in first year."

But Puc, how can that be? OCS' are a money sink!? Oh that's right, this line right here: But USF still faces an uphill financial climb if it wants a venue similar to Colorado State's 41,000-seat Canvas Stadium, which cost upwards of $240 million and serves as the de facto template for USF's facility.

So the study acknowledges you could generate money from an OCS as long as its affordable, but your administration decides against it because it has champagne taste on a beer budget. TripleB, you're welcome.

Oh and for good measure, cool - you can post towards the end of our winless season. Here, I can post picture's of your empty stadium as well. The difference? Here's one from one of the best seasons in your programs history AND on senior night with arguably the best team usf has ever fielded. 

26,195 announced. I'm no math major, but that is about 4k. 6k if I am being generous.

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

I didn't say as nice I said nicer, and I was right and I meant it. As for the stadium debate there is a much better argument to be made that when we played in a real conference against real teams we were able to exceed your current confines than there is that you will miracle your way to a better stadium and then do something you have never done in life. Also you don't remember our old conference mate Pitt? They play in Heinz field, an NFL arrangement much like our own. 

Oh I know what you said. You're just wrong. You're wrong because that BE lineup is never coming back and despite having a P5 come to Ray Jay once or twice a year, most of your opponents will be from the AAC. That fact in of itself is the primary reason Ray Jay is a negative, not a positive. Furthermore, when you host UCF, UF, FSU etc - your stadium still isn't superior than Spectrum. Why? Because there are more opposing fans in the stands. Ray Jay also isn't as close and the field is concrete which absorbs sound. You can re-live the WV of 2007 all you want, but it doesn't come close to how loud Spectrum gets. Again, I don't expect you to believe it - but it doesn't change anything. If you want to witness it first hand come black friday then come back and say - nope, it wasn't even close, feel free. But until then, you're just speculating while myself and countless others have witnessed it first hand. Also, tell that to Cincinatti (starts at 7:40 ) - even the announcers comment about the noise level 8:38. How often do you hear them talk about that on ABC during a football game?

8 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Your value to this site is in keeping puc occupied away from the Main board. Granting your request would be counter productive to that end. 

You and I know full well, Puc cannot be contained.

2 minutes ago, Justin C said:

I know I'm drifting off topic here, but I love how UCF fans think that they have a golden ticket for conference realignment. 5 years is a long ways away and a lot of things can happen between now and then.

 

If you want to speculate, I can see the Power 5 going down to the Power 4. The Pac-12 disbands and there will be four power conferences with the conference champion of each conference getting a playoff spot. The Group of 5 programs are left out to play pocket pool with each other... 

I can certainly see that happening. But it won't be the Pac12, it'll be the B12 with OU going to SEC and TX going independent. TX isn't going to the Pac due the time differential and the B10 makes no sense geographically. Plus they have the longhorn network till 2035 so that would cause a lot of heartburn if they decided to go for the ACC. 

Most of the B12 is comprised of schools that don't pull their weight in viewership compared to what they get paid, so the golden ticket will probably go when/if OU/TX leaves. That doesn't mean the B12 won't still be superior to the AAC with the remnants, especially when the top of the AAC will probably back fill. Perhaps it's the AAC 2.0, but its better than getting left behind.

Just now, puc86 said:

I’ve explained in detail about why I think USF thinks renting is better and I pray to g-d that we don’t build a 45k capacity pos stadium before realignment because there are plenty of P5 schools playing in off campus stadiums but not too many that are playing in stadiums quite like yours. There is no way that you think your OCS is a check in the positive column for you, it’s not even as nice as many high school stadiums.

No you're right Puc, playing in a less than half empty, rented stadium screams P5 worthy. You've got ~15,000 STH sold less than a month before your first game in a 66k seat stadium. That certainly trumps a 45k stadium that is packed while offering a true college football atmosphere. I would bet if you managed to build it; one that has the potential of being expanded on - it would reignite your fan base. And absolutely yes, I do think it's a check. In fact, I think it's directly related to why we are in a better position as a expansion candidate. Herbstreit talked MAD **** about UCF, but when he was here for GameDay and saw first hand what UCF has become, he quickly changed tunes.

Call Spectrum Stadium HS all you want, you just look dumb, when there are multiple quotes of ESPN announcers saying the atmosphere is amazing and I've heard bulls fans commenting on the experience in a positive manner in the 2017 game. But feel free to deny what you have experienced for yourself.

Miami is the only somewhat recent team added to the P5 with an off CS and they haven't done jack since joining the ACC. Look at how fickle that fan base is. You could make a case for Baylor albeit its only 2 miles from the campus but they don't rent NFL stadium.