JTrue

shame usf is not on tv to watch in vegas thats what happens when you don't play big time football ucf has passed us

What better way to drive home the fact that we don't need/want AW than to start a thread about him a year and half after he didn't sign, gloating about him not being a RFr. starting QB for a top 10 team with a likely first round pick ahead of him.

Austin 3:16 I'm gonna whip your ass!

Boom goes the dynamite.

I assume we still have the white but yes it appears the new green and gold helmets replaced the old. If I promise not to ***** about "The Team," can we give back the helmets? Both greens are unspeakable crimes, the C3PO isn't bad, but the previous gold being canned makes my cringe.

This title has more yardage than Mike White. That's a concern.

Sure, you were joking. Right. Dude, we all know better. Hahaha. And I didn't call this exact argument either.

What on earth are you talking about? Mike White says that he was being recruited under Holtz. I provided a link to direct quotes from White. What do you mean, shenanigans? Just go with it, Shadow. Consider whom you're talking to. He hasn't responded again while responding in other threads. I guess I provided him information he was previously unaware of. Shadow, what I was joking about (and you didn't pick up on) is that every time Mike White gets brought up, one side or the other (CWT v. Holtz) claims him as their recruit and is adamant that either Holtz did all the heavy lifting and CWT vutltured the signing or CWT is the savior and Holtz could never bring in a QB. This is probably the 5th time we've circled this topic. One of the threads actually devolved into a debate about the definition of a "recruit" and since White signed with CWT, he can not be declared a recruit of Holtz. Something, something, learn from the past...doomed to repeat it.

Remember this morning when I joked about this scenario and you didn't get it, Shadow? Good times.

My goal for the season is to be more positive. I'm trying it out.

Cool story, bro. Take it to your thread.

This Harlan addressed this topic in one of his interviews. He laughed and said something to the tune of there won't be anymore easy buyouts Its a fine line to walk. If the buyout is too small, the opponent walks with ease. If the buyout is too high, they don't sign the contract.

My list wasn't weighted equally and yes, timeouts fall under #1 in my opinion.

I have it on good authority that USF is going to try and win this game.

Alabama in 2015 seems a little too soon on our timeline of recovery to take a shot at them. If we're going to play Alabama, I want to have a fighting chance. I'd happily take a home and home with Kentucky for something like 2015 and 2018 and a home and home with K State. I don't see Oklahoma giving us a home game. If we want a 1 for 1, we're not getting it from Alabama or Oklahoma.

Things I liked about Skip Holtz: 1) His recruiting was no where near as bad as people say it is. 2) He seemed like a nice guy. 3) The white windbreaker looked nice and I bought one. 4) Coach Lou talking about USF. 5) APR went up. Things I did not like about Skip Holtz: 1) His ability to coach football at USF.

What on earth are you talking about? Mike White says that he was being recruited under Holtz. I provided a link to direct quotes from White. What do you mean, shenanigans? Just go with it, Shadow. Consider whom you're talking to. He hasn't responded again while responding in other threads. I guess I provided him information he was previously unaware of. Shadow, what I was joking about (and you didn't pick up on) is that every time Mike White gets brought up, one side or the other (CWT v. Holtz) claims him as their recruit and is adamant that either Holtz did all the heavy lifting and CWT vutltured the signing or CWT is the savior and Holtz could never bring in a QB. This is probably the 5th time we've circled this topic. One of the threads actually devolved into a debate about the definition of a "recruit" and since White signed with CWT, he can not be declared a recruit of Holtz. And as for my responding in other threads before this one, I don't make a list by time and respond to them in a queue. Also, this is retarded.

Yep. We need to build an OCS.

Keep in mind that is before the increase they will receive this year in the ACC. And people wonder why they were selected over USF. No one wonders why. If I were a betting man, I'd say its because they're better than us at any sport that uses a ball and more people watch their games.

What shenanigans are you trying to pull here, buddy?

I thought there was only one green one...the new one with the chrome U....am I right? Could be. Does that mean the C3PO is the only gold helmet, too? Anyone know if we have two greens, two golds, one white or did the new green and gold replace the old ones?

Yes. Louisville is more profitable than FSU by virtue of it forcing its students to give more of their money to athletics whether they like it or not. I will concede my loss in this argument and agree, the ACC chose Louisville partially on this strength.

I know. Good thing he signed Cliett and Chandler, Gudmundsson, Eatmon, Jozwiak, Eric Lee,, Andre Davis, etc. etc.. And White. We've covered this extensively. Holtz did not recruit White. CWT saw him, offered him, and White accepted all in one day.

Yes to the first statement, no to the second.http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/?fullsite=true Huh? your own data says otherwise. I added the profit column. It's equal to revenue - expenses + subsidy RANK SCHOOL TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL SUBSIDY % SUBSIDY profit 18 Louisville $96,193,330 $92,383,221 $10,914,122 11.35 $14,724,231 24 Florida State $91,382,441 $84,772,759 $7,859,734 8.6 $14,469,416 The statement was that Louisville was already more profitable. Louisville is what, $250,000 ahead and takes in $3,000,000 more from the students? Louisville athletics are doing a fantastic job. They earned every bit of their entrance into the ACC. They can hold their own with anyone in the conference on the basketball court and their football team is in the upper tier. Their other athletics are solid across the board with their baseball team making huge strides recently. They are not more profitable than FSU already. Considering FSU takes in $15+ million more in TV revenue, UL will be ahead of them very soon They very well could. But that wasn't the statement.

Yes to the first statement, no to the second. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/?fullsite=true Huh? your own data says otherwise. I added the profit column. It's equal to revenue - expenses + subsidy RANK SCHOOL TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL SUBSIDY % SUBSIDY profit 18 Louisville $96,193,330 $92,383,221 $10,914,122 11.35 $14,724,231 24 Florida State $91,382,441 $84,772,759 $7,859,734 8.6 $14,469,416 The statement was that Louisville was already more profitable. Louisville is what, $250,000 ahead and takes in $3,000,000 more from the students? Louisville athletics are doing a fantastic job. They earned every bit of their entrance into the ACC. They can hold their own with anyone in the conference on the basketball court and their football team is in the upper tier. Their other athletics are solid across the board with their baseball team making huge strides recently. They are not more profitable than FSU already.