Coach McCullum to stay at USF!!!!!

[Bull Matrix]

Here me out on this. I really beleive that USF need to keep Coach McCULLUM for another year. He is building somthing at USF. It is going to take time, but it is going to be done the right way. Give the man a chance. GO BULLS!!!!

[flsportsfan83]

4 years is enough

[usfgrad84]

How can you say he has built anything?  You do realize Mattis and Buckley graduate.  gransberry is the only contributor of any consequence returning.  Everyone else is a question mark.  That's not building.  By contrast take Depaul.  7-6 conference record.  Leading scorer on the year is Wilson Chandler.  He is a Sophomore.  3rd leading scorer is a JR. They have a strong foundation of underclassmen contributing. combined with SRs doing the same.

We have Gransberry coming back.  He's the only one coming back that's a proven solid performer.  Howard has potential, and shown flashes but still is questionable.  In conference play no one elsehas proven a lick.  That's not a foundation for success.

[TyBull]

JMHO:

He has two (2) years left on the remainder of his contract after this year.

His players  and making the grades in the classroom.

His injured/ redshirts are on the bench in ties.

He has claened up the "previous" coaches mess.

He has had plenty of injuries to deal with.

He has a pretty good group coming in next year.

JMHO: RmC comes back for next year.

[Guest]

JMHO:

He has two (2) years left on the remainder of his contract after this year.

His players  and making the grades in the classroom.

His injured/ redshirts are on the bench in ties.

He has claened up the "previous" coaches mess.

He has had plenty of injuries to deal with.

He has a pretty good group coming in next year.

JMHO: RmC comes back for next year.

I would tend to agree with this sentiment.

There is a theory, that sometimes you have to tear down to build up.  RMC came in, cleaned house... then had some injury issues that really were beyond his control.  Since 2006-07 was better than 2005-06, you HAVE to say that we are building up.

RMC has managed to do more in his first four years that Seth Greenberg, Bobby Pascal et al all did combined: beat four ranked teams.  That HAS to be worth something.

Finally, I will say - why do so many people place such an importance on wins and losses?  Can anyone really provide an honest answer to that question?  If you consider the mission of interscholastic, amateur, college sports - why are wins the most important thing?

[usfgrad84]

I have maintained all along that it is not just about wins.  It's about the way we lose, combined with the declining attendance/declining interest in the program.

Unfortunately, in this situation, we are in the Big East where it is big time business.  Winning is what brings people to the games.  Winning is what gets us on TV and winning is what gets us to post season.  All methods of producing revenue.  

If simply playing games and graduating players was the goal with our school and program we could have stayed in the Sun Belt many years ago.  Our goal as a school and subsequently as an athletic program has been to be a top flight school in all aspects.  In addition, when Woolard got here he stated a goal to be the finest athletic program in the BE.  Winning is the scorecard in that endeavor.  Losing by an average of 15 points against your peers while attacting about 50% of capacity home attendance is not really part of building the finest program in the league.

One last comment/question. (yes, this is meant as a question not as a negative statement)  As measured by the NCAA, how does McCullum's teams compare in graduation rates?  My understanding is that it is based on a player going through a full four year eligibility.  If that is the case, Chris Howard is the closest on the team to his degree.  Meaning that based on the NCAA measure, he hasn't graduated any one of his players.  So it's a bit difficult to measure his success rate in the classroom.

[WoolyBully]

Finally, I will say - why do so many people place such an importance on wins and losses?  Can anyone really provide an honest answer to that question?  If you consider the mission of interscholastic, amateur, college sports - why are wins the most important thing?

Because this is America. And Americans do not like losers. Never have. Not in sports, not in politics, not in anything.  A good example, picking up the Silver Medal in the Southeast Asian War Games Invitational.  It's a sense of pride, being better than the other guy - and proving it, not just believing it. I may shake your hand when we walk out onto the mat, but make no mistake, I'm here to either pin you or take your head off in the process. Winning is why we're here. Good citizenship, brotherly love and just being an all around good guy...yeah, that's what we put on the letterhead, but we want dominance where it counts. And the fans - the ones who spend cash and donate money - they want to be associated with a winner as well. How many perennial losing teams have a hard time fund raising, compared to winning programs that basically just have to wink and nod?

What is the mission of amateur college sports? To build good citizens through athletics? Maybe at one point in history that was true. But today - it's a business. And you're either going to aspire to be the best there is, or you're gonna get replaced by someone WHO can bring in the wins.

I think RMC will be around, makes sense from a business perspective. However, he certainly knows that he won't be renewed just because his players are good students. You're here to coach a winning basketball team, they may all graduate, but if they don't win...you're out the door.

Like at the office...if you're a chronic f*k up, you're out the door. You're expected to win

(succeed) at what we pay you to do.

[Guest]

I have maintained all along that it is not just about wins.  It's about the way we lose, combined with the declining attendance/declining interest in the program.

Unfortunately, in this situation, we are in the Big East where it is big time business.  Winning is what brings people to the games.  Winning is what gets us on TV and winning is what gets us to post season.  All methods of producing revenue.  

If simply playing games and graduating players was the goal with our school and program we could have stayed in the Sun Belt many years ago.  Our goal as a school and subsequently as an athletic program has been to be a top flight school in all aspects.  In addition, when Woolard got here he stated a goal to be the finest athletic program in the BE.  Winning is the scorecard in that endeavor.  Losing by an average of 15 points against your peers while attracting about 50% of capacity home attendance is not really part of building the finest program in the league.

One last comment/question. (yes, this is meant as a question not as a negative statement)  As measured by the NCAA, how does McCullum's teams compare in graduation rates?  My understanding is that it is based on a player going through a full four year eligibility.  If that is the case, Chris Howard is the closest on the team to his degree.  Meaning that based on the NCAA measure, he hasn't graduated any one of his players.  So it's a bit difficult to measure his success rate in the classroom.

Interesting that the first response to my post is the best post I have seen on this issue.  Wooly's is a bit more cynical, but I understand what he is saying as well.

How I disagree that winning is the only metric that should be used when determining if USF has the "finest athletic department" in the Big East.  Graduation rates have to be included (so Mattis? Buckley? Richardson? Capko? They are all graduating - why can't they be included in the graduation rate?).  Respect of peer institutions is also included in measuring USF's stature - and other coaches have publicly praised McCullum.  

Then you have to do something no one here wants to do - compare all of these things against the program's budget.

Using only the win-loss record would be akin to taking the measure of a man based only on his height.

[Guest Ari_Hinkelberger]

You guys are on total crack.

There is no way Woolard doesn't pull the plug on this guy.  

In four years he avearges 2.5-13.5 in conferene play.

We have failed to make the measely conference tourny 3 of the 4 years he has been here.

Give me a break.

The guy is "adios."

He knows it too.

[usfgrad84]

Someone with more knowledge on the subject than me needs to comment, but I believe the NCAA does not take into consideration transfers when measuring graduation rates.  I believe it has to do with number of scholarships allowed going forward.  ( I could be wrong so feel free to correct me on that one).

In response to your comment about taking the budget into consideration, I don't believe the budget has declined since we entered the Big East, but this will declining home attendance needs to be cosnidered at some point.  Like I posted yesterday, It really bothers me that we are now playing in the Big East against top 25 teams with great basketball traditions and the last 4 years have been the worst run in home attendance at the Sun Dome in history.    

I am trying not to make this about the coach, but rather  about the program itself.  If we have created such a fine basketball program and built that great foundation, why are we not attracting the finest student athlete basketball players?  We seem to be a very last resort for the best student athletes on the BB side of things.  We lucked into a couple of players because the coaches were fired and they opted out of commitments.  That's a far cry from truly attracting the best at first glance.  The best players want to play for a winner.  

There's a lot wrong with the BB program.