Recent Brett McMurphy articles

[Brad]

snark·y     Pronunciation Key - [snahr-kee]

–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang.

testy or irritable; short.

[KB]

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."

When did they start passing out trophies for  season ticket sales... athletic program budgets... coaches salaries... recruiting classes... talent/product on the field/court... etc?  Isn't wins and losses all the matter?  The rest sound like moral victories to me.  

This other info is important and as USF fans we like to know our season ticket numbers, etc.  Do we really need it compared to UF and FSU at this point in our growth.

Did every coach at those 3 schools need their salaries on the front of the Tribune today?  I know they work for public universities and it is public knowledge, but just seems like poor taste of an article.

The whole article wreaked of USF not doing something right.  When in reality, we are making great strides in paying our coaches.  On top of that, maybe we have coaches that aren't money hungry like the rest of the job jumping coaches in the nation.  

[MikeG]

snark·y      Pronunciation Key - [snahr-kee]

–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang.

testy or irritable; short.

snarky much?

[Brad]

snarky much?

Me?  Yeah. 

I have typed a response to this thread twice, but deleted it both times in an effort to avoid being snarky myself.

[MikeG]

snarky much?

Me?  Yeah. 

I have typed a response to this thread twice, but deleted it both times in an effort to avoid being snarky myself.

welcome to my world

(post quoted for posterioty)

[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.

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.

That's a great point.  We might get the RU game on national TV anyway.  Also, if both RU and USF are playing well, maybe we get a Nov 15th visit from the Game Day crew.  Something they wouldn't do for a Thurs night game.

[Bullpride08]

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.

No actually greg reports the situation, brett sensationalizes them.  Want an example read the articles by the times and tribune about the academic advisory board and oversight being moved from athletic department to the University.  It is like night and day, but greg has multiple quotes from University officials and no where does he make accusations or assumptions that are not back by evidence.

If you read BMM and the Trib's article on that situation you'd believe there was a serious issue that the University stepped in and ripped away power for fear of major sanctions and recourse.  THe Times explains the facts, this was something contemplated by Woolard when he arrived, something that is sweeping through the NCAA schools, a move that helps free up room in the budget, and had no special timing.

I know this to be the case because I've had objective non-Bulls fans read BMM's articles, this one included, and ask me (knowing I am a bulls fan), "What's going on at USF?"  Then I direct them to the Times article, and explain the move had no direct motive they then relax.

[Bullpride08]

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."

I don't see a problem with the article if BMM had used Leavitt's CURRENT contract to compare.  Furthermore, he's done this article each of the past three years now.  Remember his, 'our salaries are on the bottom half of the BCS' quotes.  We get it now Magnum PI, three years, and three 'beating the proverbial deadhorse articles' later we get it.  If he wanted to be impartial he would illiustrate where we were when we started the BE, and where we've come over the course of his media wrenching articles on USF Coaches Salaries.

What is funnier is BMM doesn't have a lot of originality, but then again he still has that Magnum PI looking stash' so originality is clearly not his forte.

[Knight_Light]

Is Leavitt holding up a contract that would increase USF's Asst Football Coaches $$$ pool even more so?

From article.

Although Leavitt is only two years into a seven-year, $7 million deal, Woolard has offered Leavitt two new contracts - a seven-year, $12.6 million deal through 2014 or a six-year, $10.4 million deal through 2013. In both proposals, USF's assistant pool, previously slated to increase to $1.05 million in 2008, would increase by $200,000 to $1.25 million, just shy of the 2007 Big East average of $1.29 million.

Negotiations began in November. Leavitt has yet to sign.

[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."

I don't see a problem with the article if BMM had used Leavitt's CURRENT contract to compare.  Furthermore, he's done this article each of the past three years now.  Remember his, 'our salaries are on the bottom half of the BCS' quotes.  We get it now Magnum PI, three years, and three 'beating the proverbial deadhorse articles' later we get it.  If he wanted to be impartial he would illiustrate where we were when we started the BE, and where we've come over the course of his media wrenching articles on USF Coaches Salaries.

What is funnier is BMM doesn't have a lot of originality, but then again he still has that Magnum PI looking stash' so originality is clearly not his forte.

Wouldn't the section of article quoted by KL indicate that BMcM did use the current contract??