USFPDiddy

Looks about right. Our 3-2 record is indicatave of what we are - just above average. That's where the rankings have us, too. UL and WVU are really getting hosed. Pitt's a good team, i'd stick them even with RU right now. Note: unless our team steps up, we won't get a bowl. If those 4 finish ahead of us, they WILL take up all the BE tie ins, and our record won't be strong enough to send us at large elsewhere.

Based entirely on the fact that conferences are strong because of the names of their schools I'm assuming. You take a look at each conference's OOC results? You can project that this win was better than that, but that doesn't mean its any less erroneous than just looking at the records. BE aside, what do you want from the PAC-10? A Chuck Norris endorsement? The PAC-10 has been incredible in OOC play (other than cal @ tennessee), and has a good number of teams ranked for a 10 team conference. They have precious few cellar teams, which also makes them better in the computer rankings. After all, they dont get gimmes like mississippi state, vandy (this year, not last), and kentucky as much. Try being objective. Based on what you hear from some people, the SEC is the toughest conference every year, regardless of what happens on the field. If the defense was really that strong and it wasnt just the offenses being weak, teams ooc that the SEC gives up big yards to wouldn't exist. I'm not saying its not a good conference, it certainly is. Let's stop picking just off perception, and start looking at objective criteria though.

While we're at it, we can use chalk that has disorienting chemicals in it. Of course, all USF players are issued filtration devices, conveniently doubling as nose strips and mouth pieces. This could also assist in the "backing it up" department.

The only reason we would schedule tougher OOC games would be for the national exposure, other than that, we need easier games at the front end of our schedule. We definately learned from the McNeese, FIU debacles...even though it doesn't show on our record. Then we'd be just like the mighty Gators over there in Gainesville Western Carolina...woo hoo I don't like the gators, but I'd take their ranking.

The fact that texas tech isn't ranked and FSU is #17 voids this poll entirely, IMO. People just vote for names. It seems a good portion doesnt even pay attention to quality wins or how well a team plays. Human voting really bothers me sometimes. It's a good thing it doesnt matter this early in the season.

We should paint the philadelphia eagles symbol in midfield for USF games. That would show them. (ok, so i'm an eagles fan)

Ponton had more than 4 ypc last year, didn't he? Plancher practiced with the first team as well, meaning he knows how to pick up blocks and carry it with out blocking scheme. Ponton looked like a legit #2 back last season. It might be true that those guys are no peterson, but nevertheless their prescence would have led us to win one if not both of the games we lost. Teams are keying in on only grothe in the backfield. I don't blame them, because our current running backs have NOT practiced enough with the 1st string O, so they look sheepish or confused most of the time they try to hit the hole. Even the greatest freshmen players get august to practice with first team, and most get spring. Our bizzare situation stuck us in a situation where we literally have ONE guy who knows even a little bit about the offensive system. That's a rough condition to be in.

It would help if he wouldn't ignore arguments opposed to his own, instead at least attempting to acknowledge and counter argue. I suppose that's not effective in law though...at least in the event that you know you're wrong.

Well, this is true, but the school probably needs to recover a bit. IIRC, our spending does go up every year. We're going to need a new OC, maybe BB coach, etc. Just those 2 will take us out of last place if we go for quality. FYI, i'd prefer if the greatest amound of our funds went into staffing. The best way to succeed is to obtain and keep good people - that's true of every business I can think of. College football IS a business.

FB's are seen as the 2nd guy in the backfield in those 2 back sets in the spread fairly often. Also, this guy is a decent handoff option. He can either block for the QB or the RB as well, meaning that the spread can indeed use a fullback. However, it helps a LOT to have a guy that can carry the ball as a fullback to put him there (wvu has one that can run it pretty well)...because you DO have to remove a WR to use him. I guess our coaching staff feels better about another WR. However, I personally would have used a fullback a couple times in the 3rd quarter to buy grothe a bit more time in the pocket and hopefully get RU out of those blitzes. It's clear that they were going after him with pressure to try to force mistakes, and NOTHING sucks like getting your blitz completely picked up. \ YEAH ANOTHER RECEIVER THAT CANT CATCH USF DOSNT MAKE THOSE TYPE OF ADJUSTMENTS OF ADDING A fb.WE WILL RUN SPREAD NO MATTER HOW POORLY IT IS RUN 13-15 SINCE 2004 Well smazz, do you think our fullback will catch it? Or do you think we can just throw a random guy back there who can block as well as top FB's? Personally, I don't like the spread, but some teams do it very well. I doubt our team would do significantly better in another system, especially now that we have grothe. Changing means a transition, transition means losses (just ask the hurricanes). Can USF afford these losses, being 13-15 since 2004 as you said? Since you're always all over the way USF runs things I'm really curious how you would do it different. Don't tell me you'd "recruit better players" though. Tell me how you get schaeffer, james, and others to come here. Tell me how you'd have gotten a premier HB better than what we have here. Why not tell me what offensive and defensive schemes you'd run while you're at it, and how that fits into recruiting. I can do all those things in video games (along with beating Texas with 1-aa teams). It's great to criticize certain things on the board, or analyze why we lost. However, the only thing fans/boosters can really control (and in USF's case, minimally) is the staff. I could understand calling for Rod Smiths head, but remember: we still need to put someone else in there. Who is it? Also, and a reason I think Smith is still here: can this person you named transition the offense we currently run into his system without costing us several wins for the next 2 seasons after he's hired? Can USF recruit players to run a pro offense yet? According to you, we can't even recruit players that can gimmick their way to 8 wins at a high level in college (kinda like texas tech) Same thing if, for a yet to be explained reason, you think we can afford someone who's actually better than leavitt. Saying repeatedly that USF isn't bigtime isn't going to solve anything. We know it, dammit. I saw the same lack of running game, turnovers, and missed kicks as you. We all saw the game. USF is average, maybe juuuust above right now at 3-2. Sometimes I wonder about your grasp on reality out there though. We can NOT recruit like USC yet. If we try, the people we recruit go elsewhere, and we're left with nothing.

You want a better challenge than a 1 point victory? Ummmmmmm, I dunno about you, but I don't want to see USF play a good team when they're playing like THAT. Most schools have tune up games (or ARE tune up games) for a REASON. Please, don't use logic. It only confuses people around here. My bad. Smazza: you're wrong because you don't live in florida, your water bill is too high, and you're a lawyer.

You want a better challenge than a 1 point victory? Ummmmmmm, I dunno about you, but I don't want to see USF play a good team when they're playing like THAT. Most schools have tune up games (or ARE tune up games) for a REASON.

Correction - we WERE mid major. We've not had anywhere near a full cycle of years to recruit in the BCS. As a result, when a player gets hurt or suspended, all of our depth behind is extremely young. When that 2nd player goes out, we're forced to use 1st or 2nd year guys that have not practiced with the starting team ever. They might be GREAT talents. They could even be potential NFL talents...in 3-4 years. However, it doesnt matter when you put them out there with no cohesiveness or practice. Until we've had a few more years, we just don't have the depth to suspend ponton, have plancher get hurt, and then start really young guys. The only positions we have significant depth at are linebacker and kind of in corner. However, many of our most recent recruiting classes *will* be good in the future, if coached as they should be. LEAVITT KNOWS WERE WE ARE HURTING ON DEPTH CHART WHY DIDNT HE RECRUIT JUCO PLAYER STHAT CAN COME IN AND PLAY? OUR LINEPLAY IS TERRIBLE OUR LACK OF DEPTH IS LEAVITT'S FAULT You're whining about something that's a double bind here. We can't recruit big time recruits in droves because we're not big time. Then we lose games because we don't have big time recruits. How do you suggest Leavitt recruits better Smazza? Should he put up a tent in the next javaris james' yard? Call the next chris leak no less than 234 times? He can't pay them. All he can do is coach. On defense, he's pretty good all things considered. On offense, he needs someone to help him out. Rod Smith has never shown me he's the man (he's no norv turner, for example). You need time AND luck to jump into the big time...funny how programs that manage stay there. It's like there's a line, and it's VERY hard to cross no matter which side you're on. Nebraska had an awful year and an average one back to back, but still had recruits and depth to survive a coaching change after a .500 season, 6-6!!!!!!!! A 6-6 team. Most people say they're big time now, and they've yet to lose less than 3 games since what, 2001? We don't have that name. We can't recruit like them just yet. We just have to hope that Leavitt is truly enough that once we have a full cast of BE recruits, we will contend for the BE title yearly.

Honestly, I kind of wish he'd called me out personally. It's always fun to get attention.

One of the most interesting things to me is how NOBODY talks about what goes on at and around the line of scrimmage during and after the play...

Noticed this too. I still don't get why so many are criticizing a defense that is on the field too much and missing a key defensive end. That unit isn't godly or perfect, but it's good. Many, many schools would love to have a defense like ours. How many points have they allowed that weren't off turnovers? Not mannnny!

Anyone who has confidence as a kicker would try out seeing our games going this way anyway, that's why. Just to be sure, I tried to punt it for my flag football team in practice. 20 yards and a hang time of 1.5 seconds later, I confirmed that no, I still can't be the answer for USF's kicking woes. Maybe we should just recruit one?

I can't think of very many teams that could lose BOTH of its top 2 RB's and still have "depth". I'd say 90+ would have "no running game" similar to us if that happened. Quick! Name the 3rd string running back at UF! How about USC? You can't. We just couldn't afford that and it's a major part of why we've lost. It's not like its really anyone's fault heavily. No running game can make even very good teams look subpar. Even the pittsburgh steelers have had bad years/losing seasons, despite very good and long-term coach continuity. Last year, they then won it all...despite not winning their division. Why? Injuries kept certain starters out in the regular season. Miami is 1-2, FSU looks average, and mike belloti and the oregon ducks are back. In the last 3 years, they had a season where they were barely a .500 team. In 2001, they had a case for appearing in the NC game instead of Nebraska. Things happen like that. The overall direction of our program is positive right now...and there's not much the universtiy can do to improve the rate at the moment. To illustrate, would we be having this discussion if Ray Rice were injured and we had ricky ponton or even plancher? No. USF would have won the game. Sometimes that's how it goes. Hats off to the coaching staff in this game, who called a much better game than they did in kansas. Key turnovers and a missed FG burned us, but we at least look like a bowl team.

Not many? We have pretty good athletes coming in each year. I'd like to see more offensive discipline, but meanwhile the physical talent of our players can match up with any but the country's highest tier teams...especially once we've had 4-5 years of BE recruiting instead of 2-3.

Actually, I've seen Miami run an option once or twice...WITH KEN DORSEY at that. Also seen navy line up receiver heavy occasionally. These things are for special situations of course. Mostly teams should stick to their primary attack. However, this is a bad analogy to draw, because the spread can and does implement a fullback. West Virginia certainly does it, as does Texas IIRC.

FB's are seen as the 2nd guy in the backfield in those 2 back sets in the spread fairly often. Also, this guy is a decent handoff option. He can either block for the QB or the RB as well, meaning that the spread can indeed use a fullback. However, it helps a LOT to have a guy that can carry the ball as a fullback to put him there (wvu has one that can run it pretty well)...because you DO have to remove a WR to use him. I guess our coaching staff feels better about another WR. However, I personally would have used a fullback a couple times in the 3rd quarter to buy grothe a bit more time in the pocket and hopefully get RU out of those blitzes. It's clear that they were going after him with pressure to try to force mistakes, and NOTHING sucks like getting your blitz completely picked up.

I've got to give you props, this is one of the most effective thread hijacks ever. I think it's pretty funny. I'm also glad I'm not the only one you got with it 8-).

The Pitt game might be an elimination game for the BE's 4th bowl bid. That game could wind up much more fun than it looked at the start of the season.

Correction - we WERE mid major. We've not had anywhere near a full cycle of years to recruit in the BCS. As a result, when a player gets hurt or suspended, all of our depth behind is extremely young. When that 2nd player goes out, we're forced to use 1st or 2nd year guys that have not practiced with the starting team ever. They might be GREAT talents. They could even be potential NFL talents...in 3-4 years. However, it doesnt matter when you put them out there with no cohesiveness or practice. Until we've had a few more years, we just don't have the depth to suspend ponton, have plancher get hurt, and then start really young guys. The only positions we have significant depth at are linebacker and kind of in corner. However, many of our most recent recruiting classes *will* be good in the future, if coached as they should be.

Just speaking in general, but while the overrated chant is great and all, PLEASE save it for AFTER the game is decided. Doing it before a game is actually a little risky, and if they beat you the chant just looks stupid then.