(12-03-2012 03:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I never understood why UCF appealed the ban this year so they could sit out next year, when their access to bowl payouts is likely to be much higher. Do they think they're gonna win on appeal?

Personally, here's what I think: GOL knows what his team looks like for next year and felt there was a good chance they wouldn't make a bowl in 2014. This year's team was good. If you aren't going to make a bowl in 2014, wouldn't it make sense to do anything you could to push the punishment to that year? He can enter the Big East with a team that got to the post season and helps him recruit through 2014 and no bowl (punishment or not). I believe GOL knew what he was doing.

(12-04-2012 03:37 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 03:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I never understood why UCF appealed the ban this year so they could sit out next year, when their access to bowl payouts is likely to be much higher. Do they think they're gonna win on appeal?

Personally, here's what I think: GOL knows what his team looks like for next year and felt there was a good chance they wouldn't make a bowl in 2014. This year's team was good. If you aren't going to make a bowl in 2014, wouldn't it make sense to do anything you could to push the punishment to that year? He can enter the Big East with a team that got to the post season and helps him recruit through 2014 and no bowl (punishment or not). I believe GOL knew what he was doing.

thats what I think too. Even if we were to make a bowl next year I think it would have been as a 6-6 or 7-5 team and a low level big east bowl. The team has talent this year and if we had beaten missouri and tulsa like we should have (basically, if oleary doesn't pull an oleary) we'd be 12-1 and in the orange bowl. That is what GOL was hoping for, unfortunately his lack of coaching ability and predictable losses left us 9-4 and in the st. pete bowl.

(12-04-2012 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 10:14 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  I haven't seen any pictures other than the ones I posted showing a nearly empty stadium.

I have no dog in this fight. But my assumption is the video you saw showed the empty side of the field (I tried to view it but it would not come up). Having been to the St. Pete Bowl, I can tell you that essentially only one side of the stadium is used, and the upepr deck is used sparsely.
Because the cameras are on the side where most fans are, it looks really bad on TV.


Here are a few I found. Now thse don'd depict a sellout by any means, but they do show a few more people than you are saying were there.





Full endzone


Not a great view, but you can see a density in the seats


Similar to above



One more

LOL I know one side is empty, UCF played in this game in 2009, and sold it out. Now, if you figure maximum football capacity is 33k, and it looks like the stadium is only half full from those pics (could be less actually), that would say its 15k as I said. There are entire sections (corner by the home plate) that are empty. 33k is max and that is barely half full. Thanks for the pics and for proving my point. What an embarrasment for a program that is only a few miles away from the stadium.

Unfortunately, I doubt UCF's game on the 21st will be any better, probably significantly worse so I understand USF fan's reluctance to go there for a bowl game against a crap opponent at the end of a disappointing season.

So you start off by saying that the game only had 5k attendance, and USF brought only 2.5K.

Then when people dispute that, you suddenly change to 10k.. and claim you have proof. Yet, are basing this proof on certain pictures

Then people dispute that (and your claimed pics never posted that you used as "facts") and you again revise your claim that its less than 15k.

Yet you still ignore the main fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT is attendance was almost 22k. And that is "Actual Attendance" (butts in seats. Not "Paid Attendance."


I don't claim that we brought in a mass amount of people. That was a very disappointing season, and bowl.

But this clearly shows how you tried and miserably failed] to troll.

I feel like deleting my post above so I stop checking this thread.

(12-04-2012 04:09 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 10:14 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  I haven't seen any pictures other than the ones I posted showing a nearly empty stadium.

I have no dog in this fight. But my assumption is the video you saw showed the empty side of the field (I tried to view it but it would not come up). Having been to the St. Pete Bowl, I can tell you that essentially only one side of the stadium is used, and the upepr deck is used sparsely.
Because the cameras are on the side where most fans are, it looks really bad on TV.


Here are a few I found. Now thse don'd depict a sellout by any means, but they do show a few more people than you are saying were there.





Full endzone


Not a great view, but you can see a density in the seats


Similar to above



One more

LOL I know one side is empty, UCF played in this game in 2009, and sold it out. Now, if you figure maximum football capacity is 33k, and it looks like the stadium is only half full from those pics (could be less actually), that would say its 15k as I said. There are entire sections (corner by the home plate) that are empty. 33k is max and that is barely half full. Thanks for the pics and for proving my point. What an embarrasment for a program that is only a few miles away from the stadium.

Unfortunately, I doubt UCF's game on the 21st will be any better, probably significantly worse so I understand USF fan's reluctance to go there for a bowl game against a crap opponent at the end of a disappointing season.

So you start off by saying that the game only had 5k attendance, and USF brought only 2.5K.

Then when people dispute that, you suddenly change to 10k.. and claim you have proof. Yet, are basing this proof on certain pictures

Then people dispute that (and your claimed pics never posted that you used as "facts") and you again revise your claim that its less than 15k.

Yet you still ignore the main fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT is attendance was almost 22k. And that is "Actual Attendance" (butts in seats. Not "Paid Attendance."


I don't claim that we brought in a mass amount of people. That was a very disappointing season, and bowl.

But this clearly shows how you tried and miserably failed] to troll.

nice troll attempt, but I never said usf had 15k, I said total attendance is clearly less than 15k if the stadium holds 30k and it is obviously less than half full. If you are proud of that, go ahead and brag. Point is, this bowl game draws flies and it will again this year.

(12-04-2012 10:46 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  ECU fan support blows away UCF's(and other schools too). Not sure there is an argument there.

Not sure anyone is arguing ECU's fan support versus someone else's. It appears that many believe that, even in a bad economy, nearly any school that has a good fan base would travel extremely well to a bowl two hours away...regardless of opponent. If ECU had the opportunity to be 9-3 and play Ball St. in Raleigh, you'd see a large contingent. Honestly, it should be the same for any other school that wants to play with the big boys.

The example of FSU not traveling well isn't quite like UCF's. Not only is their opponent an "undesirable," but it also has to travel how many hours to get there? I'm sure it's a minimum of 4x that of UCF. ECU will likely suffer the same and have small turnouts because of the distance and opponent.

There are some real excuses for not traveling long distances...bad economy. Lower name opponent (even one that may beat you) can play a role. But, if the game is two hours away there shouldn't be any excuses.

(12-03-2012 03:42 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 03:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I never understood why UCF appealed the ban this year so they could sit out next year, when their access to bowl payouts is likely to be much higher. Do they think they're gonna win on appeal?

UCF's president didn't plan on appealing. O'Leary talked him into it because he thought they had a shot to win it all...not to mention that O'Leary has big salary bumps on his contract for any conference championship and bowl appearances. Plus the sanctions hit right before the 1st day of practice and GOL wasn't going to throw away a whole off-season of preparaing for this season, if he had anything to do with it.

Most fans aren't happy with the idea and feel we maxed out our CUSAness in 2010 by winning the conference a 2nd time and the Liberty Bowl (CUSA's highest bowl) over UGA....time to let this seaosn go and get ready for the Big East. I think it was a slap in the face to the Big East, as well.

If you think the appeal was all O'Leary's doing, you're extremely misinformed. Yes, he thought it was the right thing to do, and yes, Dr. Hitt listens to him. But the decision to appeal was not simply made on O'Leary's whim. I fully believe the appeal will fail, and I probably wouldn't have done it if the decision had been up to me. But to blame it solely on GOL is just disingenuous.

(12-04-2012 04:38 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:09 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 10:14 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  I haven't seen any pictures other than the ones I posted showing a nearly empty stadium.

I have no dog in this fight. But my assumption is the video you saw showed the empty side of the field (I tried to view it but it would not come up). Having been to the St. Pete Bowl, I can tell you that essentially only one side of the stadium is used, and the upepr deck is used sparsely.
Because the cameras are on the side where most fans are, it looks really bad on TV.


Here are a few I found. Now thse don'd depict a sellout by any means, but they do show a few more people than you are saying were there.





Full endzone


Not a great view, but you can see a density in the seats


Similar to above



One more

LOL I know one side is empty, UCF played in this game in 2009, and sold it out. Now, if you figure maximum football capacity is 33k, and it looks like the stadium is only half full from those pics (could be less actually), that would say its 15k as I said. There are entire sections (corner by the home plate) that are empty. 33k is max and that is barely half full. Thanks for the pics and for proving my point. What an embarrasment for a program that is only a few miles away from the stadium.

Unfortunately, I doubt UCF's game on the 21st will be any better, probably significantly worse so I understand USF fan's reluctance to go there for a bowl game against a crap opponent at the end of a disappointing season.

So you start off by saying that the game only had 5k attendance, and USF brought only 2.5K.

Then when people dispute that, you suddenly change to 10k.. and claim you have proof. Yet, are basing this proof on certain pictures

Then people dispute that (and your claimed pics never posted that you used as "facts") and you again revise your claim that its less than 15k.

Yet you still ignore the main fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT is attendance was almost 22k. And that is "Actual Attendance" (butts in seats. Not "Paid Attendance."


I don't claim that we brought in a mass amount of people. That was a very disappointing season, and bowl.

But this clearly shows how you tried and miserably failed] to troll.

nice troll attempt, but I never said usf had 15k, I said total attendance is clearly less than 15k if the stadium holds 30k and it is obviously less than half full. If you are proud of that, go ahead and brag. Point is, this bowl game draws flies and it will again this year.

Figured you'd follow my logic and realized I meant 15k total (not 15k USF fans) since that goes along with my first point.

But yet you beat around and still ignore the official actual attendance of 22k. Which is more than 1/2 full

Like I said, not great, but given the circumstances, crappy year, bowl... meh, it is what it is.


Either case you are wrong, attempted to troll, failed, and look stupid.


And with that I end my case with in this (sub-)topic.
Carry-on