FazaUSF

13 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

What's the huge number of injuries? Did i miss that here somewhere? 

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Johnson said:

For what it's worth, the original plan offered by JD was to make that USF Lakeland's campus.  Judy declined and actually fought JD trying to move USF Lakeland.  (I was a legislative aide in the early 2000s and still had friends in the legislature that gave me some info at the time).  JD wasn't trying to create a new state university.   He was definitely in it for himself -- he and his family also owned land that would have been part of the Heartland Parkway that he tucked into the budget one year.  (Then again, what do you expect for the grandson of Ben Hill Griffin?).

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?

2 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

I will note UCF got into the "Big East" because state legislators (who were UCF graduates) threatened to take action against Judy Genshaft for supposedly blocking it (whether true or not).  Judy had pissed of the Legislature more than she should have -- which is why the Lakeland campus was spun off as a new university.

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.. 

16 hours ago, USF968 said:

REPORT: Colorado has offered Deion Sanders

---

Per Adam Munsterteiger of BuffStampede, Colorado has offered Deion Sanders

 

"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.

Just now, Bull Awakening said:

Until the ACC invite comes….

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.

1 minute ago, Friscobull said:

I would be skinnier if I didn’t eat and drink so much, he would have been a great coach if he could actually coach? Sorry doc, makes no sense, I do like Mike but we are awful, not ready to throw the mick to the wolves but he has shown me nothing.

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.

5 minutes ago, hm101 said:

Are you in favor of DS?

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

2 minutes ago, hm101 said:

Silliness. 

Wait for a legit source.

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

7 minutes ago, USF968 said:

I think he made that up since he paid to get verified.

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  

3 minutes ago, Friscobull said:

You get some first hand knowledge and valuable information as an Iron Bull, however that doesn’t mean any of the **** you are hearing is worth a ****.  CJS was an epic failure and plenty of us called that, coach speak is a dime a dozen but those that have not played become mesmerized by it, go figure.

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.

51 minutes ago, Friscobull said:

 anyone with a pulse would have known he was not up to the challenge, he was a product of who you know and not what you know.  The good ole boys club runs deep, I know you fell for his line of bull and have a soft spot for him but stop rationalizing this terrible hire. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Cornada said:

We just need an AD or VP or whatever whom can hire successful coaches every few years.  Sad, we don't have that.

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.

1 hour ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

USF wins:  great solid game.  Nice win.  Played amazing.  Liked the uniforms, too.

 

USF loses:  well, we’re still the worst team in FBS football, but we sure make a fashion statement out there each week.  Yay!

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.

38 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

I wish we cared about winning more than these uniforms to parade on social media. Go with the classics and the threads we used to beat top 25 teams in. UCF is a top 25 team and we need to send a message we are serious about beating them again.

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

11 hours ago, BDYZR said:

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.

7 hours ago, bowman1 said:

I am guessing that you are referring to either Holtz or Scott

I can see Holtz wanting to be a USF lifer (especially considering that he went on to La Tech for 8 years).

 I just don’t buy that Scott truly wanted to be here beyond a 9-3 or better season - I am not doubting what you were told, I just find it hard to believe that Scott would have been genuine in that regard (of course, I was not there)

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.

9 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

This raises a few questions:

1. How do you know these schools don't care about winning?

2. How do you know that USF what category USF falls into?

3. How do you define winning? 

4. Where do Utah, NC State, Oklahoma State fall into your categories?

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.

5 hours ago, Brad said:

It's kind of funny.  USF would have to apologize.  Instead of working with McMurphy they should have questioned the whole fiasco.  As many are only learning now, 12 years later, McMurphy had and still has a grudge with Leavitt - it goes way back and first blood was McMurphy being fired from the Tampa Tribune.  He went on a scorched earth offensive to enlist his locker room boys to help take Leavitt down.  It's all so bad.  Had USF not bought out Leavitt, the judge/jury would have found USF liable, not Jim Leavitt.  Most of the nattering know-nothings are just that.

 

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.

13 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

They are definitely more rare, but they are absolutely not over.  Spurrier had 12 seasons at Florida and 11 seasons at South Carolina -- there are active coaches with longer tenures than that.  Leavitt had 13 seasons.  Even in the 80s and 90s, Frank Beamer and Bobby Bowden were rarities.

The coaches with the longest tenures:

• Mark Stoops - 10 seasons at Kentucky and just signed a contract extension through 2030.
• Dave Doeren - 10 seasons at NC State and while he gets rumored from time to time, he's unlikely to go anywhere
• David Shaw - 11 seasons at Stanford
• Dabo Swinney - 13 seasons at Clemson (waiting for Saban to retire?)
• Pat Fitzgerald - 16 seasons at Northwestern, and unlikely to be fired this season despite winning only one game
• Nick Saban - 16 seasons at Alabama, where he landed after deciding the NFL was not for him
• Trou Calhoun - 16 seasons at Air Force
• Mike Gundy - 17 seasons at Oklahoma State
• Rick Stockstill - 17 seasons at Middle Tennessee State
• Kyle Whittingham - 18 seasons at Utah
• Kirk Fereentz - 23 seasons at Iowa

There are 17 more coaches who have been with their teams since 2016 (including Harbaugh, as you noted).

That's 28 coaches that have been with their current teams for 6 years or more ... more than one in five teams. 

IMHO, it is not unreasonable to hope for a coach to stay here for 5-7 years . . . or more.

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.

4 minutes ago, Bull Awakening said:

The former Memphis HC now at FSU is a good coach. As long as he continues to do good at FSU I don’t see the job becoming available. Now if FSU does something stupid and fires him then hopefully USF brings him in 

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.