Buller64

Wow 55 pints in this game, after that Wisky game I wouldn't have thought 55 all year.

Realisitic assessment, good game by USF but they truly do out talent SCST. There are still far too many mistakes on defense and the offensive line needs a lot of work. It is goign to be a long season but if these issues are addressed USF could be bowl eligible but not much more than that.

1 minute ago, Bulls On Parade said:

Does Horne play I dont think I've seen him this season. 

He is back for returns but no one has kicked in his direction.

Our best defensive play so far tonight has been a SCST drop or turnover.

1 minute ago, bullsfan27 said:

We have scored more points in 2 quarters than in the previous 2 games

We are also playing a much worse team than the past two weeks. Maybe the O-line will learn how to block during the off week.

Our Oline stinks, there is no other way to phrase it. Well, actually there is but not politely.

Barrington is really stretching to find something positive to say on the radio.

Just now, MikeG said:

we look like hot garbage so far

Not quite true, we aren't that good smelling.

6 minutes ago, Gatorbull325 said:

That offense scored 60 against Syracuse last week.

 I think temple defense is decent but they have given up a lot of yards. I think TDs will be hard against them but not ball possession. Maybe temple is living on borrowed time defensively.

Temple: 2 goal line stands in less than 2 minutes. Great D by Temple or lousy offense by Maryland?

1 minute ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Good lord Temple just punted the ball 7 yards...do they blow this game?

They are certainly trying to give this one away.

Yep Syracuse being ranked to start the season shows how much guessing is going on.

Maybe they won;t blow it, After giving up 55 yard return they had a great goal line stand.

Cinci righted the ship in the second half, 35 -14 with m 5 minutes to go.

1 minute ago, bowman1 said:

McCloud throwing on the sideline 

He just doing that so he doesn't fall asleep while watching this offense.

Well, Cinci got shut out this week, so we are no longer the only team who couldn't score in the AAC.

Just now, USFBULL_08 said:

Where did WR screens go? Holy **** that was the only thing that looked good. Btw, where is everyone that thought having Ford back was gonna change a thing?

It did we got a field goal.

WTH? was that play by GT? Does any play that weird ever work?

This game is on the offense. If the offense could just do something, but its just choking the life out of the team. Wisconsin scoring 21 pints on offense in the first half is about what I expected. Giving them 7 on a turn over and not scoring was not expected. I thought we would get 14 or 17 in the first half.

Not sure what we can do on offense, we can't run  the ball and when we pass the receivers can't catch the ball. Thi makes it easy on the defense just rush the QB. Who cares if he gets the ball off, its not going to be caught anyway.

Just now, Gismo said:

Did our guy just fall over? 

Yep he slipped on the wet grass.

Well there is one good part out of that defensive series. The tackling is better, no one broke a tackle, the fullback dragged a safety 3 yards but couldn't break away.

I didn't think Antigua would be successful but I also didn't think he would be that bad either.  I thought that he would improve the talent at USF but that was about it. Turns out he didn't even do that. Another nail in the coffin of the Calipari coaching tree. I don;t the answer but has any Calipari assistant coach been successful as a head coach? I can't think of any.

Just now, Buller64 said:

I didn't think Antigua would be successful but I also didn't think he would be that bad either.  I thought that he would improve the talent at USF but that was about it. Turns out he didn't even do that. Another nail in the coffin of the Calipari coaching tree. I don't the answer but has any Calipari assistant coach been successful as a head coach? I can't think of any.

11 hours ago, USFBULL_08 said:

White guy from ivy league isnt gonna make recruiting waves for us eh?

He might be an excellent recruiter. The Ivy league has some strong recruiting rules and limitations on student athletes. To highlight a few of them

There is a weighted score that indicates about how the athlete would perform academically at that school. This involves SAT I, SAT II, and G.P.A. This rates the athletes in relation to the average student at the school. Athletes are then classified as A, B, C, or D. Each school can only recruit a specific number of students in each classification. The number of students in each classification is set by the conference and is individually for each sport and school. Thus the Princeton number of A, B, C, and D athletes may be different from Harvard. This means that recruiting is very specific as to the caliber of the student.

Students athletes must be admitted by the dean of the university. Coaches can try to persuade the dean for a specific athlete but most must stand on their own. This is similar to our academic review board.

There is a limit to the total number of student athletes a university can have for all sports. Thus, scholarships must be parceled out between all the sports that the school offers.

They use a most likely letter instead of NLI, which means that student athletes are not legally bound to the school. They can change their minds even after signing a most likely letter.

These rules indicate that he needs to be sure about his recruited athletes academically before recruiting them and needs to secure commits early. Because of the most likely rule coaches need to constantly keep in touch with their recruits to keep them on board. They also tend to emphasize the academics of the school rather than the more traditional amenities. If he is a good recruiter in the Ivy league I think he can adjust to the easier recruiting rules of FBS and FCS.

8 minutes ago, Bull Dozer said:

 

No rain here we should be interviewing several candidates, especially those outside of CCS's "tree"  

Tree? I thought it was a leaf.