Taggert has 1 more year

[bullsfan1983]

Has anybody watched David Shaw's Stanford team this year running this offense? Just as boring and scoring 20 or less in more than half the games. If they can't recruit the athletes to run it well what does that say about our chances of success?

[El_Toro_86]

Has anybody watched David Shaw's Stanford team this year running this offense? Just as boring and scoring 20 or less in more than half the games. If they can't recruit the athletes to run it well what does that say about our chances of success?

Excellent point

[Ghost]

Has anybody watched David Shaw's Stanford team this year running this offense? Just as boring and scoring 20 or less in more than half the games. If they can't recruit the athletes to run it well what does that say about our chances of success?

 

This has been their only bad year under Shaw with this offense. The other years included division co champions (losing to OK St in Fiesta Bowl bc college kickers lol), Rose Bowl Champions, and a Rose Bowl loss. This year, they are 5-4 with losses to Oregon, Arizona St, Notre Dame, and USC. All but ND are in the top 10 right now. USC was 14 at the time. 

 

Yeah Ill trade places with Stanford any day of the week. 

[bullsfan1983]

 

Has anybody watched David Shaw's Stanford team this year running this offense? Just as boring and scoring 20 or less in more than half the games. If they can't recruit the athletes to run it well what does that say about our chances of success?

 

This has been their only bad year under Shaw with this offense. The other years included division co champions (losing to OK St in Fiesta Bowl bc college kickers lol), Rose Bowl Champions, and a Rose Bowl loss. This year, they are 5-4 with losses to Oregon, Arizona St, Notre Dame, and USC. All but ND are in the top 10 right now. USC was 14 at the time. 

 

Yeah Ill trade places with Stanford any day of the week. 

 

You mean the first few years with Harbaugh's recruits? We call that the Skip Holtz effect.

 

Stanford's offense has been trending downward the past 4 years since Harbaugh left. They had successful seasons the past couple years because of their defense. In 2010 the last year with Harbaugh and 2011 the year after he left Stanford had a top 10 offense. In 2012 it dropped to 70th in the country. In 2013 it was 48th, and this year it is 95th. This for a team in the high scoring PAC 12.

Edited November 5, 2014 by bullsfan1983

[El_Toro_86]

Assuming there is no meltdown CWT will be back but what about the assistants. Will the OC or DC be back

So if he makes it to year 3 and fires the OC, that will make 3 OCs in 3 years.

 

Hmmm.....I wonder what the common denominator is????

[charsibb]

 

 

 

Assuming he doesnt lose to SMU and doesnt lose the locker room, parents, die hards, etc. then I would honestly give him 2-3 more years. srs. Especially if his recruiting keeps improving. I am willing to be patient. I know you cant turn a program like this around overnight. We are not Auburn. We dont have unlimited funding and reputation to carry us. We need to do it the hard way. 

 

Besides, are we really going to pay FOUR coaches? Come on. 

 

2-3 more years??? He gets another year no matter what in my mind, but if there is no bowl game next year he's gone. No one expects an Auburn like turn around, but at the rate things are going it will take 12 years for us to have a chance to win one of the worst conferences in college football. With teams like SMU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UCONN, plus whatever FCS school you start with up and down your schedule, if he doesn't have us at a minimum of 6 wins next year it should be glaring that HE IS THE PROBLEM. 

 

As of right now (according to Rivals) our recruiting is ranked 83rd in the country. At least last year we could talk about how incredible he was doing in recruiting, this year we stink again and are wondering what happened to the recruiting that happened last year....?

 

 

Well, at some point we are going to have to commit to something. Some style. Some agenda. Some philosophy and stay the course. We cant just have a continuous revolving door of coaches until one of us gets us back to a bowl game. I dont like it but again, just throwing coaches at the problem might not be the solution. 

 

 

You commit to something that works. You can't just keep a guy around to keep consistency for style and agenda if the results are below average when you're paying the man $1.3 million (or however much it is). I want Taggart to figure it out just as much as the next guy. Another few years of a new coach and new scheme etc. would be miserable to go through because it would once again get worse before it got better. But if Taggart is not the answer and we continue to get this same below average results and below average play, the longer he sticks around the longer it'll take for us to actually get to where we want to be.

 

 

I thought we were paying him around $750

[Ghost]

 

 

Has anybody watched David Shaw's Stanford team this year running this offense? Just as boring and scoring 20 or less in more than half the games. If they can't recruit the athletes to run it well what does that say about our chances of success?

 

This has been their only bad year under Shaw with this offense. The other years included division co champions (losing to OK St in Fiesta Bowl bc college kickers lol), Rose Bowl Champions, and a Rose Bowl loss. This year, they are 5-4 with losses to Oregon, Arizona St, Notre Dame, and USC. All but ND are in the top 10 right now. USC was 14 at the time. 

 

Yeah Ill trade places with Stanford any day of the week. 

 

You mean the first few years with Harbaugh's recruits? We call that the Skip Holtz effect.

 

 

 

Maybe so, but you are using a year where they have lost to three top10 teams to discredit their offense. They are only averaging 12.5 ppg in those losses but again, I dont think Stanford is the best example to discredit the Pro Style offense. It worked when Harbaugh was there too. 

[SANJAY]

A .500 season after 4 years of 11+ wins, 3 division titles, 2 conference titles, a rose bowl win and an orange bowl win is proof that the offense can't work at Stanford?

[USFbulls24]

 

 

 

 

Assuming he doesnt lose to SMU and doesnt lose the locker room, parents, die hards, etc. then I would honestly give him 2-3 more years. srs. Especially if his recruiting keeps improving. I am willing to be patient. I know you cant turn a program like this around overnight. We are not Auburn. We dont have unlimited funding and reputation to carry us. We need to do it the hard way. 

 

Besides, are we really going to pay FOUR coaches? Come on. 

 

2-3 more years??? He gets another year no matter what in my mind, but if there is no bowl game next year he's gone. No one expects an Auburn like turn around, but at the rate things are going it will take 12 years for us to have a chance to win one of the worst conferences in college football. With teams like SMU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UCONN, plus whatever FCS school you start with up and down your schedule, if he doesn't have us at a minimum of 6 wins next year it should be glaring that HE IS THE PROBLEM. 

 

As of right now (according to Rivals) our recruiting is ranked 83rd in the country. At least last year we could talk about how incredible he was doing in recruiting, this year we stink again and are wondering what happened to the recruiting that happened last year....?

 

 

Well, at some point we are going to have to commit to something. Some style. Some agenda. Some philosophy and stay the course. We cant just have a continuous revolving door of coaches until one of us gets us back to a bowl game. I dont like it but again, just throwing coaches at the problem might not be the solution. 

 

 

You commit to something that works. You can't just keep a guy around to keep consistency for style and agenda if the results are below average when you're paying the man $1.3 million (or however much it is). I want Taggart to figure it out just as much as the next guy. Another few years of a new coach and new scheme etc. would be miserable to go through because it would once again get worse before it got better. But if Taggart is not the answer and we continue to get this same below average results and below average play, the longer he sticks around the longer it'll take for us to actually get to where we want to be.

 

 

I thought we were paying him around $750

 

 

Here are the terms of Willie Taggart's contract as the new head coach of the University of South Florida.

 

Five years, $5.75 million.

 

The annual compensation of $1.15 million per year includes $400,000 in base salary and $750,000 in supplemental compensation, for public relations, radio-television and endorsements.

 

CONTRACT INCENTIVES

 

• $500,000 for winning the BCS National Championship - LOL
• $400,000 for playing in the BCS National Championship Game.
• $200,000 for winning a Big East Conference championship and playing in a BCS Bowl game. (obviously now AAC)
• $150,000 for receiving an at-large bid to a BCS Bowl Game.
• $100,000 for a Top 10 finish in the BCS poll, Associated Press or Coaches poll.
• $50,000 for being named the Big East Coach of the Year
• $50,000 or $25,000 for playing in a lower-tier bowl game.

The highest incentive reached, in addition to being paid, will be added to the total of the following year's contract. For example, if USF wins the Big East and plays in a BCS Bowl game, Taggart not only receives the $200,000 bonus, but his salary the following year will increase by $200,000, to $1.35 million.

In addition, USF is also paying Taggart the $500,000 buyout that he owes Western Kentucky for breaking his contract.

USF has also allotted Taggart a $1.9 million pool per year to divide among his coaching staff

Edited November 5, 2014 by USFbulls24

[bullsfan1983]

A .500 season after 4 years of 11+ wins, 3 division titles, 2 conference titles, a rose bowl win and an orange bowl win is proof that the offense can't work at Stanford?

Offense has declined significantly since Harbaugh left and that is undeniable. In the past 3 seasons they ranked 70th, 48th, and 95th. They have ranked in the top 11 in defense each of the last 3 years. So yes you can get by with an ineffective offense if your defense is lights out. Stanford's is. Ours isn't.