Here's Saturday's practice report, from correspondent Kerry Klecic ...
TAMPA -- USF junior wide receiver Carlton Mitchell dressed in shoulder pads at Saturday’s practice and walked without the boot he’s worn around his left ankle since suffering a high ankle sprain on Oct. 30 against West Virginia.
Mitchell, USF’s leading receiver with 542 yards, is limited with what he can do and did not practice. USF coach Jim Leavitt has not ruled Mitchell out for the Bulls’ game against Rutgers on Thursday, saying it’s “day by day.”
Without Mitchell, USF would be down nearly 32 percent of its receiving production this season.
Butler out for long time: Sophomore cornerback Tyson Butler has not returned to practice since suffering a knee injury against West Virginia.
Leavitt classified Butler’s injury as a “sore knee,” and he said he could be out for a long time but wasn’t sure exactly when he will return. Butler will not play against Rutgers, Leavitt said.
Number change: Senior linebacker Kion Wilson will wear the No. 10 jersey of former USF player Keeley Dorsey this week. A senior rotates wearing the jersey each game to honor Dorsey, who died in a team conditioning workout in 2007.
Wilson was held out of practice earlier Monday with a groin
injury, but Leavitt said he’s fine and practicing regularly now.


Times sportswriter Greg Auman, who covers USF, will post news and thoughts on the Bulletin and we invite your participation in the comments area.
If you don't think we should play Boise St. because it could only hurt us, then you don't have any room to complain about Boise State's weak schedule. If you think that USF should be among the best teams in the nation, then you should not be afraid to play anyone. If Boise really isn't "that good" then USF should play them and beat them - plain and simple. We don't like it when other schools refuse to schedule USF because they don't want to run the risk of a loss... Using the same excuse for Boise makes us just as bad as those other schools.
Posted by: MikeT | November 09, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Ms. - A home and home series is a home game and away game. We have a home and home with FSU. We went their this year, so next time we play them, they come to us. So we would have to go to Boise...not so much fun.
Posted by: Gobulls03 | November 09, 2009 at 03:38 AM
ahh, Shep have you looked at our schedule ? Five ranked teams we will play most likely. Next year it doesn't get any easier.
ahh
Posted by: Richard Todd | November 08, 2009 at 10:47 AM
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
theres a link to the boise article
Posted by: ms | November 08, 2009 at 12:15 AM
USF should play Boise if they can. Should schedule best competition they can get! Need to quit all these cup cakes and play top teams!
Posted by: USFShep | November 07, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Oh, I hadn't heard that. It'd be interesting, that's for sure. But the UCF logic probably applies here- no need to possibly hurt our reputation with a risky game. A loss to a BCS team is pretty much always excusable (think Pitt at NC State, even though it was a bad loss for Pitt).
Posted by: David Weber | November 07, 2009 at 09:42 PM
The Boise Athletic Director was recently quoted as saying, he isn't interested in a "home and home" series. This would be Boise strictly coming to Tampa. We wouldn't have to return the favor.
Posted by: ms | November 07, 2009 at 09:12 PM
My basic point is that an out-of-conference game against a non-BCS school on the road should give us some exposure to new recuiting grounds. I'd be OK with going to TCU for that reason.
Remember why we gave WKU a home-and-home, too. We couldn't afford to pay for teams to come in. If Boise will come for no certain check and no return game, then it's a good idea.
The thing is, if any Big East contender loses to one of the major non-BCS teams out west, the calls for losing our BCS slot will immediately start up again. Remember, the major media tend to look for any reason to de-legitimize the Big East. There's no reason to take the risk. I'd prefer for USF to try and find 3 non-conference BCS opponents per year.
Posted by: David Weber | November 07, 2009 at 08:43 PM
I agree about BJ wearing #10. Shoot, if it weren't for Keeley coming to USF, we would never have gotten BJ.
Posted by: Mike Lakeland | November 07, 2009 at 07:33 PM
Bobby B., USF doesn't have that many seniors who were around when Dorsey played in 2006.
I count 11 total -- Allen, Alvarado, Busbee, Erskin, Grothe, Harris, Hester, Murphy, Plancher, Robinson and Selvie.
So no matter what, a senior who didn't play with Dorsey would get to wear No. 10. Not sure if Grothe will get a game to wear the No. 10, but would be fitting if B.J. Daniels, a high school teammate of Dorsey's, could wear No. 10 for one game ...
Posted by: G.A. | November 07, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Playing Boise would be good for the strength of schedule, but do you think many Bulls fans would fly to Idaho? Do you think Boise would bring many fans to Tampa? USF hasn't gone west of Texas in a long time -- I really don't see that happening any time soon.
Posted by: G.A. | November 07, 2009 at 07:21 PM
David W.
I don't understand your reasoning about not being able to play Boise. I think the game would be a natural. A home and away series would benefit both programs. Our OOC games were weak this year. I know FIU messed up our schedule, but we could always use some fresh faces in Tampa.
Posted by: Thumper | November 07, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Thanks for the injury updates GA.
Posted by: Tyler | November 07, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Did we run out of seniors that were around when Dorsey was here?
Posted by: Bobby B | November 07, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Crazy day in college football. Pitt looked great. I'm glad that Iowa lost- it's such a joke that they were ahead of Cincy. I'm rooting for Navy, although that's not a good thing for Pitt. But check this out- Grant Gregory has Kansas State at 6-4 (two 1-AA wins, so they need one more for a bowl). It's good to see that he got a chance to lead a program, he was fun to watch in the few opportunities we got to see him.
Ms., what's there to gain out of playing Boise? First, we can't afford to pay them to come to USF and give a home-and-home, and there's no reason for us to go to Idaho. We should crush them, but a loss would look terrible for the Big East. Boise can't handle the weekly challenges of a real conference, as they struggle in the WAC, but they can be very good on any particular day.
As for USF, we cannot afford to lose Mitchell. He's had some drops, like all of our guys, but he's the only consistent threat. No one else presents the same size/speed/hands combination. Bogan is close, but hasn't established himself like Mitchell has.
Posted by: David Weber | November 07, 2009 at 05:33 PM
Let's go Kion. No jinx wearing the #10. Lots of TFLs Thursday night!
Go Bulls!
Posted by: BA | November 07, 2009 at 05:27 PM
Hi Greg,
What do you think about USF scheduling a home game vs. Boise St? Apparently BSU is willing to go to any stadium and play out of conference. I am sure USF has an opening that they can schedule with Boise?
Posted by: ms | November 07, 2009 at 05:02 PM