MikeG Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Moderator Topic Count: 1,984 Content Count: 19,737 Reputation: 3,854 Days Won: 175 Joined: 07/17/2003 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Never understood why people compared Holtz to Kragthorpe. But now I get it. If Holtz does not turn things around on the football field their records could be similar in three seasons. The difference is USF will stick with him for a few more years, my guess is at least 5 years for Skip. Steve Kragthorpe (15 - 21)2007 Louisville 6–6 (3–4)2008 Louisville 5–7 (1–6)2009 Louisville 4–8 (1–6) Skip Holtz (15 - 14)2010 South Florida 8–5 (3–4)2011 South Florida 5–7 (1–6)2012 South Florida 2–2 (0–1) Compare the 3 seasons directly preceding both their tenures and maybe you'll see why Skip would get a longer leash ... what would that have to do with anything? cute--- I guess you suddenly realized your "players, duh" comment made no sense he has done progressively worse as more of his own recruits have been added to the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobulls83 Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Member Topic Count: 92 Content Count: 3,475 Reputation: 95 Days Won: 7 Joined: 02/14/2006 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Never understood why people compared Holtz to Kragthorpe. But now I get it. If Holtz does not turn things around on the football field their records could be similar in three seasons. The difference is USF will stick with him for a few more years, my guess is at least 5 years for Skip. Steve Kragthorpe (15 - 21)2007 Louisville 6–6 (3–4)2008 Louisville 5–7 (1–6)2009 Louisville 4–8 (1–6) Skip Holtz (15 - 14)2010 South Florida 8–5 (3–4)2011 South Florida 5–7 (1–6)2012 South Florida 2–2 (0–1) Compare the 3 seasons directly preceding both their tenures and maybe you'll see why Skip would get a longer leash ... what would that have to do with anything? Kragz took over a team that had gone 32-5 the previous three years. Expectations were much higher. There was a much further fall for him than for Holtz, primarily because his team started higher to begin with. Holtz went 15-12 his first two years - USF was 16-10 the two years (24-15 going back three years) before that. Not that much of a dropoff, comparatively. Not defending Holtz, just explaining why the situations are different. Holtz deserves to be fired if the team does not go to a bowl game this year, even though it seems unlikely that he will be. seems like you inflated Holtz first two year numbers somewhere-- he has 27 games somehow? he was 8-5 in 2010 and 5-7 in 2011 --- two year record: 13-12 (one less bowl game) I think this stuff is less important to the decision than the overall financial situation. No doubt we are still amortizing the Leavitt payoff./ I accidentally added the two wins from this year, but not the two losses. Doesn't really matter. Edited September 23, 2012 by gobulls83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Moderator Topic Count: 1,984 Content Count: 19,737 Reputation: 3,854 Days Won: 175 Joined: 07/17/2003 Share Posted September 23, 2012 it matters as it is the main support of your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobulls83 Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Member Topic Count: 92 Content Count: 3,475 Reputation: 95 Days Won: 7 Joined: 02/14/2006 Share Posted September 23, 2012 it matters as it is the main support of your point The main support of Trips' point. And besides, it doesn't change the support substantially. 13-12 is much closer to 16-10 than 15-21 is to 32-5. I'm confident you can do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.T. Posted September 23, 2012 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 4,751 Content Count: 37,675 Reputation: 2,367 Days Won: 29 Joined: 12/24/2001 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Send in your donation with memo reading: FIRE HOLTZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane5829 Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Member Topic Count: 0 Content Count: 2 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/23/2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 It was only one game right? What about last year? we didn't even go to a bowl game! Stupid mistakes are the calling card of this team, this year and ever since ol Skippy has been here. Lets see personal foul and fumble against WVU last game of the year last year, kept us out of the bowls games...that is poor coaching and this year has been poor coaching. At least under Leavitt we would go 6-0 and give us hope and national attention, then lose 3 or 4, but with skippy it takes us all season to win 6. FIRE SKIP HOLTZ!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulls1181 Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Member Topic Count: 170 Content Count: 5,722 Reputation: 366 Days Won: 8 Joined: 08/03/2011 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Send in your donation with memo reading: FIRE HOLTZ +1 a more subtle powerful message! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.T. Posted September 23, 2012 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 4,751 Content Count: 37,675 Reputation: 2,367 Days Won: 29 Joined: 12/24/2001 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Exactly ... It goes back to last season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Moderator Topic Count: 1,984 Content Count: 19,737 Reputation: 3,854 Days Won: 175 Joined: 07/17/2003 Share Posted September 23, 2012 it matters as it is the main support of your point The main support of Trips' point. And besides, it doesn't change the support substantially. 13-12 is much closer to 16-10 than 15-21 is to 32-5. I'm confident you can do the math. yes-- I can do the math as I have demonstrated by pointing out your error. That was all I was attempting to do initially. The example of Kragthorpe = Holtz is not my theory by any means. Two different animals and situations entirely. I also notice that you tend to bend the facts toward whichever evidence you are trying to support (not sure if this is accidental). My problem is the methods you used, specifically in comparing Holtz to Leavitt (originally stated as 15-12 vs 16-10) It would have been far more persuasive and less confusing if you had talked about average winning percentage rather than actual records or better yet average wins per season. In that case, the change would be (assuming the UL stats you had are correct-- did not double check them) Kragthorpe .4166 versus predecessor .8649 -- with Holtz at .5200 (or .5172 to use up to date records) vs Leavitt .6410. You used 3 years in some cases, 2 years (plus two wins but not the two losses) in the other example -- and that part just made me cringe because you almost had Holtz looking nearly identical to CJL when the fact is he was averaging over 8 wins a season for those three years while Skip was averaging 6.5 or a little less. In my book, that is a significant difference. Maybe not as drastically different as the UL example-- but the comparison between Holtz/CJL is what I found most alarming based on how it read. anyway-- carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebouncer1898 Posted September 23, 2012 Group: Member Topic Count: 119 Content Count: 1,633 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/01/2005 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Why dont you donate that money to athletics and better the school instead of wasting money on billboards, etc, that will make the school look worse than losing a couple of football games does. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now