Facts Support USF's Future Potential

[CousinRicky]

 

USF can no longer sell being in a BCS conference to recruits. Combine that with the drastic decrease in TV revenue and their rankings, and other Go5 teams, will continue to fall. Well still be near the top when compared to the Go5, but the gap between Go5 and all of the P5 schools will continue to grow.

no it won't. it can't. they have a limited # of recruits they can take every year. just like they did before.

 

vandy won't start taking our recruits. neither will northwestern or duke. being in the top 5 conferences doesn't mean they will start getting players we have been signing. if they started paying players(and in some cases loosening their standards) and we couldn't match then maybe you would have a point

 

 

So are you saying USF will recruit the same quality of player if we move to the P5?  If it doesn't matter to Vandy, Duke or NW then what would change with USF?  Also don't know, with the teams you've chosen in your example, if you meant that we aren't going to get the smart kids that those 3 would get. 

[Who'sYourData?]

 

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

anybody who puts any weight into this just doesn't get how recruiting rankings work. you can recruit 10 5 star receivers and finish near the top in rankings. doesn't mean you have a good team.  a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

 

we had 1 scholarship QB on our roster when Taggart arrived. he was so good that he lost his job to a walk-on senior and a option qb transfer.

 

 

We had 1 scholarship QB and three scholarship WRs when Holtz arrived, what's your point?

[Who'sYourData?]

By the way, we had two schollie QBs when Taggat arrived, and another that was ready to commit that is now the starting QB.

[JupiterBull]

 

 

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

There are some factors that aren't shown on this graph that can modify results. It merely compares two sets of data to create the graph. There's somewhat enough of a line formed out of the data to make some hypothesis, but, correlation doesn't prove causation, after all.

 

For example, USF may not be reaching the full potential of its recruiting bracket due to coaching changes. One can look at this graph and say "Well, Saban, The Hat, Stoops, Meyer, and Spurrier, they all have been with their respectful team for a good while. Teams like USF, Rutgers, UK, and Cal must not be doing well because their head coach has only been around for a couple of years."

 

This statement has some sort of fact behind it, given that Alabama, LSU, OU, OSU, and SCAR all are around the average expected balance between performance and recruiting (OSU is somewhat away from the line, but still). And the other teams I mentioned have all had newer coaches, and all of them are about one full measurement, if not more, below their expected performance output. 

But, we all know that may not necessarily be true. Muschamp has been with UF long enough that he should be doing really well. Likewise for Georgia, Miami, Minnesota, Michigan, Duke.. even Oregon, they've all had either a coach for a long time and haven't really produced, or, they've had a coach for a very short time and have still done well (given their relation to the expected average line). So, the theory that coach longevity = success doesn't necessarily correlate. We can still pull a few plots out of the graph and make a statement like that, though.

 

Perhaps coach longevity may effect results, given the predicament left behind by the past coach. Wassisface at Oregon inherited greatness, so it makes sense that he could easily carry on the success of the program. Likewise, coaches like Taggart and Strong inherited a mess, and their teams have suffered because of it. This also inhibits results, as their positive year is more the outlier compared to the negative years from their predecessors. 

 

 

Wow, I've said way too much about this. lmao.

 

Basically: I wouldn't say our coaching sucks. There's a lot of hidden factors behind the data shown in the graph. Location, coaching, longevity of coaching tenure, SOS, recruiting ability of the coaches, etc. etc. etc.

 

Watch the games and our game plan and game time adjustment show that our coaching sucks.  I have noticed a nice slow/but steady improvement the last 3 games and I'm optimistic that the trend continues. As always rooting for our Bull's but I'm still waiting for CWT to "do something"....so a little emotion, chew out someone for making a dump mistake, yell at the ref if needed, pat a player on the head....pretend like your the coach.

 

A frustrated Bull.

 

THIS!!!! ^^^^ Summed up unbelievably clearly & concisely!!

[DC]

USF can no longer sell being in a BCS conference to recruits. Combine that with the drastic decrease in TV revenue and their rankings, and other Go5 teams, will continue to fall. Well still be near the top when compared to the Go5, but the gap between Go5 and all of the P5 schools will continue to grow.

no it won't. it can't. they have a limited # of recruits they can take every year. just like they did before.

vandy won't start taking our recruits. neither will northwestern or duke. being in the top 5 conferences doesn't mean they will start getting players we have been signing. if they started paying players(and in some cases loosening their standards) and we couldn't match then maybe you would have a point

That's my point. They will start paying players.

[Bull Dozer]

By the way, we had two schollie QBs when Taggat arrived, and another that was ready to commit that is now the starting QB.

 

Eveld was on Scholarship but started out as a walk on. So yes, he was on scholarship but wasn't a scholarship level recruit...

Edited October 11, 2014 by Bull Dozer

[Bull Matrix]

USF got up to #2 in the nation back in 2007 so I believe a lot of USF fans know the potetial that the Bulls have with the right coaching staff. 

[Breedwell]

 

 

 

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

There are some factors that aren't shown on this graph that can modify results. It merely compares two sets of data to create the graph. There's somewhat enough of a line formed out of the data to make some hypothesis, but, correlation doesn't prove causation, after all.

 

For example, USF may not be reaching the full potential of its recruiting bracket due to coaching changes. One can look at this graph and say "Well, Saban, The Hat, Stoops, Meyer, and Spurrier, they all have been with their respectful team for a good while. Teams like USF, Rutgers, UK, and Cal must not be doing well because their head coach has only been around for a couple of years."

 

This statement has some sort of fact behind it, given that Alabama, LSU, OU, OSU, and SCAR all are around the average expected balance between performance and recruiting (OSU is somewhat away from the line, but still). And the other teams I mentioned have all had newer coaches, and all of them are about one full measurement, if not more, below their expected performance output. 

But, we all know that may not necessarily be true. Muschamp has been with UF long enough that he should be doing really well. Likewise for Georgia, Miami, Minnesota, Michigan, Duke.. even Oregon, they've all had either a coach for a long time and haven't really produced, or, they've had a coach for a very short time and have still done well (given their relation to the expected average line). So, the theory that coach longevity = success doesn't necessarily correlate. We can still pull a few plots out of the graph and make a statement like that, though.

 

Perhaps coach longevity may effect results, given the predicament left behind by the past coach. Wassisface at Oregon inherited greatness, so it makes sense that he could easily carry on the success of the program. Likewise, coaches like Taggart and Strong inherited a mess, and their teams have suffered because of it. This also inhibits results, as their positive year is more the outlier compared to the negative years from their predecessors. 

 

 

Wow, I've said way too much about this. lmao.

 

Basically: I wouldn't say our coaching sucks. There's a lot of hidden factors behind the data shown in the graph. Location, coaching, longevity of coaching tenure, SOS, recruiting ability of the coaches, etc. etc. etc.

 

Watch the games and our game plan and game time adjustment show that our coaching sucks.  I have noticed a nice slow/but steady improvement the last 3 games and I'm optimistic that the trend continues. As always rooting for our Bull's but I'm still waiting for CWT to "do something"....so a little emotion, chew out someone for making a dump mistake, yell at the ref if needed, pat a player on the head....pretend like your the coach.

 

A frustrated Bull.

 

THIS!!!! ^^^^ Summed up unbelievably clearly & concisely!!

 

 

I'm not disputing that coaching may have something to do with it. Taggart was advertised as a great recruiter, not a great game-day coach. But you can't just say "Oh, its coaching" because there are many factors that go into the team's success. Coaching is just a part of it. 

[DELdaBull]

That graph tells me our coaching sucks.

[Triple B]

 

 

 

That graph tells us our coaching sucks.

 

There are some factors that aren't shown on this graph that can modify results. It merely compares two sets of data to create the graph. There's somewhat enough of a line formed out of the data to make some hypothesis, but, correlation doesn't prove causation, after all.

 

For example, USF may not be reaching the full potential of its recruiting bracket due to coaching changes. One can look at this graph and say "Well, Saban, The Hat, Stoops, Meyer, and Spurrier, they all have been with their respectful team for a good while. Teams like USF, Rutgers, UK, and Cal must not be doing well because their head coach has only been around for a couple of years."

 

This statement has some sort of fact behind it, given that Alabama, LSU, OU, OSU, and SCAR all are around the average expected balance between performance and recruiting (OSU is somewhat away from the line, but still). And the other teams I mentioned have all had newer coaches, and all of them are about one full measurement, if not more, below their expected performance output. 

But, we all know that may not necessarily be true. Muschamp has been with UF long enough that he should be doing really well. Likewise for Georgia, Miami, Minnesota, Michigan, Duke.. even Oregon, they've all had either a coach for a long time and haven't really produced, or, they've had a coach for a very short time and have still done well (given their relation to the expected average line). So, the theory that coach longevity = success doesn't necessarily correlate. We can still pull a few plots out of the graph and make a statement like that, though.

 

Perhaps coach longevity may effect results, given the predicament left behind by the past coach. Wassisface at Oregon inherited greatness, so it makes sense that he could easily carry on the success of the program. Likewise, coaches like Taggart and Strong inherited a mess, and their teams have suffered because of it. This also inhibits results, as their positive year is more the outlier compared to the negative years from their predecessors. 

 

 

Wow, I've said way too much about this. lmao.

 

Basically: I wouldn't say our coaching sucks. There's a lot of hidden factors behind the data shown in the graph. Location, coaching, longevity of coaching tenure, SOS, recruiting ability of the coaches, etc. etc. etc.

 

Watch the games and our game plan and game time adjustment show that our coaching sucks.  I have noticed a nice slow/but steady improvement the last 3 games and I'm optimistic that the trend continues. As always rooting for our Bull's but I'm still waiting for CWT to "do something"....so a little emotion, chew out someone for making a dump mistake, yell at the ref if needed, pat a player on the head....pretend like your the coach.

 

A frustrated Bull.

 

 

THIS!!!! ^^^^ Summed up unbelievably clearly & concisely!!

 

Maybe .... except for the highlighted part ... Is there a Tags Cam that's on him exclusively during the game that you two have reviewed and come to this conclusion?

 

When we're losing, people can come up with the stupidest **** to ***** about.