USF turned down a 2 for 1 with Texas.....

[Brad]

I agree with Trip's analysis...

And flsportsfan83, you dont have to stand guard like that...

[Triple B]

I agree with Trip's analysis...

Do I win an Andre Hall rookie card?

[E.T.]

Do I win an Andre Hall rookie card?

"You'll get nothing and like it Spalding!"

Love that movie  ;D

[Triple B]

"You'll get nothing and like it Spalding!"

Love that movie  ;D

That was actually on the ABC Family Channel here today. Wish I would have known so could have DVD'd it. Should have been cleaned up enough for my 12 yr old to watch it ....

[E.T.]

First and only movie I snuck into see ... up in Connecticut (sp?)

IIIIII'aaaammmmm Allllllright !  8)

[DawgPound]

now back to the UCF board you are not wanted here

From what I've seen from USF posters, neither are you.

[DawgPound]

No problem with that statement .....

Here's where your (and obviously some our fans) MAC and CUSA mental mindset comes into play. Playing and losing to Texas will not get us recognized. Playing and beating Texas will get us recognized BUT if we are good enough to beat Texas then we should be good enough to win the BE and go to a BCS bowl, which means the Texas game is not a necessity for gaining national attention.

As I stated before, I wouldn't have been upset with the 2-1 with Texas but not doing it is no freaking big deal. We have the vehicle right NOW to get national attention .... we just have to take advantage of it.

I agree.  The game isn't a bad thing to have, but isn't horrible that USF opted not to pursue it.  I see it as possible tv exposure, which gives people(recruits) a name to think about.  While wins are important, getting national exposure on tv is as well for a budding program.  That's why I'm happy UCF made the deal for next year and has plenty of tv games this year.  There are plenty of worthy recruiting possibilities who are unaware of either of our schools.

[Bullpride08]

I agree.  The game isn't a bad thing to have, but isn't horrible that USF opted not to pursue it.  I see it as possible tv exposure, which gives people(recruits) a name to think about.  While wins are important, getting national exposure on tv is as well for a budding program.  That's why I'm happy UCF made the deal for next year and has plenty of tv games this year.  There are plenty of worthy recruiting possibilities who are unaware of either of our schools.

I completely disagree with your assertion that it isn't important enough not to pursue it.  You're failing to rationalize that we are a BCS program in a BCS conference.  Therefore we don't need to take the impossible to win propositions to get recognized.  Face it, USF can play four no-nothing OOC games and win it's conference and still get into a BCS game.  Perception be damned, we go to a BCS game.  As for UCF they're in a non-BCS conference, and therefore should you have an improbable season to have any shot at getting a BCS game you'll need to beat some good BCS opponents in you're OOC.  I am not talking out of my ass here the facts bear repeating and speak for themselves.  Look at UL, Tulane, USM, Fresno State....etc, there great non-BCS seasons in which they went 10-1 or better and yet never made a BCS game because of a weak OOC.  The only non-BCS program to accomplish the amazing flip was Utah, who went UNDEFEATED and beat TAMU, UNC, and Zona in their OOC games, and even then they were a close qualifier for a BCS game.

Therefore, the facts indicate for USF we don't need to even subject ourself to a 2 for 1 with Texas.  All it does is give limited exposure, it certainly doesn't help us to lose 3 games to a Texas, and it certainly isn't needed for us to garner any brownie points to get into a BCS game.  SO, if your USF, why play it?  To get exposure?  SO, we get exposure already playing WVU, and UL, not to mention we've already got a few solid OOC games against UF, Miami, and Auburn...not to mention UNC, Kansas, and a few more big names coming soon.   SO, why should we, or what benefit does a 2 for 1 with Texas garner?  To go on ESPN and be a slaughtered pig at home and then get two trips to Austin for satisfaction?  No thanks, have fun with it, it certainly makes sense for UCF, you need it for attendance (as many of your brethren have stated as fact for a defense), for notoriety, and to help with SOS should you need it.  We don't need it for any of the three, particularly since we've got enough BCS programs willing to schedule 1-1 with us.

This is ridiculous, this move makes sense for UCF and I will readily admit that, but it's not a sensible option for USF given our new bargaining position and the fact we've used that position already to our advantage.  Thanks, but no thanks.  

[knight_fan]

Why are you so worried about what is done at USF. Yes we turned down Texas and then they went to you. You need that game for your program we are past that stage. Congrats on your 2 for 1. We will take 1 for 1's from BCS schools.

I'm not so sure about the timing of the events.  I know that ESPN brokered the deal between Texas and UCF.  I've seen no implication about an either or proposition.  

[DawgPound]

I completely disagree with your assertion that it isn't important enough not to pursue it.  You're failing to rationalize that we are a BCS program in a BCS conference.  Therefore we don't need to take the impossible to win propositions to get recognized.  Face it, USF can play four no-nothing OOC games and win it's conference and still get into a BCS game.  Perception be damned, we go to a BCS game.  As for UCF they're in a non-BCS conference, and therefore should you have an improbable season to have any shot at getting a BCS game you'll need to beat some good BCS opponents in you're OOC.  I am not talking out of my ass here the facts bear repeating and speak for themselves.  Look at UL, Tulane, USM, Fresno State....etc, there great non-BCS seasons in which they went 10-1 or better and yet never made a BCS game because of a weak OOC.  The only non-BCS program to accomplish the amazing flip was Utah, who went UNDEFEATED and beat TAMU, UNC, and Zona in their OOC games, and even then they were a close qualifier for a BCS game.

Therefore, the facts indicate for USF we don't need to even subject ourself to a 2 for 1 with Texas.  All it does is give limited exposure, it certainly doesn't help us to lose 3 games to a Texas, and it certainly isn't needed for us to garner any brownie points to get into a BCS game.  SO, if your USF, why play it?  To get exposure?  SO, we get exposure already playing WVU, and UL, not to mention we've already got a few solid OOC games against UF, Miami, and Auburn...not to mention UNC, Kansas, and a few more big names coming soon.   SO, why should we, or what benefit does a 2 for 1 with Texas garner?  To go on ESPN and be a slaughtered pig at home and then get two trips to Austin for satisfaction?  No thanks, have fun with it, it certainly makes sense for UCF, you need it for attendance (as many of your brethren have stated as fact for a defense), for notoriety, and to help with SOS should you need it.  We don't need it for any of the three, particularly since we've got enough BCS programs willing to schedule 1-1 with us.

This is ridiculous, this move makes sense for UCF and I will readily admit that, but it's not a sensible option for USF given our new bargaining position and the fact we've used that position already to our advantage.  Thanks, but no thanks.  

That's nice.  So you disagree.  Maybe if you didn't sound so arrogant, I'd take you a little more seriously.

Mentioning Marshall, Tulane, Louisville and Fresno State's great seasons might hold water if the same rules then apply now.  If today's rules applied then, Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, and Miami(Ohio) in 2003, Utah in 2004(Boise State and Louisville would not because they ranked lower) would have all made a BCS bowl game.  TCU would have barely barely made it in 2005 because they finished above 16th and the ACC champion finished below them.  Since so many would have made it EVEN with 1 loss, that arguement isn't quite as good as it used to be.

If you honestly think UNC and Kansas are "big name" schools in football, you are horribly mistaken.  UNC was a top 20 program a number of years ago, but most wouldn't know that cause they are not a football name.  They were barely blips on the radar, if that.  Kansas hasn't had a good program in years.  They finally did ok this year.  While playing them(assuming you win) is a good stepping stone moving from a BCS newbie to possible champion, to call them a big name would be an insult to actual big name schools.

I did say that USF playing a 2for1 with Texas is not a bad thing and a win or close game could definitely help in defining the program, but it's not required.  Is it really such an ego buster to play a 3 game series with 2 away games even against an elite opponent?  Hell, they came to USF and asked for the series and offered a home game.  That should say something in itself.  As a member of an 8 team conference, there a huge hole to fill in OOC games.  I'd rather play a powerhouse team like Texas and be respected as a team that is willing to go play than a team who goes and plays some I-AA just to have the home game.

USF is BCS affiliated, don't get me wrong.  Wake Forest is as well.  Even Temple was until just a bit ago.  However, USF is not defined and respected as "BCS".  That's going to take a while and it would be very arrogant and ignorant to truely believe otherwise.