Fire Skip Holtz Billboard

[MikeG]

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

[gobulls83]

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

[MikeG]

it matters as it is the main support of your point

[gobulls83]

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.

[E.T.]

Send in your donation with memo reading:

FIRE HOLTZ

[Shane5829]

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!!!!

[Bulls1181]

Send in your donation with memo reading:

FIRE HOLTZ

+1

a more subtle powerful message!

[E.T.]

Exactly ... It goes back to last season!

[MikeG]

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

[thebouncer1898]

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.