The big 2015 USF football guide: It's bad

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Reality vs. recruiting rankings

According to the 247Sports Composite rankings, USF's 2014 recruiting class was the best in the AAC by a significant margin -- the Bulls' 190.5 points were further ahead of second-place UCF's 165.8 than UCF was ahead of sixth-place ECU. Their class ranked 39th overall, ahead of recently successful power-conference teams like Texas Tech, TCU, and Louisville. When you are based in such a talent-rich area, you don't have much of an excuse not to pull in some nice prospects, but Willie Taggart's haul was particularly impressive considering USF's uncertain status (from BCS-level to non-power following the AAC's demotion) and the fact that the Bulls went 2-10 in 2013, Taggart's first season.

In 2014, Taggart began to hand the team over to the youngsters. Star quarterback signee Quinton Flowers saw action, and freshman running backs Marlon Mack and D'Ernest Johnson combined for 249 rushes and 29 catches. Defensive backs Devin Abraham, Kendall Sawyer, Deatrick Nichols, and Tajee Fullwood all saw time in the rotation. Between these players and some key redshirt freshmen in the defensive front seven, USF fielded an awfully young team. USF also fielded an awful team.

A 4-8 record seems like improvement over 2-10, yes, but USF's 4-8 record was just about as soft as imaginable last fall. The Bulls survived FCS Western Carolina in the season opener, then beat three awful conference foes -- UConn, Tulsa and SMU combined to go 5-31 -- by a combined 12 points. Their 4-0 record in one-possession games* was the only thing propping up a team that, on paper, regressed from 102nd in the F/+ ratings to 123rd.

* USF is now 6-1 in one-possession games under Taggart ... and 0-17 in the other games.

In February, Taggart reeled in another impressive haul, though the returns were already beginning to diminish. USF (162.7) finished second in 247's AAC recruiting rankings and 67th overall, decimal points behind Cincinnati (163.3) and a little bit ahead of UCF (160.7). Considering the team's recent performance -- 6-18 in Taggart's two years, 14-34 over the last four -- that's still pretty good. But the regression pointed to a stark reality: you don't get forever to rebuild a program. Taggart's recruiting is solid, but reality still dictates how long you get to mold good recruits into good players.

USF was young in 2014, but not stripped-down-to-the-studs young, not young enough to justify a No. 123 ranking. The Bulls must replace seven offensive starters and two of their most important defensive players, and with a coaching staff that is in endless flux (by my count, only two primary assistants -- offensive co-coordinator David Reaves and linebackers coach Raymond Woodie -- remain from the 2013 staff), there is no guarantee that they will improve to any dramatic degree. And USF fans have noticed.

Granted, there is indeed potential. There almost always is with USF. The running game could be strong, and at the very least, the passing game has more receiver options. Most of the front seven returns after defending the run pretty well a year ago, and 2014's ultra-young secondary becomes 2015's seasoned unit. There is potential for improvement within just about every unit on the field, especially considering the youth involved. But potential wasn't worth much last year, and at this point, the burden of proof is on Taggart and his staff to show they can turn former three- and four-star recruits into three- and four-star players. They haven't yet.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 4-8 | Adj. Record: 1-11 | Final F/+ Rk: 123
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	Western Carolina	NR	36-31	W	41%	-5.2	95%
6-Sep	Maryland	62	17-24	L	19%	-20.1	9%
13-Sep	NC State	55	17-49	L	3%	-42.6	0%
19-Sep	Connecticut	119	17-14	W	50%	-0.3	89%
27-Sep	at Wisconsin	25	10-27	L	37%	-7.5	9%
11-Oct	East Carolina	61	17-28	L	25%	-15.7	3%
18-Oct	at Tulsa	117	38-30	W	54%	2.3	95%
24-Oct	at Cincinnati	47	17-34	L	11%	-28.9	0%
1-Nov	Houston	73	3-27	L	5%	-38.2	0%
15-Nov	at SMU	127	14-13	W	22%	-18.1	72%
22-Nov	at Memphis	41	20-31	L	14%	-25.0	0%
28-Nov	Central Florida	60	0-16	L	23%	-17.4	4%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	19.5	116	33.2	96
Points Per Game	17.2	119	27.0	66

2. It got worse

When you went 2-10 the year before, and you plan on playing quite a few freshmen, your goal is probably to just be better in November than you were in September. Young players can hit a wall and fade, and it's not necessarily the end of the world if they do, but you hope for the former, not the latter.

USF got the latter.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 7 games): 33% (record: 3-4)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 5 games): 15% (record: 1-4)

The offense averaged 8.1 yards per play against Western Carolina, 7.1 against Tulsa (122nd in Def. S&P+), and 4.4 against everybody else. The defense, reasonably solid early on (4.7 yards per play against Maryland, 3.7 against UConn), sprang leaks and allowed at least 6.1 yards per play for four consecutive games. The Bulls shored up some defensive issues against Houston (4.6) and SMU (4.9), then caved against Memphis (7.6).

Marlon Mack torched Memphis for 102 yards on 16 carries, but the run game otherwise didn't come around. And while star receiver Andre Davis caught 18 passes for 355 yards and five scores against ECU, Tulsa, and Cincinnati after returning from injury, he caught just 17 passes for 195 yards in the final four games. There just weren't enough viable options for touching the ball, and oscillating between three quarterbacks helped nothing.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.84	75	IsoPPP+	79.0	114
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	33.6%	126	Succ. Rt. +	78.4	126
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	28.6	41	Def. FP+	102.0	44
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.9	107	Redzone S&P+	71.8	127
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.8		ACTUAL	20	-1.8

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	121	121	126	114
RUSHING	117	125	127	109
PASSING	97	112	112	109
Standard Downs		127	128	112
Passing Downs		96	63	110

Q1 Rk	123	1st Down Rk	116
Q2 Rk	119	2nd Down Rk	88
Q3 Rk	118	3rd Down Rk	124
Q4 Rk	74

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Mike White					122	242	1639	8	7	50.4%	16	6.2%	5.9
Steven Bench	6'2, 215	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8325	49	100	611	3	2	49.0%	7	6.5%	5.3
Quinton Flowers	6'0, 217	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8890	8	20	111	0	2	40.0%	0	0.0%	5.6
Brett Kean	6'1, 205	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8187

3. Find a quarterback

Under first-year offensive coordinator Paul Wulff, USF attempted a quarterback-friendly recipe last year. The Bulls threw more frequently than average on standard downs, when defenses are likely geared toward stopping the run, and ran more frequently on passing downs. This formula can work if you have the right weapons, and while it might not save you from passing downs, it can help with standard downs efficiency.

USF was 128th in Standard Downs Success Rate+. Out of 128 teams. Instead of passing to take pressure off of the run game, it was like the Bulls were doing nothing but throwing play-action bombs on first down. Marlon Mack averaged 6.2 yards per carry on first downs, but USF quarterbacks were 54-for-118 for 757 yards, six touchdowns and four interceptions. If you're going to go the play-action route, then you need to lean much more heavily on the run than USF did.

That, or I guess you find yourself a new coordinator(s) and a quarterback who can properly execute the offense. Wulff is out, and former Purdue head coach Danny Hope is in, listed as co-coordinator with David Reaves.

Mike White was the closest thing to a quality passer in the stable -- his first-down passer rating was 130.9 compared to Steven Bench's 86.9 and Quinton Flowers' 21.0 -- but he announced he was transferring to Western Kentucky this spring. Flowers' insertion into the game resulted in more of a run-heavy approach, however, and that identity might pay off in 2015. Flowers' pass efficiency must desperately improve for even a run-first attack to work, but if he beats out Bench this fall (and my guess is he will), he will at least bring an identity to the table.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Marlon Mack	RB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8365	203	1041	9	5.1	7.3	32.0%	5	2
D'Ernest Johnson	RB	5'10, 207	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8727	46	150	0	3.3	2.9	23.9%	0	0
Darius Tice	RB	5'10, 206	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8256	40	104	0	2.6	1.9	25.0%	1	0
Quinton Flowers	QB	6'0, 217	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8890	13	73	0	5.6	4.5	46.2%	0	0
Mike White	QB					13	23	0	1.8	4.1	30.8%	4	2
Steven Bench	QB	6'2, 215	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8325	9	32	1	3.6	2.7	44.4%	1	0
Kennard Swanson	FB	6'0, 253	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8513	9	28	0	3.1	1.5	33.3%	2	2
Rodney Adams	WR	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8992	5	52	1	10.4	6.6	80.0%	1	0
Sta'fon McCray	RB	5'11, 215	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8464
Trevon Sands	RB	5'11, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8539

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Andre Davis	WR-X					75	36	594	48.0%	21.9%	52.0%	7.9	131	7.9	66.4
Deonte Welch	WR-Z					49	23	269	46.9%	14.3%	46.9%	5.5	-29	5.6	30.1
Mike McFarland	TE					47	27	315	57.4%	13.7%	53.2%	6.7	-19	6.7	35.2
Rodney Adams	WR-Z	6'1, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8992	44	23	323	52.3%	12.8%	50.0%	7.3	33	7.2	36.1
Marlon Mack	RB	6'0, 195	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8365	35	21	160	60.0%	10.2%	57.1%	4.6	-97	4.6	17.9
Sean Price	TE	6'3, 250	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9382	34	14	207	41.2%	9.9%	47.1%	6.1	20	6.3	23.1
Kennard Swanson	FB	6'0, 253	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8513	22	13	206	59.1%	6.4%	86.4%	9.4	46	10.0	23.0
A.J. Legree (Kentucky)	WR-Z	6'1, 194	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8438	14	7	97	50.0%	4.2%	22.2%	6.9	0	5.0	13.4
D'Ernest Johnson	RB	5'10, 207	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8727	10	8	107	80.0%	2.9%	50.0%	10.7	14	10.0	12.0
Darius Tice	RB	5'10, 206	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8256	9	8	68	88.9%	2.6%	55.6%	7.6	-24	7.4	7.6
Ryeshene Bronson	WR-X	6'3, 187	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8753	6	3	85	50.0%	1.7%	50.0%	14.2	47	16.1	9.5
Alex Mut	WR	6'3, 205	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.7700
Austin Aikens (Western Kentucky)	WR	6'0, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8181
Tyre McCants	WR	5'11, 211	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8606
Stanley Clerveaux	WR-X	6'3, 196	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8270
Elkanah Dillon	TE	6'5, 239	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8256
Chase Whitehead	SLOT	5'9, 170	RSFr.	NR	0.7000
Jarvis Baxter	WR	5'11, 165	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8274
Chris Barr	WR	5'10, 165	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389

4. Wheel! Of! Receivers!

In theory, if you have enough interesting options -- and you can define "interesting" however you want here: recent production, speed, size, recruiting ranking -- the odds are pretty good that a couple of them will emerge as viable threats.

According to that theory, then, the USF receiving corps could be just fine in 2015. First, while the Bulls must replace their top three targets from last year (including Davis, who was explosive, if inefficient), the bar isn't incredibly high considering the trio combined to average 6.9 yards per target with a 50 percent catch rate last year. The top two returning wideouts (Rodney Adams and little-used Ryeshene Bronson) and the top returning tight end (Sean Price) combined to average 7.3 yards per target with a 48 percent catch rate, so there's certainly hope in that regard.

But to those three, you also add Kentucky transfer A.J. Legree, WKU transfer Austin Aikens (a Taggart signee from when Taggart was still at WKU), three three-star redshirt freshmen (wideouts Tyre McCants and Stanley Clerveaux and tight end Elkanah Dixon), another redshirt freshman who had a standout spring (Chris Whitehead), and two speedy three-star freshmen (Jarvis Baxter and Chris Barr).

That's 11 potential targets battling for three to four primary spots. Even with a less efficient quarterback in Flowers, the odds are good that USF receivers can match last year's meager numbers.

If the passing game can hold steady despite losing White and his top three targets, the running game should improve, if only because of the running backs. The line was a shuffled mess that wasted a high level of experience, but Marlon Mack showed genuine promise last year. He was inefficient, and he fumbled too much, but to some degree that was a product of his inexperience. If he improves with experience and finds/creates more room to run, his open-field explosiveness will pay off handsomely. And if year-to-year progress results in higher efficiency for four-star sophomore D'Ernest Johnson (who did not show much explosiveness), too, then there's a solid backup in place. Quinton Flowers averaged 5.6 yards per (non-sack) carry and could provide enough of a distraction for the run to take off. But the pass still has to be good enough for it to matter.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	75.2	2.42	2.13	31.8%	50.0%	25.3%	102.0	7.6%	3.2%
Rank	126	120	126	121	127	122	66	112	6

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Quinterrius Eatmon	RT					47
Austin Reiter	C					36
Darrell Williams	LT					29
Brynjar Gudmundsson	RG	6'4, 305	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7600	25
Thor Jozwiak	LG	6'4, 321	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8300	14
Dominique Threatt	RG	6'1, 320	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8594	7
Kofi Amichia	LT	6'4, 290	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619	1
Cameron Ruff	C	6'3, 313	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8382	1
Jeremi Hall	LG	6'5, 345	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8496	0
Mak Djulbegovic	RT	6'5, 293	Sr.	NR	NR	0
Clavion Nelson	RT	6'3, 302	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.7800
Benjamin Knox	LT	6'6, 287	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8668
Michael Smith	OL	6'3, 319	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8178
Michael Galati	C	6'3, 286	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8046
Glen Bethel	OL	6'6, 300	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8690
Marcus Norman	OL	6'6, 290	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8392
Billy Atterbury	OL	6'4, 286	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8335

5. Continuity is good

USF started a different combination on the line for each of the first four games and each of the last four games. That's ... not optimal. And it certainly spent some of the continuity that should have come from returning four starters from the year before. But it also ensured that while the Bulls would lose three starters this offseason, they would still return five players with starting experience (48 career starts) this fall.

It was a chicken-vs.-egg thing for the USF running game last year: the line was bad, and the running backs were freshmen, and it was hard to figure out how to divvy out the credit (or in this case, lack thereof). Regardless, USF's line stats were awful across the board, including the two stats most directly tied to the line (power success rate, stuff rate). They couldn't get a push when they needed, and they couldn't keep run defenders out of the backfield. That they protected the passer from blitzes pretty well was a good sign even if passing downs passes weren't particularly aggressive.

Still, no matter how bad the line was, continuity could help immensely. If the interior of the line -- senior guards Brynjar Gudmundsson and Thor Jozwiak* and sophomore center Cameron Ruff -- can improve with experience and stay on the field, then the running backs might improve enough to take full advantage.

* Our time is running out with the most well-named guard duo in the country. Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.75	16	IsoPPP+	99.6	68
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	46.1%	110	Succ. Rt. +	86.7	116
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	29.5	83	Off. FP+	97.0	99
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.7	102	Redzone S&P+	88.3	110
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	17.1		ACTUAL	20.0	+2.9

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	71	98	119	68
RUSHING	85	64	84	50
PASSING	52	115	127	103
Standard Downs		94	119	72
Passing Downs		79	94	74

Q1 Rk	124	1st Down Rk	74
Q2 Rk	68	2nd Down Rk	84
Q3 Rk	78	3rd Down Rk	53
Q4 Rk	58

6. Attack the run, give up on the pass

USF's defense was reasonably solid against the run last year. The success rates weren't amazing, but the Bulls limited opponents' big-play capabilities (only seven rushes of 30-plus yards, only one of 50-plus) and created a lovely push in short-yardage situations. They basically forced opponents to the air to sustain any offense.

The problem was that, when opponents went to the air, only the air provided resistance. USF had the second-worst Passing Success Rate+ in the country despite a decent pass rush. Four of the top nine in the secondary were freshmen, and three were sophomores, and the unit was simply not ready to make plays.

Will that change this fall? It better! Because defensive coordinator Tom Allen is shifting to a 4-2-5 attack, which means more DBs on the field. With a thinner defensive line and far more experience in the secondary, maybe that makes sense. But it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to see how this gambit could backfire terribly.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	97	2.92	3.49	42.9%	64.7%	16.9%	91.6	4.5%	7.2%
Rank	79	64	79	109	47	102	83	68	68

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Elkino Watson	DT					10	30.5	4.5%	7.5	2.0	0	0	1	0
Todd Chandler	NT					12	28.5	4.2%	4.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Derrick Calloway	DT	6'2, 285	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8746	12	24.5	3.6%	5.0	3.0	0	2	1	0
Eric Lee	DE	6'3, 248	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8589	12	23.5	3.4%	6.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Demetrius Hill	DT	6'3, 270	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8535	11	19.5	2.9%	5.0	2.0	0	1	0	1
Deadrin Senat	NT	6'1, 300	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8712	12	13.0	1.9%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Josh Black	BULL	6'2, 228	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8233	5	6.0	0.9%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
James Hamilton	DT	6'2, 301	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8752	10	4.0	0.6%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Zack Bullock	BULL	6'3, 221	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7800	8	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Mike Love	DE	6'4, 245	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8282
Vincent Jackson	DE	6'2, 246	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8572
Eric Mayes	DE	6'4, 240	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8217
Marlon Gonzalez	DT	6'4, 260	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8510
Kirk Livingstone	DE	6'4, 235	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8249

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nigel Harris	WILL	6'0, 220	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8594	11	63.0	9.2%	9.5	2.0	0	0	5	1
Auggie Sanchez	MIKE	6'2, 241	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793	12	49.5	7.2%	2.0	0.0	1	2	0	1
Tashon Whitehurst	WILL	6'3, 225	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8181	12	41.0	6.0%	5.0	2.0	0	1	0	0
Reshard Cliett	SAM					11	33.5	4.9%	7.5	6.0	0	0	1	0
Rahmon Swain	WILL					10	19.0	2.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
LeGrande Harley	MIKE	6'1, 230	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8447	10	18.5	2.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
C.J. Garye	SAM	6'3, 228	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7700	10	5.5	0.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Jimmy Bayes	LB	6'3, 225	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8743
Nick Holman	LB	6'2, 231	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8296
Danny Thomas	LB	6'1, 230	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8543
Nico Sawtelle	LB	6'2, 215	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8094

7. Run defense should still be alright

When you move from a 3-4 to a 4-2-5, you're sacrificing size for speed. In theory, that could hurt your run defense at the expense of helping the pass, but a) that's a trade you're probably willing to make when your pass defense was this awful, and b) I'm still not incredibly worried about the run defense.

Elkino Watson and Todd Chandler are gone, but the Bulls still return plenty of intriguing bigs (Derrick Calloway, Deadrin Senat and James Hamilton are all 285-plus and former star recruits), and despite a lack of size, end Eric Lee and linebacker Nigel Harris combined to make 13.5 non-sack tackles for loss last year. Harris forced five fumbles to boot. I think the components of a decent run defense are still in place, especially if sophomores like Senat and linebacker Auggie Sanchez, or redshirt freshmen like linebacker Jimmy Bayes and end Vincent Jackson are capable of making breakthroughs. Hell, even the folks at Voodoo Five are pretty excited about this defensive front.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jamie Byrd	HUSKY	5'11, 184	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8539	12	83.0	12.1%	2.5	0	2	3	1	0
Nate Godwin	SS	5'10, 202	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8435	12	62.5	9.1%	1	0	0	2	0	0
Johnny Ward	CB	6'0, 178	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7961	10	31.5	4.6%	1	0	2	3	0	0
Devin Abraham	FS	5'9, 187	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8220	12	28.5	4.2%	3	0	0	1	1	0
Chris Dunkley	CB					11	24.5	3.6%	1.5	1	0	5	1	0
Lamar Robbins	CB	6'2, 200	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8754	12	19.0	2.8%	3	0	1	2	0	0
Kendall Sawyer	CB	6'1, 180	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8782	9	9.5	1.4%	0	0	0	0	1	0
Torrel Saffold (2013)	CS	5'11, 177	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7900	11	9.0	1.5%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Deatrick Nichols	CB	5'10, 186	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8507	12	7.5	1.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tajee Fullwood	FS	6'2, 209	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8457	8	6.0	0.9%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Trevon Griffin	DB					12	6.0	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hassan Childs	SS	6'0, 188	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8241	12	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jalen Spencer	HUSKY	6'0, 183	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8162
Mazzi Wilkins	CB	6'0, 162	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8401
Khalid McGee	DB	5'10, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8625
Ronnie Hoggins	DB	5'10, 160	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8512
Malik Dixon	S	6'3, 195	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8355
Nate Ferguson	CB	5'9, 170	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8148

8. Wait ... there will be even more defensive backs on the field?

Put on your rose-colored glasses, and you can see how this unit becomes relatively competent this year. Jamie Byrd is a pretty good attacker (2.5 tackles for loss, five passes defensed) who is going to be placed in more of an attacking position this year. Corner Johnny Ward might not miss time this year. Sophomores Devin Abraham, Kendall Sawyer, Deatrick Nichols and Tajee Fullwood could all take nice second-year leaps. Senior safety Torrel Saffold returns to the fold (sorry) after missing 2014. Four three-star defensive backs will be ready to fight for a spot on the two-deep. The competition here should be solid, and you can pretty easily decide that this year's five defensive backs could be quite a bit more effective than last year's four (and not only because 5 > 4).

And then I remind you that USF ranked 115th in Passing S&P+ despite a decent pass rush. The secondary will need to improve a lot, and while it's possible, it's not something you bet on.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Mattias Ciabatti	6'0, 189	Sr.	65	44.4	3	16	22	58.5%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Marvin Kloss			43	61.9	23	0	53.5%
Emilio Nadelman	5'6, 173	So.	3	65.3	1	0	33.3%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Marvin Kloss			23-23	9-10	90.0%	4-7	57.1%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Chris Dunkley	KR			23	24.0	0
D'Ernest Johnson	KR	5'10, 207	So.	8	19.6	0
Hassan Childs	PR	6'0, 188	Jr.	9	6.9	0
Chris Dunkley	PR			8	8.5	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	106
Field Goal Efficiency	74
Punt Return Efficiency	73
Kick Return Efficiency	106
Punt Efficiency	91
Kickoff Efficiency	85
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	53

9. Talk about awful coverage units...

When your secondary and receiving corps stink, there's a pretty good chance that your coverage units stink, too, as depth in those two units tend to be what make up teams' coverage units.

This is more anecdote than testable theory, but USF's coverage in 2014 certainly lends to the anecdote. Marvin Kloss booted more than half of his kickoffs for touchbacks, punter Mattias Ciabatti averaged an All-American caliber 44.4 yards per punt, and USF still ranked 85th and 91st, respectively, in kickoff and punt efficiency. That's inexcusable.

That both the receiving corps and secondary seem to have better depth and athleticism is a very good thing for the special teams unit. Now let's see if one of the new guys can also return a kick or a punt. Oh yeah, and let's see if there's a replacement for Kloss, who was good on kickoffs and very good on field goals.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
5-Sep	Florida A&M	NR
12-Sep	at Florida State	15
19-Sep	at Maryland	62
2-Oct	Memphis	41
10-Oct	Syracuse	80
17-Oct	at Connecticut	119
24-Oct	SMU	127
31-Oct	at Navy	44
7-Nov	at East Carolina	61
14-Nov	Temple	67
20-Nov	Cincinnati	47
27-Nov	at Central Florida	60

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-10.9% (78)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	50 / 52
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	0 / -4.7
2014 TO Luck/Game	+1.9
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	12 (4, 8)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	3.8 (0.2)

10. Not the best schedule for a surge

Top-60 recruiting and a bottom-10 product. That was a pretty awful combination for Willie Taggart in his second year in charge, and it has landed Taggart pretty high on preseason hot-seat lists. That he has struggled is a bit of a surprise -- he was part of Jim Harbaugh's incredible original assistant coaching staff, and he quickly converted his alma mater WKU from laughingstock to viable program -- but there's no doubting that he has struggled. Skip Holtz was booted after going 3-9 and ranking 71st in the F/+ rankings in 2012, and while he left a relatively thin cupboard, we all expected Taggart to do more with this program than he has.

It would take quite a few ifs to turn this team around in 2015, but all of the ifs seem semi-realistic on their own. Quinton Flowers could become a solid dual-threat quarterback who connects on just enough of his passes to free up space for Marlon Mack. The offensive line could improve by simply keeping the same unit on the field from week to week. The run defense could be as good or better than it was last year, and the secondary could improve with typical year-to-year improvement for the young players and a change in scheme. That could all happen, and it could at least threaten to drag USF back out of the triple-digits in the rankings.

The problem, then, is the schedule. It does feature visits from Florida A&M and SMU and a winnable road trip to UConn. But those are the only three opponents that ranked worse than 80th last year, and only one other (Syracuse) ranked worse than 67th. Even if USF improves to about 100th or so, there really aren't many likely wins on the schedule.