Those who want UCF series are shortsighted

[Joe]

Jim I am going to have to fix your BCS breakdown:

Great: Miami, Florida, Auburn

Decent: Mich State, NC State, Kansas (I don't have to see any of these teams schedules and say 7-5,6-6 record)

Bad: Illinois, Indiana, UNC (non of these teams consistently go to bowl games, I give Kansas the nod because they have been committed to winning)

Trip, I agree that they are more intriguing games. However, i think if you polled the fan base (including the students who have shown well this year) and asked what game in teh OOC was most intriguing UCF would win hands down.

UNC will be lucky to win 5 this year and Kansas isn't looking to swift either (Promotion: Tonight! Kansas v. Toledo, will be a VERY good football game)

[Knight_Light]

I may be short sighted, but as of now, there is not another game on our schedule with more interest than UCF.

Good, bad, right, or wrong. Like it or hate it. Doesn't matter!

FACT - this game creates hype and the college experience that I think everyone wants is HYPE. College football Saturday is what we all want to experience at the highest level.

Why does our RIVALRY have to be considered UCF? Why do we THINK we have to create a rivalry with anyone?

We want exposure on a national level and playing UCF will bring some of that. We want respect on a national level??  WIN!  Win a game that some one outside of Florida even knows is being played. They may not care that it's played, but they know.

FOR NOW this is a good game for both schools. In five years? We don't know.

Someone asked how many are going to WKU? Not me, but we'll be in Orlando tomorrow!

GO BULLS

Good points.

Remember the HYPE that the St Pete Times gave USF last week vs FIU (or the week before) by not even writing a GAME DAY column about USF's HOME contest that night?

Face it...USF played a HOME GAME and couldn't even get its official sponsored paper to write a Game Day article about it (believe the Tampa Tribune had nice articles even during the week between ex-teammates from both teams, etc...)

USF played its first 2 home games this year infront of a combined 90,000 EMPTY SEATS!

Is that what USF wants to do at least 2-3 times per year in the future?

KL

PS. And remember, USF's 3,000-4,000 fans traveling over to Orlando is the LARGEST EVER ROAD CROWD for any USF regular season away game.

Hype? Who needs it? Crowded Stadiums? Disgusting!

[BULLheaded]

 I don't see any positives to a Ball State or Buffalo.  To me, those games are ALL downside.

UL played at Temple this year, that didn't hurt them any.  These games aren't the greatest, we can schedule better games, but they will beef up the record and that is a positive.  Plus, don't be so sure more teams the caliber of UM, Auburn and FL won't be added as well.  You can't play all tough OOC games.  Right now there is a decent mix of lower level, mid level bcs and upper level bcs teams.  I wouldn't be opposed to a few more good opponents.

Right, but these teams are REPLACING UCF on our schedule.  So all the reasons that UCF is a bad idea apply to these other teams: if we lose these games recruiting will suffer, if we lose these games our image will suffer, if we lose the games we won't be part of the Big 4.

You don't want UCF?  Fine by me -- give me, as a fan, something better.  Something that, at the very least, makes me think you have a plan to get us to the promised land where USF is always in the Top 5 and plays Top 5 opponents.

The road to the top may not go through Orlando, but I don't see it going through Buffalo either.

As for UL -- they won, but it was "Temple".  That's the kind of response they are getting.  Imagine what would happen if Temple had won.  The claim was that UCF is bad for our program for several reasons - fine, let's say those are all true - why don't the same things apply to other, even lesser teams??

I don't understand why you point out two games that are only a possibilty in the future as a replacement for UCF. We have scheduled home and homes with several big 10 schools why is nobody mentioning that THOSE are replacing the UCF games? I think we'll continue to see these types of games added to our schedule with those other games as just tuneup games. Unless your suggesting that UCF is just a tuneup game then those are not the replacements.

[BULLheaded]

I have said that I no longer think this series should be one that we play every year... but it is MORE shortsighted to replace a mediocre team with two or three really bad teams.  Give me Southern Miss.  Give me Tulane.  At the very least give me Vanderbilt or Duke or Baylor, at least they are technically BCS.

But if anyone thinks we can get into the Big Three by playing crappy teams, then you may be as deluded as I.  To do that we need to play - and beat - Top 50 teams, not Bottom Ten teams.

If the Bull Brother in the Lone Star State wants us to dream, at least make our opponents better.

I don't think anyone has argued that the proposed  "two or three really bad teams" are the end all of USF scheduling.  We'd all like to see the best possible for USF, and that is not UCF either.

Brad - We have some great programs on future schedules... Auburn, Miami, Florida, Michigan State, NC State... and some solid BCS programs in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina.

The problem is that instead of replacing UCF with "the best possible" non-BCS teams, DW & Co are replacing UCF with some of "the worse possible" non-BCS teams.  That is the only reason why I continue to harp on this - and I can't imagine why on earth anyone in their right mind would rather play Buffalo or Ball State than UCF.  The choice isn't UCF or Oklahoma --- it's UCF or Buffalo.

I will concede that a long-term series with UCF is not good for the program; however, if we are supposed to be improving our competition - how does that happen in a year when USF will play a I-AA team, plus games against Buffalo and Western Kentucky?

Does anyone at least understand what I am trying to say??

Here is how I see it,

replaced our conference from cusa to big east = big upgreade

replacing UCF (considered big OOC game) with some of the middle/low tier BCS teams = slight upgrade

replacing McNeese st, FIU (and whatever other tuneup games we've had) wiith the buffalo's and ball state's = about the same

I agree that the tuneups could be against better teams but from what I saw the past couple weeks they are about right at this point. Hopefully as time goes on we'll see enough improvement that we can bump this all down a notch so the buffallos completely drop off and the better non bcs/lower tier bcs can become tuneups but I think it's obvious were not at that point yet.

That said, I don't think the game against UCF has ever been considered a tuneup game.

[Sitting_BULL]

There I said it.  Did some of you get mad.  Sorry, I just want you to stop and think for a minute.

Those who want the UCF series are probably the same type of people who would have wanted an annual series with Ga. Southern a few years ago.  Guess what, thankfully we didn't settle there, and we shouldn't settle here.

USF needs to dream big, I mean really, really, really big.   Keep dreaming big and don't stop til you get there.  Dream of being the next UM, FSU, Texas, or USC.  Yes, folks, it can happen.  It may take years, but don't stop till you get there.  Don't ever give up until you have hit the big time.  I'm not one to say we have already hit the big time or arrived yet like some have.  We have a long long way to go.  Think long term, think huge.  Don't settle until you have an annual series with another top 10 opponent and we are a top ten team.  Whether that be UM or another team.  Beleive and dream.  Go for the gold, go for an annual series with a top BCS team if it take 10, 15, or 20 years.

I don't think you realize the scheduling priorities for USF.

FIRST - No 2 for 1s or single game paydays for BCS teams.  BCS teams get 1 for 1s or nothing.

SECOND -  This is the breakdown that USF wants for it's 5 OOC games:

                        1 I-AA home game

                        1 BCS home game

                        1 BCS road game

                        2 mid major games

THIRD - Whenever possible, schedule 7 home games.  This can be difficult in years with three home conference games (can we get 4 of the 5 OOC games at home??)

Those three priorities are hard to fit into a Fresno State / Florida State "play anyone anywhere" mindset.

And no, you can't change the priorities until you are named coach or athletic director.

Does USC have a home and home with a WAC, Florida with a CUSA team, the answer is no and we should settle for no less, I'm not talking about 1 or 2 games ore even a 1 for 1, but a long term series.

Consider that Southern Cal only has 2 OOC games (+ ND) and Florida only has three 3 OOC games (+ FSU) and USF has 5 OOC games; it's a lot harder for those two teams to have long-term series with a mid-major.  Florida doesn't even play OOC games on the road - they generally do single-pay games and USF can't do that (yet).

LSU (a perennial Top 10 team) signed a long term series with Tulane.  Texas has four games coming up with Rice (2 home and homes).  WVU has four games with ECU (2 home and homes). These may be more the exception than the rule, but Top teams do sign long term series with mid-major teams.

These series with Mac teams are not long term so forget about those and don't focus on them.

Don't you dare settle for a long term series with a CDOA team, no matter how many butts it puts in the seat.  Whether 65K fans show up at every game.  Dream of winning national championship after national championship.  Don't use the excuse that we are playing ball state, those are just filler games on the way to the top, not a long term annual series.  Build a series with a team that can be a USC-Notre Dame, Florida-FSU,  UM-OSU, Texas-OU.  This may sound unreasonable to some of you, but the only way to get there is to dream of it.  It can happen one day.  Don't settle, just cause the other side screams and fans who don't think long term want to settle.  CJL and DW see the long term, the future, and the future is bright.  They are dreaming of bringing home everything to USF, and to do that you shoot for the moon, not settle.  Dream of being a top 5 team playing an annual with another top 5 team.  Yes we can.  We have nothing to gain by settling except to be brought down.  Don't just think of the dollars and fans, but of long term dreams, and don't stop till you get there.

We can dream about it... and it will come.

By the way, UL played AT Temple, the worst team in 1A, that doesn't stop them from dreaming national championships and neither will games at ball state, etc. for us.  Go check out their boards.  We have more big games coming I am sure, that will be added, those are just schedule fillers.

Thanks for reading.  Go Bulls.      

[highlight]So, since we will be playing TWO GAMES against mid-majors every year, do you want them to be Buffalo, Ball State or UCF?[/highlight]

Doesn't seem to be shortsighted to me to play the game.  We still have the chance to play the big name programs.

---

I am not disagreeing with you, just wanting to make sure that your vision is based, a little, on reality.

you are missing the point.  Buffalo & Ball St are [highlight]NOT[/highlight] annual series.  We did [highlight]NOT[/highlight] replace an annual series with ucf, we simply are moving on from ucf to Buffalo, who in turn we will move on to the next, etc, etc, etc.  Get it now?

There's lots of programs out there we haven't even played yet.

[Guest]

Here is how I see it,

replaced our conference from cusa to big east = big upgreade

replacing UCF (considered big OOC game) with some of the middle/low tier BCS teams = slight upgrade

replacing McNeese st, FIU (and whatever other tuneup games we've had) wiith the buffalo's and ball state's = about the same

I agree that the tuneups could be against better teams but from what I saw the past couple weeks they are about right at this point. Hopefully as time goes on we'll see enough improvement that we can bump this all down a notch so the buffallos completely drop off and the better non bcs/lower tier bcs can become tuneups but I think it's obvious were not at that point yet.

That said, I don't think the game against UCF has ever been considered a tuneup game.

The problem is that we still have I-AA games on the schedule.  We're not replacing McNeese State with Ball State ... that makes sense.  We're not replacing UCF with middle/low tier BCS teams ... that makes sense.  We're replacing UCF with Ball State ... that doesn't make sense.

---

[highlight]So, since we will be playing TWO GAMES against mid-majors every year, do you want them to be Buffalo, Ball State or UCF?[/highlight]

Doesn't seem to be shortsighted to me to play the game.  We still have the chance to play the big name programs.

you are missing the point.  Buffalo & Ball St are [highlight]NOT[/highlight] annual series.  We did [highlight]NOT[/highlight] replace an annual series with ucf, we simply are moving on from ucf to Buffalo, who in turn we will move on to the next, etc, etc, etc.  Get it now?

There's lots of programs out there we haven't even played yet.

USF has no annual series with anyone, so I am not trying to argue about that.

UCF is being replaced by teams of lesser quality - and just about everyone here seems to think that is perfectly acceptible.  If the plan is to make our team better, then why even bother talking to Buffalo or Ball State?

So I still don't get it.  Not trying to be obtuse - but we're not talking about scrapping UCF to play home and home series against upper-level mid-major teams... that is why I have a problem here.

[Joe]

With all the arguments many of you have made. Why would MIAMI give us an annual?

They lose they're down to our level.

They could easily schedule someone else without making it annual.

The USF game wouldn't bring THAT many more fans to the Orange Bowl

They could lose recruits over it.

They would only be helping us improve.

I think a major point that people are missing is that we have FIVE non committed games a year out of conference. It put's US at a real disadvantage when it comes to scheduling, teams know we need the games and hurts us in the leverage department.

[Brad]

Wonder what the buyout is for Ball State, etc.?

You guys act like we are getting in bed with Ball State for a lifetime.  Even if it's a 1-1 or a 2-1, we can always buy out but right now there is insurance that we have games and we aren't having to "take" games.

Again, I don't mind playing UCF - I don't think it's a rivalry and would gladly play them whenever necessary - but like Ball State, I would not commit to any long term series with them.  The "Little Two" and a peer of UCF is not where this program desires to be.  Period.  Besides, I was glad to see Greg dig up this old gem for some of you.

Former USF AD Paul Griffin: "They've (USF) passed them by," Griffin said. "Why give (UCF) a platform to say that isn't true?"

SPT Article from 09/14/05

I'll take the annual deal with UCF when Miami gives us an annual series, how about that?  We can play at the level we want to play (Miami) and entertain the students and Knight posters here with a little beatdown in Mousetown too.  But we have to have something better and stronger as a Rival than a program that had failed before ours was ever announced.

I'm all over the board this morning, I apologize...a littel foggy and the Kenya AA is brewing.

[BULLheaded]

The problem is that we still have I-AA games on the schedule.  We're not replacing McNeese State with Ball State ... that makes sense.  We're not replacing UCF with middle/low tier BCS teams ... that makes sense.  We're replacing UCF with Ball State ... that doesn't make sense.

I think it is a matter of how you categorize the teams we play.

It appears to me your categorizing like this:

1) Conference Games

2) OOC BCS Games

3) OOC Non-BCS Games

Looking at it like that and putting ucf in the 3rd category I can see why you feel this way, however I think a more accurate way to group teams we play is like this:

1) Conference Games

2) OOC Competetive Games

3) OOC Tuneup Games

In this case I'd put ucf in the 2nd category and looking at the future schedules I'd say we are definitely replacing this game with better teams. It's the 3rd category that needs some work but the way we've played lately do you think we're ready to tuneup against teams like maryland as WVU did? I wish we were but realistically I can't say we are.

Also, as Brad points out we can buy out these games if we progress to the point that tuning up against better teams makes sense.

[Guest]

I don't understand why you point out two games that are only a possibilty in the future as a replacement for UCF. We have scheduled home and homes with several big 10 schools why is nobody mentioning that THOSE are replacing the UCF games? I think we'll continue to see these types of games added to our schedule with those other games as just tuneup games. Unless your suggesting that UCF is just a tuneup game then those are not the replacements.

Because the Big Ten games are not replacing a mid major.  I have posted before that DW wants to have 2 BCS games and 2 mid major games every year.

Michigan State replaces Kansas

Indiana replaces North Carolina

North Carolina State replaces Florida

Ball State replaces UCF

You have to categorize the games based on the scheduling priorities.  One could say that Wofford replaces Auburn - but that's not technically correct.  Wofford replaces McNeese State.  Samford replaces Wofford.  

So Ball State replaces UCF.  Buffalo replaces Ball State.