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

[Boomer]

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 100%

[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.

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.

  Less than a TD favorite is far from being an overwhelming favorite.  We were not so far superior to any of these teams that they were monumental losses to an inferior team

[I Bleed Awesomeness]

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.

the more important question is did u end up losing money or winning money when it was all said and done? 

[Orlando Bull]

I think the not enough talent point was that we don't necessarily have guys that can win every game if we don't "bring it". Our 'B' game isn't as good as a lot of teams'. However, I would say that RU was the only one we lost last year that this came into play (not counting *ell Paso).

Was RU, UConn, or Cincy really a lesser opponent last year? Uconn's D was pretty nasty, and with the home field, they pretty much handled us. As was already mentioned, a couple of bad breaks cost us. We all know what happened at RU. Vs. Cincy, we played like a HS team, but had enough to win the game in the end if we could have gotten a call, or made a big play.

It's both depressing and awesome how close we were to 11-0 last season.

[BadBull]

Keeping players focused for 11-12 games is nearly impossible.  Here are a couple non USF examples of games lost by teams with significantly better talent than there opponent  in 2007:

1. Alabama's loss to UL Monroe

2. App State over Michigan

3. USC with 10 draft picks on their squad losing to Stanford

There were no loses by USF to a team with those levels of talent disparity.

I'm sure the overwhelming consesus on this board is that Leavitt gets his teams to over achieve but the downside of that is when the team comes back to earth and makes mistakes there are those that see it as a "consistency" problem. A couple more years of recruiting superb O&D-lineman and those close losses we had last year end up as W's due to the talent level compensating for an off game.

[JerseyBull06]

"USF football...playing up or down to our competition since 1997" - Shoop (and half the other people i know)

we're not the only team that does it, but it's one thing we're pretty consistent about

[smazza]

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.  :-[

coaching  is to blame as well as offensive scheme we run.it is way too dependant on qb play

[namuh-bull]

To me, the bigger picture is how we have advanced against  better teams.  It seems that every time I thought we were ready to take the next step, we had a beat down. San Diego St, Utah, S Miss, Oklahoma, Louisville up at their place, South Carolina, Alabama, Oregon in the bowl game.  The key thing is that we then get better ourselves. 

[Guest BasketBull.]

If you watch FAU and UConn again, you'll see a very similar theme. The guys sort of show up in the first half and then wake up in the second half. At FAU, playing conditions were good so they could execute the game plan and pull out a victory. At UConn, the crazy weather made it impossible to count on every play, not to mention all the other things that went on with self-implosion.

Though, I would say that in those two games, FAU was the better than UConn.

We have always been a defensive football team, i.e., the defense carries the team. When the defense is soft (guys don't get focused quickly enough), we fall behind and then that puts more pressure of the offense. And if the guys on offense aren't sharp, little things hurt and big things put the team in a bigger hole (turnovers).

My point is that I don't expect our guys to be 100% every game; they are only human. But there's no reason another team should start carving us up on the ground or in the air all of a sudden. If you look at our losses, you'll remember that helpless feeling that our defense can't stop anyone. Of course, they do adjust and then they do end up stopping the other team's attack. But those porous periods have always cost us in the end, more than I care to remember.

Of our three losses (the Sun Bowl was not a loss; it was a brutal beating), Rutgers was fine in terms of showing up, but the refs stole that one. Cincy was questionable because we were not focused (how many turnovers?), and UConn was a complete breakdown after losing the #2 ranking.

Am I pointing the finger? NOPE. I love my Bulls.

All I'm saying is that if we somehow can maintain our intensity and focus week-in and week-out, we can do greater things.

[usfgrad84]

"USF football...playing up or down to our competition since 1997" - Shoop (and half the other people i know)

we're not the only team that does it, but it's one thing we're pretty consistent about

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't understand why people say this.  What teams or games were we such a clearly better team where we played down to their level for a full game and ended up losing?  I certainly don't see this on a consistent basis.  Maybe 1 or 2 games since the 2002 season.  Anything else is more a fantasy based on what some of the fans hoped we would evolve into.  I am curious to which games and why people say this.