TheUpperHand

According to the article, Francisco Hernandez suspended as well. Different, school-related, incident.

So, it was a slight to UCONN though, right? lol

They did seem a little too eager to promote the importance of that Houston-UCF matchup while the game was still within reach

Surprised their not trying us deeper.

Where's the SC Top 10 nominee for THAT TD?

I guess that was our way of paying them back for that fumble. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Defense comes alive. We lose 7-6.

I don't see where the confidence has come from. We'd probably have to put the ball in the endzone 3-4 times and have a lights out day on D to have a chance in either of these games. I don't see that happening unless Coach T is converting water into wine during the bye week. We haven't scored an offensive TD in the last two games and let the nations worst rushing team put up season highs on us before the end of the first quarter. Louisville and UCF won't be dropping balls the way UConn did. Our offense would need to click in a way that it hasn't done this season. The D would have to play at full throttle from the first quarter. If we play the way we've been playing we'll be down by three scores before the defense figures out what's going on while Bobby E is scrambling to the sideline three times in a row and consistently forcing us to punt within our ten yard line.

We can't even play a complete game of football yet.

The defense was soft in most of the first half but played hard in the second half. Offense made a couple of good plays but couldn't finish a drive. Way too many mistakes. Good to have a win. I'm not writing us off yet, especially if we can get Shaw and/or Bench back at some point. We need this bye week bad, though to work on some major issue.

That was the defense's fault for not running it into the endzone or at least returning the block to field goal range.

Best play of the game by Eveld and it gets negated. This offense can't execute a play to save their lives.

What a waste. The offense showed a little life after Davis bailed them out twice but in the end they succumbed to poor execution.

Eveld has space and falls forward short of the maker? He has no awareness whatsoever.

Wow....play of the game so far. Now time for Eveld to squander away that effort.

And then kill momentum with Eppes. Man looks like he's running uphill through molasses.

Imagine that. Bring some pressure and good things happen.

Good, God. The time in the pocket. The burned DB. Hit him in the forearms and still can't make that catch. We got lucky that UConn couldn't win a game of catch.

Shout out to the FHP trooper for fielding that punt.

Six minutes in and UConn already over their average rushing total per game.

Surprise...UConn will embarrass us today.

Tougher than the Miami team that drubbed us 49 - 21? If so, then this game won't be pretty.

That win was ugly as they come. The offense looked bad all night and the wheels came off the defense at the end. We tried like hell to give it away and we got some concerning injuries. But, it gives the players some confidence and hopefully they'll work hard this week and carry some momentum into the next game.

Appropriately enough, S Holt.

At the risk of making myself sound stupid, which I do quite often when speaking on matters that I don't know much about... When Woolard agreed to terms with Taggart, does anyone else feel that a 5-year $1.5 million contract was excessive? Obviously if Taggart did or does turn out to be a great coach, it will seem like a no-brainer. However, Woolard already had egg on his face from paying a coach with a little success in the mid-majors $1.5 million and extending his contract for five years after going 13-12. Yet, after seeing the Holtz meltdown he hires another moderately successful mid-major coach as the successor and signs him to a five-year $1.5 million deal without having proven anything. If you're a fairly stable program like Cincinnati and can poach diamonds in the rough like Brian Kelly and Butch Jones, then I can see it. Now, I can also see paying that or more for some of the bigger name coaches allegedly in the running at the time like Houston Nutt or Bobby Petrino. While they may or may not have been better choices, they could use their experience in the SEC and successes in the higher tiers of football as leverage in bargaining. But why did Taggart deserve this? Why not a shorter or more incentive-based contract? I'd think with an unproven coach, especially after already getting burned, your bargaining position has to be "win and then we'll talk big money." I want Taggart to work out, and I think he needs three years before we call for his job, but I think from the get-go, Woolard did not learn from past mistakes and is being reckless with Athletics money and the future of USF football. The Taggart contract could leave us on the hook for paying another failed coach. In three years, we should be negotiating a big-money extension with Taggart or parting ways, not potentially paying a terminated coach for the second time in a row and digging for change in the couch cushions to find another mid-major replacement.