So here's why we always seem to drop a game or two each year to "lesser" teams

[Guest BasketBull.]

There's nothing like watching the games again when the season is over. During the season, the games are so intense that we fans don't get to see everything objectively.

Anyway, the keywords are: intensity and focus

When we play ranked opponents, we always bring it, no matter where. But when it's a lowly team, the guys just don't play the same. I would say the range and drop off can be anywhere from a top 25 team to a team in the lower 80s.

When we are bad, we can look really bad... Remember almost losing to Florida International two years ago? My heart is still not right from that game... But that same team went on to beat WVU at their place.

So when we look at this upcoming season and schedule, don't forget the games where the guys might phone it in.  :-[

[I Bleed Awesomeness]

i think its half the players responsibility and half the coaching staffs responsibility to make sure they mantain a consistent level of focus/intensity game in and game out.  where do you guys think we're falling short?  a little of both??

[Who'sYourData?]

Ok.  Deep cleansing breath.

We don't have enough talent to win every game unless we play our best game.  The fact that we won so many games last year is a testament to our hard work and focus.  The staff and players did a great job. 

This year the overall talent will be better, and it will be better each year for the next three or four years.

Patience, grasshopper, patience.

[Guest]

Ok.  Deep cleansing breath.

We don't have enough talent to win every game unless we play our best game.  The fact that we won so many games last year is a testament to our hard work and focus.  The staff and players did a great job. 

This year the overall talent will be better, and it will be better each year for the next three or four years.

Patience, grasshopper, patience.

Um. The games USF lost, maybe except for Oregon, were against lesser opponents.  To me, USF had the talent to win those games even without playing the best.  The fact that in the losses to Rutgers, Cincy, and U Conn -- the bulls had the chance to win the game late in the 4th quarter.

It's not like we're trying to "out-talent" Auburn or WVU.

I would say USF has the talent to beat any team, even if USF doesn't play a perfect game.  We could not say that before 2007.

[MikeG]

seriously-- this talk again?

A few plays here and there and 3 out of 4 of last years losses are wins.

you can't say we lacked focus if that is true-- maybe for the bowl game-- but not for the rest of the season.

bottom line-- USF as a program improves every year. Think about that

[usfgrad84]

There's nothing like watching the games again when the season is over. During the season, the games are so intense that we fans don't get to see everything objectively.

Anyway, the keywords are: intensity and focus

When we play ranked opponents, we always bring it, no matter where. But when it's a lowly team, the guys just don't play the same. I would say the range and drop off can be anywhere from a top 25 team to a team in the lower 80s.

When we are bad, we can look really bad... Remember almost losing to Florida International two years ago? My heart is still not right from that game... But that same team went on to beat WVU at their place.

So when we look at this upcoming season and schedule, don't forget the games where the guys might phone it in.  :-[

I always find this conversation of losing games to lesser teams a silly argument.  Yes, Intensity and focus are part of why you lose these games, but you need to look at the makeup of the team when we lose those games (Other than the UCONN game a couple of years ago, I don't think there was a game where we have actually lost a game where we were the clear cut favorites anyway plus about 75% of the team was hurt that game too).  The factors leading to "a lack of intensity and focus are the immaturity of our teams the last 6 years.  Because we have continually raised the quality level of our athletes, the better players have mostly been underclassman replacing the older players.  So many freshman and first time starters over the last 5 or 6 years each and every year.  Funny how we never seem to have these lapses late in the year when the kids understand what it is like to prepare  for any playing condition and circumstances.  When we lost to Kansas it was Grothe's first away game.  There were a lot of other players playing in their first game. Yeah we were focused at Auburn, but come on, the way the game played out we should have won that game going away not in overtime.   Rutgers ('06) was his first conference start where the intensity was at all time high for him (to that point in his career) plus all those other first time players.  Even the FIU game was so early in the year.  I'd make an argument that if we started Julmiste instead of Denson (playing in his first college football game in front 110,000) at PSU we win that game.   I'm not making excuses for these guys, but it's the reality of playing under completely new circumstances.   If you don't think this stuff makes a difference go try to play golf in a pro-am event or with a bunch of people watching you.  If you haven't done it before you'll be praying just to make contact on the first tee.  It's the same mentality these kids experience stepping on the fleld for the first time in different situations.  Also because we have had so many of our better players as younger guys the last few years there has been a lack of leadership.  This stuff is important in the dynamics of trying to build a championship team.  There is something to be said about the old adage "learning to win".  I don't expect any of these problems this year or going forward.  We have a good mix of talent and experienced players spread among upper and lower classman on both sides of the ball.

[MikeG]

and I think we need to stop acting as if the Big East has a bunch of easy wins on our schedule-- winning in the Big East is getting much more competitive every year imo

[usfgrad84]

and I think we need to stop acting as if the Big East has a bunch of easy wins on our schedule-- winning in the Big East is getting much more competitive every year imo

I agree.  Question.  Were we even actually favored to win any of the 3 conference games we lost?  I don't think we were and if we were, it wasn't by much.  Certainly not enough to be considered clear cut favorites.

[MikeG]

and I think we need to stop acting as if the Big East has a bunch of easy wins on our schedule-- winning in the Big East is getting much more competitive every year imo

I agree.  Question.  Were we even actually favored to win any of the 3 conference games we lost?  I don't think we were and if we were, it wasn't by much.  Certainly not enough to be considered clear cut favorites.

if memory serves me correctly, we were slight favorites against Rutgers on the road. We were slight underdogs against UConn (I think), and we may have been home team favorites (3 points or less) against Cincy.

we lost alot of betting credibility real fast. Rutgers wasn't some dumpy team when we played them and I have never figured out why people act so matter of factly about how we should have crushed them.

[CoolBull1]

and I think we need to stop acting as if the Big East has a bunch of easy wins on our schedule-- winning in the Big East is getting much more competitive every year imo

I agree.  Question.  Were we even actually favored to win any of the 3 conference games we lost?  I don't think we were and if we were, it wasn't by much.  Certainly not enough to be considered clear cut favorites.

if memory serves me correctly, we were slight favorites against Rutgers on the road. We were slight underdogs against UConn (I think), and we may have been home team favorites (3 points or less) against Cincy.

Actually, we were favored in every game this year except Auburn and WVU...we were 7 point dogs in both.  Against Rutgers, -2/; UConn -5 and Cinci -5.  As a side note, we didn't cover FAU or these three losses.