Recent Brett McMurphy articles

[Matt]

is brett's only job to write about USF?  are we the only thing he covers for the Trib? 

if so, do they pay him a full-time salary or is this one of this gigs that old guys do to stay busy and earn an extra buck cause they are on a fixed income...kinda like the guy who bags my groceries at publix?

seriously.....look how much more coverage we get from Greg.  the only thing Brett blogs about is his stupid "you pick'em" contests.  give me a break. 

[Triple B]

Our unquestionable love for USF takes a backseat to the objectivity reported in his articles at times... some of his articles are negative... some are positive... it's a good mix... you would be surprised on stories he doesn't report to save face for certain individuals when he has less than revealing details on certain situations. So... you can make Brett out to be a monster reporter, but I'd say he is just doing his job.

What I've noticed on here... when he does write a good pro-USF article, you guys bash him for his negative ones. What really matters... he doesn't have an allegiance to UF that invades blog posts and every other article in attempt to circumvent the strides USF has made in recent years on closing the gap between the cestpool 120 miles North. Take it for what its worth...

This juvenile "thing" you have for Auman has clouded your judgment so much that you don't realize that what you accuse Greg of is exactly what Brett has done with this article... Take it for what its worth.

[nobull.Bulls]

Greg writes the more positive side of stories (Glass half full)

Brett writes the more critical/negative side sometines (glass half empty)

No one likes to hear the criticism, but I think Brett's is alright.

Were we unable to get a national game against Rutgers? No, he's absolutely right to write so.

  But if you look at the whole story he wrote about afterwards (our Thursday night games) its not as negative as most of you think.

[JrGMan2004]

I would like to see a mention in there of how much of the salaries are paid by the Football Boosters rather than revenue and other monies the school puts up out of it's budget... if I remember right, FSU actually only pays Bobby Bowden about $600k... the other $1.5mil or so of his salary is paid by boosters...

[nobull.Bulls]

I would like to see a mention in there of how much of the salaries are paid by the Football Boosters rather than revenue and other monies the school puts up out of it's budget... if I remember right, FSU actually only pays Bobby Bowden about $600k... the other $1.5mil or so of his salary is paid by boosters...

Thats a good point

[Brad]

Our unquestionable love for USF takes a backseat to the objectivity reported in his articles at times... some of his articles are negative... some are positive... it's a good mix... you would be surprised on stories he doesn't report to save face for certain individuals when he has less than revealing details on certain situations. So... you can make Brett out to be a monster reporter, but I'd say he is just doing his job.

What I've noticed on here... when he does write a good pro-USF article, you guys bash him for his negative ones. What really matters... he doesn't have an allegiance to UF that invades blog posts and every other article in attempt to circumvent the strides USF has made in recent years on closing the gap between the cestpool 120 miles North. Take it for what its worth...

The Sheriff lectures on Murph and then takes a swipe at Auman. 

[Guest]

Either we want to be compared to other elite programs or we don't.

That means every aspect... wins and losses... season ticket sales... athletic program budgets... coaches salaries... recruiting classes... talent/product on the field/court... etc.

We can't say "compare our teams but not our programs"...

For me, I would say this kind of article shows exactly what Jeremy Foley said at the end:

Foley said he understands the difficulty of competing financially against schools with deeper pockets. USF's $28.1 million in athletic department revenues in 2006-07 was barely one-fourth of UF's revenues.

"South Florida has done a good job keeping Jim Leavitt," Foley said. "That's why they've been successful. When you keep your staff together, it breeds success. When you're able to do that, it's a credit to the leadership of the university."

[KB]

Were we unable to get a national game against Rutgers? No, he's absolutely right to write so.

  But if you look at the whole story he wrote about afterwards (our Thursday night games) its not as negative as most of you think.

That's not what he wrote.  He wrote "....apparently cost the Bulls the chance to play a nationally televised home game".  Apparently, it did not cost us the chance.  We have one, now earlier in the year, against Pitt.

[MikeG]

I have noticed that occasionally people will take something I write in a thread and read it a negative comment or something that is wasn't intentioned to be. Usually these folks fire back saying something snarky.

My point is that occasionally the reader themselves are to blame for perceived slights--- some folks are going through the article with a fine comb trying to find every jewel of evidence that the writer is somehow slanted against USF and doing harm to USF somehow.

I know I have done that in the past and then revisited the article later and rethought the situation. Some stuff just reads as purposefully snotty/nasty/antagonistic---- But short of directly asking a reporter what they meant or their tone on a piece, I don't know that you can definitively assign labels.

Also--- the suibject matter of comparing us to UF/FSU immediately forces many of our fans to put their guard up expecting the worst. Those quotes from FOley seemed to be significant PRAISE for the USF program/administration.  

[MikeG]

Were we unable to get a national game against Rutgers? No, he's absolutely right to write so.

  But if you look at the whole story he wrote about afterwards (our Thursday night games) its not as negative as most of you think.

That's not what he wrote.  He wrote "....apparently cost the Bulls the chance to play a nationally televised home game".  Apparently, it did not cost us the chance.   We have one, now earlier in the year, against Pitt.

true--- for all we know having to push Rutgers back and to a Saturday may mean that game is significant enough to land ESPN whereas Pitt on a Saturday may have not gotten more than a Big East game of the week/regional broadcast.

WE sure have had some significantly cool battles on Thursday and Friday the past few years on ESPN-- where we were the only game going on. Maybe we don't get the diehard SEC fan to watch those games--- but a big part of the country gets a dose of Bulls experience/knowledge anytime we get out there this way.