StevieRayBull

1) USF 2) 45-10 3) Shaw 4) Sterling Griffin 5) 476

Mike Jenkins. Got to play against/tackle him in high school, so I'm a little biased from his pre-USF days.

This depth chart is really surprising to me. I wonder how much of it is the coaches trying to motivate with competition and how much is rising talent. In the case of moving Barrington to MLB, I think the coaches don't want to leave Cliett off the field anymore. Just wonder what that does for Lanaris' psyche in his senior year. Same thing with Joyce getting the nod over Lejiste. Moves I don't know what to think about: Popek at guard and Griffin not listed as a clear no. 1 receiver. I'm thinking these moves are promoting competition/coaches just tinkering. I'm sure we'll see some more moves after the first scrimmage.

I hope our new football intro has something like that in it.

I like this guy's idea: Steve Hatchell http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=338#more-338

This is the same story that gets written about BJ every preseason. Potential. I do like what I've seen of BJ as a person. Great guy to represent USF.

He's been improving every year. I wish Lynch could play this year. I think we'd have one of the best D-lines in college football with those two and Porkchop and Watson (if he makes strides from his freshman year). I normally don't like to dream out loud about things like this, especially given our history for having hope disappoint, and since Lynch almost certainly won't get a waiver, but I can't help it. I'm ready for some football.

(in the voice of Nelson from the Simpsons) Ha ha!

Completely dependent on this years performance. He can work himself into a mid to late round pick with a great season. Whether or not he pans out if he gets there is another question altogether.

Louisville's the only team in the conference that I'm truly afraid of this year, so I think his list is pretty fair. I think Temple will surprise a little, so I'd put them in the middle of the pack.

Nice article. If you think to Holtz' first year hear and how the receiving corps has transformed from "the land of misfit toys" to all the talent and depth we have now, you have to be impressed with his recruiting efforts and coaching. One of my biggest reasons for optimism this year is the senior leadership. I think we have a strong group that will be hungrier than last year and won't allow any underclassmen to slack.

Ha! I'm not really familiar with them, but I guess I can see why you'd say that. Nothing substantial to talk about, but I find it entertaining. Also, anything that belittles RichRod is worth posting, in my view.

Not surprisingly, USF's spot on this list is unexciting, with only two coaches in their history with similar records at the program. Rather than choose between the two, they just chose both. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/949886-college-football-the-worst-coach-in-the-history-of-every-bcs-program/page/59 What's more interesting about this list is that USF RB's coach Carl Franks is listed as the worst coach in Duke football history. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/949886-college-football-the-worst-coach-in-the-history-of-every-bcs-program/page/14 The listing I was most pleased with: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/949886-college-football-the-worst-coach-in-the-history-of-every-bcs-program/page/30

Ha! Amen.

Just because Bilas played and analyzes basketball doesn't make him a "basketball guy" as a commissioner. The BE needs a business guy, period. So are you going on record as Bilas as a business guy over a basketball guy? He is an attorney as well but that doesn't make him a businessman. If he played b-ball and analyzes b-ball ... it sure sounds like a b-ball guy to me, I don't know any other way to describe him, sports wise. Very curious to hear your response, as I'm not too sure what you were trying to say with your post. Sports-wise, yes, he's absolutely a basketball guy. I'm saying that that doesn't mean people can assume he'd come in and neglect football from a business standpoint because he only sees things with basketball goggles. It's false to assume that a basketball background leads to a neglect of football. For the record I'm not even a proponent of him being the commissioner. I'm just saying we can't make assumptions about his ability as a "football" commissioner because he comments on basketball for a living. As was pointed out in a previous post, Jim Delany played college ball at UNC and got a law degree and he's turned out to be a pretty good "football" commissioner.

This will be a huge change. I hope it's for the better. I'm not overly impressed with his resume, so I'm not sure what to think. From articles I've read he's harping on the little things and communication, which seems like something that would make our D more consistent.

I have to go with defense. We're proven all around except for corner and I like what we picked up to fill the spot opposite Webster. If Grissom is back at full strength and Watson makes a jump in his second year our interior D-line could be great. Also hoping that Chandler's got his act together this year. I think Joyce will be a better safety than Young was. Offensively there's too many question marks about our interior O-line at this point, and as always, how Daniels plays is the biggest variable.

I've always wanted Murray to get more touches. I think he's got the best vision of any back we've had in a while. He's not explosive, but he always finds a hole and gets a couple extra yards and he has quick feet. I was frustrated last year when they gave Scott so many touches over him. His stat line was better than Murray's, but it was definitely inflated from the lesser opponents. I think the coaching staff fell too much in love with Scott's potential (as did Scott himself, unfortunately, leaving for the draft too early). That's just my opinion. I may be wrong. As far as Shaw and Lamar, I'm optimistic, but they're unproven as consistent runners at this point. I like what I've heard about them coming out of spring though.

Just because Bilas played and analyzes basketball doesn't make him a "basketball guy" as a commissioner. The BE needs a business guy, period.

Can't really argue with that preview at all. Consistency is clearly the watchword for this year's team if they want to take the program a step forward. That's one of the better previews I've read. The concerns are legitimate and the strengths dead on. I'm probably a little more optimistic than this writer is (no surprise, since I'm a fan). I think we'll have strong leadership this year that really could push us over the hump.

I think it's bigger for USF. The Big East needs to win multiple games against big-name BCS members to get respect. A USF victory over FSU would help, but would easily be dismissed in the larger picture if the BE loses all other big non-conference games. I, like all other Bulls fans, am tired of us winning these type of games and then collapsing in BE play, so a victory over FSU this year will be huge, but only cause for cautious optimism given our track record in the last several years.

http://aol.sportingn...OM&sct=hp_t2_a7 Saw this story on SI.com. I think it's a pretty good idea if he'd be interested. He'd be a high-profile guy that would help our conference gain respect from the commissioner's seat. It wouldn't matter that he's a basketball guy when he sits down with the other commissioners as long as he's business savvy. Anyone know who the leading candidates are at the moment?

USF = BE champs. Shire thing!