Why Leavitt Should Never be Rehired by USF

[RG]

32 minutes ago, Bull Dozer said:

The thing that gets me is why is it accepted that it had to be an either or recruiting strategy?  There was basically no APR drop off from CSH to CWT but the improvement in talent was GLARING.   I think the APR may have even improved while we had more talented kids but my memory may be off on that one.  

NCAA APR Database - https://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/aprsearch

APR was used beginning in 2003.

 

[Bull Dozer]

Just now, CousinRicky said:

Just find it odd that he didn't fail other places.  What was the difference?  The conference?  His team would probably beat our team this year.  I guess we're in a worse conference now.

Part of it was fit for where the program was at the time the other was he had a bad plan about how to fix USF and part of that is on the admin who I heard over promised and under delivered on resources.   I DO think a large part of it was just a bad fit for what we needed then.  

[GaUSFBull]

1 minute ago, RG said:

NCAA APR Database - https://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/aprsearch

APR was used beginning in 2003.

 

HOLY CRAP!

So USF's biggest jump was a 22 point improvement in the 2009-2010 season, which was LEAVITT'S last year here ...

But I thought Skippy was responsible for the APR improvement ... hmmmm.  

[JTrue]

29 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

HOLY CRAP!

So USF's biggest jump was a 22 point improvement in the 2009-2010 season, which was LEAVITT'S last year here ...

But I thought Skippy was responsible for the APR improvement ... hmmmm.  

I'm still baffled as to why so many people on here can't even fathom a world in which Skip Holtz was hired to improve the academics of program on the verge of sanctions. As @CousinRicky pointed out (and is closer to the program than the vast majority of us and has no reason to lie about what he's heard), our academic standing was in serious trouble with an APR of 930 the year before, on the cusp of scholarship reductions. So why would it be odd that the athletic department wanted xCSH to get things in order? The APR jump in xCJL's last year can't be entirely attributed to him as he was gone for the second half of the school year. Yes, they were his players, but considering the APR improved every year under xCSH, it's not impossible to believe he put some structures in place that could help kids succeed. 

Skip Holtz lost a lot of football games at USF. It happened. No one denies it. From a football standpoint, he definitely deserved to get fired. But I have heard from too many people both on here and in the real world that say he got a raw deal. He won long before USF and he's continued to win after. I don't believe he just got lucky at every stop and with every team before and after us, but coming to USF he was exposed as a bad coach. Not to mention, the APR just magical went up with him getting here. That's a lot of coincidences if you're in the #neverHoltz fold. 

[CousinRicky]

3 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I'm still baffled as to why so many people on here can't even fathom a world in which Skip Holtz was hired to improve the academics of program on the verge of sanctions. As @CousinRicky pointed out (and is closer to the program than the vast majority of us and has no reason to lie about what he's heard), our academic standing was in serious trouble with an APR of 930 the year before, on the cusp of scholarship reductions. So why would it be odd that the athletic department wanted xCSH to get things in order? The APR jump in xCJL's last year can't be entirely attributed to him as he was gone for the second half of the school year. Yes, they were his players, but considering the APR improved every year under xCSH, it's not impossible to believe he put some structures in place that could help kids succeed. 

Skip Holtz lost a lot of football games at USF. It happened. No one denies it. From a football standpoint, he definitely deserved to get fired. But I have heard from too many people both on here and in the real world that say he got a raw deal. He won long before USF and he's continued to win after. I don't believe he just got lucky at every stop and with every team before and after us, but coming to USF he was exposed as a bad coach. Not to mention, the APR just magical went up with him getting here. That's a lot of coincidences if you're in the #neverHoltz fold. 

You'll never change any minds.  

[JTrue]

4 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

You'll never change any minds.  

I know. You're either in the xCSH got a raw deal camp or the xCSH is the single worst coach in the history of football camp.

Edited November 13, 2018 by JTrue

[GaUSFBull]

4 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I'm still baffled as to why so many people on here can't even fathom a world in which Skip Holtz was hired to improve the academics of program on the verge of sanctions. As @CousinRicky pointed out (and is closer to the program than the vast majority of us and has no reason to lie about what he's heard), our academic standing was in serious trouble with an APR of 930 the year before, on the cusp of scholarship reductions. So why would it be odd that the athletic department wanted xCSH to get things in order? The APR jump in xCJL's last year can't be entirely attributed to him as he was gone for the second half of the school year. Yes, they were his players, but considering the APR improved every year under xCSH, it's not impossible to believe he put some structures in place that could help kids succeed. 

First, as it pertains to CousinRicky, whom I like and appreciate as a donor to USF athletics, everything he's heard about Skip getting a raw deal has come from him talking to Skip.  And we're talking about a guy who received a new, more valuable contract coming off a year where we were beginning to trend downward.  So the talk about Skip getting a raw deal sort of rings hollow in my ears.  

Fair point about APR jump in CJL's final year being half-credited to him.  But are you telling me (and I'm asking for a lesson here, professor, because I genuinely do not know) that the difference between sanctions and no sanctions for the USF football program is an APR score somewhere between 930 and 973?  Because Holtz split that gap in two in his first year, so you'd think at least 50% of the pressure to increase the academics of the football team should have been relieved in the first year, and at that point, he might have been able to take some more risks with a player for whom talent>grades.  

This is all, of course, if you actually buy into the notion that Skip's job description on his offer letter put a priority on better grades than football wins.  

So please, I welcome any hard evidence you have that USF was close to sanctions, which would have been avoided AT LEAST by year two of the Holtz regime, if all of the above is true.

5 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I know. You're either in the xCSH got a raw deal camp or the xCSH is the single worst coach in the history of football camp.

  If nothing else, they'll put on your tombstone, "Master of Sarcasm and Hyperbole, but Not a Great Reader of Message Board Posts." 

[GaUSFBull]

Never mind, I just looked it up.  930 was the minimum which USF had hit the year before Leavitt was fired.  So it was already on the rise, in large part due to Leavitt, with the progress being continued with Skip.  

[Bull Dozer]

13 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

Never mind, I just looked it up.  930 was the minimum which USF had hit the year before Leavitt was fired.  So it was already on the rise, in large part due to Leavitt, with the progress being continued with Skip.  

Yeah the number for penalties was at 925 until 2011 when the NCAA raised it to 930.  This was a legit issue as it was known the floor hike was coming for a couple of years so I understand the administrations concern.   However, We've basically been around 960 give or take a few points either direction since Skip departed.   The problem is the APR score is being presented as a false dilemma against recruiting capable players which is demonstrably false by the recruiting of every coach who has come here post Skip.  

I mean yes I'm sure the administration beat Skip over the head with how urgent we needed that score fixed especially with the anticipated expected hike but I don't for one second believe they told him "not to worry about wins".  I'm not saying Skip is bold face lying here either as it very simply could've been lost in translation.  

 

Edit: It should also be noted that Skip also still had the Big East/P5 tag to recruit under during this period which would obviously make finding kids who could "do both" that much easier.   

Edited November 13, 2018 by Bull Dozer

[JTrue]

5 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

First, as it pertains to CousinRicky, whom I like and appreciate as a donor to USF athletics, everything he's heard about Skip getting a raw deal has come from him talking to Skip.  And we're talking about a guy who received a new, more valuable contract coming off a year where we were beginning to trend downward.  So the talk about Skip getting a raw deal sort of rings hollow in my ears.  

Fair point about APR jump in CJL's final year being half-credited to him.  But are you telling me (and I'm asking for a lesson here, professor, because I genuinely do not know) that the difference between sanctions and no sanctions for the USF football program is an APR score somewhere between 930 and 973?  Because Holtz split that gap in two in his first year, so you'd think at least 50% of the pressure to increase the academics of the football team should have been relieved in the first year, and at that point, he might have been able to take some more risks with a player for whom talent>grades.  

This is all, of course, if you actually buy into the notion that Skip's job description on his offer letter put a priority on better grades than football wins.  

So please, I welcome any hard evidence you have that USF was close to sanctions, which would have been avoided AT LEAST by year two of the Holtz regime, if all of the above is true.

  If nothing else, they'll put on your tombstone, "Master of Sarcasm and Hyperbole, but Not a Great Reader of Message Board Posts." 

1) That's for @CousinRicky to defend/debate. But I've heard it from more than just him.

2) Definitely agree he did nothing to deserve an extension.

3) 930 is the APR cutoff, when you fall below that during a 4 year period, you're open to sanctions. Even with the 952 in xCJL's last half academic year our average was a 927 (917, 909, 930, 952). If you add in Holtz's first full year 963, we jump all the way up to a 939. A 929 would have gotten us to a 930 (with the 917 falling off the four year average). xCJL's scores in prior years were 921, 910, 917, 909, 930, 952 (shared with Skip). The average xCJL team was in bad shape, APR-wise.

4) No idea if it was in his contract or not and no one else on here does either.