Ghostbuster

55k in awards...quick unite as a fan base and make a pact to distribute the earnings to NIL worthy players

2 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

I just completed this quiz.
 

• My Score
  66/100
• My Time
  126 seconds

 

I goofed on a pair trying to go fast...

1 minute ago, Sk00b said:

Can't wait till next week. They are gonna hang more than 64 on us. 

Can we still use COVID as an excuse to get out of games?

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

If nil can get the number one recruit in the nation to Jackson State NIL will get us anyone we are able and willing to write a bigger check to than their next best options. 

Yes but at a certain point we will be competing with people at our same NIL level who *also* have the facilities we lack.

Unless the plan is to stay in the G5 forever.

Skip the 300 million on a stadium and figure out how to play the NIL game with that.  But keep the 30 million for a dedicated facility that can also help us recruit at the same level we want to be at.  That way when NIL is a wash between offers, we are still at the table.

Plus (and I think nobody mentions it but they should) how long will this this era of the NIL last?  If the fans get more and more jaded by all the money and tune out...you can bet espn and it's lobbyists will figure out a way to regulate things.  That or maybe enough senators get pissed that their alma matters aren't getting big NIL deals and they decide to reel it in.

8 minutes ago, puc86 said:

It definitely has a purpose but if someone offered me $100k more to scrap my office for a cardboard box I’d figure it out. Ultimately the only people that will take no nil money are the people that have no nil offers and I don’t think them getting in 10 more practices is going to be a difference maker. If we have the money for both than great but since it seems like we do not the money spent on that would be better spent on players than a Twitter Headquarters. 

Realistically we will still be competing among G5 schools in a similar boat as us.  And that *will* include recruits without NIL offers.  No different than the past when we couldn't snag 4 &5 star players, we still have to entice better players.

And I'm just saying we already let UCF pass us by with facilities and recruiting advantages...let's not allow FAU to come along and say "hey we're gonna be the best of the rest" and outspend us on tangible facilities that will last longer than NIL money spent for 3 years of service.

47 minutes ago, puc86 said:

So should we try to continue to spend on things that everyone continues to point out are of zero value in today’s world or should we be grateful for a reduced budget and the ability to pivot any and all funds into the one thing that continually is pointed out as the only difference maker between success and failure? Cheap coaches + cheap rent in a stadium better than we can build = more money to throw at NIL and it would be even better if we could sell the IPF for scrap and get back all the money wasted on paying people to fail at coaching as well as the money wasted on paying them to stop failing at coaching.

I was with you until you said the IPF should be scrapped.  That legitimately has a purpose.  In freaking Florida we need a way to practice during storms.  Just embarrassing for us not to have it.

Hell I would argue the dedicated football facility would be still be worthwhile even as the immediate ROI is not as great as NIL.  If you have a recruit deciding between two schools with comparable NILs, but one has nicer facilities that the other straight up doesn't have....who is he going to pick?  

The stadium on the other hand, that's a downgrade going from RayJay to OCS.  So I'm fine skipping it.

14 hours ago, flsportsfan83 said:

Thought we would wait to be good before raising prices.

These buyouts aren't gonna pay for themselves 

Once SMU stops dropping passes they score consistently.

That's nice for Albritton, but I'd be trying to feed Battie the TD ball so he's happy and doesn't transfer out....

7 minutes ago, USF968 said:

We may be worse this week.

Oh contraire, we had a legit defensive stop this game.  More than we had at temple 

4 pass attempts in a row when running is your strength....woof.

Then of course smu goes and scores 

1 minute ago, Ricky the Bull said:

Tickets still available.  Would love to see them used!

Could use 1

Didn't see anyone post this yet...

5 minutes ago, thekidnapper said:

That all makes sense but why of all of our staff members did he get this opportunity? If it's just filling a void, why not give it to a former head coach like Chad Morris?

I heard a few explanations like 'as special teams coach he already works with both offense and defense' and 'dont want to distract other coaches with too much more responsibility'

I just don't think it's realistic to assume anything would make MK keep the current staff.  

Even if we win out, how do you sell enough fans/boosters on a coach part of a 4 win season?

If we had more wins this season or lost via shootouts (instead of blowouts), you might be able to say 'cjs was just too loyal to his new d coordinator...once we removed both the problem was fixed'.

Besides they're going to be trying to lock up a coach asap.  You can't say 'Well we want *you*...but only if our interim coach does not win out convincingly'

Stop making me feel feelings....

A new athletic director...

6 hours ago, slick1ru2 said:

 Or does it not matter how this team ends this season.

Definitely matters. 

If the season doesn't end with the Fowler Avenue collective taking our stud players to Bern's Steakhouse and Mons for a night to remember we could lose them to the transfer portal. 

Gotta get them some positive Tampa memories.

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

Oh for sure but to argue “welp I didn’t get the full season to give me an unfair advantage over every single other team in the entirety of college football and I only got more than most so that’s not fair and there is no reason to expect me to accomplish a single thing in the time I did get but I promise that the practices that mattered were the ones that were missed same with the games not a thing improved but with a few more just imagine how much more we could not improve?” Is insane. 

It is insane.  Thankfully you are the only one to mention that strawman.  I'm glad you didn't fall for the argument you made up.

I specifically said better coaches could have handled COVID and other obstacles better.  The fact that you found someone who has since won 'coach of the year' and succeeded during COVID doesn't disprove my original point the way you think...

It is possible for both of these to be true:

'first time coaches were impacted more by COVID and had a tougher time'

'great coaches can succeed despite adversity'

Which again WAS MY ENTIRE POINT...you are getting sooooo hung up on just one of the pieces of adversity I mentioned.  Scott was not a great coach so he could not overcome the adversity. QED.  

23 hours ago, puc86 said:

Most of these aren’t exactly what I was looking for, 

(and no it’s absolutely not Covid and that’s a horrible answer that flies in the face of every team facing that hardship and plenty of people managing to find success in the face of a new challenge).

Well first off if you're looking for an answer you already agree with it means you suffer from confirmation bias.

Second COVID was not my *sole* answer and even as a partial explanation for the lack of on field success it is not "horrible" as you said.  Here's the facts:

- August 12 2020 TBTimes article says: Tuesday morning’s workout (in shorts, helmets and shoulder pads) was the team’s first in any kind of pads since Scott took over.

- September 12 2020 was the first game.

(Edit I can't get normal text font back after pasting from times article..ugggh)

So no practice, no seeing what the players can do until 1 month prior to your first game.  Yes everyone dealt with COVID, but only the new hires in that off-season were held back by having just a single month to evaluate their *entire team* in person.  

If you fail to acknowledge that coaches need to see their players actually practice, and all new hires for 2020 would have had less time (compared to coaches who had seen returning players before)...then that is another bias you are simply refusing to acknowledge. 

Now it's not a blank check for 3 years of terrible results.  But you asked how did it go so wrong and my entire thesis is that a first time head coach was a handicap in and of itself ; AND THEN there were multiple external factors that challenged him and his lack of experience; AND THEN there was his awful game day prep, adjustments, time management, 4th down elections, etc etc.  

You put it all together and you have 1 FBS win in 3 years.

Or you can just see the word "COVID", get triggered and say "everyone dealt with it equally" (which is wrong) and end up wondering why you can't explain the historically bad results.

It's weird when I read this...I honestly felt nothing at first.  I expected to be relieved or something. 

Then I just kinda felt sad that things went this way.

I don't like "starting over" but it also doesn't feel like that because we never got started with this coach...bleh. 

Another "most important hire in our history coming up"...God help us.

4 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

Her statement would be "I trust that Michael Kelly will do what is in the best interest of athletics." 

First, consider that athletics had a record year in fundraising, under the leadership of Michael Kelly.  PRL and BOT aren't going to force him to do anything he doesn't want to do.

---------------

If you delay the OCS process AT ALL, you might as well fold it up completely and accept the fact that USF will be no better than Temple.

--------------------

First off, why does the AD get 100% credit for records in fundraising.  We graduate new alumni every single year.  And every single year another alumni gets older and reaches the point of being able to comfortably part with more of their money.  For the record I've never taken an athletic director into consideration when donating....does anyone else?  Heck if you read the boards you'd have to think the die-est of the die hards are donating in spite of his efforts.

Second, why do so many put the stadium on such a big pedastool?  I keep seeing tweets 'might as well fold if we back out now'.  Do I need to break out the list of schools that succeed in college football without on campus stadiums?  Do I need to point out all of our previous successes were accomplished without one? 

Sure a stadium *would* have been kinda neat 10 or more years ago when construction prices weren't at their absolute highest point in history due to global supply chain issues and the cost of financing wasn't skyrocketing from increasing interest rates.  But we're past the point of stadiums being a huge recruitment advantage.  This is the NIL world and if you have a winless team in a stadium people won't show up no matter where it's located.

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

So my question is if you have now come to the conclusion that things aren’t going to work out, what do you think went wrong and when because it’s probably unlikely that the issue actually presented itself at the very beginning and I just got “lucky” based on my personal biases.

Ignoring institutional problems which I fully believe would handicap any hire...I still think you *can* make the argument it was just wrong from the beginning.  

We went with a first time head coach that had to deal with COVID, NIL, conference realignment, NCAA violation enforcement, and of course insane injuries this year.  (What else did I forget?)

A better, more experienced coach could have probably performed better while going through all that adversity...but what can you expect from a first timer?  (Obviously more than the 1 FBS win, but a newbie was probably going to have a learning curve/ aka more losses *anyways*)

To go from a developing dynasty in Clemson with great facilities, recruits, fan support, etc to a reeling program like USF would be tough for anyone.  Scott just apparently wasn't the man for the job.  And again...I can't blame him too too much because it's tough, but *that's the job*. 

Put it this way...if you need to hire someone who is expected to work overtime and be on call 24/7, both the employer and employee have to be aware it's a tough job.  If the employee seems burnt out by week 2...you don't give them an extension and hope they can adjust.  You find a better fit, someone who can survive in that environment. 

There's more than 1 option out there and it's perfectly fine to move on when it's not working.