FazaUSF

Well here's just a few of them

I think the game was already a gigantic uphill battle with huge numbers of injuries, and losing X definitely hurts.

Ah, I thought that original proposal was to intro the idea and gain general support before the planned move of excising it from USF which was the ultimate goal. Did the initial actually have traction?

Nah, it got spun off because Chair of the Budget Committee J.D. Alexander's family owns a whole bunch of land around the Lakeland campus and perceived that in a few decades it will be worth a lot more as surrounding a standalone university as opposed to a branch campus. UCF lover, btw..

"An offer making him among the highest paid Pac-12 coaches" has got to be around $5-6mil/yr. USF barely makes that in TV money annually from the AAC. There is an over $30 mil annual difference in TV money alone. I don't see how USF can reasonably compete. I also wonder why state legislators don't work to elevate all of their tax-funded insitutions and allow such giant gaps to exist unchallenged. Lots of kids pick schools based on sports success. Is it a recipe for success? Maybe not as a primary strategy. But I think its pretty irresponsible that the legislature stepped in to force UF to play FSU 40 years ago but has sat on its hands ever since.

Or doesn't come due to poor capitalization on football successes.... hint hint mid-to-late 2000's... a poor donor showing in number of donors and amount of donations will absolutely rule a school out for P5 conferences. You need the success on the field but all the stuff off of it matters also. It's why we have a push to donate to the Bulls Club Annual Fund instead of the unaffiliated NIL outlets. Conferences look at EVERYTHING, not just whether you have been winning lately.

There is more to coaching than coaching. Ask the Athletics employees who tried to raise donations with CCS at the helm. He was absolutely terrible for it. You can hold it against me that I consider all of the intangibles important for a head football coach. They aren't the only aspects to the job, but they are important. Holtz had good intangibles but was bad at the X's and O's which is why he was deservedly let go. The same is true for CJS. On-field performance is important, but there are things above and beyond that which are important, too.

I previously have said: My top 2 which will never be hired are Jim Leavitt and Deion Sanders. So in absence of either of those, how about these ideas for debate: Jon Sumrall Curt Cignetti Jeff Traylor Shawn Clark However, I have liked the past 3 hires at the time and have been wrong on 2.5 of them (Taggarts first 2 years were the worst - shoot, even CJS beat the I-AA teams). So I am definitely not a good source to be choosing college football coaches, but trust MK to find a diamond. I know enough to know that I really know very little, so I'm glad I have no say

Also I would expect a denigrating article from that grudge-bearing squirrel if there were any truth to it

Yes I agree. My initial post was tongue-in-cheek.

I think youre right. But then he surprised me whenhe doubled down

https://twitter.com/DoctorSoFlo/status/1595876273985028096?s=20&t=awlivVWuJJgnW88CuQriNQ He says its legit but I dunno... I'm prone to getting trolled easily right now

I'll be the first to admit I thought CJS was the next Leavitt. Problem was he was great with the stuff off the field and then terrible with the X's and O's. I will still say he was a great dude and would have been an excellent long term coach IF he had been successful on the field. Problem was, he was all talk and no deliver. You were right about CJS. But you're not right about VPMK.

I can only imagine that you would benefit from a deeper understanding of all that goes on in the Athletics building. After gaining that wonderful knowledge, I really think you'll have a different opinion.

We do have that. Everyone needs to stop the hyperbole regarding VPMK. The man is a true credit to the university. We are VERY lucky to have him. The hire he made in CJS was well-informed and got rave reviews; it just didn't work out. There is always that risk. Sure, we wish we had the string of successful hires the school up the street has had, but the level of risk was the same for all the hires.

USF wins: ugh, I hate the fugly unis. Glad we rose up and evened the series with UCF. But dang we looked ugly doing it. USF loses: ugh, I hate the fugly unis. Not surprised at all we couldn't stop a nosebleed much less UCF. And dang, bloody unis would have looked way better than this fugly slime.

It is curious that we haven't beaten anyone who matters since the unis got cutesy. The bowl game against USC may be the only one that comes close and we definitely were not in slime.

USF is a great fit for him, but we can't outspend a school which makes $30 million more a year from football TV alone

Couldn't agree more. I loathe the slime. It's a gimmicky eyesore. Play real football. Look like real football players. Smash mouths and don't worry about dressing cutesy. Trying to get cute gets us put in our place and looking badly doing it. Even when we win, we're just that much more foolish looking while doing it. Bring back the Leavitt era uniforms. I don't care if "the players like slime." Teens and young men are drawn to all kinds of things which may not be in their best interests. Playing in traditional uniforms communicates that we are here for business. We are in the business of playing big time football. We are in the business of worrying about business and not buII$h!t. Yes, I love the senior signatures on the helmets. That would be a wonderful accent... to uniforms which indicate we are serious about our business.

Love seeing CJL talk about USF. He still bleeds green and gold. He will always be the personality I think of when I think of USF football.

I was thinking it was about Scott. He may have ultimately left eventually, but he really planned to be here for a long haul. I don't think he would have considered leaving before 6 years and at the very least a conference championship. Didn't realize Holtz was also thinking long term, but then again he was a La Tech for quite a while.

1) It tends to be obvious based on their decision-making in response to results over time. For example.... Air Force clearly has more important priorities than how many times it ends the season ranked. Middle Tennessee State hasn't had more than 8 wins since 2009. They may like to see when their teams win, but the schools clearly don't fire their coaches based on win totals. 2) USF does a ton of things that make it clear they want to win. They want to do things the right ways, which means the same types of shortcuts and questionable behind-scenes activities which have paid off for the school up the street are not USF's style. There have been examples over the years of actions that really make us wonder, like doubling down on remaining in the BE/American when other schools looked to bolt. Doug Woolard just wanted to cash out for retirement and avoid rocking the boat and clearly missed many opportunities for USF's advancement, like the absolutely uninspiring delegation sent to the B12. But I don't think those reflect the institution's lack of interest in winning. Firing Holtz, Strong, and CJS after 3 seasons of poor records alone should set USF apart from the Middle Tennessee States. 3) However I define winning isn't important; I would offer that the success of the program is viewed through the eyes of all the stakeholders of a University's Athletics Department. Whether it is acceptable for that institution depends on the opinions of all stakeholders involved. Which is why different expectations for winning exist at different institutions. 4) Utah - consistent winner. In the past 18 years, Utah has had double digit wins in 8 of them, and 4 more seasons had 9 wins. There's a single 3 win season, two 5 win seasons, and that's 15/18 seasons of bowl eligibility. That would be considered highly successful for most program. Oklahoma State - consistent enough winner. Since 2006, they have had 7 double digit win seasons. They have gone to a bowl game every single season. They average 9 wins a season. Again, most schools wish they could have that level of consistent success. NC State - great example of a program which doesn't need national championships and 10 win seasons to define them. Their fans have loved their successes, but their administration has been happy with playing in bowl games for half their seasons and having mediocre results for a very long time. Contrast that with schools that fire a coach 3 years or less for on-field results which don't match their expectations. NC State's expectations are demonstrated by their actions.

This is truth. Colby Erskin did not engineer the whole deal on his own. Joel was unfortunately at the center of something he didn't want to be, and didn't want to make it worse. There was a murderous, grudge-bearing squirrel shaking down every tree for years until he found a nut. Then, the squirrel planted the ground with a truckload of prefabricated nuts and told the whole squirrel world about it. Leavitt got the raw end of the deal. Judy was the wrong kind of president to have a jock-related controversy. The minute the former head of the FBI was contracted to investigate, it was very obvious that the purpose was to insulate university leadership from blame for what came after her job may be threatened. I don't hold it against the university that it happened. But I do hold it against Brett McMurphy for being the worst example of an unscrupulous journalist engineering controversial flames and fanning them every way possible once they caught. In this case, it was 100% related to a personal grudge. I bet there were prior examples of his attempts to create controversy that the public just never heard about or got snuffed out before they took hold. What's crazy is that despite how far his career has fallen after his time in the spotlight (which by the way was his direct reward for his "coverage" aka bringing down Jim Leavitt and having a suspiciously deep amount of "insider knowledge"), he continues to denigrate USF every chance he gets. Why did he have to live in the same city as our school? Absolutely ruinous.

Yes, I agree. The key to my agreement is the sentence following the one you bolded: "The only places keeping their coaches long-term either have the rare consistent winners, like Bama and Clemson, or don't actually care about winning much and are happy to field a team almost no matter the on-field product." Every one of those coaching situations is either a rare, consistent winner, or the schools don't actually care that much about winning and are happy just to field a team (if the team wins sometimes they're happy but it's far from a necessity). Every. Single. One.

These days, very few jobs are kept for longer than 3-6 years. The days of Spurrier, Bowden, and Leavitt unfortunately are over. The only places keeping their coaches long-term either have the rare consistent winners, like Bama and Clemson, or don't actually care about winning much and are happy to field a team almost no matter the on-field product. How Michigan stayed patient I don't know but I'm sure this year they are happy that they did. Norvell doesn't look like a Saban, though I suppose he could prove me wrong, and I bet he will have a few seasons of downturn like every program does. When he does, I'm sure Deion hopes to be ready for consideration.