All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
Who cares. Its baseball. The people who care are getting what they want in the team back and it appears the U will be putting very little (if any) of their own financial resources towards it.
-
Yeah I brought it up in my initial post game thoughts. He got knocked on his butt at least half the time and there wasn't even a return. No offense to him as I like him being a team player and doing whatever it is to get on the field, but I have trouble believing he is one of the best 11 to put out there.....at least yet.
-
Anybody notice a Zips quarterback playing on kickoff coverage during the Iowa State game?
-
^^ I can relate, Balsy. While I think of myself as a realist and not a Bowden apologist or whatever, I would assume I am more patient than the old grumps is because the only ever Zips football I've ever known is 1-11 and 1-11. Then again, football before that wasn't anything to brag about either.
-
I feel like I'm "liking" skip's posts too much recently....not sure what has gotten into me.
-
In reference to the schedule, through last night, all of the other MAC teams have played 7 or 8 matches while the Zips have played 5. http://getsomemaction.com/index.aspx?path=msoc From now through the end of October, it appears the Zips will have 3 matches every 7 days. Sep 24, 27, 30 Oct 3 (A), 7 (A), 10, 13, 17, 21, 24 (A), 27 (A) Nov 1, 4 (A) - away
- Today
-
As we all know today, the media can create a public frenzy about anything they choose, and put fuel on a fire that may not have started otherwise. And too many people will believe whatever they are told, without considering any of the other points that some of you guys have mentioned. Football will be the target for now....until the public's interest in the topic fades, and the media moves on to something else that generates paper and magazine sales, and Website visitors. Maybe it will be the impact of Soccer Headers. Maybe it will be the impact on your body as a basketball player from increasing your Vertical Jump by almost a foot in 6 months. Who knows.
-
-
Which I've pointed out before, and it's completely valid. We don't know the static rate of CTE occurring in the general population either. However, I offer a caveat because CTE was first observed in former boxers, and was later found in people of high contact sports (football, rugby, ice hocky, etc). From my limited troll through the science research I haven't come across studies on former soccer players. The problem with research is that it's mostly voluntary, and you must be dead in order for it to be confirmed. Symptoms of people whom are given the post-mortem diagnosis of CTE are consistent, and fall within a predictable range. The problem is, however, how do you separate the static occurrence of these symptoms vs. the random appearance of them in the general population. However even with that in mind, it does appear that donated brains of former high contact sports listed above do in fact show a higher rate of CTE and other related brain trauma, than donated brains of other walks of life; which is what sparked the curiosity in the first place. But I think it's also misleading to say that because we don't fully understand the static occurrence of a phenomena, or it's comparative diagnosis across all contact sports, doesn't mean that there isn't an increased risk that we can be highly confident about. The reason Football is focused on, is because it is a high contact sport, that does involved a higher rate of incidental head contact. It is known that CTE is caused by repeated head trauma, and there are an estimated 17.1 million people (mostly children) playing some sort of organized football in the US; making it more than legitimate and prudent to study. The way the research is conducted is very similar to smoking and the link to cancer spin. For nearly 30-years there was a corporate campaign against good science making similar arguments: We don't know the static occurrence of lung cancer in all walks of life, therefore it's premature to act. Anytime there is a "therefore" statement, it's a value-based judgement on risk-management. Etymologically you'd have to be crazy to not research the connection between smoking and cancer because of the reported cases of lounge cancer in smokers. The research, however, is rather conclusive that head trauma = bad. You don't need to have studied the brain directly to observe this phenomena with boxers, and the higher diagnosis of brain related ailments that exists with them. And it's something that I think people are beginning to think about. Am I willing to risk my brain for X, Y, Z? Is it worth the risk? Even if the increased risk is small? Not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but is it worth the increased risk? Those are all questions of risk-management and are value-based. Science can't tell you what to think, it can only report the relative chance of something happening. The ESPN's of the world polarize the issue, because that's what media does. They do it on Evolution, Climate Change, Smoking (once upon a time), Lead contamination (once upon a time), and now CTE; despite the science behind it being pretty well founded. Addiction, brain chemistry, also has strong connections to habitual conditioning during adolescent brain development, putting adolescents at a higher risk of developing addictions. Which is logical, because if you're tampering with brain chemistry/homeostasis during development...you should almost expect something to happen. Which is another, legitimate, reason to target research to a sport that involves lots of children that is high contact, and involves a lot of incidental head trauma. So the science research is unfounded. I'll leave with this: my own personal assessment of risk management. Say it is found that 0.001% of those who play football competitively end up later in life being diagnosed with CTE. There are 17.1 million people who play this year, making that number 17,100 people with CTE from playing a game....am I willing to take that risk? That's better odds than winning the lottery. Am I willing to risk my brain, to play that game competitively? I'm not sure that I am. With my luck, I would be the 0.001% . But that's personal assessment of risk-management.
-
This announcement doesn't make any sense to me. If there is not already committed outside funding for the baseball program this could be a disaster and the first blunder of the Williams AD leadership. To have a competitive team in the MAC in baseball you need approximately $2,000,000 annually. Where is that going to come from. Kent is the hallmark of MAC teams and their budget is higher. If we are going to play in Canal Park, a logical home field, how are we going to get the $500,000 the owner of the Rubber Ducks wanted in order to build locker rooms previously when the idea was floated and we had a emerging competitive team? Issues of travel, NCAA full allotment of schollies, coaching staff, Ohio vs out of state talent, spring trips, equipment all need to be funded. If not the MAC will kill us. Why add more sports when revenue is flat and all sports need more resources. A previous poster noted men's BB had its budget cut. Men's soccer lost its operations director when Oliver Slawson left to coach Ashland and his position was eliminated to cut the budget. Jared's scheduling opponents who have more coaches and resources than he has. Is it any wonder our best program has slipped. Baseball and women's lacrosse will draw funding away from the other sports that have a chance to excel, not considering football. I'd rather see the time and energy required to pull this off go to bringing all sports to the level of track and men's soccer. I doubt this is going to bring us any closer to getting a better venue to host our men's and women's BBall team's. That is also more pressing to me. These two new sports, as presented in the announcement, seem to be based on a modified D-III model. Yes, schollies are there but only to the tune of what the community will fund. Is it up to the baseball alumni to beat the bushes for the sport's funding? That assures we will be last in the MAC in both sports. I sure hope there is more to this than we have been told. It seems we are passing club sports off as our new varsity offerings.
-
Historically, baseball only has 11-12 full scholarships to give out in order to fill a 35 man roster. Those would be split up with partials given to multiple players. Those players were still on the hook to pay for the remainder of tuition and sometimes, board.
-
2017 NCAA D1 Mens Soccer Rankings
fknbuflobo replied to Zip_ME87's topic in Akron Zips NCAA Championship Soccer
These polls will all look similar come November. Some polls are more credible than others. Disregard College Soccer News entirely. -
The biggest problem with the research is that it ONLY DEALS WITH FOOTBALL. So we have all these parents who mean well, who put their kids in soccer or baseball or volleyball, let them ride bicycles or horses or skateboards, drive cars, and do any of a number of other things that cause concussions. Is there a research program on concussions from repeated headers in soccer? Beanings in baseball? Is ESPN doing documentaries on the serious head injuries from hockey? No. Someone has a hard on for football, and skewing the research. Personally I've had worse symptoms from firefighter training accidents than my years playing football. Where's that research? How many fire dogs have been diagnosed with PTSD when it's really physical trauma?
-
2017 NCAA D1 Mens Soccer Rankings
ZipsVoice replied to Zip_ME87's topic in Akron Zips NCAA Championship Soccer
Okay boys and girls, we have been posting from three or four sources, maybe 5 on rankings and they are WAY different from one another. I know that it depends on who is voting, but how can there be such a wide variety of #1s? Notre Dame #1 in one poll and #9 in another, Stanford #1 in one and not in the top 5 in another. Still doesn't matter for our beloved 'Roos, so far this season, but give me your thoughts on why such disparity? Please? Thank you... -
If it's like when I went to school 5-10 years ago, it's fromthe sale of text books.
-
I guess the bottom-line here is that this in the end boils down to an assessment of risk-management. Science can only tell us the data-driven probability...the chance...of something occurring based on current understanding. What risk people decide to act on is ultimately up to them. There is less than 1% chance your house will ever be robbed, yet most people act on that less than 1% risk and make sure they have insurance to cover it in case that it does. The risk of pregnancy complications doubles after the age of 35 for women, from 0.04% to 0.08% (yes that's hundredths of a single percent), yet people act on that Risk, hell even freak out about that risk! I'd argue that most likely those who play football are most likely at a higher risk for developing CTE than the general population. How much so, and how much risk is what is currently unknown. That is where Risk-management comes into play. How many parents will encourage other sports over football. Science can't tell us at which % you should act. It can only tell us "hey watch out, there's a % chance of X, Y or Z occurring." What you do as a result of that information is up to you.
-
Which life lessons are those? That adults with something to gain personally; will manipulate, scheme and otherwise rig things in order to guarantee the personal benefit? Not to be a downer, but I have personally witnessed the, frankly, immoral manipulation/bending of academics and rules/standards held to other students; by adults in order to give byes to student athletes (mostly basketball and football). I too am supporter because I can see the benefit, however I do think it's important to be cautiously vigilant
-
This is a little OT: Not that I'm defending anything in the back and forth with anyone here, I will gladly admit I'm a Bowden homer (once calling myself the self-proclaimed leader of the Bowden-cheerleaders), but it was out of a place of hope. I haven't been a Zips fan as long as you guys have. Hell I didn't even know our mascot was a Kangaroo until like 1/4 through my freshman year or something ridiculous like that. Saw the team go 10-38 over the next couple of years, and two coaches. Every game I went to they got blown out at. Bowden was hired, and when I watched the Zips that season, for the first time following the Zips...I went to games thinking "we've got a chance". Went to visit my cousin in Tennessee that year, expecting to be shut out, and watching the team compete. I guess I've been a Bowden homer because it's been his tenure that I first felt excitement for Zips football. I'm weary of going to an offseason unsure about what unknown coach may bring here (only no-name coach I have personal reference to is iCoach). Even when Bowden is gone I will still be a Zips supporter. And by my comments earlier I'd say that I'm getting more frustrated as the games wear on. When is it our turn? Before Bowden's tenure it was nothing but downs for my fandom (regarding football...soccer and Basketball have been great...the point being why even bother following Zips football?) I've contemplated cancelling my tickets in the past, wondering if it even matters being a diehard Zips fan. What's the point? But everytime I get that thought, I have a wonderful conversation with some other Diehard fan (either here or elsewhere) that convinces me to kick that idea to the curb. IDK. Rant over.
- Yesterday
-
"...continuing revenues generated from new student-athletes coming to UA..." and what revenues would those be??
-
Hey everyone, new to the board. Just wondering everyone's thoughts on the offense this season. I know Woodson's shoulder was not 100% throughout the spring/summer and it's fair to expect some rust as I don't think he practiced much at all before Penn State. It was also cold, windy and that Penn State D is obviously really good. Then the FCS team, 15-21 for 150, ok fine. I wasn't able to watch ISU though, how did he and offense look? I know he doesn't have the weapons they have last year on the perimeter and they now have a pretty bigtime RB from THE Ohio St, but has he looked any better? Wolf should be getting healthy I heard to give us another guy out there. Last year he was a shoe in for 300 yards and 2 tds every time out. Can we expect any improvement going forward or are we just a bad offensive team now?
-
My bad I will correct momentarily! One slips through every now and then
-
Not in all cases. Some want to be a HC to start moving up the ranks. Granted if we got that type, he wouldn't last long if he was successful, but perhaps having some success would make it much easier to replace him when that time comes.
-
Nope. The weather was just warm enough for all of us to wear the gear that we all bought at the Baseball Clearinghouse Sale at the Spring football game.
-
I completely understand that feeling. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but I didn't rejoice when I heard all of the details. This may be a creative way to bring back the sport, but I don't think it's going to work the way I understand it right now.
-
So just as the team was starting to win and had a pretty good coaching staff, we voluntarily death-penalty the them and bring them back as the NCAA's first attempt at a crowdfunded athletic program?
-
Popular Contributors
-
Who's Online (See full list)
-
Member Statistics
