Quo Vadis

Furthermore, I believe, if "forced" by the possibility of USF/UCF getting into the B12, naturally, the Noles will pull the trigger and jump ship, costs be damned. I am not sure why many here think that if the Big 12 said "come or we invite USF/UCF" that this would have a big impact on FSU's thinking. I don't imagine FSU cares if USF/UCF join the Big 12 or not. FSU seems to have the following desires: (1) join the SEC, but that isn't happening. (2) remain in the ACC, but bail to the Big 12 if the ACC collapses. USF and UCF do not impact on any of that.

I think if FSU is unlikely to pay $50M, so is Miami. Unfortunately, I don't see how USF would be any more appealing to the Big XII than USF. Together they actually do make an attractive package. I wish i could agree but i really don't see how USF + UCF is an attractive package. It wasn't in 2004 when we got the Big East invitation, and i don't see what has changed. There really are no attractive packages out there for Power 5 conferences, just attractive schools. We need to make ourselves as attractive as possible.

For about one second I was thinking "really, they are complaining about not getting money from a conference they have yet to play a game in?" Then, I realized who we were talking about. LOL. Oh yeah. Just go to some other forums like Rivals or Big East BBS and those places are swarming with UCF fans crying about us getting the big chunk of money. Absurd.

I'll be the first in line to donate for an OCS.... but are you crazy?? Pay down our current debt and put it away to get to a better conference.... maybe an indoor practice facility. OCS is a very long way away now. Not crazy jsut a knee reaction thought reply. Indoor practice facitlity is a must and should be first. An OCS may not be fiscally prudent/responsible but the OCS needs to happen sooner before later. For the benefits of the students and recruiting unless RJS gives USF more latitude in field decor and parking/concession dollars. If you wait for the perfect timing for something more than likely it will not happen. Just sayin'. I agree, except I think the OCS should happen sooner rather than later even if RJS gives us those concessions. IMO, we will not achieve truly big-time football status unless we have a good OCS, and for the same reason even the St. Pete Times forum is no substitute for the tricked-out Sun Dome we now have.

The rumor is totally supported. The question is whether we are truly a viable option or whether we are being played to get FSU and Miami to commit (the much more likely scenario). DeLoss Dodds at Texas likes to use the media to push things in the direction he wants to see them go. TuxedoYoda is one of his mouthpieces. Nothing comes out of that program that he doesn't want to get spread across the internet within minutes. No doubt that Dodds sent the word out. His desired end goal is still in question. "The rumor is totally supported" .... I like that.

As much as i'd like to see it happen, it's hard for me to imagine the Big 12 taking us and UCF. We would split their pie significantly and do not move the needle much in terms of media or TV visibility for them. At most, this is a ploy to try and get FSU and Clemson to jump ship. But i doubt it is even that, more likely unsupported rumor.

This $30 million, when combined with the $2 million a year we will get from the new (putrid) media deal, basically means that for the next two years, we will get paid AS IF we had gotten an invite to a Power 5 conference starting in 2013-2014, approximately $17 million per year. So we need to capitalize on that, pour that money into recruiting and facilities so that we can improve out football and basketball performance and maybe thereby make ourselves more attractive to an ACC or Big 12 should more realignment take place in the next couple of years. PS .. i have NO SYMPATHY for whiny UCF fans who think that pot of money should be more evenly split . Like hell it should. We were in the Big East for 8 years so we "earned" it. It's ours.

I am optimistic and hopeful that Heath will turn us into a consistent winner. This season is a setback but I think we will be a winner next year, making the NIT. However, his overall body of work at USF is mixed, and i don't think anyone can say it will be a shock if it turns out he is fired two years from now because last year and 2010 turned out to be exceptions not the rule. Let's face it: Florida has never been a college basketball hot-bed, and Donovan's Gators program tends to suck the oxygen from the room for anyone else trying to build one down here. It is never going to be easy to create a program at USF that consistently challenges for NCAA bids.

I don't like it, but it makes sense. The Catholic 7 schools have been "Big East" collectively a lot longer than we have.

If they want to go early and take the name with them, fine. For a hefty price. I also hear a lot of whining from the incoming schools like SMU, Houston, UCF, and ECU about how "unfair" it is that we get those exit fee dollars while they don't. Tough cookies.

What killed us is our age... we are too young to get an invite to the good ole boys club. If USF had started football back in the 1960's then I believe we would have gotten picked up by now. The old money schools are doing their best to keep the USF's and Boise States of the college football world on the outside looking in. I'm not so sure about some aspects of that. Rutgers has been playing football since 1869 and they were on the outs for decades until joining the Big East. Plus, Boise is different from us because they have a record of elite-level achievement and sadly we do not. That said, I do agree our age is a huge disadvantage. It means we just do not have the history and tradition that add up to the kind of "brand name recognition" that is coveted by the media companies.

ok, UCLA is directional. i stand corrected. LA isn't a direction .... USC is the only deal buster. By that definition, Wisconsin-Whitewater, Fresno State, UTSA, and SDSU are not directional schools. not many folks would agree with you there... A city isn't a direction and those you mentioned aren't directional. I guess you would call them locational ... Bottom line in all this is that there is a directional school in a Power 5 conference, no matter what the definition. Anyone OTHER than a fellow grammar nazi would consider all of those "directional" and would NOT consider USC in that category. . It's not about grammar, it's about image. Wait for it... Perception IS reality!! Now I got it .... Basically, there are no "directional" schools in the Power 5 because, it appears, the definition of a "directional" school does not include BCS/Power 5 ... No. Let me explain. A "directional" school is not necessarily a school with a direction like north or east in its name. It is directional if it has these characteristics: 1) Is a public institution 2) Is part of a system in which there is a flagship institution and the school in question is not the flagship. 3) it has a direction in its name that is NOT a part of the name of the state. Thus, USC is not a directional university because it is not a public institution. North Carolina is not a directional university because "north" is part of the name of the state. UCLA is not a directional university because by the formal UC system designation, it is recognized as a flagship along with UC-Berkley. However, schools like UCF, USF, and ECU are directional, because they meet all three criteria. Those three criteria collectively have a stigma attached to them because they imply subordination to another school in the system, e.g., USF to UF, ECU to UNC, etc. Schools with the word "tech" or "state" also face a lesser stigma, since they too are subordinate to the flagship, unless they also are the flagship in their system, such as Penn State, Ohio State, and LSU. Holy ****, why don't you just make up a list of rules like this if you're going to work this hard just to squeeze USF into your definition? 1) must be located in a state south of Georgia 2) must have one of the highest enrollments in the nation 3) can not be UF, FSU, or Miami 4) must have an address on Fowler Ave. 5) founded after 1955 I didn't work hard at all, it took me about 2 minutes to write down what i consider to be the characteristics of a "directional school", which i also think is how most people define one. USF is one, for better or for worse, and my definition was not crafted to squeeze us in.

Well the women's BB team won the WNIT. We have a national title in women's sailing, but I am not sure if that is an NCAA sport. I think (I could be wrong) that we also have a national title in one of the swimming sports, back when we used to have a swimming team. I hope you're right about swimming, because women's basketball winning the tournament for 65th best team in the country would be pretty sad as the pinnacle of our athletic department. Swimming team might be ancient history? IIRC, i had a roomate in the Andros dorms circa 1985. He originally came to USF on a swimming scholarship but by that time the team had been disbanded.

ok, UCLA is directional. i stand corrected. LA isn't a direction .... USC is the only deal buster. By that definition, Wisconsin-Whitewater, Fresno State, UTSA, and SDSU are not directional schools. not many folks would agree with you there... A city isn't a direction and those you mentioned aren't directional. I guess you would call them locational ... Bottom line in all this is that there is a directional school in a Power 5 conference, no matter what the definition. Anyone OTHER than a fellow grammar nazi would consider all of those "directional" and would NOT consider USC in that category. . It's not about grammar, it's about image. Wait for it... Perception IS reality!! Now I got it .... Basically, there are no "directional" schools in the Power 5 because, it appears, the definition of a "directional" school does not include BCS/Power 5 ... No. Let me explain. A "directional" school is not necessarily a school with a direction like north or east in its name. It is directional if it has these characteristics: 1) Is a public institution 2) Is part of a system in which there is a flagship institution and the school in question is not the flagship. 3) it has a direction in its name that is NOT a part of the name of the state. Thus, USC is not a directional university because it is not a public institution. North Carolina is not a directional university because "north" is part of the name of the state. UCLA is not a directional university because by the formal UC system designation, it is recognized as a flagship along with UC-Berkley. However, schools like UCF, USF, and ECU are directional, because they meet all three criteria. Those three criteria collectively have a stigma attached to them because they imply subordination to another school in the system, e.g., USF to UF, ECU to UNC, etc. Schools with the word "tech" or "state" also face a lesser stigma, since they too are subordinate to the flagship, unless they also are the flagship in their system, such as Penn State, Ohio State, and LSU. Either way, based on whatever definition you use, UConn is the next in line for the big boy table because they are the flagship school of their state. Yes, but I would say it also depends in part on who the expanding conference is. If it is the B1G, then i expect UConn to have a huge advantage over USF and Cincy, because the B1G has historically shown a huge preference for flagships. But the ACC has not, as evidenced by their invitations to Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt over UConn.

ok, UCLA is directional. i stand corrected. LA isn't a direction .... USC is the only deal buster. By that definition, Wisconsin-Whitewater, Fresno State, UTSA, and SDSU are not directional schools. not many folks would agree with you there... A city isn't a direction and those you mentioned aren't directional. I guess you would call them locational ... Bottom line in all this is that there is a directional school in a Power 5 conference, no matter what the definition. Anyone OTHER than a fellow grammar nazi would consider all of those "directional" and would NOT consider USC in that category. . It's not about grammar, it's about image. Wait for it... Perception IS reality!! Now I got it .... Basically, there are no "directional" schools in the Power 5 because, it appears, the definition of a "directional" school does not include BCS/Power 5 ... No. Let me explain. A "directional" school is not necessarily a school with a direction like north or east in its name. It is directional if it has these characteristics: 1) Is a public institution 2) Is part of a system in which there is a flagship institution and the school in question is not the flagship. 3) it has a direction in its name that is NOT a part of the name of the state. Thus, USC is not a directional university because it is not a public institution. North Carolina is not a directional university because "north" is part of the name of the state. UCLA is not a directional university because by the formal UC system designation, it is recognized as a flagship along with UC-Berkley. However, schools like UCF, USF, and ECU are directional, because they meet all three criteria. Those three criteria collectively have a stigma attached to them because they imply subordination to another school in the system, e.g., USF to UF, ECU to UNC, etc. Schools with the word "tech" or "state" also face a lesser stigma, since they too are subordinate to the flagship, unless they also are the flagship in their system, such as Penn State, Ohio State, and LSU.

Well, I'd say you did a pretty bang up job of figuring it out! Nice recap. BUT .... wouldn't even the charter members need to be invited by someone to be a charter member? The charter SEC schools were originally part of the "Southern Conference", and broke away in 1932 to form the SEC, much as the C7 are breaking away from the Big East. But whose idea that was, i do not know. Could have been one guy, like say the president of vandy, who had the idea and then sent out feelers to bama, georgia, lsu, etc. or maybe they all had the same idea, etc.

All four of those schools are charter/fouding members of the ACC and SEC respectively, so none of them were ever "invited" to those conferences. They helped create them. And really, Ole Miss and Mississippi State are not exactly basket-case programs. Ole Miss has won 3 Cotton Bowls in the past 10 years, while Mississippi State has won the Liberty, Gator, and Music City bowls over the past 5 years.

Could be a valid theory ..... if we had done anything in CUSA. I started following USF athletics in 1983 when i first enrolled. Since then I've seen us move from the Sun Belt to the Metro to C-USA and to the Big East. Each was a promotion, going from a lesser to a better conference. IIRC, absolutely NONE of those promotions was because we had proven ourselves on the basketball court or later the football field to be a dominant force that was too good for the conference we were moving up from. We were always promoted because of "potential", meaning our large size, and large and favorably-located market. Unfortunately, those factors didn't help us this time around.

ok, UCLA is directional. i stand corrected. So is UC Berkeley, for that matter Cal-Berkley is the flagship, so not directional. IIRC, UCLA has quasi-flagship status too. Hard to tell in those huge states. And FWIW, USC is not directional as it is a private school. The "stigma" associated with being directional is that you are a state institution but subordinate to a "flagship" school in the state educational system that represents the whole state.

We did some good things, football wise, during that run but not near enough to be able to make a decent case over those two, considering they won conference championships ... and when you throw in other sports, our case would be thrown out of court. I am not very bright, but i was bright enough not to argue our basketball vs UConn and UC basketball, lol.

ok, UCLA is directional. i stand corrected.

Yeah, just like that school in Orlando that started out in the late 1970s and yet fell behind 1997-born USF in the college football totem poll. (That means you are wrong.) orlando school caught usf now that we are in the same conference They didn't catch up to USF, USF was relegated down to their level. Orlando U has caught USF the way you might catch up to someone if you sit idly in your car while they drive in reverse straight toward you. Yeah. As far as I can tell, the only schools in all of FBS that will be getting less bowl money and media money from 2014 onwards than they got previously are Cincy, Uconn, and us. Cincy and UCONN will put their football in the MAC and go with the C7 schools in basketball. That leaves us - the red-headed stepchild of the NCAA. Well, it was fun while it lasted. they will never go to the mac I don't think so either. The marginal extra C7 basketball money is outweighed by the huge loss in football prestige associated with joining the MAC. Plus, the C7 split in large part because they were tired of football driving the bus and membership instability, and so i doubt they'd even want two schools that are football focused and will bolt for a Power 5 as soon as the opportunity arises.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. There are "states" (as in FSU), "A&Ms" (as in Texas) and "techs" (as in Georgia) ... but no north/south/east/wests. What are you talking about there is north Carolina, south Carolina, west Virginia, and north Carolina state. LOL ... Come on man, you know what i meant. In those cases, the direction is in the name of the states themselves, hence they are not "directional" schools.

Was arguing with some UConn and Cincy fans on another board about which of the three Big East "left behinds" was least deserving of getting promoted to a Power 5 conference and it made me think about our football legacy in the Big East as a member of the "big boy club", in terms of how we performed inside and outside the conference. Here's how it looks to me: the Good: 4-2 bowl record 25 - 1 against non-AQ OOC opposition. Until the loss to Ball State last year, we never embarrassed the conference by losing to a rent-a-win. 9-10 record against AQ OOC opposition. Yeah, that's a losing record, but IMO very respectable for a school brand-new to the big time. Some very nice high-profile road wins against elite names: Notre Dame (2011), Auburn (2007), Miami (2010), FSU (2009) the Bad: 22 - 34 Big East record. We never finished better than 4-3 in the conference. Worse yet, the trend was downhill, as we've had 5 straight losing conference records. Never made it to a BCS bowl game. Overall, i think our body of work between 2005-2012 has been pretty good. The Cincy and Uconn fans tried to say we didn't do much for the conference's reputation, but i disagree. Our STRENGTH was how we performed outside the conference. We won our bowl games and we played very respectably versus some big-name OOC competition. Cincy was 7-9 and UConn was 9-9 versus AQ competition, no better than us. And most of their wins were against small-profile teams like Baylor, Maryland, Duke, and Vanderbilt. We consisently scheduled big name - 8 of our 19 games were against the three Florida power schools, and we also played teams like Oregon, North Carolina, and Penn State in addition to the big names mentioned above. We did not feast on games versus Duke and Vandy. Our failure of course was in the Big East. We tended to start strong and finish weak, and as a Florida team we were at a big disadvantage having to travel up to the cold zone for conference games in October and November (Florida never does that, e.g.). I know our last couple years have been in the toilet, but we have a lot to be proud of concerning our time as an AQ program.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. There are "states" (as in FSU), "A&Ms" (as in Texas) and "techs" (as in Georgia) ... but no north/south/east/wests.