Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BaltoBull]

C'mon Balto. We never got better? What were our overall records from 2005-2010? Did we win a conference championship? No. Did we have a consistent 7-9 win years with bowl appearances? YES.

Sure, our records may reflect that, but in the eyes of the media, did we get better? In the eyes of the BE, did we get better?

 

Did ESPN say USF got better? No. Anytime we gained any momentum at all, we laid an egg in front of a national audience and went right back to where we started.

 

The bowl appearances - eh. 

 

Many posters on this board are of the opinion winning is all that matters. Not winning a conference championship or BCS bowl when we had the opportunity and were running with the "big boys" suggests to me that no, we did not get any better - not with all the supposed "advantages" our program had. And until we do something - anything, like winning any conference we are in (CUSA, BE, AAC), I do not understand the enthusiasm expressed by some that if we keep increasing the amount of competition, we will improve. To me, history does not suggest that. If we couldn't compete annually with Louisville, West Virginia and Rutgers, what suggests that we will compete with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU on a regular basis?

 

As I've said, getting paychecks from the B12 would be nice, but I am perfectly content being in the AAC. I want to see us be competitive. I, for one don't think we were competitive in the Big East. We might have scared a few teams going into the season, but every year, come midway - we fell apart. This, to me, also does not suggest "better", in my opinion.

 

You can argue our records have improved, but as a program - Honestly, no Hem, I don't think we got better and that is one of the reasons we are in the predicament we are in.

 

I've come to expect you to have an opinion opposite my own. Let's consider this another opportunity to agree to disagree, shall we?

[Bull-by-Marriage]

BaltoBull, I don't know you, but it seems strange that anyone with an education would strive for mediocrity. Very rarely did we have ass handed to us in the BE. We were more than competitive. "If you wanna be the best you gotta beat the best". I want our program to reach for the stars. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! Being king of the geeks, means you're still a geek.

[WoolyBully]

Well, let's think about that for a second...there's a difference between a destination and a way station.

 

For USF to have 'gotten better', what are we using as a metric? 

 

We started off in '05 with 6 wins, then in '06 & '07 we peaked at 9-win seasons, spent the next three years at 8-win seasons and ...well...we all know what happened next . We had a 55% overall winning percentage (and I'm just going to say that 50% can be described as 'average'...win some, lose some) but only a 39% winning percentage in Big East games. The occasional pre-season giant slaying followed up with a conference slump year after year, I find hard to describe as 'getting better'. That's just me. As for success being measured by avoiding ass-waxings, I remember some guy, can't recall his name right now, who said stuff like 'we're only one play away from winning', or words to that effect. A loss on the field is still a loss on the field. And ‘competitive in the Big East’ could be described as not being a perennial cellar-dweller, if you’re happy with mid-pack finishes and mid-interest bowl games. 

 

 

 ...the B12 would be nice, but I am perfectly content being in the AAC. I want to see us be competitive. I, for one don't think we were competitive in theBig East. We might have scared a few teams going into the season, but every year, come midway - we fell apart. This, to me, also does not suggest "better", in my opinion.

 

I think the general consensus is that, although we may WANT to be elsewhere, we are resident in the AAC, albeit as an interim stop along the way, and as such need to get our arms around the idea of being truly dominant with our new situation. Something I do not believe we have done in the past.

 

As for king of the geeks, well, here's our lunchtime table mates for the next couple of years, but that doesn't mean it's permanent

[BaltoBull]

BaltoBull, I don't know you, but it seems strange that anyone with an education would strive for mediocrity. Very rarely did we have ass handed to us in the BE. We were more than competitive. "If you wanna be the best you gotta beat the best". I want our program to reach for the stars. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! Being king of the geeks, means you're still a geek.

 

I guess I just have a different opinion than you. Part of me does not measure success simply by who I am associated with. 

 

Yeah, it would be nice to sit at the same table as Texas and Oklahoma, but if they disparage you the whole time and you can't afford your part of the check, how successful are you?

 

Really, the money and the notoriety would be great, but I think the AAC playing like-minded and similar institutions is where we should be. I don't think it's striving for mediocrity, for right now and most likely the foreseeable future, it's being a realist.

 

And, if we were "more than competitive", explain to me how we never sniffed a Big East Conference title. No, we never had our asses handed to us regularly. We were competitive at the beginning of the season, never by the end. To me, competitive means you win the games you should and a few games you shouldn't. We struggled to win the games we should have sometimes.

 

I watched Boise "reach for the stars" and I can't see what it got them. Some of you can convince yourself they are not in a different conference because of their location. I'm not so sure that's the case. Cincy, a legacy 100+ year old program, also 'reached for the stars', posted better records than us and played in two BCS bowls in the last five years - where are they now? In the "A group" of the AAC, slightly ahead of us.

 

I guess I look at this realignment thing differently than some of you. 

 

You don't have to agree with me. No one has to agree with me, but this is how I feel.

Edited April 27, 2013 by BaltoBull

[dabull80]

I don't know Balto but I think you have to look at the overall picture.  Leavitt brought us to 1-A and then CUSA in 2003 and then the BE in 2005. There was a rapid rise to the top and I see it as very hard to get the players you needed - especially the depth- to compete at each new level.  We did sniff the BE title a few years but year-end meltdowns just killed us.  Now Skip just tanked the team and the program which is really ashame because(not getting into this old argument just IMHO) Leavitt could have taken us even further with more money for assit coaches and a little more depth.  Folks need to remeber he faced some really good coaches - ones who are now in the pros,at ND and other major major Universities.

 

So to your definition of competitive you are right but if you win the games you should and a few you shouldn't we would have been ranked almost every year and been an every other year BE champ.  I just don't see it as possible having been in the BE for only 5 years with Leavitt and nevermind- I don't even want to say what I think about Skip.

 

I think we are on the same page as far as we are who we are and lets win the AAC.  I for one don't want to be fodder in the Big 12.  Given time and enough money we could do very well in the Big 12 with the right coaches but until then just enjoy the ride.

[DELdaBull]

Sniff a Big East title? We never finished better than 4-3 in conference and in 3rd place. We never went into the last game of the year with "Win today, and 1 team loses and we got this thing. We were always out of the race with 1 conference game left. How is that sniffing a conference title?

[usfgrad84]

You can define it any way you want, but if you are not competing at the highest level of competition, then pretty much by definition you are settling for mediocrity.

My feeling is that winning the BE championship only meant something because the prize was the trip to the BCS game. We get one more shot at that.

Going forward, to just win a conference championship means very little. It has about as much meaning in the big scheme of things as your dorm team winning the intramurals campus championship. The games then become only about having fun. That is ok to some people I guess. To me, it is hollow and is meaningless whether you win or lose. Just give everyone a trophy and a gold star for coming out.

I have my opinions about why we didn't win a BE championship and it has nothing to do with not being competitive, but more about the age of the program.

[dabull80]

Sniff a Big East title? We never finished better than 4-3 in conference and in 3rd place. We never went into the last game of the year with "Win today, and 1 team loses and we got this thing. We were always out of the race with 1 conference game left. How is that sniffing a conference title?

 

 

Ahh sniff meaning we were at least part of the race at some point late in season - say unlike Vandy, Purdue, Duke(excluding Spurrier years),Az St, Miss, Miss St on and on and on.

[Triple B]

Sniff a Big East title? We never finished better than 4-3 in conference and in 3rd place. We never went into the last game of the year with "Win today, and 1 team loses and we got this thing. We were always out of the race with 1 conference game left. How is that sniffing a conference title?

 

I'd consider 2005 as our only "sniff" in the BE ... 2 games to go and we had our destiny in our own hands.

[tampatony]

Rumors in the rumors thread? Nope, just mass rumination on how relevant our football team is... Smh

Edited April 27, 2013 by tampatony