USF Football's 5 year plan

[swamprat]

There should be only one goal. Win the Big East. Once that starts happening on a consistent basis, everything else will take care of itself.

[RSSMOOTH]

I kind of agree with points made by both Jim and Cuban, but moreso with Cuban  we shouldn't get overboard with expectations but at the same time we're not like the average upstart program.... We have a bcs tag, we're located in the best recruiting hotbed in the country and we've proven than we can beat the big boys. We're capable of beating all of the teams in the big east... We just need to do it all in one season

[Bulls On Parade]

There should be only one goal. Win the Big East. Once that starts happening on a consistent basis, everything else will take care of itself.

I agree with this.  Win the big east and recruiting will take another big step up this should be the main goal.

USF needs to dominate the big east like Miami did back in the day.

[Matt]

So you are basically saying that failing to achieve a higher level in five years... or within 17 seasons of playing football... would be a failure.

Considering how long it took every other high level program to get to a high level, don't you consider your expectations to be just a tad high?

I really wish our fanbase would stop using this excuse.  We cannot compare our timeline with other "high level programs" and how long it took them to get to a "high level" 

The college football landscape is a lot different in the past ten years compared to what it was 30 and 40 years ago.  With the amount of coverage, attention, technology, etc.  it is MUCH easier for a program to establish a footprint. 

We can't sit back and say "well it took FSU 50 years before they won anything"  that is setting ourselves up for failure in my opinion.

[mutt]

I don't think you're setting yourself up for failure... I think it's being realistic.  I think that there are a lot of programs who have been around for a helluvalot longer and have not accomplished what we have in such short of time. I'm not saying that I'm a big fan of the st.pete bowl, and I know we can improve but l wonder how many rats jump ship if the boat starts sinking.

[CousinRicky]

Just making a bowl game doesn't mean as much when more that 1/2 the D1 teams make them now.  Making quality bowls, getting a few wins against FSU and Miami and at least 1 Big East title (and the BCS bowl that goes with it) is what I would like to see in the next 5 years.  I won't be jumping off the Sunshine Skyway if it doesn't, but I'd be a bit disappointed if they don't accomplish those goals.

[dabull80]

So you are basically saying that failing to achieve a higher level in five years... or within 17 seasons of playing football... would be a failure.

Considering how long it took every other high level program to get to a high level, don't you consider your expectations to be just a tad high?

I really wish our fanbase would stop using this excuse.  We cannot compare our timeline with other "high level programs" and how long it took them to get to a "high level" 

The college football landscape is a lot different in the past ten years compared to what it was 30 and 40 years ago.  With the amount of coverage, attention, technology, etc.  it is MUCH easier for a program to establish a footprint. 

We can't sit back and say "well it took FSU 50 years before they won anything"  that is setting ourselves up for failure in my opinion.

Actually Matt, everyone is now comparing our program to a model of how to build a D-I BCS team so in that regard we have already succeeded.  I don't know if it eaiser or just different now but you are right things sure are different.

Future success is perception as you can see both Cuban and Jim have a different perception.

As the Coach and I think(perception) the goal every year should be to win the BE and after that to make a bowl game.

[Brad]

The college football landscape is a lot different in the past ten years compared to what it was 30 and 40 years ago.  With the amount of coverage, attention, technology, etc.  it is MUCH easier for a program to establish a footprint. 

Funny, a guy I was talking to the other day was arguing just the opposite.  That with all the big money in football from TV and the BCS that if you are an upstart program your climb to the top will be even more difficult than 30 or 40 years ago. 

I guess there are two sides to that argument.

[Guest]

The college football landscape is a lot different in the past ten years compared to what it was 30 and 40 years ago.  With the amount of coverage, attention, technology, etc.  it is MUCH easier for a program to establish a footprint. 

Funny, a guy I was talking to the other day was arguing just the opposite.  That with all the big money in football from TV and the BCS that if you are an upstart program your climb to the top will be even more difficult than 30 or 40 years ago. 

I guess there are two sides to that argument.

I think there is more to your the side you talk about Bulliever as opposed to Matt's perspective.

Consider... why aren't Vanderbilt, Duke, North Carolina, Mississippi State, Washington State, Northwestern, Indiana, Baylor, Rutgers, Syracuse, and many other schools at the "higher level" ?

Because there is only so much space on that level... and the "haves" are getting just as much "coverage, attention, technology, etc" or money from TV and the BCS ... that makes it easier to stay on top.

USF may never be USC => Southern Cal... but we could be USC => South Carolina

However, I think that may not make many people here very happy...

[Brad]

Certainly Jim, I was trying to be brief.

I believe the landscape change has served to insulate the top tier programs, not pave the way for newcomers.