Ghostbuster

I am no apologist for MK by any means; I've said many times I didn't care for the Jeff Scott hire and I still don't. HOWEVER, Michael Kelly is the literally the only one to make progress on the football facilities that are 15 years overdue: an IPF and OCS. So he absolutely is the best in that particular category, which coincidentally is something that P5s seem to have as a very low bar of entry, for applicants. Big12: "Do you invest in your own product? No? Then why should we?" Nobody thinks the on the field/court results are good enough. "tHeN wHy ThE eXtEnSiOnS?!?!" I hear ppl ready to yell. To lock in costs so you have a known quantity when you bust out your spreadsheet and plan for the next investments of football. Football is the single most important key to unlocking success everywhere. Basketball (and every other sport for that matter) can crap the bed for all I care because it's never bringing us media money that will sustain athletics overall. Football can. So again, Michael Kelly is the only one proven to execute on a plan that gives a guaranteed 100% return on investment for football. What I mean by that, is while replacing coaches who do bad is within his control, it is not 100% guaranteed to improve anything. Ffs look at Scott *as* an example of that. But us having facilities that we need is guaranteed to be better than us not having them.

This is the quality content we can all get behind, in these trying times.

Tubthumping At this point I think every USF fan has to identify with "I get knocked down, but I get up again, you ain't ever gonna keep me down"

Those were good coaches and they had (each at some point) the advantage of being in an auto qualifying BCS league...unlike some of our (then lower) Florida peers. But we lost that singular advantage shortly into Tags' tenure, and were left competing with everyone else who *had* upgraded their programs. I understand but the Sun Dome was already there. I graduated there, attended career fairs there and even saw comedy acts there...all before the renovation. Unless the Yeungling Center naming rights and extra events (that would not otherwise have come pre-reno) are bringing in millions per year (as a better football tv deal could), then it's not maximizing your return. Not the way investing in an entirely new set of football buildings could have. The article I read said 70 million in facilities upgrades occurred on Woolard's watch, but 36 million was singled out as *just* for the Sun Dome. The Muma center still gets done in my hypothetical scenario of just touching the Sun Dome money.

Without football money there isn't going to be a lot of athletic programs for our director to worry about. And I just looked it up, we spent 36 million in 2011/2012 dollars renovating the Sun Dome. Considering we average a couple thousand fans *when the team is good* and the fact that football (not bball) drives tv deals and realignment... that's a bad return on investment. Now think about football and how in 2017 we wanted to spend 40 million for the IPF *and* football facility. That went nowhere until 2021 when we only managed to get the IPF part going (football only facility still a TBD). Due to our lack of investment our recruiting has tanked, our on field performance has tanked, and coincidentally we have missed out on realignment again because no one wants to watch us on tv. You invest that 36 million in football back in 2012 instead of basketball and I bet USF has a better decade and better shot at getting the Big12 nod (and payday) over UCF. So yeah I mean you can be pedantic about the job title or realistic about what moves the needle in the college landscape, and it's football. And Woolard utterly failed football/athletics when it mattered most in our history.

Yeah I know the Sun Dome was upgraded under his watch, but how much money can basketball/other sports bring in compared to football? To me, that's a huge the opportunity cost....not investing in the right things.

If you count Athletic Directors, Doug Woolard's extension is easily the worst. He completely failed to build the football program when it mattered most. We're sitting here arguing about a 3-18 extension, for a coach in the AAC, because Woolard got an extension that made him "the fourth-highest paid athletic director out of the Big East's eight football schools." and instead of getting us an IPF, a stadium or positioned for the collapse of the Big East...he gave us this: "on the same day (as Woolard's extension) he signed an extension for football coach Skip Holtz". Which my god, in hindsight extending a coach who beat Notre Dame and Clemson and won CUSA championships/coach of year accolades seems *genius* compared to what we did a few weeks ago. At least this time though our AD recognizes the need for facilities. So that's what you have to focus on to feel better...

Let's break this down like a cardboard box....the normal context for a contract extension is "a job well done". And given that the (on field) results were so poor that's why the average person (who only views on field results) is at best confused and the optics are awful. The perception is he was rewarded for 3 wins over two years. Now based off the presser today, Kellys point of view is two fold 1) Scott has accomplishments and or explanations that warranted the extension (#1 transfer recruiting class, good fundraising, buy-in of Kelly's long term vision, lost year due to covid, new transfer rules, NIL, existing NCAA violations, good academic results) 2) Stability and alignment of athletics as a whole is more important than individual, short term evaluations (hence department wide extensions at same time, focus on coaches working thru new challenges like NIL as a whole, and [speculation on my part here] coaches defending each other on Twitter and showing up at each other's games) So I get it. Michael Kelly did not actually think "Durrrrr, 3-18 is good enough, here's a reward". BUT, and I cannot stress this enough, the objective reality is that wins and losses, like it or not, have been and always will be the primary driver of hirings and firings. So Kelly doesn't want to appear to be rewarding all those losses, but given the way the world works, he is. Proof by counter example: Suppose we continue having 2 win seasons for the next 5 years but Scott keeps delivering on all the other things Kelly likes (recruiting, fundraising, gpa/graduation rates, etc). Will Scott be fired? The answer is yes and you know it. So if the record is used to fire you, it's implicitly used to determine whether to retain you, and Kelly just decided to retain a 3-18 coach.... THUS people can accurately say "wow he was rewarded for 3-18" while Kelly and those that think like him can simultaneously say "well it was for a different reason" and you have a paradox. A Schrodinger's coach if you will, someone who was both rewarded and not rewarded for his win loss record.

Yes....and no. It also stings right now to know our bar is so low that we rewarded the results that we did. And having to hear that used as an attack from other Florida fanbases, after thinking it myself, is just a double whammy. But I'll manage.

I liked hearing Kelly talk and answer questions. Think he's got the right plan in general. I understand he wants to show a commitment to coaches who are buying into his approach, while also showing commitment and stability to other (big12) leagues. However nothing I heard convinced me that giving up our advantage on the CJS contract (still 3 years left) was needed. Just seems like 'a sign of good faith' on USFs part that will always appear bad from the outside because you're rewarding the most visible failure (on field results) of the most visible sport (football). If he wanted a press conference to say USF will have coaching stability through 2023 (which go check Twitter/news outlets, that's the headline USF is promoting), he still could have done that without the football extension. Oh well I'll try to trust the process and stop whining about it for now.... but oof it's a tough pill to swallow.

Funny enough I can actually understand getting him an extension because his contract was up next year and we finally have football facilities improvements under his watch (in addition to the other sports' achievements highlighted in the article). But I still just can't understand/like the bulk extensions he in turn gave out because there was no such contract time crunch in Scott's case, nor a massive achievement to point to in his first two years.

Sterling Gilbert got promoted to head coach at a lower level, then got a job as an OC coordinator at a P5. Doesn't mean he's good. Our former OC I'm ambivalent about but he had success with Lane Kiffen at FAU. Makes sense for Lane to want him back. Are you not a fan of the Sam's Club/Costco approach? Maybe we got a discount for buying in bulk.

Buried in this story was the plan for the next locker room renovation. Surprised no one else caught it.

Depends, did they ever extend a first time head coach with a 3-19 record, when he still had 3 years to spare? How bout a coach in year two, with a 5-7 record? If Baylor has a history of committing to unproven head coaches with a bad record, we're right on schedule.

Our last OC had - A reduced covid year in 2020 - Less than a full 'regular' year 2021 He didn't have two full years much less the 3 you're advocating. So any OC knows what type of leash they are on if they come here...all this extension does is tell our coach we appreciate the job he has done so far which is 3 wins and the loss of both coordinators after 2 years.

Gotta spend money to make money...(and not just on buyouts for ex-coaches)

If you are okay with Spencer being fired, then there's no reason you should be okay with a contract extension for the head coach now. Either 2ish seasons is enough to judge a coach or it's not. Either COVID and its aftermath, conference realignment, transfer portal rule changes, tough schedule, etc are all valid reasons for our bad record...or they're not. You can't say best is the standard, we need a need voice on defense.... and then turn right around and say 3 wins in two years earns you an extension. This rumor has to be nonsense.

Appreciate this response more than others I've heard questioning my fandom or implying I may just like being miserable. Just had a crisis of faith after a depressing loss and wanted some optimism.

The Bucs didn't get kicked down to the Arena Football league. And they still get a piece of the NFL revenue that allows them to bring in good players. To say nothing of how bad years are offset by draft day. So that comparison doesn't help me... And I understand the overall point of your post is, "you gotta just deal", but that's not the answer I was looking for. Was looking for hope.

Soo..... - The conference is falling apart. And if that isn't bad enough we are dragging it down with our record. - Speaking of our record...We're coming off 1 & 2 win seasons. - Team has no identity. Our defense was at the bottom of FBS until.... we fired the DC? Is that a fluke? Was UCF hurt that bad by injuries? Could people with 0 history of calling plays really do better than the guy our HC previously picked to run the show? How does that happen? And on offense....while we eventually showed some flashes, our QB really only ended up with a handful of TD passes. - No QB1. McClain *might* be good enough next year but there's no way in my mind he's good enough to be called starter without another QB competition...and this past year that competition resulted with a QB1 who only made it two games. - Manghams season was wasted. One less year for him to be part of a good team. - No sense that the coaching staff can call a good game when it's on the line. - Oh and we now have a losing record against UCF and probably will be unable to fix that anytime soon. What the heck are you guys telling yourself to remotely stay positive and interested? Because I need to hear it.

Feel robbed of pretty much the last 13 years of college football. As for tonight....You. Cannot. Take. A. Sack. There. So that's mostly on the QB but also on whoever calls the plays and failed to remind Timmy to throw it away. And we saw this time management crap in an earlier game this season (forget the exact game) when no one realized the clock stopped after Timmy got a first down, and we were in the last seconds of the first half. Even the **** head coach was walking off the field at the end of the play instead of realizing you could run to line of scrimmage and *try* to run a play. It was in fact the *REFS* who were the ones to tell everyone the game wasn't over and get back on the field (only to watch the time expire bc of confusion anyways) So idunno...I think the coaching is bad because they don't understand time management; that trait is transferred to the players which then leads to a loss like tonight. But whatever we have to ride it out, we need money for facilities not paying ex coaches to stay at home.

Is USF aware of this tactic? That could help us on more than just athletic hires....

I can't throw stones at our D coordinator tonight when the offense only manages 39 yards in a half. Plus the only score we have is because of the defense. Don't get me wrong, the body of work this whole year shows the D has been...well... exactly where it's ranked, at the bottom of FBS teams. But if we're complaining about anything tonight the offense is more of a problem for me.

We have to throw the ball to open up run game. They are way too prepared on D for runs and QB scrambles.

I don't see an onside or relying on defense working. Houston can move the ball if they want, and we can't do onsides