We Made It!!

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Bausfkid said:

I'm not arguing any point.  I made a comment and he made a counterpoint.  I believe we would make a great package deal for a P5 conference.  He does not.  I'm cool with it.  Only time will tell.  Thanks for jumping in.  

My argument is more along the lines of we have nothing to do with if we are selected as a package deal. UCF is a competitor competing for the scarce resource of P5 conference spots. Cheering for their success is at odds with USF becoming P5 as the more successful they are the more likely it is that they will be chosen and since only a finite number of teams get chosen we would be less likely to be chosen if they are. We are better off having anyone not name South Florida fall flat on their face.  A hypothetical argument that we would be better off as a package deal does not seem to be worth the risk of their success as no one has expressed any interest of the package, outside of the AAC which no one wants to be a part of, and there has been no evidence that anyone in the future would be likely to consider USF/UCF to be a must have dynamic duo more likely to be selected as a sum of their parts than individually. Death to all not USF! 

[Dave_Glaser]

Check out the caption on the 2012 archive photo our friends at the Times used with their editorial on USF's preeminence: http://www.tampabay.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=HI&date=20180628&category=ARTICLE&lopenr=306289542&Ref=AR&profile=1082&__twitter_impression=true

[puc86]

6 minutes ago, Dave_Glaser said:

Check out the caption on the 2012 archive photo our friends at the Times used with their editorial on USF's preeminence: http://www.tampabay.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=HI&date=20180628&category=ARTICLE&lopenr=306289542&Ref=AR&profile=1082&__twitter_impression=true

How #metoo of them

[DELdaBull]

40 minutes ago, Dave_Glaser said:

Check out the caption on the 2012 archive photo our friends at the Times used with their editorial on USF's preeminence: http://www.tampabay.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=HI&date=20180628&category=ARTICLE&lopenr=306289542&Ref=AR&profile=1082&__twitter_impression=true

Why? I don't understand what the F is wrong with the Times?

[Dave_Glaser]

1 minute ago, DELdaBull said:

Why? I don't understand what the F is wrong with the Times?

I'm sure it's more sloppy than intentional in this case, but still takes some shine off a story about a great accomplishment.

[Ned A Starr RIP]

It appears that they pulled a file photo from 2012 and didn’t read/remove the caption.

[Triple B]

I'm sorry but this is the kind of gripe I just don't get, unless I'm totally missing something other than the (2012 ), which is entirely possible. If that date wasn't there, wouldn't be a clue as to when that pic was taken. It could just as easily been taken yesterday so I'm not seeing how it takes any shine off the accomplishment.

Edit: This is the caption there now in case it's been changed since Dave's post, Times (2012) The new status for the Bulls will bring $6.15 million to the university.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Triple B

[puc86]

2 minutes ago, Triple B said:

I'm sorry but this is the kind of gripe I just don't get, unless I'm totally missing something other than the (2012 ), which is entirely possible. If that date wasn't there, wouldn't be a clue as to when that pic was taken. It could just as easily been taken yesterday so I'm not seeing how it takes any shine off the accomplishment.

You don’t see why a nice article about our success shouldn’t have an image with a caption about a slew of ***** in 2012? There wasn’t any other stock image or new caption they could have created for our success? Nothing nice in 6 years to pick from ??

[puc86]

You can’t say grape -g

[Triple B]

16 minutes ago, puc86 said:

You don’t see why a nice article about our success shouldn’t have an image with a caption about a slew of ***** in 2012? There wasn’t any other stock image or new caption they could have created for our success? Nothing nice in 6 years to pick from ?? 

Check my post again and see my Edit. It didn't say that when I clicked on it and I now fully understand the consternation ...... sometime after Ned posted and I saw it, it was corrected.