8u11`o3

As I said in another similar thread.  Holtz is redshirting Gunsby and playing a true freshman walk-on, even though Gunsby is better, because Gunsby is the future at that position?  How does that even make sense?

Holtz isn't playing Eveld, he is playing BJ.  Eveld is just a place holder on the 2-deep to buy time for Gunsby to groom.

Place holder?  You can read the coach's mind?  By the way, Gunsby is so much the future they have committed for next season 2 QBs and are still recruiting Jacoby Brisset.

That's what I believe based on the circumstances with which Gunsby/Eveld were acquired by USF.  I didn’t say Gunsby was a guarantee; just that he is the best option for the future out of the current candidates.  Because he is no guarantee, naturally, you wouldn’t just stop recruiting QBs.

If Gunsby is truly the future it makes more sense to red shirt him this season than give him garbage minutes.  He's not going to beat out BJ this year.  Holtz and Fitch are committed to BJ.  Gunsby will have plenty of opportunity to get garbage minutes next season.  A true freshman will look just as confused as BJ out there with this receiving core and pass protection.

If we are going to lose with either QB, I say lose with Gunsby.  I don't see them as garbage minutes; I see them as time on the job training if he is playing while the game is still winnable.  I’d like to avoid as much garbage time as possible next year.  I’m sure he would look as confused as BJ, but at least he would gain experience to build on during a loss that we'll apparently suffer either way.  Heck, there’s an outside chance he’d execute.

I honestly believe Gunsby was red shirted because Eveld flat out beat him out for the #2 QB spot.

Calling for a red shirting true freshman to come in that was more than likely beat out by a walk-on true freshman is a tad bit outlandish.

If what you believe is true, then I agree, it would be outlandish.

As I said in another similar thread.  Holtz is redshirting Gunsby and playing a true freshman walk-on, even though Gunsby is better, because Gunsby is the future at that position?  How does that even make sense?

Holtz isn't playing Eveld, he is playing BJ.  Eveld is just a place holder on the 2-deep to buy time for Gunsby to groom.

Place holder?  You can read the coach's mind?  By the way, Gunsby is so much the future they have committed for next season 2 QBs and are still recruiting Jacoby Brisset.

That's what I believe based on the circumstances with which Gunsby/Eveld were acquired by USF.  I didn’t say Gunsby was a guarantee; just that he is the best option for the future out of the current candidates.  Because he is no guarantee, naturally, you wouldn’t just stop recruiting QBs.

As I said in another similar thread.  Holtz is redshirting Gunsby and playing a true freshman walk-on, even though Gunsby is better, because Gunsby is the future at that position?  How does that even make sense?

Holtz isn't playing Eveld, he is playing BJ.  Eveld is just a place holder on the 2-deep to buy time for Gunsby to groom.

LOL  :D :D :D :D Now we are calling for a kid who does not know the plays to be our savior QB.  This place gets better all the time.  No need to shell out coin to visit a comedy club.  Thanks.  This thread is a classic.    :D

Normal

Savior?  Clearly, you do not understand the point of the thread.  If we are going to lose games, it is better to lose with Gunsby than BJ.  Should we be afraid Gunsby might throw a pick or 3?  Heaven forbid that could happen.   If you don't get this, just laugh.

Gunsby isn't the future at USF either. I'd be surprised if he was ever a starter here; I think Weatherford has a ton more upside.

If true, that's just another reason to take the redshirt off.

I believe that the reason Eveld is second string ahead of Gunsby is to allow Gunsby to redshirt because he shows more potential and promise for the future.  I have trouble believing that an unrecruited walk-on is outperforming a 3 star recruit.

If we are going to lose games, isn’t it better to have a productive loss?  Gunsby should be in there picking up game time experience at the cost of these losses.  BJ is not the future, most people can see that.  He was a serviceable asset from the legacy system, but a liability at QB in the eventual system.

If we don't see Gunsby this year, that is Skip's open admission that this season is a sacrifice.  Why would Skip sacrifice this season? 

Is it because he wants Gunsby to be a senior against UF in 2014?

Is it because he convinced BJ to quit basketball to focus on QB, and he feels a sense of obligation to BJ now?

Is it because BJ was Leavitt’s guy and Gunsby is his guy, and he would take more heat for the losses if they take place with his guy over center?

Is it because he thinks BJ can reach the minimum requirement of winning 3 more games?

Eric/Vicki-

If this package is sold out due to the plane being full rather than the hotel being full, will any of the blocked off rooms be released back to the hotel so that rooms can be booked through Sheraton?  Or has USF sold all of the rooms that were blocked off?

You don't think UL would move ahead of LSU if they win by 50 over UCONN?

I'd like to see a link explaining the "top 6" guarantee mentioned in the post above. I don't think that's true.

To get 2 BE teams into BCS bowls, we need:

FL to win with a low score

UL to win a rout

UCLA to win

RU to win

Nebraska, Tennessee, and Oregon are already ranked, so we don't necessarily have to overtake them.  A&M will have 4 losses after they lose to Texas, so they should fall out of the picture.  If Missouri wins twice, they should move into the rankings along with USF, in my opinion, if we are able to win two more games.

I agree that it's improbable that we win out, but if we do, I think it is quite likely that we'll be ranked higher than Rutgers if they lose two games.

I don’t see how they can keep a USF team having a 9-3 record and wins against UL and WV out of the BCS rankings.

When the final BCS rankings were posted at the end of last year, there were only four teams having 3 or fewer losses that weren’t ranked:

Boise St (9-3)

Toledo (8-3)

Nevada (8-3)

UTEP (8-3)

…and none of these teams had a single win against a school from a BCS conference.

So with a mini-conference consisting of four 5-2 teams:

RU(2-1)

USF(2-1)

UL(1-2)

WV(1-2)

If neither Rutgers nor USF have a BCS ranking, who tastes the Sugar?

A loss to Cuse is a longshot, but a loss to Cinci is within reason.

Will USF have a BCS ranking on Dec 3rd if we beat UL and WV?

If they lose to WV and either Cinci or Cuse, where will they be ranked on Dec 3rd?

I agree with everything that CL was quoted as saying in the article, and I'll be in Charlotte myself supporting the team, but I'm not so sure that CL should be the guy saying this stuff.

Seems like Woolard or Genshaft should be focused on ensuring that USF makes a statement in the stands, and CL should be focused on ensuring that USF makes the statement on the field.  

If he can get us a win in the bowl, that will help fill seats in the future.  True, fan support plays a huge role in bowl selection, but the number of wins during the season carries the most weight when it comes down to it, especially for teams in a BCS conference.

Everyone knows that we're not going to have 20k in the stands because our fan base is not where it needs to be.  It almost feels like he's trying to point out that fan support has been poor to those fans who felt that the team's coaching has been poor(at Uconn).

In any case, I'm behind him, and I'll follow him to NC.  That's just the feeling I got from his statements.