sloan1919

Would love to see him go for the dumb decision to extend Holtz contract, which has made it more difficult to fire him!

Definitely a hasty ill conceived decision.

What does USF get for bowl appearances? If that is more that 500k we have the money.

The second half is also on youtube. Post game with Fitch and Cosh as well.

And we still don't have an interception from our defense ...

What defense?

Can we also fire whoever does the USF tv commercials? Just saying..

Bulls247 â€@Bulls247

This is the first time Holtz has really emphasized "changes" after a loss. I get the feeling he was talking about coaching.

Feels like Cosh is a goner come tomorrow.

BJ is what kept us in this game. Game was on Cosh and that great D he has put together.

South Florida is the first team this season to blow a halftime lead of at least 20 points. The last team to do so was Ohio in last year's MAC Championship Game.

I agree with the ESPN announcer.

1) Orangemen

2) 24-17

3) Lamar

4) Davis

5) 310

I was ok with his call. It's really dependent on what you expect from your defense. He expected to allow one more score, hoping it was a field goal... I can't question him much on that.

Exactly. He bet the house on it. Giving up a FG to UL is the only scenario that his decision makes sense. In every other scenario he would have been indifferent if he didn't get the 2 points. If he wanted to win and not tie, going for 2 is the correct decision if you believe in math.

The math is not in Skippers favor on this one. There are basically 3 outcomes:

1) UL scores a field goal

2) UL scores a TD

3) UL doesn't score

if each situation happens and we kicked the PAT (scenario 1)

1) 17 - 24 need 1 TD/PAT to tie.

2) 17 - 28 need 2 TDs to lead.

3) 17 - 21 need 1 TD to lead.

If we went for the 2 and didn't get it (scenario 2)

1) 16 - 24 need 1 TD&2PC to tie.

2) 16 - 28 need 2 TDs to lead.

3) 16 - 21 need 1 TD to lead.

If we went for 2 and got it (scenario 3)

1) 18 - 24 need 1 TD/PAT to lead.

2) 18 - 28 need 1 TD/PAT & FG to tie.

3) 18 - 12 need FG to tie.

In only outcome #1 does Skipper's logic make any sense. Outcome #2 is what actually happened. The only advantage he gets by taking scenario 1 over scenario 2 is that he doesn't have to make a 2pt conversion to tie BUT at this point he has had 2 shots at the 2PC not 1! Meaning that he is giving up ALL the upside of scenario 3 by betting he doesn't get the 2pt conversion at least once in 2 tries. If 2PCs have a 40% success rate there is a 64% he gets it at least 1 time in the two attempts. So basically there is a lot of upside very little downside and there is a 64% chance that he gets out of the downside should the worst happen. This is why the chart says what it says, this is why every coach from high-school to the NFL has a "go for 2 chart".

No, it is not nearly as predictable as you think it is. There are a ton of other possibilities - for example, in none of your scenarios do you raise the possibility of Louisville missing the extra point, but that's exactly what happened. There could be a safety. A defensive touchdown on the ensuing kickoff. Who knows? There were still eight minutes left, a lot could and did happen.

And your description of what happens if Louisville gets a touchdown is flawed. If Louisville got a touchdown and extra point to get to 28, it wouldn't matter if USF took the two or one - if anything, it is better to take the one. In both cases, USF would need to score a field goal and another touchdown but would need only one two-point conversion. They could take that on the first touchdown, but then if they miss, that means they and the Louisville defense KNOW they have to have two more touchdowns. Taking the one means 11 more points would be needed, leaving a field goal in play. I have always have heard it argued by coaches and analysts that you put the two off till last for this very reason.

And of course, all of this we only know via hindsight. At the moment, all Holtz knew was that there was no reason to assume Louisville's offense wasn't going to score again, so there's no guarantee that getting within a field goal right at that moment would even mean anything, so he initially decided to take the free point. Obviously a yard and a half was enough to change his mind, but USF would have had the lead in the exact same scenario at the end, just leading by one instead of two, which changes nothing.

You forgot the possibilty that Louisville forfeited the game. Seriously, I understand there are other possibilties but if they occur some small percentage of the time that the coach can't plan for them. PATs are like 98% in college, the assumption is always 7 not 6. Just because it happened (we did block the PAT) doesn't mean that it is a good idea to plan on such a thing happening. Same with a safety, I have no idea the odds of it occuring but it's much much lower than the 3 possibilities that I named. Notice in my assumptions I give Louisville 7 for a TD, which is the same assumption that every "go for 2 chart" is based.

And your description of what happens if Louisville gets a touchdown is flawed. If Louisville got a touchdown and extra point to get to 28, it wouldn't matter if USF took the two or one - if anything, it is better to take the one. In both cases

I'm not following you here. You would be down either 10,11, or 12. Being down 10 is ideal (got the 2PC), but with so little time on the clock being down 11 or 12 either puts me in a situation where I need 2 TDs or 1TD/2PC and FG which means I'm back to the same thing I'm trying to avoid (going for the 2PC) so I'm really no better off. Unless you are saying that UL knowing that I have to get 2 TDs vs 1TD/2PC/FG would cause them to play a different type of D that would be to USF's advantage?

The math is not in Skippers favor on this one. There are basically 3 outcomes:

1) UL scores a field goal

2) UL scores a TD

3) UL doesn't score

if each situation happens and we kicked the PAT (scenario 1)

1) 17 - 24 need 1 TD/PAT to tie.

2) 17 - 28 need 2 TDs to lead.

3) 17 - 21 need 1 TD to lead.

If we went for the 2 and didn't get it (scenario 2)

1) 16 - 24 need 1 TD&2PC to tie.

2) 16 - 28 need 2 TDs to lead.

3) 16 - 21 need 1 TD to lead.

If we went for 2 and got it (scenario 3)

1) 18 - 24 need 1 TD/PAT to lead.

2) 18 - 28 need 1 TD/PAT & FG to tie.

3) 18 - 12 need FG to tie.

In only outcome #1 does Skipper's logic make any sense. Outcome #2 is what actually happened. The only advantage he gets by taking scenario 1 over scenario 2 is that he doesn't have to make a 2pt conversion to tie BUT at this point he has had 2 shots at the 2PC not 1! Meaning that he is giving up ALL the upside of scenario 3 by betting he doesn't get the 2pt conversion at least once in 2 tries. If 2PCs have a 40% success rate there is a 64% he gets it at least 1 time in the two attempts. So basically there is a lot of upside very little downside and there is a 64% chance that he gets out of the downside should the worst happen. This is why the chart says what it says, this is why every coach from high-school to the NFL has a "go for 2 chart".

Skipper explains why he didn't use the go for 2 chart.

http://tampabay.sbnation.com/usf-bulls-news/2012/10/23/3543684/usf-skip-holtz-louisville-two-point-conversion

Congrats!

UCF is 43 not 42. Let's not give those guys anything they haven't earned. LOL

If we as fans are this concerned about Skipper's coaching ability, what are the parents thinking when they agree to place their child's NFL dreams in Skip Holtz hands? Assuming you felt your kid had a shot at playing at the next level, would you let your child play for a Skip Holtz coached team?

I read this losers post again and it is just pathetic. How many NFL players come from small schools you have never heard of, but thats not even the point. Do you really think an NFL scout says hey they are 2-5 so they must not have any NFL talent or he looks at a player ans judges him based on the teams record. Just pathetic.

Sorry that the question offended some of you, this was not my intention. I do feel that exceptional talent stands out even on a team with a losing record. But I also feel that a big part of standing out is having a coach who puts his players in a position to develop and display thier natural talent, not forcing them to be something they are not. IMHO Skip has not been able to do that with his current players which was the motivation for the question.

If we as fans are this concerned about Skipper's coaching ability, what are the parents thinking when they agree to place their child's NFL dreams in Skip Holtz hands? Assuming you felt your kid had a shot at playing at the next level, would you let your child play for a Skip Holtz coached team?

If that were the situation I would keep Holtz get the OCS but I would no longer let Holtz choose his DC & OC. The OC or DC would get a somewhat promised HC job after Holtz's contract expired. I would also elevate their status to where they had some authority shoudl they disagree with Holtz.

Stop buying tickets. Money talks.

We have the talent not the coaching

This.

1) Cards

2) 34-10 (2nd string comes in early 4th)

3) Daniels

4) Mitchell

5) 212

Hopefully this includes the coaches. We need some depth at DC & HC.

A quick peruse of the 1st page today, and everyone is on the "FIRE EVERYONE THEY'RE ALL THE WORST COACHES IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL" bandwagon.

I think that 2007 was the worst thing that could happen to this program.

Expectations were raised SO high and were completely unrealistic. Since that 5-0 start, fans and media alike have been trying to put USF back on that level, when the players on the field have not peformed at the level to warrant it..........not even close. They've competed at the level that their talent and coaching were capable of, which is not what fans and media expected, and therefore created a huge, fake sense of disappointment.

The fans and media following this program have been watching FSU, UF, and UM play at such an elite level for such a long period of time, that it has become.....normal. USF football is proof that it is NOT normal and it is NOT easy to reach that level, much less maintain it. It's a huge uphill climb to reach that level, and you must. be. patient. when. climbing. that. mountain.

- We've never had a top level recruiting class, so how does anyone expect to have a championship level team?

- We've never had a 2nd string that pushed the 1st string for playing time, so how does anyone expect to be able to withstand injuries over a long season?

- We've never had the money to spend on top level assistant(and head) coaching, so how does anyone expect individual players, individual groups of players, and the entire team to be coached and perform in a smart, efficient, mistake-free way?

- We've never had an truly unstoppable, marquee player, on either side of the ball, who could take over a football game.

- We've ony had 1 Quarterback in the history of the program, and it's no coincidence that he led our team to it's best season.

What needs to be done to "fix" the apparent problems? I don't know. How it needs to be handled though, is obvious to me: patience.

You are reframing the argument.

Actual argument: Skip Holtz has USF football regressing instead of progressing forward.

Your reframed argument: USF fans are upset they are not performing at elite levels.

Most are not upset about the amount of forward progress but the fact that we are regressing. Your post flat out ignores the backward movement of the team from a consistently bowl eligible team to a team that struggles to make the post season.

The "do over" gods smiled upon us?