BULLheaded

lol, that picture is very telling....USF getting the women and ucf trying to push their way in to the party ;D

I wish this was the end of the series between the two teams but I did have a good time the ucf fans I met were very nice and even shared some beers with us at one of their tailgates (I think it was dawgpound, if it was then thanks and good to meet you!) I did get a kick out of the drunk ucf chick that tried to get on our bus back to tampa and just couldn't seem to comprehend why we wouldn't let her on .....I still think we should have let her stay just to see the reaction when she sobered up and realized she was in tampa  ;D A couple thing you ucf fans might be able to answer, why on earth did you let us wear white in that heat? Also, do you always paint your endzones tenessee checkered orange and white? Observations on the citrus bowl, it was bad (nowhere near as bad as miami's stadium though) I about killed myself and everyone I passed in the isle for my first (and last) trip to get a beer. It was TIGHT as hell in there. Pretty obvious why you guys think we never have the attendance reported when comparing to your stadium. I'd say ray jay has easily 5 times the room for each fan. Spread this crowd out like ray jay and it would about the same.

I'm not suggesting your being a jerk, I'm just saying that once the novelty wears off those numbers will fall. Projection is already lower by 3k in the town that is arguably the more interested party and sales on our end was weak even though the game is practically at home. It's just my opinion that the interest will wane now that we are at the point of "been there, done that" I was mentioning the reasons this game has so little interest to me since most people in this area are transplants and ucf has very little if any meaning to us and aside from proximity they are just another mid major. I just don't think that this area will greatly support this game on a regular basis. one last thing, what was our attendance for our first game ever? Did the area continue to support us in the same way over the years? I view our game against ucf in a very similar light, it was pretty cool at first but over time people want to see something more.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, you guys were all saying that dropping ucf is not a good idea if we're replacing them with buffalo and ball st. I merely stated that I think that's wrong and they are replacements for the fiu and mcneese games. Further if your concern is the quality of opponent, I'm simply pointing out that ucf is not so high on the totem pole that we don't have a huge menu of teams to pick from as a replacement. And as for ucf being "heavily covered".....not sure how to respond to that, I must be living on a COMPLETELY different planet than you. And nobody plays tuneup games on the road, ok your entitled to that opinion. I'm not sure how you come up with that one but if you say so. As for not wanting to play ucf, I've been very open about that. I have no interest whatsoever in this game. I was not born and raised in florida (most aren't) and I've never heard of them prior to culpepper and even then I really didn't know who they were. I've got family and friends spread out over the country and none of them have a clue who ucf is, not a frigging clue. Half the people in THIS area don't really know who they are (and the other have don't give a ****) So yeah, getting stuck playing a team that nobody in the world, outside of a few square miles in orlando, care about is not something that interests me in the least. If we're going to play some challenging mid majors then I could bring out a decent list of teams that I'd rather play than ucf. Just because their close doesn't make the game interesting.

You're basing this on... Indiana is a name...for basketball. It will not outdraw UCF on a name basis, sorry. There might be some superceding circumstances that make the game better attended. However, ask theaverage fan what game they'd think they'd more likely attend...I'm almost positive UCF would win. Your missing my point, what I'm saying is that for whatever reason people have heard of them and it could generate some interest to the general fan in the area. None of these teams will be sellouts but they'll be decent crowds. On the flip side your basing your projections on the first game which was a big novelty and ignoring the fact that we couldn't even sell the small allotment of 5k tickets and had to practically give tickets away for students. I think interest in this game will dwindle over time.

I would disagree, the're not great teams but they are from respected conferences and the're something different. If we played them regularly I'd agree but I think bringing in a team with a name that people know that hasn't been here before generates some interest. UCF after a couple times I doubt would have any interest at all aside from a few people that have freinds at the other school. In other words it's the novelty factor, once is interesting but after a while if the team sucks people lose interest.

I guess I just don't see it that way, to me those games if they come about would be in place of the first two games of the year which you seem to be forgetting about. Truth is that if you look at what is being scheduled we have some on the schedule similar to the unc's & ku's and there is speculation that we are setting up games similar to the mcneese's & fiu's with nothing really in line with UCF. So your speculation is that we'll end up getting more lower tier non-bcs or 1aa teams to fill that spot and my speculation is we'll get either upper tier non-bcs or lower tier bcs teams. Right now all we can do is assume either way but I will agree that if we end up with a year of 3 or 4 teams at the level of Buffalo than we're screwing up. I also think that there is a large group of non-bcs teams that would be equivalent or better than UCF so I'm not really worried that we won't be able to replace them.

Actually, I do. Five non-conference games: 1 I-AA Game (Tune Up) 2 Mid Major Games (Both Tune Up) 2 BCS Games (Both Competitive) Now, that may be how DW approaches scheduling... and as he works down the list of 118 other I-A schools, he might get a ways down his list before one is both willing to play 1 for 1s and has the slots available. So to take it a step further, you think that UCF was scheduled as a tuneup game?

Ok, let me try and put it another way. You are taking the possible teams we could play in the future and assuming they will all be played in the same year (and ignoring the big 10 games) kind of like if this were the year that it happened our schedule would differ like this: As is = McNeese, FIU & UCF changed = McNeese, FIU & Buffalo What I'm saying is that I doubt that would be the case, IMO taking into account all the schedule additions I think it would look more like this: As is = McNeese, FIU & UCF changed = McNeese, Buffalo & Mich St so the first two "tuneup" games are still crappy teams that nobody cares about but the competetive game against UCF has been upgraded.

I think it is a matter of how you categorize the teams we play. It appears to me your categorizing like this: 1) Conference Games 2) OOC BCS Games 3) OOC Non-BCS Games Looking at it like that and putting ucf in the 3rd category I can see why you feel this way, however I think a more accurate way to group teams we play is like this: 1) Conference Games 2) OOC Competetive Games 3) OOC Tuneup Games In this case I'd put ucf in the 2nd category and looking at the future schedules I'd say we are definitely replacing this game with better teams. It's the 3rd category that needs some work but the way we've played lately do you think we're ready to tuneup against teams like maryland as WVU did? I wish we were but realistically I can't say we are. Also, as Brad points out we can buy out these games if we progress to the point that tuning up against better teams makes sense. I agree that if you break our OOC games down as you suggest, then future games against lower-tier mid-major teams would be fine. Except that you and I can't classify the games.  DW has done that: 1 I-AA home game 1 BCS home game 1 BCS road game 1 non-BCS home game 1 non-BCS home/road game That is how our FUTURE schedules are broken down by USF - not by me.  So when you do that, Ball State is a non-BCS; UCF is non-BCS; Ball State replaces UCF. Do you honestly think that is how they go about picking the teams on the schedule? I mean we're not discussing a website list, we're hopefully fairly intelligent football fans discussing what we think the actual decision making process of those in charge. So what I'm saying is that IMO, they schedule teams that fit in the categories I listed (doesn't matter what is publically released) so the removal of UCF is not related to the (suspected) addition of buffalo or Ball st but the addition of the various big ten schools most likely are.

You are probably right to some extent, I can say that it's true that I am pretty darned obsessed with our team becoming a national power, or more accurate would be that I want us to become nationally competetive. It's also true that I don't enjoy the entire ride there so I'll give you that. However, that disatisfaction with the ride I think is part of what has moved us so far so fast. I'll not be so unrealistic as to say were there yet, certainly a long way to go, but as long as nobody is content where we are and keeps a single minded goal to become a nationally competetive/powerfull team then I think we have the proper focus. The end result with that focus will be nationally televised games with a packed house against the best teams in the country and I'll never be completely happy until that is achieved. As for not buying the role reversal, how could you not want the same for your team? If it was you guys who drew the longer straw and got invited to a BCS conference I would be amazed if you weren't trying to sever ties with us and let us whither away.

I think it is a matter of how you categorize the teams we play. It appears to me your categorizing like this: 1) Conference Games 2) OOC BCS Games 3) OOC Non-BCS Games Looking at it like that and putting ucf in the 3rd category I can see why you feel this way, however I think a more accurate way to group teams we play is like this: 1) Conference Games 2) OOC Competetive Games 3) OOC Tuneup Games In this case I'd put ucf in the 2nd category and looking at the future schedules I'd say we are definitely replacing this game with better teams. It's the 3rd category that needs some work but the way we've played lately do you think we're ready to tuneup against teams like maryland as WVU did? I wish we were but realistically I can't say we are. Also, as Brad points out we can buy out these games if we progress to the point that tuning up against better teams makes sense.

I don't think anyone has argued that the proposed  "two or three really bad teams" are the end all of USF scheduling.  We'd all like to see the best possible for USF, and that is not UCF either. Brad - We have some great programs on future schedules... Auburn, Miami, Florida, Michigan State, NC State... and some solid BCS programs in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina. The problem is that instead of replacing UCF with "the best possible" non-BCS teams, DW & Co are replacing UCF with some of "the worse possible" non-BCS teams.  That is the only reason why I continue to harp on this - and I can't imagine why on earth anyone in their right mind would rather play Buffalo or Ball State than UCF.  The choice isn't UCF or Oklahoma --- it's UCF or Buffalo. I will concede that a long-term series with UCF is not good for the program; however, if we are supposed to be improving our competition - how does that happen in a year when USF will play a I-AA team, plus games against Buffalo and Western Kentucky? Does anyone at least understand what I am trying to say?? Here is how I see it, replaced our conference from cusa to big east = big upgreade replacing UCF (considered big OOC game) with some of the middle/low tier BCS teams = slight upgrade replacing McNeese st, FIU (and whatever other tuneup games we've had) wiith the buffalo's and ball state's = about the same I agree that the tuneups could be against better teams but from what I saw the past couple weeks they are about right at this point. Hopefully as time goes on we'll see enough improvement that we can bump this all down a notch so the buffallos completely drop off and the better non bcs/lower tier bcs can become tuneups but I think it's obvious were not at that point yet. That said, I don't think the game against UCF has ever been considered a tuneup game.

UL played at Temple this year, that didn't hurt them any.  These games aren't the greatest, we can schedule better games, but they will beef up the record and that is a positive.  Plus, don't be so sure more teams the caliber of UM, Auburn and FL won't be added as well.  You can't play all tough OOC games.  Right now there is a decent mix of lower level, mid level bcs and upper level bcs teams.  I wouldn't be opposed to a few more good opponents. Right, but these teams are REPLACING UCF on our schedule.  So all the reasons that UCF is a bad idea apply to these other teams: if we lose these games recruiting will suffer, if we lose these games our image will suffer, if we lose the games we won't be part of the Big 4. You don't want UCF?  Fine by me -- give me, as a fan, something better.  Something that, at the very least, makes me think you have a plan to get us to the promised land where USF is always in the Top 5 and plays Top 5 opponents. The road to the top may not go through Orlando, but I don't see it going through Buffalo either. As for UL -- they won, but it was "Temple".  That's the kind of response they are getting.  Imagine what would happen if Temple had won.  The claim was that UCF is bad for our program for several reasons - fine, let's say those are all true - why don't the same things apply to other, even lesser teams?? I don't understand why you point out two games that are only a possibilty in the future as a replacement for UCF. We have scheduled home and homes with several big 10 schools why is nobody mentioning that THOSE are replacing the UCF games? I think we'll continue to see these types of games added to our schedule with those other games as just tuneup games. Unless your suggesting that UCF is just a tuneup game then those are not the replacements.

no, the knights would make sure to squeese every last bit of negative press for us that they possibly can. They would use it in the media, to the recruits and the fans. If they could find any angle at all to bring us down they will. I don't believe the other teams would have this agenda.

I popped in there for a few minutes around 4:30, right in the middle of a Kanigit crying about how we are all full of ourselves and we need to get over it...... It was a nasaly, whining voice that matched by personification of most UCFers on here .... Wasn't Phil, though, voice wasn't high enough and I didn't hear any spittle hit the phone as he ranted.  One of those called in this morning on the dan sileo show. Man, they are PISSED that we have no interest in this game LMAO! he went on and on about how we don't have a right to dismiss them...and all we ever did is beat Pitt while they beat alabama. I thought about calling in but I couldn't stop laughing. ;D

2 different issues: 1) level of competition on our schedule 2) Scheduling UCF on a regular basis I agree totally that we should be bringing in better opponents, however I disagree that UCF should be an annual game. Let me ask you this honestly, if ucf was located up north would you be looking at them in a different light than buffalo or ball state? Take away the proximity and there isn't much of a difference IMO

At least we would not be painting ourselves into a corner with those three or any other team.  We could play any number of teams and walk away at the end of the contract.  Why can't we walk away from CDOA's UCF? Exactly, mix them in here and there but don't commit regularly to any of them.

Really? So says: Florida St-Florida Florida St-Miami Florida-Georgia Clemson-South Carolina Alabama-Auburn Georgia-Georgia Tech Ole Miss-Mississippi St Colorado-Colorado St Washington-Washington St UCLA-USC Penn St-Pitt (sadly, basically dead now) Va Tech-Virginia LSU-Ole Miss Texas-Texas A&M Should I go on? Iowa-Iowa St Michigan-Michigan St Notre Dame-Purdue Harvard-Yale Oregon-Oregon St Louisville-Kentucky Oklahoma-Texas Oklahoma-Oklahome St Yeah...Geography has nothing to do with rivalries (yes, there are some NATIONAL Rivalries...but most are LOCAL/REGIONAL in nature) Juat a stupid post, he said geography does not MAKE a rivalry. He didn't say that none exist between team in close proximity :

I don't think it's that easy. You're saying if we beat UConn last year and then somehow upset WVU to get to the Sugar Bowl, we're in the Big 4 ...... I don't see it. To be included in the Big 4 one of the criteria has to be beating one of them. If we do that but in that same year lose to UCF, you lose that edge .... IMO.  I think if USF makes it to the Sugar Bowl last year, then USF would easily be a Top 25 pre-season this year... (after all WVU made it to the Sugar Bowl and was pre-season Top 5).  I don't know if USF beats Miami or Florida while going 3-8 would mean we are in the Big 4. The Big 3 are the Big 3 because they are perennial top 25 teams.  To get into the Big 4, USF needs to be a Top 25 team - individual wins and losses become less relevant. Yup the Big 3 is about consistant success not beating each other.  the big three is about constant success against the best teams in the nation. We'll be playing 2 of them in the future, if we walk away with a 42-0 ass whooping like ucf did trust me we will not be considered "there" yet. Say what you want but these three teams are national powerhouses, they have multiple national championships under their belt and for years FSU and UM single handedly brought respect to their conferences, even to the point that other teams have used this respect to build their own teams into powers (see VT) We could beat ucf for 100 years straight but if we can't beat the big boys we aren't one of the big boys.

But Jim, which is more important to you, becoming the Big 4th or creating a rivalry with UCF? Could we do both? Absolutely, but WE have all the components to become that 4th without having to play them the way things are set up right now. They can't, realistically, say the same thing, no matter how much they want to deny it. They COULD get to that 4th spot but it will be a heck of a lot harder than the road we have and beating us would be part of their path. I know you don't think the outcome of this game would have any bearing on that but I do ..... If any of this has already been addressed on this thread and shot down, I apologize for the redundancy.  If I have to choose one, it's becoming one of the Big 4, but I firmly believe we could do both. There is only one thing that could put USF into the Big 4: winning the Big East and getting to the first BCS bowl.  Losing to UCF could affect which bowl USF goes to, but it won't affect the fact that USF can get to a BCS bowl.  Once we are a proven BCS team, that puts USF into the Big 4... To me, they are totally seperate issues with one having no bearing on the other. That could be part of the reason CJL doesn't want to carry the UCF game forward, because he thinks USF could make it to the BCS in the next four years.  At that point, I think a potential series with UM could be even more likely to happen. I totally disagree, the only way both could happen is if it is the big 5 which would include UCF. The reason I say this is if we attain a level of the other three we would end up light years ahead of UCF (ie...42-0 type games) This will also mean we are playing for the conference championships, BCS bids and possibly National Titles. We would be so far ahead of them that the game would have as little meaning as our games do for the big 3 when e play them now. The only way this can be a rivalry game is if we either both reach that level or neither of us reach that level. I think we have to make the choice, do we want to go after the big 4 alone or do we try to nurture a rivalry that will require UCF along for the ride?

You're right, you can't force a rivalry. UCF seems like they're trying to do just that. No, you can't force a rivalry ... but you can squelch one.  We had a pretty good rivalry building with Southern Miss, until we got the invite to the Big East.  Now we don't play them any more - and it doesn't look like we will. In this case, one university wants the game to be annual and the other doesn't.  UCF may be trying to force the issue, but USF is squelching it without really seeing where it could go. The ideal situation would be to agree to another 1-for-1 series starting in 2010 or so... that gives a couple of years to see if there is really a build up to the game again.  If not, then UCF should be like FAU or FIU, in that we schedule them 2 or 3 times each decade.  I could live with that very easily. I have to say that of all the teams in CUSA we could have played for our exit requirement THIS was the team I was hoping for. I absolutely hated their fans but they were a much better team than UCF and a win against them I think would actually earn some respect. Man that last minute game in ray jay was exciting as hell!

History is not repeating itself, they were fighting to be the best of the best in the state, this is merely to be the best of the worst in the state. I'm sorry that doesn't excite me at all.

If that is what your hearing then you aren't listening. I think we are NOT so far ahead of them that this game is an automatic win. Right now I think we are two teams playing very poorly and both of us has a shot to win. However, what we do have is an edge with the BCS affiliation and I think that is a huge trump card over any small OCS they may build. I think the key for THEM is to prove they are better than us on the field. I think the key for us is to ignore them, take advantage of our recruiting edge and concentrate on becoming a consistent winner in the Big East.