Scott Frost is 8-14 and got an extension

[Ghostbuster]

6 minutes ago, Gatorbull325 said:

Frost had one undefeated season.......and every other season as a head he has won 6 or less games. His total coaching record is 27-21. Frost is overrated

I don't care about Frost, how are you not getting this.  It was a comparison of the first couple years for Frost and Strong in the AAC.  Fine say Frost sucks (IDGAF) but he did better in his AAC years than Strong.

Literally the only point I'm making is Strong is inferior to Frost at this point in the AAC.  And if you want to say Frost sucks by all means.

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, The Sheriff said:

My two cents. Charlie inherited a ranked team (11-2 the year before), under performed in year one, and failed to build on the momentum of Willie Taggart.

Saying that team "under performed" is a ridiculously simplistic slap at that team. They would have had the same 11-2 record if all games were played and just fell short of building off that momentum, in one of the best games a USF football team has played .... The knocks people try to throw at that 2017 team are a ******* joke at  times.

[bullsbucsfan426]

3 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

You are using total yards allowed (#47), I am using total points allowed (#57). but I'll let you use the better of the two numbers but it still doesn't support your argument of one of the top defenses, again unless you think that being in the top 40% of defenses in one category means they are a "top" defense.

And your argument about beating P5 schools with more resources in defense is a straw man argument - if this defense played a P5 schedule they wouldn't be in the Top 50 or 60.

If this defense was in the P5 Strong would  be attracting the type of defensive talent that would rank us top 5 in the country defensively. We'd likely be like Auburn-not good enough to beat anyone with a pulse on defense, but good enough to cause problems for pretty much anyone else. 

[Corey lea]

1 hour ago, The Sheriff said:

My two cents. Charlie inherited a ranked team (11-2 the year before), under performed in year one, and failed to build on the momentum of Willie Taggart. That 2017 team was the strongest team we've had in our history with respect to our schedule. Strong is now knee deep in his own **** due to poor recruiting, some bad luck and his own lack of tolerance with the guys that were already in the program.

Scott Frost inherited a terrible 4-8 team that lost six of their last seven and beat no one of stature in 2017. He then lost his first six games while dealing with a bunch of malcontents in 2018. The scraped out a couple of wins to close out the year, however they are far from a finished product. If these two coaches are on an escalator, Frost is slowly going up while Strong is coming down.

I'm convinced you are not very smart.

[Ghostbuster]

1 minute ago, Triple B said:

Saying that team "under performed" is a ridiculously simplistic slap at that team. 

If your expectations are league champion and you don't even accomplish division champ, "under perform" is perfectly fitting.  That team's offense had been off the charts and historically good.  Not getting hardware is under performing and acknowledging that isn't a slight, it's a statement of reality.

[OcalaBull2]

12 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

You are using total yards allowed (#47), I am using total points allowed (#57). but I'll let you use the better of the two numbers but it still doesn't support your argument of one of the top defenses, again unless you think that being in the top 40% of defenses in one category means they are a "top" defense.

And your argument about beating P5 schools with more resources in defense is a straw man argument - if this defense played a P5 schedule they wouldn't be in the Top 50 or 60.

False. I’m using total defense. https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22

And sure, hypothetical but logical point about playing a harder schedule, but what about the teams with better resources than us that are performing a lot worse? 

One thing that very few people want to acknowledge on here is consistency. Strong has had a good defense for most of his time at USF. He’s also had the same coordinator during his entire time here. Offense? A lot of them are on their 3rd coordinator in 4 years. Most of the ones starting now had to learn two systems in less than a year. Yet many expect our offense to be putting up massive numbers right away. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by OcalaBull2

[OcalaBull2]

5 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

If your expectations are league champion and you don't even accomplish division champ, "under perform" is perfectly fitting.  That team's offense had been off the charts and historically good.  Not getting hardware is under performing and acknowledging that isn't a slight, it's a statement of reality.

So by that logic USF has never had a successful coach. 

[Ghostbuster]

5 minutes ago, OcalaBull2 said:

So by that logic USF has never had a successful coach. 

Well that escalated quickly.  "Under performed in 2017 because they were favored to win" does not equate to "every coach ever was unsuccessful because they didn't net a championship".

[OcalaBull2]

Just now, Ghostbuster said:

Well that escalated quickly.  "Under performed in 2017 because they were favored to win" does not equate to "every coach ever was unsuccessful because they didn't net a championship".

You literally said “not getting hardware is underperforming.”

but let me rephrase that because I misspoke. Unsuccessful was the wrong choice of word, I should have said underperformed. 

[Triple B]

19 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

If your expectations are league champion and you don't even accomplish division champ, "under perform" is perfectly fitting.  That team's offense had been off the charts and historically good.  Not getting hardware is under performing and acknowledging that isn't a slight, it's a statement of reality.

I assume by "that team" you are referring to the 2017 one ..... and "under performing" for the season is definitely accurate ubt in the most simplistic way possible, IMO. They didn't get to the ccg because of one game and it's hard for me to label that game as an under performance, but it technically was because they lost.