00Bull

1 hour ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

Yep.  Too many FSU shirts up in the club that day.  Not a big fan of these games that feel like home games for the bad guys.

Number of FSU fans and red-themed stadium definitely made it look like their home game. If we had the 2007 fan base for that 2016 game, it would have been different.

Best opening to a game (1st play bomb TD for USF), followed by the worst possible response (next play FSU rushing TD).

September 2016 noon game vs FSU was the hottest game in my recent memory. For FSU it was worth it, for some of these new conference mates, not so much. Shade for the home side should be a requirement.

2/10. Team will be better with more Ws but future outlook seems bleak.

Just now, BDYZR said:

You’ve got it backwards. Flowers made WiilyT same as Bridgewater made Strong. IMO neither one gets a new gig without the QB

100%. I hope Taggart took care of Flowers for enabling him to become a multi-millionaire. 

26 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Honestly, though, have we really had any conference mates since leaving the BE, outside of the vermin, that would really help fill a stadium ....?

Fair point. Aside from UCF, guessing it was BYU last season that probably had the biggest draw. 

1 hour ago, zarnozdabull said:

The first season of Publix Stadium at Jim Leavitt Field will be a sellout.

But after year one when the hype dies off, if we're still in AAC...ohh boyyy

Same line of thinking but I’d be impressed (and surprised) if they were able to swing a full season of actual sellouts. First game yes, not so sure after that unless it’s a big name OOC team. 
 

One thing I have not seen discussed directly is the impact of our new look conference on visiting fan attendance. Obliviously that’s not your primary audience, but it certainly helps the cause playing teams with established fan bases that can help fill a stadium. 

I remember sitting around folks at Rays games with them, wasn’t a great experience. May be let the band be in charge of them.
 

4 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

 

AD MK toots his horn over empty seats.

2 hours ago, belgianbull said:

No under no circumstance would I want to go independent. The breakaway would only be If we do it together with other teams in a coordinated way.  Not just AAC reams, but Mountain West teams, and possibly others like WSU, OSU,  and Army

Breakaway PAC + AAC + MWC = alpha move

Going independent = alpha move
 

Staying in the AAC, hoping = beta move

12 hours ago, Triple B said:

 

Don't think it vindicates anybody. Everybody knows that the value to a media outlet is based on who you play. It's common sense  ..... The sad part is when the value to a "fan" is based on who you play.

It’s not sad, is it exactly what is (and should be) expected. Newsflash, USF athletics is a product, not a cult. If the product stinks, through the direct play of the team OR by playing teams no one cares about, people will find something better to do with their time and money. Shocking, I know.
 

That’s been the whole point of the doomers who understand this is the last, best opportunity to change fortunes otherwise USF will continue to backslide. But feel free to continue sounding like a clueless, elitist blaming the fans for not swallowing this **** sandwich that USF has been serving them. 

15 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

 

[Yahoo] Former FOX President Bob Thompson on the value of Oregon St. and Wazzu "22-28 a year of they were still in the Pac, but half your value is who you play. Alabama wouldn't be worth what they are if they played in Conference USA. Value compounds based on scheduling."

“Doomers” vindicated. 

1 hour ago, Bull Matrix said:

Going to be funny to see the whole college football & hoops system collapse . Sure there will be college sports but probably it will get more regulated by an outside governing entity. Will that be good?  We shall see.

One can hope. I’ll do my part…not watching a second of P4 games that do not involve USF, not spending $.01 on P4 apparel or anything else (for others). Starve the beast.

6 minutes ago, WoolyBully said:

. Are we still 'just happy to have a program'? 

I’ll take the bait. For me, no. I’ll move on. Getting a taste of what a big time football program could be (in the late 2000s), reset my baseline expectations for better or worse. Coupled with the fact that we are dealing with this rent-a-player nonsense, I see little to no appeal. 
 

2 hours ago, Brad said:

Would you think this has any impact on future investment?

It should. As another poster pointed out in another thread, according to the Board docs USF was already assuming best case scenario in their forecasted projections. 
 

At this point the USF admin needs to pull a Constanza and do the opposite of what they would normally do. 

2 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

No offense, but big whoop. This is all about consolidation. They are creating the appearance of fairness for now. The reality is that they are going to get to the point where the semifinals teams are from the B1G and SEC every year. I see things playing out like this: by 2036, the SEC and B1G will take what their media partners want from the Big 12, ACC, and any G5 that might be attractive by then. They will likely get to 24 to 30 teams each, break into 3 divisions, have separate "playoffs" consisting of the division winners and the next best 3 teams. Then the SEC and B1G playoff champions will play in the College Football Championship game.  Everyone else outside of that elite fraternity will be relegated to a lesser division of college football. USF's window of opportunity to not get left out is just about closed. We have about 12 years to make the CFP a few times and win a few games in the playoff in order to be considered. A very tall order when you factor in that the G5 teams are essentially all competing for 1, maybe 2, playoff spots each season. 

Yep. Even taller when you consider that USF will have to replace its roster yearly, being one of the better “farm” teams for the haves.

It might actually be better to have a lesser rated team that sticks around and plays together for 4 consecutive years as opposed to the new normal.

Imagine being a coach trying to install a system when you have 50% turnover annually. 

9 minutes ago, SilverBull said:

I think it was our failure to win (or at least claim to have won) the natty that held us back.

Ridiculous but it worked. I suspect USF will/would do something similar if we were to go undefeated but iced out of the playoffs.

7 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

There are a lot of folks that are not liking VPMK right now. Let's hope the next couple months turn that frown upside down.

Hoping against 5 years of precedence that says otherwise. He should have been terminated with the across-the-board extensions. Those were multi million dollar errors for which there was no reasonable justification. Still would have been too little too late though.
Made the mistake of going to his twitter feed the other day expecting that he’d actually be commenting about football (making the case/advocating), but no, barely a mention all summer. 

32 minutes ago, hightechbull said:

A successful football program is easier to achieve in the modern era.   You just need boatloads of cash and the desire to spend to reach your goal.   

AAU is a lot harder to achieve.  It takes decades to get to the point where they invite you to the exclusive club.   I am sure going to mention USF status as a premier university in my next interview.   It has been decades since I was a student but we were part of the building blocks to get to where we are today.

If you haven’t been in school for 20+ years and you are mentioning their recently acquired AAU status as part of your job interview, let me just go out on a limb and say you aren’t getting that job.

I kid, sort of. 

37 minutes ago, WoolyBully said:

It depends on where you're sitting. If you're in the academics & research business, AAU matters more. If you're in the athletic program business, football relevance matters more. The two are indeed at opposite ends of the spectrum, but we have to define what constitutes 'better'. If you - as a university - could have but one distinction, which would you choose? Would you rather cool your jets with the likes of MIT, Yale, and Vanderbilt or Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma? Our good friends at Ohio State and University of Southern California have demonstrated how to achieve both football success and academic success. If we throw Duke in there it would be basketball success as well. But it's not a very good argument to state - blanket wise - that one is necessarily better than the other. 

Which do you think UF would rather give up…their AAU status or their athletics relevance?

In this case, I think one is demonstrably better; not that you can’t achieve/strive for both. Just pointing out the silliness of the “debate” on that previous thread that somehow AAU was going to be the saving grace.

9 hours ago, Gismo said:

If there is any lesson here it’s that academics don’t matter. 
 

 

I’m sorry sir, you must be mistaken. I read in a recent thread on this very board that having the AAU was BETTER than being football relevant. /s

10 hours ago, Outlaw said:

List me the on field accomplishments for football under AD MK's leadership... He put USF in a much worse place for conference realignment with his hiring of Scott and extension program without results at the worse possible time.

On field? None. To be fair the guy does seem to be able to raise money, which is exactly how I read his resume…a bureaucrat, politician type. But that doesn’t make up for the on-the-field disasters that he’s presided over. Im envisioning a Jeff Scott situation where he’s terminated by USF and doesn’t sniff another AD gig from a reputable school.

1 minute ago, hm101 said:

What a fail

100%. Who would buy this tshirt? 

20 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

OCS...

Crazy. People noticed teams winning championships and NY6 bowl games. I can't believe it.

True. I would have thought they’d be all about dropping some renderings to create some more buzz right/positive PR now (albeit completely manufactured). Makes you wonder.

17 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

No doubt, and my only point is that we need to be aggressive and forward thinking since this PAC/AAC/ Mountain West merger presents  a unique opportunity that can better our current situation.

Agreed. This is seemingly the best, but nearly last opportunity to change our fortunes. Do we have an AD that can make it happen? 

52 minutes ago, SilverBull said:

I think the proposal reeks of desperation and only weakens Calfurd's position; particularly when combined with any "hard lobbying" by Notre Dame.  If I were the four ACC holdouts, I would put forth a condition for voting to let them in on getting all their share and making ND a full member.  Then let that simmer.

I kind of think desperation is the appropriate reaction at the moment.
They are trying to avoid the quagmire that USF and other have nots are in. They know it will destroy interest in their football programs. I can only hope USF is acting with equal desperation.