What would be the best for the program?

[Triple B]

If we go 2-10, Holtz will still be there next year. In fact, Woolard will probably stick with Holtz, much like he has with Heath.

I'm thinking Holtz would have a shorter leash than Heath did based on the tools to work with but I'm thinking, minimum, he has this year and next ...

[DELdaBull]

Winning, regardless who the coach is. That is what is best for the program.

If we go 2-10, Holtz will still be there next year. In fact, Woolard will probably stick with Holtz, much like he has with Heath.

Stam Heath has earned every extension he has gotten while at USF. Both were received after 2 of the best regular seasons in USF history. Stan also has the ONLY NCAA wins in USF history. Stop comparing Coach Heath to Skip!

[Paul Wall]

You should want us to win big and win out.

Especially if you don't like holtz. That kind of performance would be enough for him to go to some other school he is more passionate about

[swamprat]

Winning, regardless who the coach is. That is what is best for the program.

If we go 2-10, Holtz will still be there next year. In fact, Woolard will probably stick with Holtz, much like he has with Heath.

Stam Heath has earned every extension he has gotten while at USF. Both were received after 2 of the best regular seasons in USF history. Stan also has the ONLY NCAA wins in USF history. Stop comparing Coach Heath to Skip!

Heath was 12-19 (3-15 in conference) year 1 and 9-22 (4-14 in conference) year 2. Hardly glaring evidence of his future success. Which, BTW, is 2 winning seasons in 5. Even with the 09/10 season, after the 10-23 (3-15) finish in 2011, there were those calling the previous season and fluke and for his head. For the record, I like and support Stan Heath.

As much as I hope I am wrong, I stand by my opinion. Even if Holtz goes 2-10 the next 2 years, I've seen no evidence of backbone by this athletic administration. Leavitt made his own bed. I also see no evidence of them growing one anytime soon.

I would prefer, however, that Skip reverses this season and does what he set out to do, take us to the next level. I'm holding out hope for that, because that is what is best for the program in its immediate future.

Edited October 5, 2012 by swamprat

[DELdaBull]

Let's see here. Coach Heath took over a team that went 11-16 and 7-22 the 2 years before he got there. Skip took over a program that went 8-5 the 2 years before he got there.

It is obvious that some do not appreciate how difficult of a job Heath had when he took over the sucktitude that was USF basketball. Before he got here USF had 1 20 win season in its whole history. He has 2 in the last 3 years. BTW, in year 3 he coached his team to a 20 win season. Then he got an extension. In Skip's 3rd season he already has an extension and we are hoping that we can get to 6 wins.

He took over an 8 win team. Stan did NOT take over a 17 win team.

[Bull Martin]

I would prefer, however, that Skip reverses this season and does what he set out to do, take us to the next level. I'm holding out hope for that, because that is what is best for the program in its immediate future.

Yes, obviously the best thing for the program would be for the team to magically get better, run the table, and win the Big East, a la the terrible UConn team that won the Big East a few years back. But that's just not going to happen.

[SANJAY]

Coach Heath took over a program described by many as the worst college basketball job in America. No one has ever considered the football HC position as the worst job in America. Yet.

[swamprat]

Let's see here. Coach Heath took over a team that went 11-16 and 7-22 the 2 years before he got there. Skip took over a program that went 8-5 the 2 years before he got there.

It is obvious that some do not appreciate how difficult of a job Heath had when he took over the sucktitude that was USF basketball. Before he got here USF had 1 20 win season in its whole history. He has 2 in the last 3 years. BTW, in year 3 he coached his team to a 20 win season. Then he got an extension. In Skip's 3rd season he already has an extension and we are hoping that we can get to 6 wins.

He took over an 8 win team. Stan did NOT take over a 17 win team.

First off. I never mentioned extensions, once. I used Stan Heath's first 2 years as a comparison to Skip Holtz's first 2 years. We will never know what Woolard would have done after the 09/10 season, had it gone south because it didn't, so it's not relevant to the argument. However, your argument supports my point that Woolard will give Holtz more time, simply buy giving him an extension before, what we deem, is a successful season or an improvement in the program.

Edited October 5, 2012 by swamprat

[MikeG]

I think the point swamprat is making is that Heath was given a chance and he eventually delivered. And while it may be a different situation, maybe we should also give Holtz a similar opportunity. Not sure I agree 100% but I understand the thought process behind the comparison.

[swamprat]

I think the point swamprat is making is that Heath was given a chance and he eventually delivered. And while it may be a different situation, maybe we should also give Holtz a similar opportunity. Not sure I agree 100% but I understand the thought process behind the comparison.

The fact that you understand my thought process should be reason for concern on your part, but you are exactly right about my point.