RaisingFenix

59 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Yep. With another conference game, we'd be SOL and have no room left for Stony Brook or UMass next year. Imagine if we had to play Navy or Memphis instead.

Lol. I said it gave us flexibility, not that it guaranteed we'd get home-and-homes with Ohio State every couple years.

1 minute ago, USFBULL_08 said:

Hopefully someone can help and I'm too lazy to look this all up.

Why do we play 8 conference games? Are we just following the SEC model?

Other than wanting a cupcake to get the kinks worked out, Why don't we play more conference games?

With two 6-team divisions, 8 conference games makes the most sense - 5 in division, and half of the other division. You could do 9, but you'd have some year-to-year overlap in your cross-division games. Plus, having 4 OOC gives you a little more flexibility in scheduling those games, which might help when trying to get higher profile teams in the schedule. Just my $0.02.

4 minutes ago, MMW said:

They fired him and by doing so reduced his market value.  It is hard for them to argue that he is worth more if they are letting him go even though it is costing them $10 million to do so.  Consider that for a moment.

The DC offers were less that what we were offering and the same is true for Temple I am guessing.

That's true. All I'm saying is that there were two extreme possibilities: we offer $1 and leave the whole obligation on Texas, or we offer $10M+, and thereby completely eliminate Texas's obligation. Anything in the middle is gray area and carries the possibility of litigation based on interpretation of the contract. If I were involved, I'd rather have buy-in from the third party before proceeding, as a CYA measure.

2 hours ago, slowdown said:

Yep.  I was laughing at all the people who thought Texas had a strong say in the contract talks.  All we had to do was be Strong's best overall offer and then be close to his best offer the first two years. Texas wanted a deal to happen and besides USF, only Temple and a bunch of DC jobs were open.

 

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Texas had a  strong say in the contract talks, but that they may have requested to have a representative oversee the negotiations to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. If we had offered Strong $100k for two years, and he had no other offers - would he be obligated to take it? The way I read that section of the contract, there were two clauses that required a "best effort": to find a new job, and to minimize Texas's financial obligation. All of that is gray area, and whether Texas would have standing to bring a suit in the event that we significantly underpaid, I don't know. I am pretty sure that none of the three parties wanted to go down that potential road, so it was in everyone's best interest to make sure they were all on the same page before the new contract was signed.

2 hours ago, nobullaboutit said:

 Would someone please explain something to me regarding Bleacher Report. I know their information is not  as highly regarded by some. I am neutral on that part. When you go into a specific team to read about it, such as our Bulls. Why are we seeing all these posts about Oregon  and CWT?   Who controls the posts that are put in the team site? If we do not have control than I understand why we are seeing all these posts about CWT and stealing recruits etc.   if we do have control, then I would like to see more about the future of USF and Charlie Strong. Don't get me wrong that there are posts in there about Charlie Strong but for the most part it was coach Taggart getting all the press .   I just think we need to move forward .  I don't want to have the Oregon Ducks being a highlight of the USF Bulls. If anyone can answer my above questions I would appreciate it. #FinishStrong  & go Bulls! 

I don't know for sure, but I always assumed they stories were automatically sorted based on teams/people that are significant to the story or mentioned in it. Since just about every story about CWR right now mentions that he was the former coach at USF, they all show up under our section.

3 minutes ago, E.T. said:

Hopefully the plane stays.

Maybe a trip to Mons is in order before he leaves town

2 minutes ago, TheUpperHand said:

Can we give them smazza? I'd be all for that.

Where is smazza today? I'd be interested in his opinion on this.

1 minute ago, Orlando Bull said:

$11M to them is like $2M to us. How hard did we fight Holtz's buyout? Heath's? Sometimes the bad publicity is worth just letting it go.

Sure, and if the Texas buyout weren't in play, the most wet could pay for Strong would be, what, 2M per year? So Texas would be protecting a 2M gain - maybe not worth the bad PR possibility. But sometimes you don't need to swing the hammer, you just have to hold it over someone's head.

2 minutes ago, TheBullies said:

Simple, HE isn't minimizing the payments... USF is.

But does he have a responsibility to negotiate the highest salary he can? I think he does, but that's hard to quantify or prove. Maybe Texas sent a chaperone along and said, "Hey Charlie, you make whatever deal you see fit, but if our guy isn't satisfied with the deal, we may have to take this to court and hold our payments to you until a judge decides if you really fulfilled your obligation to us."

11 minutes ago, BullsFan2819 said:

Strong contract: https://hkm.com/football/wp-content/uploads/coach-contracts/charliestrong-uta-employment-contract.pdf

Termination without cause begins on page 10.

Thanks!

1 minute ago, Orlando Bull said:

To an extent yes, but, he can also sit at home doing nothing and they have to pay him. Even under a back-loaded contract, they get out of some of that liability. Again, he could just say... you know what... I will take 2 years off and Texas has to pay him every dime. Anyone hiring Strong is a favor to them.

 

 

True, and if that is what's being negotiated, that would be the leverage we have. Texas wouldn't be able to just force our offer up, because at some point we could just walk away from the table and leave them holding the bag.

2 minutes ago, Azmodi said:

I'm sorry but, Texas canned the man. They have no legal right to execute a "No-Compete Clause" which is what has been referred too. 

 

I'm calling BS now and will sit quietly on the side lines.

If the amount of money Texas has to pay is dependent on Strong's future employment, they've got skin in this game, and I'd imagine there's some kind of language preventing him from signing a contract that's backloaded like we're suggesting. 

2 minutes ago, BullsFan2819 said:

Curious what their influence could be on this. The buyout clause is set, so all they could do is say "hey don't do that.", right? 

Not sure, but I'd be curious what the actual language is and what kind of legal interpretations are possible

Just now, ajusf16 said:

Where was I sensitive? 

The information could be completely flawed and I am wrong. No skin off my back. Merely provided something I was getting. 

I can promise you I won't lose sleep if someone on here questions something I post because I posted something that became wrong. 

Any chance the snag over the buyout clause you're hearing about has anything to do with the Texas buyout, rather than ours? Strong came on a Texas booster's plane and they do have a vested interest here - maybe they're trying to protect their interests and limit their liability, and that's what's holding up negotiations?

2 minutes ago, Brad said:

BTW, USFreak is an original.  Did great work in the early days to promote the Bulls. I'd listen. 

Fair enough, Brad, but when someone says they haven't even watched a game in 7 years, you can't blame people for disregarding his opinion

1 minute ago, lotsofbull99 said:

We've been a none factor in big games since CJL was railroaded by Judy and the gang.

Notre Dame and Miami would like a word with you

2 minutes ago, USFreak said:

Opportunities are called opportunities for a reason.  

USF is a stepping stone for every other coach (Taggart, etc).  Leavitt never had any intent on leaving.  Leavitt was a Bulls fan - it was his baby.

And sometimes the baby needs to grow up and move out of the parent's house - especially if the parent was (allegedly) abusive.

And for the record, I would rather have 7-1 or 8-0 conference records than 3-4 with the occasional big win.

If only Harlan would live tweet the whole hiring process, we could all sleep better.

Seriously, it's better for everyone if these dealings are kept under wraps as much as possible. You know we're talking to Strong, too, but if he decides to stay out of coaching for a year or takes another job, then whoever we do hire doesn't have "second choice" written all over him (see LSU and Jimbo Fisher).

Don't panic, have a little patience. We will be fine. Like BAW said above, nobody was talking about Rhule to Baylor until it was done.

We should just have 22 conference games. Everyone plays everyone home-and-home, then it's all fair.

</sarcasm>

24 minutes ago, footnfan1 said:

I splannin  nuttin. I am  man of mystery...or so I have been told. I got 'em, you want 'em? 

 

 

This broadcast is amateur hour at best. I'm not sure who's worse - the cameramen or the guy in charge of the down and distance display.

1 hour ago, Bausfkid said:

I'm rocking my jeans and USF Golf Pullover w/my black Nike shoes.  Will also have a Bulls Logo Flag.

Is the lucky bucket hat still in play?

2 minutes ago, Gismo said:

No teams add much value except ND or a P5 school.

That's probably true, but we should go ahead and solicit applications from anyone interested, then make them sing and dance for us for a few months - it's the only way to be sure.

Do these idiots know that we all know that they're full of crap, or do they think they're selling this really well?

Shockingly, they don't want to discuss what the networks are paying them to not expand.