USFreak

Sorry to hear about the illness Howie. Get well soon. That sounds scary. As BrotherBull said this is the important one to look at -- Avg Star ranking. See below: http://rivals100.rivals.com/TeamRank.asp?Year=2005&Type=0&Sort=6 Or go to the site and then just click on Avg Star ranking up top. You'll see USF listed at 23rd tied w/ Oregon and Penn State. Bottom line -- the early guys are quality. There isn't anybody that is going to moan about Taurus, Grothe, Anderson or DeArmas (or Benzer). 1 LSU 10 0 7 3 3.70 977 2 Ohio State 14 2 6 5 3.64 1,444 3 Georgia 15 0 9 6 3.60 1,410 Southern Cal 10 1 4 5 3.60 981 5 Tennessee 14 0 8 6 3.57 1,268 6 Oklahoma 18 0 10 8 3.56 1,706 7 Miami-FL 12 1 5 5 3.50 1,086 Utah 2 0 1 1 3.50 131 Texas 12 1 4 7 3.50 1,075 10 Michigan 19 1 7 9 3.37 1,583 11 Auburn 15 1 5 7 3.33 1,168 Florida 9 0 3 6 3.33 634 13 Nebraska 23 2 6 12 3.30 1,849 14 California 17 0 6 10 3.29 1,162 15 Arizona 22 0 7 13 3.23 1,409 16 Virginia Tech 18 1 4 11 3.22 1,323 17 Florida State 10 0 5 2 3.20 624 18 Texas A&M 26 0 9 13 3.19 1,644 19 Virginia 24 1 5 14 3.13 1,555 20 Purdue 17 1 3 10 3.12 957 21 UCLA 19 1 4 10 3.11 1,113 22 Iowa 16 0 3 11 3.06 918 23 Penn State 15 2 0 9 3.00 831 Oregon 10 0 2 6 3.00 353 South Florida 4 0 0 4 3.00 119

I know that, but he said there was "little reason." The truth is there is a reason, but Notre Dame chooses to ignore it.

I'll give you one reason.  To actually show up in a BCS bowl.  I can almost hear the collective whoopie! from the Irish faithful at the prospects of the Gator Bowl. Bottom line -- with the schedule they play and the state of their program it is highly unlikely they end up in the Top 6 (or 10)

Well, you are correct that the Bulls will get better. But will they be able to put it together on the road in their first game back? You are a betting man. My bet is if you were putting money on it you'd put it on the Penn State side. There are just too many unknowns. After a 2-2 start they need to win 4 of 7 of Louisville, WVU, Pitt, Cuse, Cinci, Rutgers, UConn...I only see 2 in that pile USF will be favored in. Again, would you put your money on anything higher than 5-6 right now? They do need to start acting like it, but you are talking a LOT of improvements between here and Sept. 3rd.

Listen, I'd love to agree with you if the team actually matured this season.  The QB position -- wide open.  The defense.  Listen, that defense was flat out bad this season.  There wasn't a position on that side of the ball that sparked.  No QB and no defensive continuity and you expect to waltz into State College the first game back and end up with more points on the board after 4 quarters? You are correct it was winnable, but that was when everyone thought the team was going to move forward.  It moved sideways/back in certain areas. Sorry for the diatribe.  The bottom line is 2-2 is all that can be expected.  Yes, if God smiles on the Bulls that first day the Bulls could pull an incredible upset.  That's what it would be too.  Penn State is bad, but they are Big 10 bad.  Right now the Bulls are C-USA bad and there is simply no comparison. Leavitt seems to indicate he'll get the car in the shop and be ready to race.  Armchair QB recommendations? -- get your most "comfortable" qb on the field.  The one that doesn't flinch when you throw a bucket of scrap metal at him.  Get Johnnie Jones as SS and pray he stays healthy.  Move Jenkins to FS.  Get Mompremier back and on the field.  Get Tim Jones back out there and get his motor running.  If Kendrick Stewart signs find a way to get him on the field on the D-Line.  He's out of control good. I know there is talent on this team, but to win 3 of 4 (and at least one or two BE games on the road) the Bulls will need to get it ready to play football in short order.

My suspicion is that the Miami side of this game will be played on a weeknight; USF side they will make sure shows up on a Saturday and ESPN, Fox be damned. It looks like Gary got his 5 game wish....although I still believe a 1 for 1 front-loaded game was the best goal as it kept everything in tact when the 12-game rule gets passed. Figure FAMU filled the normal I-AA homer and that the first choice had to be a game with someone like UNC that came here first. That probably never got close to getting done. What the 6 Away game thing does is it realistically takes USF out of any real bowl talk painfully early next year. After 4 games you can almost presume the Bulls are 2-2 and they need to find 4 wins in a Big East lineup....and realistically they need to win the early ones. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. It clearly should. A 1 for 1 with Miami is definately something you do when you are USF. It FILLS (and I'm not talking lower level) your stadium and there is none of this 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 B.S. It is simply great that this happen. Honestly, it is the only game that should have really torn down the 6 game wall. I'm already excited about the roadie to Miami on the 18th. Still, USF is clearly sacrificing 2005 for a very real chance at glory in 2006.

We certainly include name sometimes. We mix it up a bit depending on recruit and what phase of the process they are in. Obviously an interview with Mike Benzer doesn't need to be "Post-commit interview w/ Top Kicker" and video of Kendrick Stewart doesn't have to be "Check out Video of top Central Florida D-Lineman." We have unearthed some new names lately so it is nice to give the subscribers some juicier information when it requires digging, networking, calling, etc.

I doubt you'll see much interest from the Bulls on him. QB recruiting in the state of FL this year is painfully thin and the Bulls are as in as they can be with really the two best prospects - Grothe and Hill. I think Beck is overrated and same with this kid from Daytona. With the spread still being a very real part of the Bulls future I doubt you see any slow-footed QBs on the roster in the future. Pull up the 2003 TCU game and "Sackapaloosa" for more on this subject.

Wow Brad, great post.  It is funny that I posted one that hit on a lot of the same points on the Bullpen at Rivals site.  I agree 100% with the sentiment.  The big one being: "Those that are donating need to be taken better care of, made to feel part of the family.  Attending games should be like going to your nephew's graduation.  You owe it to him.  And you want to go.  Besides you'll see your brother and an old pal there." I'll post it here just for kicks too. You are correct.  Those RV cultures at Alabama games, Georgia games, the World's Largest Cocktail party in Jax.....that's what you have to develop and you have to really give fans (not just superfans and donors, but regular fans) some ownership in these teams.  Make them feel like part of the success and failure AND, as you say, make it a true event and a rewarding experience. I pointed out in my post that some of the nuissance stuff -- 11am starts, tailgating gestapo, etc. -- may all seem like little stuff, but little stuff adds up to big stuff and turns people off to the program because it makes it less fun overall and you want everybody from the casual fan --> diehard love every minute of it. As you also said: "To me the key is treating people right and giving them reason to be there - other than a "W".  You're not going to get "Ws" all the time - better have a plan to keep your fans. " Exactly.  Exactly. The big thing here is the next generation of Bulls (1998 graduates and on) are the big growth market for this program.  Make the people you got on board (season ticket holders) extra happy and make the new ones (students) have great experiences so they will feel compelled to follow and support the program in later years. It isn't gimmicks.  It is a grassroots effort and providing a great experience each and every week. Lastly, I always wish there was something we could do to get "us" -- meaning this site and the other site together -- I know you and Dave have talked about it in the past and I guess there were some snags. Obviously it would be a benefit for fans, the university and our public perception to do so, but obviously there were logistics in the past. Maybe some of that could be discussed to our mutual benefit at some point down the line. I think we'd both find there were a lot more positives than negatives from such an arrangement.

No, but a town that lost 4 Super Bowls probably deserves one.

He committed to Buffalo. :-)

I agree, but let's not go overboard. USF was an independent and unnamed indys don't exactly get to make the call who they schedule. I think you acknowledge these next two points, but sometimes I'm not too sure. 1) USF had to win games. That was first and foremost. People forget about the Drakes and Elons, but remember the 8-3 and 9-2s. That's important and it did more to drive this program 2) The 6 home games were highly instrumental in that. USF was not USM with anyone, anyplace, anytime. They won for YEARS at home and never lost. RJS and the 6-games played into that. 3) That success led to good things like a conference home (albeit late), new facilities, coach retention, and, by God, the Big East. Looking back and criticizing what looked to be boneheaded scheduling moves is counterproductive. This was not Lee Roy Selmon. This was Jim Leavitt channeling Bill Snyder. Kansas State is routinely criticized for OOC pansies, but they win more than they lose. Even a 6-5 record gives a fanbase hope for the next season. See UCF and 0-8 for what you don't want to do (knowing of course if you lose to Buffalo you have more problems than scheduling). But their model is such where they aim for 2 for 1s with Syracuse, WVU, Auburn, etc. and then they get beat on both ends - home and away. It demoralizes the fanbase and since most of the games are front-loaded (early in the season) by the time the Knights find their way to conference play they have nothing to play for (figuratively). Indeed, and there is the point. I'm of the camp that if you do schedule a team out of your league (ie. Auburn, Florida, etc. -- AWAY) you need something to balance it out. I-AA games do have a purpose. Now I think you end the scheduling at 1 a year, but in a 12-game season nobody is going to fault you for it. The challenge for Woolard is finding the "right" team. Beggars can't be choosers, but Woolard needs to find two teams (basically two outside of the CUSA 1/1 deal) that: 1) Put a fair number of asses in the seats 2) Doesn't look too embarassing if USF loses on the road to them later on down the line. The candidates are the usual suspects -- lower tier BCS teams, a handful of MWC teams, and some CUSA teams. You don't do a 1 for 1 with Troy or FAU. My suspicion is 2005 will be handled as follows: Home: 3 BE/UCF/Army/1-AA Away: 4 BE/Penn State Army then becomes an away the next season: 2006 Home: 4 BE/1-1 AA/Tulane (or somebody of that ilk) Away: 3 BE/Army/Auburn/UCF The 12-game thing will be approved. I have no doubt. Again, EMU, Bowling Green and some of those "disasters" were not truly disasters. The big goal of this program was to get out of CDOA and play a higher level of football. Now barring USF busting into the SEC or ACC they've really managed to pilot their way deep into the ranks in 8 years. The "disasters", you have to believe, were by design. I do and I constantly look at Snyder's moves to validate that. Winning is everything. A 3-4 season doesn't help, but this "lame duck" year is tough for a lot of other reasons than just rebuilding. The only true disaster that I can point to in the past four years was the I-AA scholarship requirement that burst the bowl bubble last year. A win vs. TCU or UAB would have nixed that, but the bigger point is that 7-4 teams GO to bowls. They don't go to bowls if the opponent is not a qualified opponent. That was the only true misstep and it was costly because the Tangerine Bowl had open arms.

To misquote a former president: "It's the scheduling stupid!" Seriously, you are building a complex solution for a simple problem. Put it to 12 and the problem is solved. OK, so we got a lot of away onlys -- the obvious solution is a I-AA to mirror Auburn, Florida, Florida, Penn State. Then you need a series of home and homes. They HAVE to have these and there has to be three of them. The goofy 4/3 configuration of the BE necessitates some sort of 1 and 1 and the CUSA team fills that void immediately. I'd find it funny if it wasn't UCF. Now the other two games obviously need to be 1 and 1s. The problem is going to be finding a decent one. I, for one, would have little problem with the service academies -- great draw and nobody turns their nose up at Army, Navy or Air Force like they do Troy State or North Texas. The indys (Army/Navy) would be the best bet and Army has already made overtures they would continue on w/ USF. Now the problem is they need to play in RJS again next year. Maybe that's why USF lost. :-) Absent that, USF really just needs to see that they've gained a little muscle (not a lot) by joining the Big East and find middle to lower tier BCS schools that think playing in the state of Florida is important to their recruiting efforts. It is simple really.

Beat that drum Gary. Beat it. 12 games will be a reality in 2006. I'm not soothsayer, but I did nail the ACC/BE/CUSA meltdown. I'll bet you your 2005 Hold 'Em winnings 2006 is the beginning of the 12-game season. Now obviously you aren't proposing a 5-game home stand for that year. 6 Home/Away would be reasonable by everybody's standards. I know we've all had this argument going for years (and yes I was on the 6 home game side of it for mathematical AND W/L reasons), but why argue something like this when the Bulls will have more games to work with and the 6th game is now easier to acquire? I say they don't need to change a thing. So what does it do to 2005? Easy. Home -- 3 Big East, 1 UCF, 1 1-AA, Front end of a 1 and 1. Away -- 4 Big East, Penn State. Well ****, that was simple. Somebody from the AA send me a job offer.

I disagree. The official's decision actually made it a great game. "Colts engineer most dramatic comeback in NFL History" makes a much better headline than "Colts score three but ultimately fall short." I'm not saying the refs engineered a win for the Colts, but they certainly weren't going to stop it (they gave the Bucs their chance with that "roughing the punter" call. The Bucs blew it.) I've come to expect a little give and take in the games. Is it good? No, but ultimately it probably all balanced out.

1. The Bucs lost the game long before that call. 2. That was a makeup call for that botched "roughing the punter" call vs. the Colts. It works that way. There are make up calls and that was one of them.