TallyBull

I'm thinking yes. There's potential for a significant turnaround this year (which I define as anything better 6-6). One could legitimately ask whether the turnaround would be as significant if we weren't the beneficiaries of a weaker schedule, but I belong to the "you play who's in front of you" camp of CFB, and we played well against a far more talented team in 'Bama. WKU was a winnable game even though it was our coach's first game (new to us and to head coaching) and new offensive and defensive schemes. I think this is evidence that there are indeed coaches out there that don't need a 3-year window to build a program before seeing success. Pick the right guy, and you can most certainly win right away, unless perhaps you have zero talent.

I agree 100%. It's early but Golesh's offense is very promising. Reminds me a lot of C. Florida's offense, which was very successful (I think I threw up a little in my mouth). Taggart was successful but it seemed to me (not trying to open up a can of worms here) his success had more to do with exceptionally talented players just doing their thing. So it was less important to keep Taggart's system when he left. But even the relatively little continuity we had, we lost, when Strong showed up and started talking about 'slowing the offense down a bit to benefit the defense.' Major red flags went up, and we were right to be worried, as it turned out. I think ideally, assuming Golesh turns this thing around as it appears he will, continuity in offensive philosophy will be very important. You can hire outside the building if there are no obvious internal candidates (don't know much about our titular OC), but if you do, you should hire someone who isn't going to tear everything apart. Why fix what isn't broken (setting aside ego)?

WKU is not one of the top tier G5 programs. I would define a top tier G5 program as one located at an academically top-tier university in a large market with lots of upside (like USF), where you can get lots of exposure if you win and millions of dollars to coach. Taking the risk of being a HC makes sense because it pays far more than being a position coach or coordinator and gives you greater control of the program. And anyways, there's no job or financial security for position coaches/coordinators. No one said anything about not pursuing greater opportunities if you want to (taking the risk is fine, I respect that) - I just made the observation that you can definitely have a great career even if you're not coaching in a power five conference, and that it might actually be easier to rack up a lot of wins that way if you're a great coach. You can still become a legend and make millions of dollars (maybe not as many millions, but at some point money is no longer the primary motivation). I acknowledged your point about some people being uber-competitive in my original post. I agree. However, to suggest that a coach deciding to strategically remain at a top tier G5 school (at least for more than the standard 2 or 3-year stint) means you're not competitive or a risk taker is a mistake IMO. Not all opportunities in a "power" conference are as good or better than coaching at a top tier G5 school. I completely understand why a very successful G5 coach might want to leave to coach at UF, Georgia, or Ohio State. Harder to understand why he'd want to leave for a "power" school that is almost never in the CFP conversation and is highly unlikely to ever be.

Looking forward to talking some trash to UAB fans this week on social media, like we did with Rice. I thought this past week was kind of muted. Can't really talk trash with Navy. Or at least, I think many people feel bad doing it.

It's a good point. I would think that the best college football coaching job in America would be to coach one of the top G5 programs. So long as you have access to the CFP, you've got a much easier path to getting there than say, at Purdue in the B1G. Rack up wins, and you could become a god at your school and still make many, many millions of dollars doing something you love. I understand the counterargument of course, - that these coaches are usually hyper-competitive types who do it not just for the money, but also the ego boost of competing at the highest levels of college football. But based on recent experiences (Taggart, Frost, Herman, etc.) it seems way more likely that you'll end up losing too many games and getting fired pretty quickly at a place like FSU, Nebraska, or Texas, because the expectations are so ridiculously high and largely unachievable. Just my opinion, but it seems the ideal situation is one where you coach, say, USF to multiple AAC championships, which eventually gets USF into a top-tier conference, and you try to make your mark from there - a platform where you are already beloved and less likely to get curb stomped in a year or two if you don't win 10 games each year. In the meantime, you're set for life financially.

I'd love to see USF play my other school, UF, in the Gasparilla Bowl and win. Both because I prefer USF over UF (by a lot), but also because it would very likely involve Napier getting fired, which I think may benefit UF in the long-run. EDIT: We have a history of getting coaches fired for other teams. It's a service we do.

Fair enough. That still does not make them a member of the conference for football. But anyways, again, if you want to include ND for purposes of the original prompt (i.e. what is the most significant football program after FSU and Clemson between the ACC and Big 12), then we agree - ND, then Miami.

How much TV money does ND bring into the conference from football broadcasts? $0.00. If you aren't bringing any money into the conference from football, then you aren't really a member for football, regardless of how/whether the conference lets you otherwise participate in conference decisions/bowl games. The fact they can vote on football matters while not being a member for football is a big source of heartburn in Tallahassee, as you might imagine...

It's all good! I see what your point was. If we're including ND, then yes, they're ahead of Miami for sure. Then Miami.

I understand that. But that doesn't mean they're a "half member" in football. ND has an agreement to play a certain number of games with ACC football teams per year - that agreement was made necessary so that ND could park its other sports in the ACC. Notwithstanding its agreement with the ACC, ND is not a member of the ACC for football.

How is ND a half member in football? Yes, ND is a full ACC member in other sports, but the original question asked about football, not other sports. ND is not an ACC member for football - they're fully independent in that sport.

Not an ACC school in football. Otherwise, I would have put ND before UM.

USF 38-17 B. Brown N. Simmons 450

It's debatable but I think it might be Miami in terms of branding, location, and history.

Also:

With respect to looking westward, would love to add CSU, and Air Force, to have all the military academies in one conference. Colorado's west, but not too far west and a good market.

They wouldn't. But also, and perhaps more importantly, why would the Big 12 or the ACC agree to a 12 at-large? I don't see how the SEC and B1G could impose 12 at-large on the rest of college football, absent some major financial concessions (which aren't forthcoming). Yeah, they're powerful, but they ain't THAT powerful.

I just want U of SF to have as many opportunities as possible before joining (if it ever does join) a power conference, regardless of whether it can actually take advantage of said opportunities. Not sure why that would be controversial. I don’t think it is, actually.

I think the hope is to make it one day. So today’s discussion is about preserving access for when that day comes. Can’t just focus on this season, but the long term.

I guess you think the ACC and Big 12 don’t matter. I assure you, they do. And the G5 conferences also do, though maybe not as much.

Right, de facto relegating the B12 and the ACC into a kind of "super" G5 status.

What I've heard is that the expectation is that the PAC-2 will cease to exist (Wazzu and OSU will likely join the MWC), so two highest-ranked G5 conference champs will make it in for the next two years. After that, it's anybody's guess, but we're probably looking at a 5+7 setup (although the SEC and B1G have proposed 12 best with no auto bids, a proposal that seems to have little support among the other conferences).