Trib: USF ready for 'big' game vs. Miami

[Brad]

FAIL.

Thanks.

[cmhatter]

FAIL.

Thanks.

show me statistics that correlate age of program to results on the field.

based on your logic rutgers should be one of the most dominant programs in the country.

[Brad]

Name the other schools that have become relevant "in a short period of time".  Let's stretch it, say last 20 years?  Name 10, or 5.  Surely with the hundreds of programs out there, you can name 5 that have met with similar or better success that USF?

Secondly, you must be new to the program.  Simply chalking up the success to the "stars aligning right" is offensive to so many people in so many ways that worked to build this program and get us in to the Big East. 

[cmhatter]

Name the other schools that have become relevant "in a short period of time".  Let's stretch it, say last 20 years?  Name 10, or 5.  Surely with the hundreds of programs out there, you can name 5 that have met with similar or better success that USF?

Secondly, you must be new to the program.  Simply chalking up the success to the "stars aligning right" is offensive to so many people in so many ways that worked to build this program and get us in to the Big East. 

I'm in database class on my iPhone I can't search with any efficiency !!

You are impossible to persuade!

I attribute the fact that we are in a bcs conference to the acc expansion. How else would we have gotten the invite?? I'm sure many have worked hard and were contributing factors but the fact remains. Everything worked out for us, which is a good thing hardly an insult.

Like I said, age of program has nothing to do with results in the field. Look at rutgers, look at Michigan, norte dame, and the list goes on.

It is a different time and under different circumstances than 60 years ago.

[Brad]

You might need to drop Database and take Logic, maybe Debate.

So the ACC took some BE teams and that opened the door for USF and no other program that had become "relevant in a short period of time" (still trying to see who that might have been).

Quit with your attempt to say length of time of program (dating to the 1800s) has some bearing.  You know that's a facetious argument and it is not the point.  Speaking of relevance....

[cmhatter]

You might need to drop Database and take Logic, maybe Debate.

So the ACC took some BE teams and that opened the door for USF and no other program that had become "relevant in a short period of time" (still trying to see who that might have been).

Quit with your attempt to say length of time of program (dating to the 1800s) has some bearing.  You know that's a facetious argument and it is not the point.  Speaking of relevance....

if age of program is not the point then what was the point of your original post???

I was speaking to those that use the age of our program as a crutch for our failures.

I don't know where you expect me to find the information you seek. Relevancy would depend on your definition... Is ucf relevant? They are what 30 yrs old and have been d1 for awhile.

[cmhatter]

You might need to drop Database and take Logic, maybe Debate.

So the ACC took some BE teams and that opened the door for USF and no other program that had become "relevant in a short period of time" (still trying to see who that might have been).

Quit with your attempt to say length of time of program (dating to the 1800s) has some bearing.  You know that's a facetious argument and it is not the point.  Speaking of relevance....

speaking of failures...

You made a backhanded comment to me about dropping my db class for debate...

Since you are clearly, being the owner ofthe board, the best debater... I guess you missed the class in debate where they went over the cardinal rule that once you start making insults that you have lost the argument. I'm don't with this "debate" and don't plan on responding to your posts moving forward.

[Brad]

You stated:

USF isn't the only team to become relevant in a short period of time

I asked who the other 5 or 10 teams that became relevant in a short period of time were...USF did it in about 8 years (some would argue it was sooner - 2001) - stretch it to 20 years if you'd like. 

Then you change the subject or, at the least, argue a ridiculous tangent.

Hence the commentary.  Be responsible for what you say.  Like suggesting it's a matter of the stars aligning..okay.  What do you expect someone else to say to that?  Especially someone that never took astronomy?   

This is just another bad thread.  Comments made, challenged, vacated and then twisted into something else. 

By the way, I never took debate and this is could hardly be considered a debate.

Enjoy the rest of your class.

[Frishmanflz]

You might need to drop Database and take Logic, maybe Debate.

So the ACC took some BE teams and that opened the door for USF and no other program that had become "relevant in a short period of time" (still trying to see who that might have been).

Quit with your attempt to say length of time of program (dating to the 1800s) has some bearing.  You know that's a facetious argument and it is not the point.  Speaking of relevance....

speaking of failures...

You made a backhanded comment to me about dropping my db class for debate...

Since you are clearly, being the owner ofthe board, the best debater... I guess you missed the class in debate where they went over the cardinal rule that once you start making insults that you have lost the argument. I'm don't with this "debate" and don't plan on responding to your posts moving forward.

hatter you really need to take a reading comprehension course to go along with your other studies. 

1st - the article insulted USF caling us infants not saying we were in our infancy of our history, so that was your first mistake.

2nd USF worked hard to get where it is today.  Look at other schools with the same resources and georgraphy that have not had anywhere near the success USF has had.  IE. UCF FIU FAU for example.

You should do your homework before making general assumptions

[cmhatter]

You might need to drop Database and take Logic, maybe Debate.

So the ACC took some BE teams and that opened the door for USF and no other program that had become "relevant in a short period of time" (still trying to see who that might have been).

Quit with your attempt to say length of time of program (dating to the 1800s) has some bearing.  You know that's a facetious argument and it is not the point.  Speaking of relevance....

speaking of failures...

You made a backhanded comment to me about dropping my db class for debate...

Since you are clearly, being the owner ofthe board, the best debater... I guess you missed the class in debate where they went over the cardinal rule that once you start making insults that you have lost the argument. I'm don't with this "debate" and don't plan on responding to your posts moving forward.

hatter you really need to take a reading comprehension course to go along with your other studies. 

1st - the article insulted USF caling us infants not saying we were in our infancy of our history, so that was your first mistake.

2nd USF worked hard to get where it is today.  Look at other schools with the same resources and georgraphy that have not had anywhere near the success USF has had.  IE. UCF FIU FAU for example.

You should do your homework before making general assumptions

1. I'm pretty sure the writer's intent wasn't to insult usf... I think it was to show that USF is young compared to UF, FSU, and UM.

2. I never said there weren't people who worked hard. Isaid that the stars aligned just right and gave us the opportunity to be where we are now. People had to work, had the situation not been presented, we simply wouldn't be in a bcs conference. I never said a work about anyones work.

Try checking your reading comprehension skills.