TallyBull

Thanks @The Sheriff. So bottom line, nothing changes as far as a 2026 opening date.

I can't open this article because I'm not subscribed, but maybe someone else can. https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2023/12/01/usf-stadium-contract-terminated.html

Because Deion has a strong personality and likes to project "swagger," people either love him or hate him. I'm not really a fan of his style, but I wouldn't have opposed him coaching at USF if it would have improved the program. But would it have? I think there are good arguments on both sides of that issue. We'll never know. I like what I see in Golesh so far. If he picks up a couple of trophies, rebuilds USF into a long-term desirable destination for coaches and players, and makes us attractive to a P5 conference, he will have done his job. Not much more you can ask for at the G5 level. While it's true Deion's record is skewed by the fact he's playing USC, Washington, etc., and not Memphis, Tulane, and SMU, people are more interested in wins than post-hoc rationalizations about the quality of the team's opponents. It's all too squishy and most people don't have time for that. If Colorado goes 4-8 and USF goes 8-4, all most people will remember or care about is how Colorado is a losing program and USF is a winning program, not who they played. The rest is just details, fair or not. Which is another reason why, setting aside money (which is impossible to do really, but suspend disbelief for a moment), I'd rather be a consistent winner at the G5 level than a consistent loser at the P5 level (although of course being a consistent winner at the P5 level is the ultimate goal). And that's an achievable goal for USF, regardless of conference affiliation.

After graduating from USF I moved to Gainesville for law school. Then I took a job in Tallahassee, met my wife, and had kids. The rest is history. So I've been in Tallahassee now for about 20 years. Solid place to live, work, and raise a family. No regrets on how it all shook out. But all that said, Tampa is home and always will be. I really do miss it and would seriously consider moving back if my wife and kids were on board (her family lives in Tallahassee).

Yes - but only if they can meaningfully contribute.

I don't disagree with you on that point. I wish they'd gone with B, but they didn't. I just don't really think it was an Aresco decision, so I wouldn't put the blame on him. I think it was the short-sighted decision of a majority of AAC presidents (including the newbies).

Aresco is just doing what his membership is directing him to do - not add the PAC-2 due to geography and market sizes. Why would they fire him for doing what they directed him to do?

Same here. Some would pejoratively call it being the "tallest midget," but they get respect from fans of more traditional schools. Consider, e.g., pre-2023 popular perceptions of schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, Tulane, compared to Purdue, Vanderbilt, Illinois, Syracuse, Duke, etc. I'd much rather be a respected G5 power than a P5 also-ran. To be clear, I am NOT saying you don't make the move up if given the opportunity. Of course you do. You then try to become a P5 power. I'm ONLY saying that if not given that choice, and setting money aside, I'd rather be a G5 power with hope/prospects/trophies than a P5 also-ran with no hope/no prospects/no trophies at any level.

So which is it? Setting aside the money (which we can't really do in real life, I get it), would you rather be a top 3 team in the AAC year-after-year, or a bottom 3 team in an autonomous conference? Put another way, would you rather be Boise State or Purdue?

Say what you want, I’m not apologizing for wanting shade. The heat absolutely affects attendance. More shade = more fans. It’s really that simple. Sure, if they win regularly, more fans may be willing to brave the heat. But in the meantime, why not get shade if you can, and likely improve attendance and thereby increase exposure to your (improving or good) product?

I don't agree that I'm "whining" about shade. I'd like to see the university remove what appears to be a significant obstacle to increasing butts in the seats at the OCS. It absolutely is crazy hot in the afternoon in Florida September-November. Diehards don't care, but casual fans might prefer to stay home if it's going to be painfully hot at the stadium. On the other hand, if there's shade, all of a sudden it doesn't matter as much if the game is at noon or 3:30 (although there are other reasons why night games are better). Program support, measured by butts in the seats, is clearly an issue right now at RJS - so why not try to address it, if you can, in the OCS while you also work on winning? Btw, I won't tell you how much, but I actually contributed a significant amount to the OCS fund. But whether or how much I contributed, that's totally irrelevant to the issue (shade at the OCS).

Better neighborhood making the same (or more) money, and you've got yourself a deal.

You may turn out to be right, but I don't accept anonymous assertions as fact. And I'd caution anyone else from doing so.

An early survey sent to USF alums included questions about amenities that they would like to see included in the OCS. Shade (to varying extents) was one of them. I sincerely doubt alums responding to the survey said, "nah, we don't need any stinkin' shade." We don't know what, specifically, is covered by the $340 million. I suspect there will be shade of some kind - but how much?

You've heard of USF "USFing" things up before, right? Well, the biggest way USF can "USF" this OCS thing up is to not include shade structures of some kind. I can't emphasize how important it is to include some kind of shade in the stadium. It's one of the most important features, if not the most important feature.

Sorry, but Red is wrong on the OCS. Unwittingly undermined his own credibility there a bit. Glad the university and the overwhelming majority of USF fans disagree with him.

Maybe I'm greedy, but if we can somehow split with Memphis and UTSA, then also beat both Temple and Charlotte, not only would we be bowl eligible, but we'd have a winning 7-5 record in year one of a rebuild from 1-11. That would be a truly remarkable turnaround by a first-year head coach.

The Times was (and IMHO remains) mostly a St. Pete paper, which is why I continue to call it the St. Pete Times despite its rebranding. The Times has always wanted USF's St. Pete campus to become a fully independent university. Fair or not, my impression has always been that St. Pete is generally insecure when it comes to comparisons with Tampa because Tampa has, e.g. the major airport, the major university, professional sports teams (except for the Rays, which is a whole other story on its own but is consistent with what I'm saying), etc. The university is just one example. Until recently (2018) USF St. Pete was independently accredited. The implicit goal was for it to eventually split off like USF Lakeland, but the GOP-dominated legislature put that to an end with Genshaft's cooperation and approval. It was just the latest in a long line of provincial outrages. And adding fuel to that fire, the Times' editorial board definitely leans left, so there's not much sympathy with anything the GOP does in the state legislature. In any case, IMO that change has impacted how the Times covers USF both in terms of academics and athletics. Setting Brett McMurphy aside, I always felt like the Tribune was a little more favorable to USF. I don't expect anything to change with respect to how the Times covers USF football or anything else USF-related - neutral at best, negative at worst. I go to other sources.

It's a wild, wacky world out there. Nobody's sure about anything. It's a possibility - nothing more.

I don't know, I'm assuming they're going to take out money ASAP to move the rec fields and finalize design.

I haven't listened to Bulls Unlimited but I strongly suspect the "update" will be a release of renderings. The loan closed a few weeks ago. They're on a clock. I don't see anything getting "paused."

The Bucs have won the Super Bowl not once, but twice (!) - yet here we are, still stuck in the AAC. So I'm skeptical that even hell freezing over would change much.

I'd bring in Colorado State and Air Force in a heartbeat.

Yes but we turned them down because we're a better fit in the ACC.