Another ESPN Diss

[Sellular1]

We may stink, but Kansas outright sux. Kick those losers out of the Big12.

 

 

Do you watch College Basketball? No way in hell Kansas is ever getting kicked out of any conference.

Over the last 15 seasons UConn has 4 Mens championships in basketball, Kansas has 1.

[Bullrush33]

We did double our wins last year

[Flowers4Heisman]

They must have watched our performance against ucf.

[Paisa el Toro]

it is a sad state of affairs

 

it isnt easy being this bad

It doesn't cost you anything, so why do you even care? In response to the original post, we stink until we don't.

[USFbulls24]

 

 

 

 

"FPI is calculated using three major components for each FBS team: prior years’ offense, defense and special teams efficiencies; returning starters and head coach information; and recruiting rankings."

I'm surprised we are as high as we are.

Weren't the recruiting rankings rather high for USF? Highest non-P5?

 

 

I think it depends on who's rankings you are looking at.  ESPN, Rivals, 247...  Further, is it strictly numbers based, meaning the more recruits the better or is it quality/star based?  We have done a decent job recruiting when looking at numbers, but the gap is not so great, if there even is one, when you look at average talent/star ratings of our conference peers.  On a side note, I am still not sold that Willie's recruits are any better than Skips.  Numbers wise, they are almost the same, time will tell if the 3 and 4 year results prove to be better.  But as of right now, Willie has not recruited better than Skip and his results are not either.  Willie still has work to do, in my book, to prove he is the recruiter people make him out to be.   

 

 

Matter of perspective

The class average grade are about the same between the two (going by 247 average class grade) Taggart has an edge:

 

However you have to consider Skip was recruiting while in a "BCS" conference and coming off winning records.

His 247 class Rankings: 54, 69, 53, for an average of 58.67

Taggart, in a more difficult circumstance: recruiting from a "G5" conference after a few years of abysmal records (including Skip's years) is somehow still pulling in a better average:

247 Rankings: 53, 40, 68, for an average of 53.67

 

Basing it on this... i would say Taggart is a much better recruiter.

 

 

Your right, it is perspective, but look at the conference, are you saying that if Skip was still here we would be recruiting nothing but two stars?  I don't buy the whole Skip had more to work with bit.   The upper half of our conference recruits to about the same level as we do.  Still, even if I take on your perspective, is a good recruiter one who gets the stars and numbers or the one who recruits players that can win?  Either way, Willie has shown me nothing but recruiting hype.  Hell, have you looked at Houston's recruiting class recently?  They are killing it!   

 

 

Taggart is the better recruiter hands down. Taggart gets kids to take visits and consider us even where our program has sunk to that wouldn't even answer a text message from Skip Holtz coming off an 8-5 year in a BCS conference. 

With that being said, you don't need a great recruiter to win in the AAC. Look at O'leary in Orlando.. They went 12-1 and won a BCS game and their recruiting class was way worse than ours and we went 2-10. We've gotta get someone on staff (hoping we have them now with the new hires) that can develop talent. We used to develop the players we got. Now we change coaches every year, change schemes, it's a mess..

Edited July 10, 2015 by USFbulls24

[USFbulls24]

 

That's a completely fair and level evaluation.

 

The most optimistic evaluation I can muster:

  Let's say our offense is much improved #80 (-1.3) instead of #116 (-7.2)

  Let's say our defense is much improved #50 (2.6) instead of #74 (-0.7)

 

That would put or total "score" at 1.6 which would rank us at #59 overall.

 

Though, there's no way we're 40 spots better on offense and 25 spots better on defense.  Maybe we get one or the other.  Maybe we get a little bit of both.  But when being #59 out of 128 is a wild exaggeration, things are not going well.

 

Actually, I think we will be at least 40 spots better on offense... the differences in bad offenses are smaller than the differences between good offenses (from 116 to 80 is easier than 80 to 40, for example)... and I think we'll be a Top 40 defense as well.

 

If you look at where they rank the other teams in this ranking... U Conn and SMU are below us... so we should be no WORSE than 3-9 based on this... but look at how closely others on our schedule are ranked:

 

Memphis - 66

UCF - 73

Syracuse - 75

Maryland - 78

East Carolina - 79

Navy - 82

 

So if the 'exaggeration' is to move to 59... and I think we'll be better than that... then we could look as great as 9-3... (and I think Temple is rated too high, on the strength of their defense).

 

 

At least 40 spots better on offense? 

 

Wouldn't that be nice. I think you're in lala land with that one. We will improve because we'll be running more plays and playing an offensive scheme that suits athletes (thank goodness). Still have to have good offensive coaching in order to make a jump like that. What in the world has Taggart shown you for you to believe he has what it takes to get us to improve that much? Hope I'm being too conservative, but I think an improvement from 116 to the 95 - 100 area is about right. 

[ArmyBull]

 

 

 

 

 

"FPI is calculated using three major components for each FBS team: prior years’ offense, defense and special teams efficiencies; returning starters and head coach information; and recruiting rankings."

I'm surprised we are as high as we are.

Weren't the recruiting rankings rather high for USF? Highest non-P5?

 

 

I think it depends on who's rankings you are looking at.  ESPN, Rivals, 247...  Further, is it strictly numbers based, meaning the more recruits the better or is it quality/star based?  We have done a decent job recruiting when looking at numbers, but the gap is not so great, if there even is one, when you look at average talent/star ratings of our conference peers.  On a side note, I am still not sold that Willie's recruits are any better than Skips.  Numbers wise, they are almost the same, time will tell if the 3 and 4 year results prove to be better.  But as of right now, Willie has not recruited better than Skip and his results are not either.  Willie still has work to do, in my book, to prove he is the recruiter people make him out to be.   

 

 

Matter of perspective

The class average grade are about the same between the two (going by 247 average class grade) Taggart has an edge:

 

However you have to consider Skip was recruiting while in a "BCS" conference and coming off winning records.

His 247 class Rankings: 54, 69, 53, for an average of 58.67

Taggart, in a more difficult circumstance: recruiting from a "G5" conference after a few years of abysmal records (including Skip's years) is somehow still pulling in a better average:

247 Rankings: 53, 40, 68, for an average of 53.67

 

Basing it on this... i would say Taggart is a much better recruiter.

 

 

Your right, it is perspective, but look at the conference, are you saying that if Skip was still here we would be recruiting nothing but two stars?  I don't buy the whole Skip had more to work with bit.   The upper half of our conference recruits to about the same level as we do.  Still, even if I take on your perspective, is a good recruiter one who gets the stars and numbers or the one who recruits players that can win?  Either way, Willie has shown me nothing but recruiting hype.  Hell, have you looked at Houston's recruiting class recently?  They are killing it!   

 

 

Taggart is the better recruiter hands down. Taggart gets kids to take visits and consider us even where our program has sunk to that wouldn't even answer a text message from Skip Holtz coming off an 8-5 year in a BCS conference. 

With that being said, you don't need a great recruiter to win in the AAC. Look at O'leary in Orlando.. They went 12-1 and won a BCS game and their recruiting class was way worse than ours and we went 2-10. We've gotta get someone on staff (hoping we have them now with the new hires) that can develop talent. We used to develop the players we got. Now we change coaches every year, change schemes, it's a mess..

 

Yes, his amazing recruiting skills have helped us big time!  Bottom line is that we will always blame someone for our woes.  When Skippy beat Notre Dame he was amazing, when things fell apart, BJ was our problem, he just was not good enough.  Now, they are both gone and what do wee need most?  Some big wins and a QB, both things Ole Skippy had.  So keep riding that Willie recruiting wave of glory.  Wonder how these great recruits will measure up after four years of only winning 16 games, maybe.  Time to stop blaming Skip and realize that maybe all these 3 star athletes are just that, average!  

Edited July 10, 2015 by ArmyBull

[TallyBull]

Nowhere to go but up.

EDIT: Or get even worse. But definitely one of the two.

Edited July 11, 2015 by TallyBull

[Guest]

 

 

That's a completely fair and level evaluation.

 

The most optimistic evaluation I can muster:

  Let's say our offense is much improved #80 (-1.3) instead of #116 (-7.2)

  Let's say our defense is much improved #50 (2.6) instead of #74 (-0.7)

 

That would put or total "score" at 1.6 which would rank us at #59 overall.

 

Though, there's no way we're 40 spots better on offense and 25 spots better on defense.  Maybe we get one or the other.  Maybe we get a little bit of both.  But when being #59 out of 128 is a wild exaggeration, things are not going well.

 

Actually, I think we will be at least 40 spots better on offense... the differences in bad offenses are smaller than the differences between good offenses (from 116 to 80 is easier than 80 to 40, for example)... and I think we'll be a Top 40 defense as well.

 

If you look at where they rank the other teams in this ranking... U Conn and SMU are below us... so we should be no WORSE than 3-9 based on this... but look at how closely others on our schedule are ranked:

 

Memphis - 66

UCF - 73

Syracuse - 75

Maryland - 78

East Carolina - 79

Navy - 82

 

So if the 'exaggeration' is to move to 59... and I think we'll be better than that... then we could look as great as 9-3... (and I think Temple is rated too high, on the strength of their defense).

 

 

At least 40 spots better on offense? 

 

Wouldn't that be nice. I think you're in lala land with that one. We will improve because we'll be running more plays and playing an offensive scheme that suits athletes (thank goodness). Still have to have good offensive coaching in order to make a jump like that. What in the world has Taggart shown you for you to believe he has what it takes to get us to improve that much? Hope I'm being too conservative, but I think an improvement from 116 to the 95 - 100 area is about right. 

 

 

So USF was #118 in yards per game last season with 304... #100 was Troy with 363 yards per game...  #95 is Missouri with 367 ypg

 

This means you think USF will get 60 more yards per game...

 

But the #78 team was UNLV with 387 ypg ... which 20-24 yards (or just over 2 more first downs) from the 95-100 range you feel is right... that is not a large difference.

 

Oh... and 50 spots better is #68 (Nevada) at 397 ypg.. or 30 more yards than your #95.

You see how little it takes to move WAY up the list?

[Rocky Style]

Where's the diss