slick1ru2

I like it. The BE has finally grown a pair.

I didn't see this posted already, just the post about his top 40 teams, so here is the ESPN blogger Adelson's take on it..... Phil Steele picks USF to win Big East May, 29, 2012 May 29 2:00 PM ET By Andrea Adelson | ESPN.com Noted college football guru Phil Steele has made a pretty bold prediction in his 2012 College Football Preview. Steele says USF will win its first ever Big East title. I have to say, I am not surprised to see Steele make this pick. As you guys know, I moved USF all the way up to No. 2 in my post-spring power rankings. The more you study what USF has returning, the more you convince yourself this team has a shot at winning a title. Yes, we all know about the history, about stumbling in Big East play and choking away games they should not. But generally, it is hard to pick against teams with 1) a four-year starter and quarterback; 2) a huge senior class with the potential for at least 15 starters; 3) and a team with four Big East home games. That is the logic Steele has used in making this pick. But more than winning the Big East, Steele also predicts USF will end the season ranked for the first time and be one of the most improved teams in the nation. He has the Bulls at No. 20 and says, "(Skip) Holtz won two CUSA titles with less talent that he has here." Steele has two other Big East teams ranked in his Top 40 -- Louisville at No. 34 and Rutgers at No. 40. Steele concedes he may have picked the Scarlet Knights to win the Big East if Greg Schiano had stayed on instead of leaving for the Tampa Bay Bucs. Here is how Steele predicts the league to shake out: 1. USF 2. Louisville 3. Rutgers 4. Pitt 4. Cincinnati 6. UConn 7. Syracuse 8. Temple For those wondering, Steele had Pitt winning the Big East and going to the BCS in 2010 and 2011. Steele has an incredible amount of information in his preview, and I will fill you in on more in the coming weeks. His 2012 College Football Preview hits newsstands June 5.

Its not the size of the wave, its the motion of the ocean.

nobody said anything about national championships. we won one conference championship this year in women's tennis. there is no reason why the largest public university in the big east shouldn't be able to compete with mostly small private schools. tennis, golf, baseball, soccer, track and field. these are outdoor sports where our athletes can train year round while others are buried in snow. we won women's tennis compared to another public university in a predominantly private conference, UofL, that won regular season titles in softball, baseball and volleyball while winning big east championships in women's swimming,men's basketball, men's tennins, women's track and field, and softball. Here we go with perception. Guess what. Size and location mean squat in athletics. Having a successful program over a period of time is going to attract a better athlete than climate in most situations. UofL's baseball team has had success for years, their basketball program is legendary. Their volleyball program has a .647 w/l record since 1975 with 16 conference championships. Their softball team has been in the NCAA tournament 7 times in 12 years. Oh and check this out. Fan Support Team National Attendance Rank Men's Basketball 3rd [13][14] Women's Field Hockey 7th [15] Men's Soccer 17th [16] Women's basketball 25th [17] Volleyball 30th [18] So size really isn't much of a help when you are competing with an established top program that has a highly supportive local fan base. Woolard is laying a foundation though, but looking at a school like Louisville and comparing attendance and location, thinking USF should be dominating overlooks the fact that they have been investing and nurturing their programs for much longer and live in a an area where the locals actually come out and support their teams. And while USF has been around since the 50s, how many decades went by before there was a president in place that truly supported athletics and tried to invest in the various programs to the extent was needed for success on a national level? you missed the point. USF is in a conference with a bunch of tiny private schools. I'm not saying we should have UofL's success but there is no reason why we shouldn't be right behind them. we have been in their conference since the early 90's. USF got into the Big East in 2005. Before that CUSA, before that the Sun Belt. It isn't the tiny private schools USF is losing most of the Big East championships to, its the larger schools. Also remember that Notre Dame, the largest Catholic university in the US, is a member of the Big East in all sports but football along with Georgetown and Villanova which have traditions of excellence in college athletics going back for a century. Size doesn't matter. I found that out years ago watching men's BB. Its not quantity, its quality. http://www.bigeast.org/Championships/20112012.aspx

Here is the current ranking of all athletic programs;s success via the NACDA criteria which looks at just about every sport and gives points to assign ranking. As of the end of winter in April, USF is 101 out of 246 schools. That is out of all level of schools. Schools lower than USF include Washington St, GA Tech, Texas Tech, Miss, Miss St, and USF is just a few spots below Pitt. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/apr26dI.pdf

nobody said anything about national championships. we won one conference championship this year in women's tennis. there is no reason why the largest public university in the big east shouldn't be able to compete with mostly small private schools. tennis, golf, baseball, soccer, track and field. these are outdoor sports where our athletes can train year round while others are buried in snow. we won women's tennis compared to another public university in a predominantly private conference, UofL, that won regular season titles in softball, baseball and volleyball while winning big east championships in women's swimming,men's basketball, men's tennins, women's track and field, and softball. Here we go with perception. Guess what. Size and location mean squat in athletics. Having a successful program over a period of time is going to attract a better athlete than climate in most situations. UofL's baseball team has had success for years, their basketball program is legendary. Their volleyball program has a .647 w/l record since 1975 with 16 conference championships. Their softball team has been in the NCAA tournament 7 times in 12 years. Oh and check this out. Fan Support Team National Attendance Rank Men's Basketball 3rd [13][14] Women's Field Hockey 7th [15] Men's Soccer 17th [16] Women's basketball 25th [17] Volleyball 30th [18] So size really isn't much of a help when you are competing with an established top program that has a highly supportive local fan base. Woolard is laying a foundation though, but looking at a school like Louisville and comparing attendance and location, thinking USF should be dominating overlooks the fact that they have been investing and nurturing their programs for much longer and live in a an area where the locals actually come out and support their teams. And while USF has been around since the 50s, how many decades went by before there was a president in place that truly supported athletics and tried to invest in the various programs to the extent was needed for success on a national level?

I wouldnt count on that membership anytime soon, if ever, if I were you. The AAU is a private organization, admittance is by invitation only. There are a lot of schools out there that have impressive resumes that have existed a lot longer than USF that I would think would get consideration long before USF did. The AAU is old school money, USF is the nouveau riche. And the AAU wants to continue to remain exclusive, it is not necessarily looking to add members. What is the point of an exclusive and prestigious group if anyone can get into it? Even that nouveau riche explanation isn't appropriate. There are only 34 public schools that are members. FSU, UGA, Alabama, Auburn, etc. aren't members. With Pitt leaving, Rutgers is the only Big East school in it. Even Notre Dame isn't a member. You get in by a vote of the current members, which includes UF so I doubt USF is getting in any time soon or ever. Criteria is research spending, the percentage of faculty who are members of the National Academies, faculty awards, and citations.

Providing the venue and trying to compete with history rich universities with endowments in the billions for quality coaching staffs you can't pay anywhere near the same salary is one thing. Making sure each coach personally brings into their sport someone who can guarantee a national championship in that sport is something else. First off these kids get offers from those schools that are on TV 24/7, who you see everyone, everywhere wearing their gear. Competing with that usually means you are getting those that don't have the talent to be a starter now or in the near future at those other institutions. I think some of the expectations on here are outlandish for a relatively young university that is not only competing against 150 year old Tier 1 schools regionally for students but against a state school system biased toward UF and FSU.

Yes, that's another plus on his job performance, new facilities. It was great to see the softball complex in HD on ESPN3. Really great looking venue. Can't wait to see basketball next season from the newly renovated Sun Dome. The last time I was at the Sun Dome:

No Joe, I don't, Swamprat does.

As is mine. The Bucs are $100 million in debt according to the BBC. And my angle was you don't seem to realize the costs involved in upkeep and future renovations. I am not saying that its anywhere near that, but the new Meadowlands stadium annual upkeep cost is half a million according to ballpark.com. And haven't seen what is going to be built but it will pale in comparison to the current facilities and may impact recruiting. Do you want a UCF erector set stadium? BTW, that POS cost around $55 million. You think Glazer is going to shell out more for something decent? Last decent college stadium I know of was the one in Minnesota, cost $300 million.

As a Hillsborough County tax payer, I think I have reason to have my knickers bunched. They have us pay for the stadium in which they're team plays and then they build a stadium in New Orleans? Can you wait until they even break dirt? Which do you think is cheaper? Stadium rental or stadium upkeep and future renovations? If you don't know, check the Sun Dome history. Since TSA gets a portion of the gate and the Glazers get all concessions and parking, rental verses upkeep is pretty much a wash. In fact,concessions alone would pay off financing and if done right, parking would pay for upkeep. The Sun Dome has served us well, has been well worth it's initial investment and previous upgrades, and will be more so after the current renovations. Millions in parking fees and concessions? Really? Millions for upkeep? Really? Keep in mind, if the Glazers would donate a large amount to build a stadium, there would be less to finance, thus millions would not be needed. And future renovations. So, tens of millions. Sorry.

Are you saying that attendance at an OC stadium would be higher? Or was that for dramatic effect?

As a Hillsborough County tax payer, I think I have reason to have my knickers bunched. They have us pay for the stadium in which they're team plays and then they build a stadium in New Orleans? Can you wait until they even break dirt? Which do you think is cheaper? Stadium rental or stadium upkeep and future renovations? If you don't know, check the Sun Dome history. Since TSA gets a portion of the gate and the Glazers get all concessions and parking, rental verses upkeep is pretty much a wash. In fact,concessions alone would pay off financing and if done right, parking would pay for upkeep. The Sun Dome has served us well, has been well worth it's initial investment and previous upgrades, and will be more so after the current renovations. Millions in parking fees and concessions? Really?

That is old. They have since sold a good chunk of shares in Man United. Plus, I don't think that was ever really validated. Its from last year. And they didn't sell shares, they have to announce when they do that and never did, instead they leveraged their U.S. business holdings. That's what I am gathering from the BBC investigation.

As a Hillsborough County tax payer, I think I have reason to have my knickers bunched. They have us pay for the stadium in which they're team plays and then they build a stadium in New Orleans? Can you wait until they even break dirt? Which do you think is cheaper? Stadium rental or stadium upkeep and future renovations? If you don't know, check the Sun Dome history.

Since the stadium isn't at USF and is in New Orleans, you guys shouldn't get your knickers twisted.

The Glazers have a billion in debt at least. Doubt anything will happen here. Its not coincidence that they cut all the vets off the Bucs two years ago and in this past offseason only added a punter during free agency. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5259694

+1

Well this just reminds me of Saban's comment last year about the (low) academic quality of our recruits and how they would have not gotten on Alabama's squad, I am thinking it was over the Jamar Taylor coming here instead of there. I know of 1 of our players that was described by a teacher that knew him in high school as the nicest kid in the world but he could barely spell his name. But if you guys think its OK to admit borderline academic players, well...maybe this new UFL is where kids like this should play if they have talent but not the academics. In another thread someone pointed out they should not have an age limit in that new league and considering this topic on poor students, now I see why that is a good idea. I just don't know how 18-19-20 year olds are going to play with 13-15 year NFL vets who have lost their position. I guess it will be extreme Joes vs Pros.

Like I said last week, where do they have us in 2013???