20 Years as a FBS Program and Still No Confernece Championship

[Rocky Style]

13 minutes ago, Meeps said:

Looks like Black Friday will be pretty embarrassing.

Not necessarily.  See: College Football rivalry upsets.  

 

[NewEnglandBull]

5 minutes ago, JTrue said:

1) The conference we play in directly impacts are ability to recruit.

2) However, you might believe that we're going to convince a bunch of kids to stay home and play in the AAC when they don't get their UF offer. If staying home meant that much to players, Toledo and Akron would be scooping up every kid who didn't get their offer from Ohio State. Staying home means a lot to some kids and zero to others. It's hit or miss. Some kids want to play for the hometown team no matter what. Some kids want to play for the best school they can. Some kids really want to leave home. I left home to play for another school on purpose. I know I'm not the only college athlete who thought leaving would be a good experience.

3) What money have we spent that is going to make some sort of a seismic shift? The weight room? 3 practice fields? The coach's offices?

That’s better! #1. True point but we are typically top 3 in the conference every year. #2. We still can and do get quality 3 stars. Which is also true for the top three universities in our conference. #3. This is subjective but our facilities are decent (though we need a IPF relative to point #1). Finally, if ucf can win what appears to be three championships in five years I think it is very  reasonable to have expected us to at least be in “at least” one championship game in that same time period. 

[Meeps]

Kanig? Heh. Trying saying that out-loud. I bet it sounds even more ridiculous than your statement that usf shouldn't be compared to UCF, but rather UF, FSU and Miami.

On second thought, you may be onto something... UF, FSU and Miami are all pretty trash right now and it would honestly be a coin flip to watch you all play. Plus, comparing usf to UCF would mean that your program has actually accomplished something. Hell, you may even want to just claim a conference title at this point since that's not happening any time soon.

[JTrue]

2 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

That’s better! #1. True point but we are typically top 3 in the conference every year. #2. We still can and do get quality 3 stars. Which is also true for the top three universities in our conference. #3. This is subjective but our facilities are decent (though we need a IPF relative to point #1). Finally, if ucf can win what appears to be three championships in five years I think it is very  reasonable to have expected us to at least be in “at least” one championship game in that same time period. 

I agree we could be doing better. I don't agree that we should be doing better. With our timeline, we have no business worrying about the Big East years as a disappointment. So we're really only talking about the AAC years. So we've possibly underachieved for 6 years if we're using your benchmarks. In that time, we've lost out to teams that have comparables to everything you've stated. UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, and Memphis have everything you've said we should win for having. UCF has fertile recruiting ground, facilities on par with us, and money spent. Cincinatti has the same. Houston, same. Memphis, maybe less on the recruiting end, but everything else is solid PLUS an 80 year head start. So if you put us up against all of the winners of the conference, why should we expect to have won?

[NewEnglandBull]

6 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I agree we could be doing better. I don't agree that we should be doing better. With our timeline, we have no business worrying about the Big East years as a disappointment. So we're really only talking about the AAC years. So we've possibly underachieved for 6 years if we're using your benchmarks. In that time, we've lost out to teams that have comparables to everything you've stated. UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, and Memphis have everything you've said we should win for having. UCF has fertile recruiting ground, facilities on par with us, and money spent. Cincinatti has the same. Houston, same. Memphis, maybe less on the recruiting end, but everything else is solid PLUS an 80 year head start. So if you put us up against all of the winners of the conference, why should we expect to have won?

True for those except ucf yes they are older but we made up for time with BCS $ and more exposure. Now they have distance on us. 

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

True for those except ucf yes they are older but we made up for time with BCS $ and more exposure. Now they have distance on us. 

I don't agree. Those few years of BCS money and exposure did nothing more than make up for the 20, 50, 80+ years those other schools were playing football before us and had sunk god knows how much more into their programs before we even had a football team. Great, we got $10 million for being in the Big East in a single season. How much money do you think we spent from Big East payouts on our program? Even if we dream and say $100 million. Every school on that list had more than three times that much invested in their facilities and program before our first check arrived and played in countless games before we took the field for the first time in the conference. No way the Big East got us caught up to that.

Edited November 4, 2018 by JTrue

[NewEnglandBull]

2 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I don't agree. Those few years of BCS money and exposure did nothing more than make up for the 20, 50, 80+ years those other schools were playing football before us and had sunk god knows how much more into their programs before we even had a football team. Great, we got $10 million for being in the Big East in a single season. How much money do you think we spent from Big East payouts on our program? Even if we dream and say $100 million. Every school on that list had more than three times that much invested in their facilities and program before our first check arrived and played in countless games before we took the field for the first time in the conference. No way the Big East got us caught up to that.

Did it make up for the head start ucf had? I say absolutely...

[JTrue]

Just now, NewEnglandBull said:

Did it make up for the head start ucf had? I say absolutely...

I don't agree there either. Sometimes luck plays a huge part. Say xCJL doesn't get fired for something well beyond anyone's control as a program. Totally different discussion right now. Hiring Frost, great outcome, but how is that an indicator of USF's failure? Hell, UCF should have fired O'Leary. If they fire him like everyone knows they should have, we're not even having this conversation even with xCSH and xCWT in the mix. That program is toast for the last decade with him going out like that. So, no, I do not believe that UCF's failure to fire O'Leary is an indication of them being better than us. 

[NewEnglandBull]

7 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I don't agree there either. Sometimes luck plays a huge part. Say xCJL doesn't get fired for something well beyond anyone's control as a program. Totally different discussion right now. Hiring Frost, great outcome, but how is that an indicator of USF's failure? Hell, UCF should have fired O'Leary. If they fire him like everyone knows they should have, we're not even having this conversation even with xCSH and xCWT in the mix. That program is toast for the last decade with him going out like that. So, no, I do not believe that UCF's failure to fire O'Leary is an indication of them being better than us. 

I disagree there. I don’t think it’s luck. They made better administrative decisions than we have over the past 5-8 years. Admin in our athletic dept has, in my opinion, been fair at best. After OLeary they picked the right coaches who picked the right players.  

[JTrue]

1 minute ago, NewEnglandBull said:

I disagree there. I don’t think it’s luck. They made better administrative decisions than we have over the past 5-8 years. Admin in our athletic dept has, in my opinion, been fair at best. After OLeary they picked the right coaches who picked the right players.  

So if we're talking 5-8 years, you agree they shouldn't have fired O'Leary?