bullsbucsfan426

16 minutes ago, Bull Nut said:

Isn't a full ride enough for these kids? Student debt is a massive problem and graduating with ZERO puts them way ahead financially than the average student. 

No it's not. These guys are working 16 hours a day between practice and studies, so no, a scholarship worth at most 16k a year is not enough. Let's not forget that they will face potential injury issues down the road that the average student won't have to face. 

I fully approve of this model, these students are legally adults, for the most part they had choices on where they could choose to play college football, so it's time to stop pretending that it's the school's name was the sole reason they are marketable. 

If anything my hope is that this will increase competition for the starting 22 as only those who are regularly on the field will be able to sign marketing deals. People would be much more likely if a product was marketed by Quinton Flowers or Rodney Adams rather than say, DeAngelo Antoine. 

I noticed that when BB came in the second half they immediately started with quick release plays (and I think they did the same with McCloud). There's no perfect cure-all, but it would at least get the offense moving and help with confidence. I don't want to hear the word "long-developing" for the rest of the year. Get the ball away from that bad o-line, keep the QBs from getting hit on literally every play, and then maybe we can get to 24 PPG (and with the better TOP numbers, perhaps our defense is able to do enough to get us a few wins). There's no other solution here. 

As far as new coach hires, the field is just too wide open right now but it has to be someone with Florida ties. I don't know if Bill Clark would consider USF, he's got a good thing going at UAB, but I personally believe he's a pretty special coach. You take a team that hasn't played a live game in two years and lead them to an 8 win season? Color me impressed. I think if you offered him $2.5M you could make him move, but not at $2M-he's making $1.7 at UAB and there's obvious institutional and fan support there. 

The strong state program right now is UF, but I haven't seen enough from them on either side of the ball to say either coordinator is the one yet. 

Here's one no one has mentioned yet: Steve Ensminger. LSU is currently the #1 offense in the country and they've scored big against everyone they've faced. He also was OC last year for LSU, and they scored, in order, 22 against #7 Auburn, 19 against #22 UF, 36 against #2 Georgia, 19 against #22 MIssissippi State, 0 against #1 Alabama, and 40 against #7 random directional school from Orlando. 

I would love to see more of what they do this year, and that donut against Alabama (which is less shocking than it seems given Alabama held Mississippi State to a shutout the next week and didn't start giving significant points until the playoffs) worries me, but he might be the guy. Downside is the guy is 61 and may not have the fire to want to try for a bigger job-we need someone with that fire and determination. 

I like Eliah Drinkwitz too but it may be too early as he's just four games into his first head coaching trip.  

1 hour ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

King George III was as bad a coach as CCS.

He was good enough to win several wars against Europe. 

5 hours ago, LewSFBulls said:

Reach into the IPF savings and can him. No choice, he absolutely has to go.

Wish we could, but those funds are considered restricted given the specified purpose they were donated for. 

7 minutes ago, usfgrad84 said:

If we can’t afford his buyout then force him to can BJM and Bell and hire 2 big time, proven coordinators with one of the the HC In waiting that is the real HC.  

We are going to have to spend money on something or someone. Either that or dip into some of the cash for the IPF because I can’t see more cash being raised for that or any other related program or facility with this mess going on.  

There is no sign of this disaster turning around anytime soon.  

 

There's no one available this time of year and let's face it, the tone is set from the top-and the top (CCS), lacks energy, ambition, and creativity for motivating and developing young men into winners and successful men. At least CWT left with a team ready to win and help build the program to higher heights. 

24 minutes ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

This is logical.

However I think CCS knows this is the end of the line for him so is gonna hang on for the full more than set for life buyout.

He wants to teach our student athletes about how to live a great life? The  only thing he's teaching right now is that incompetence is rewarded by becoming a millionaire for doing nothing and having zero integrity by doing the right thing and resigning. 

How much would a plane and banner cost? 

6 minutes ago, Azmodi said:

My question for you is; Why are you watching guys twerk?

My question for you is:

Why are you watching Deadpool poledance? 

22 hours ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Which one of those is America's rear?

1 hour ago, bullsfan27 said:

They just need to force the NBA and NFL to set up minor league systems like MLB does and most of these problems would be solved but as long as colleges will do it, the NBA and NFL won't change anything

The interesting thing I see about this, is that most players good enough to be a 1 and done in college basketball could also go play abroad and start making money immediately, and there's nothing the NCAA or NBA could do to stop that. 

I don't see the system going away, because both colleges and the pro leagues have something to gain by requiring football players to wait three years (or 1 year for basketball) to be signed in their respective pro leagues. So the question is more about how we change it-especially in football. The top 50-100 basketball players graduating from high school in 2020 could deal a significant blow to NCAA basketball by announcing that they signed with a European team. The NBA might even prefer someone who decided to show maturity by taking care of business as a pro in Europe for a year. 

1 hour ago, Mike Stuben said:

The idea of a free market for high school athletes should scare all of us. 

When the Big Ten and SEC all offer volleyball players $100,000 signing bonuses in cash, we won't be very competitive. 

I am all for increasing the benefits to student athletes, but completely unregulated is scary and will widen the gap between the haves and have nots. 

Now at least the kids can consider things other than cash. Like if the school has a lazy river for them to soak in. 

I see your point. 

Would it change if such a benefit was capped? 

Also, how do you feel about allowing the students to sign their own marketing deals? 

1 hour ago, BDYZR said:

Simple answer - IT IS THE RULE.

I'm not saying the rule is right or wrong, I am saying simply that they broke the rules.

That argument has been used time and time again by the ruling classes of the world through history. Rules are not and should not be the guidance on whether something is right or wrong. 

If Congress woke up tomorrow and made a law banning US permanent residents from working any job but food service in a fast food restaurant and requiring compliance in the form of monthly testimonials signed by their boss, would such a rule be moral? 

Following the NCAA basketball scandal, and in particular what happened with Bill Self and Kansas this week, I ask: 

Is it actually wrong for the families, as well as players, to seek payments for signing with a specific school?

If this was the NBA, any European league, or frankly any professional league or business in general, we would not. Salary and compensation is part and parcel of attracting high quality talent to any business. 

Payments influencing basketball players to sign with a specific NCAA team are illegal. yet if I signed a $50,000 signing bonus to work for Deloitte and Touche, Delta, or the Denver Broncos, it would merely be seen as them recognizing my value as an employee. WHY is it allowed in one industry, but not another? Or is it simply the NCAA on a power trip?

The charge against Kansas is "lack of institutional control". Control over what? Young men who are legally adults? Since when were adults something that needed to be controlled? This isn't Mississippi in 1850. It's the 21st Century. 

The charge of Bill Self is "head coach responsibility". Implying that by ensuring his players were financially secure, Bill Self was irresponsible. 

That said, I can see the other side of things too, and it's a worthy discussion IMO. 

In favor of allowing players to get payments from third parties for signing with schools

Obeys the laws of the free market. 

Could decrease the cost of student athletes to a program since the athletic program isn't footing the entire bill

Gives them their first state of independence as an adult, with responsible, mature adults who in many cases have achieved some significant degree of personal fame and financial success to guide them. 

Increases inter-team competition since everyone will work harder to start so they can gain visibility for marketing contracts. 

Relieves athletic departments of a significant portion of their compliance burden, reducing costs. 

In favor of keeping it as it is

Prevents the playing field from being even more lopsided; teams in power 5 conferences will have a lot bigger donors (especially businesses) who can pay more than teams in the G5. Could also make this argument in urban schools vs college towns (favors urban schools). 

Signing third party endorsement contracts could be a distraction from school, practice, and games, a schedule which is already heavy and difficult as it is. 

Could create resentment between teammates because one player has more endorsement deals and money than another. 

Agency problem-a star student-athlete who has a lot of big local marketing contracts could gain power over the athletic program because of the power of those businesses and their monetary importance to a college sports program. 

Major apparel companies will essentially gain power over college athletic programs, pushing student-athletes to where they will provide the best ROI for the company, rather than what would be best for the student athlete and their lives as a whole. 

I would love to hear your views! Just so mine are out there, I am in favor of letting student athletes sign marketing contracts with companies as long as that company is not in competition with a program sponsor. For example, if Jordan McCloud wanted to sign a deal with Pepsi, it shouldn't be allowed since USF works with Coca-Cola, but if he wanted to sign a deal with Burger King, it's okay since they don't compete head to head with Hooters. 

It's way too early to say, but I'm viewing this year like 2015. We have a lot of young talent who is still in development stage, there are good points on the team (and I would rate the defense as one of them), and while the schedule is tough there's a path forward. 

The OL problems are going to define the season unfortunately. One thing I liked last night is that when Bell realized he needed to settle his team down and get the ball moving, he went to the run and got the OL settled down a bit. They could afford to do that against the likes of SC State and it got the offense moving, which was important. 

I suspect that the offense is going to be watered down a bit further and I don't  have an issue with that. I want McCloud to cook, but too many slow developing plays will get him killed in the pocket, so going with some quick shots will protect him and help keep the offense on schedule. Bell and Darveau need to select a starting 5 OL and stick with them all season long, chopping and changing will hold back chemistry and confidence building for the OL. 

I know people are terrified that UCF will destroy us. Who wouldn't be? They're looking like a play off team, they destroyed everyone on their schedule last year and now their QB situation is much better than it was last year and they're destroying everyone again. Temple is no slouch either, they have a strong defense and they are doing what they do every year, be the team everyone hates to play. But we have to remember that if the team develops, then we will be in a position to compete with UC, Temple, and UCF at the end of the season and that's all anyone can ask for. Our team was no better last year and we were leading UC and Temple at the half. 

This offense is all about chemistry. I don't know if we can beat SMU (they really are good this year), but two weeks to practice and get better will certainly help. I'm still ticked about GT, having that win would have been a huge confidence builder and gotten us one game closer to a bowl. 

11 minutes ago, Grateful Dad said:

The rest is deleted due to referring to the past. 

Apparently that's a Bozo no-no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

父さんはひどい。踞尾が楽しい。

3 minutes ago, hm101 said:

Bunch of downers here.

This is a huge boost for the team. Did you see how they actually looked like they were having fun... they were balling... and this is an FCS opponent worrh respecting. No matter how you slice it 8 turnovers is not normal. It's a job well done. 

Thank you. If the team is having fun, then they will play better. 

Perhaps even bigger than that is that we had zero turnovers tonight. 

2 minutes ago, Gismo said:

Is that a record?

The fumbles are a record, but there were some ridiculous defensive performances in 2007. I think we had like 8 against WVU. 

The defense seems adept at getting them. I get that it's FCS but 6 turnovers is nothing to sneeze at. 

Perhaps this team's identity is a turnover forcing team that gives a developing offense opportunities to score on short fields. I hope that's the case. 

11 minutes ago, usfgrad84 said:

I agree totally. This offense does not look dynamic. It will be interesting to see them play against a FBS defense. 

We've already see them play FBS defenses twice. Even had we gotten that TD last week against GT, 17 points is nothing to write home about. 

I'm wondering how good SMU's defense is. They've allowed 57 points in two games against decent G5 schools, but they're holding a bad Texas State team to just three points as we speak. If the offense can get its legs under it the next two weeks, we have a decent shot. I appreciate that Bell simplified it a bit to get McCloud going. 

That offense though will be trouble in two weeks. 

8 minutes ago, Bulls On Parade said:

There coach is going to get hired away this season..he has the offense looking as good if not better than Frost.

And knowing them, they'll go right back and hire yet another hot and up coming OC to keep building that program. 

Safe is death. We're down on the mat and the count is happening right now, USF's future as a football program literally rests on this year and it's in the hands of a guy who doesn't play to win. 

13 minutes ago, WoDoS said:

Don't know if this has been posted before, if so admin can delete.. Just a view through not green and gold glasses..

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190905/anderson-how-manatee-school-district-hurt-fsu-football

 

Not sure if that's an FSU writer, but if so, the butthurt is hilarious. 

7 minutes ago, mj796 said:

Don't assume there are only two CPAs on this board;)

Touche. Just speaking from my own perspective. 

19 minutes ago, Bull Dozer said:

Yes this is common practice for universities to protect themselves from public records laws and limit damages in liability cases. 

1 hour ago, TheAccountant said:

The terms surrounding the Strong contract seem sketchy to me at best. These articles lead one to believe that Harlan signed CCS with one contract through the University, which would be subject to the Sunshine Law (and therefore public record) and then turned around and had him agree to a second contract through the University's private foundation that is not subject to the Sunshine Law (and therefore not public record). Is this common practice at other Universities? Typically if someone does something to try to get around public disclosure, it is something they shouldn't be doing. It would be interesting to see if the Board of Trustees (BOT) were wise to this agreement.

**Warning** about to bore you with financial information...

As of 6/30/2017 the Foundation has a total of $595,126,655 in net assets, however $224,788,997 of that is temporarily restricted (must be held for a certain amount of time or spent on a donor-specified purpose) and $356,817,473 is permanently restricted (aka endowments, which are typically invested and cannot be spent). That only leaves around $13,520,185 in unrestricted net assets (funds can be spent on whatever the Board of Trustees approves).  Of the $13.5m unrestricted net assets, $9,732,783 is tied up in land, building, and equipment. This means that at best, the Foundation only has around $3,787,402 of truly unrestricted net assets that could be spent on a CCS buyout. So if his buyout truly is $7.5m as has been floated around this forum, we are most likely going to be stuck with him unless another school takes him off of our hands (not likely). 

 

USF Foundation 6/30/2017 Fiscal Year Form 990

Thinking here as the other CPA on this board-

There's no guarantee that his contract isn't part of the temporarily restricted assets. Given the arms race in college football, I wouldn't be shocked if fundraising to endow or raise money for coaching positions is part of the deal. Seeing as they have to revise the accounting every year for a lower buyout, I could have seen them releasing temporarily restricted net assets every year to lower the liability. 

29 minutes ago, Gismo said:

I don’t understand why FSU is so high on the list. Honestly I’d place them behind UCF. Is it simply because they have a law school? I’ll give them that they do have some top behavioral science / psychology research. 

They were hovering around the low 100s previously. Whatever was done plus their own work massively benefited them. It really doesn't matter as I suspect we will catch them within a decade. They do have a more traditional (read: less low risk) student population. I personally don't buy that they're as good academically as Miami. 

8 minutes ago, BullAdrian said:

If so, then CCS job is safe. lol

He could go 6-7 and still get Andy Levined. Greg Ward made a huge leap under Tom Herman.