[GP1]

I'm getting ready to go watch Pitt play UNC later this afternoon and the Marshall vs. ECU bowl game from when Leftwich played is on ESPN Classic. It was one of the all time great bowl games. I can't help but think...What in the heck has happened to the MAC? From the period when Pennington started until Roethlisberger left Miami, the MAC champion would have had a shot of beating either Pitt or UNC in the Car Care Bowl. That is not the case today.

One of the worst things to happen to MAC football was the exit of Marshall to CUSA (it has been bad for Marshall also, but that's another topic). The old saying is, "A rising tide lifts all ships". Marshall was a winner before coming to the MAC and they remained a winner in the conference. Being as good as they were, the other MAC schools were forced to improve their programs talent levels to keep up. Miami, Toledo and WMU just to name a few were much better teams than they are today. Heck, Miami had a Top 10 finish Roethlisberger's final season. With the exit of Marshall, the tide was lowered and so has the quality of the MAC. A lot of MAC schools had actually caught up to Marshall in quality and were beating them. If my memory serves me correctly, UofA won 2 of the last 3 outings against Marshall.

Another problem I think the MAC has is there is a loss of focus on winning in exchange for a focus on "building" things. Marshall, Miami, WMU and Toledo had worse facilities than they do today and their teams were better then than now. They had better players then than they do today with better facilities. Is the focus on "building" really the key or should be key be focusing on winning and getting winners in your program? When you focus on "building", you can more easily excuse away losing by lumping it into some odd idea that in the long run the losing will pay off because you are "building". Think about it....in 99% of the cases you can't have a child without having sex....you can't have a winner without winning. In this holiday season, I would ask for winning to be the priority of the conference and not an immaculate conception of "building" to transform it into a winner.

[lance99]

I'm getting ready to go watch Pitt play UNC later this afternoon and the Marshall vs. ECU bowl game from when Leftwich played is on ESPN Classic. It was one of the all time great bowl games. I can't help but think...What in the heck has happened to the MAC? From the period when Pennington started until Roethlisberger left Miami, the MAC champion would have had a shot of beating either Pitt or UNC in the Car Care Bowl. That is not the case today.

One of the worst things to happen to MAC football was the exit of Marshall to CUSA (it has been bad for Marshall also, but that's another topic). The old saying is, "A rising tide lifts all ships". Marshall was a winner before coming to the MAC and they remained a winner in the conference. Being as good as they were, the other MAC schools were forced to improve their programs talent levels to keep up. Miami, Toledo and WMU just to name a few were much better teams than they are today. Heck, Miami had a Top 10 finish Roethlisberger's final season. With the exit of Marshall, the tide was lowered and so has the quality of the MAC. A lot of MAC schools had actually caught up to Marshall in quality and were beating them. If my memory serves me correctly, UofA won 2 of the last 3 outings against Marshall.

Another problem I think the MAC has is there is a loss of focus on winning in exchange for a focus on "building" things. Marshall, Miami, WMU and Toledo had worse facilities than they do today and their teams were better then than now. They had better players then than they do today with better facilities. Is the focus on "building" really the key or should be key be focusing on winning and getting winners in your program? When you focus on "building", you can more easily excuse away losing by lumping it into some odd idea that in the long run the losing will pay off because you are "building". Think about it....in 99% of the cases you can't have a child without having sex....you can't have a winner without winning. In this holiday season, I would ask for winning to be the priority of the conference and not an immaculate conception of "building" to transform it into a winner.

This is an MAC issue, the conference leaders in Cleveland have to understand that the "conference of quarterbacks" is long over. Take away CMU and the MAC West was so bad this year in football.

Marshall was the best DII had before making the jump back to the MAC and then the conference got used and now they are paying for it.

Having new building are needed(in the Zips case, had no choice), but you do need to have a winning program, and that takes time.

For the Zips:
-Basketball is there, people need to notice, not just in NE Ohio, but nationally
-Football have the stadium, now needed to win. Only time will tell with the new coach
-Soccer everyone knew that this was a special year with playing the hardest schedule in the country, now you have to keep that run!

At least for the Zips, the tools are there, now they need someone (the conference) to start making things better for everyone and at least get back to that point 4-6 years ago.

[zipboy]

The last 10 years the MAC spent a lot of money on football which got worse and the basketball coaches complain about the lack of spending in basketball which made their sport worse, go figure.

Interesting topic, to me it is the longevity of coaches. I thought about the most successful MAC coaches over the past 15-20 years. My list and how long they stayed as head coach in the MAC

Randy Walker ( 9 years), Gary Blackney (10), Jim Grobe (6), Terry Hoeppner (6), Gary Darnell (8), Bob Pruett (9), Joe Novak (12), Gary Pinkel (10), Tom Amustutz (8). All of those guys stayed at least 6 years, had multiple winning seasons, had more success sustained longer than coaches who have moved up in the past year, Turner Gill (4), Brady Hoke (6 with 1 good year), Butch Jones (3). Gill and Jones are great examples, if they don't get an opportunity to jump and stay 2-3 more years, the league is better for it and if they really are good coaches take their team to the next level which is a MAC elite team 10 years ago. Instead both schools get assistants who will grow into the job hopefully but no way they sustain as much success in the next year or two than if those 2 had stayed. And I don't think those 2 were world beaters either.

The MAC is full of guys learning on the job. When 75% of your coaches are in that situation, less than 3 years as HC, you aren't going to be as good. I am not bemoaning them leaving, I just don't feel the opportunites to move that quickly 10 years ago existed. Urban Myer and Brian Kelly both stayed 2 years and 2 years after that were coaching FL and ND.

Second thing is the MAC started the spread to some degree before it caught on eveywhere else. Good QB play can neutralize a lot and whether it was the spread, luck, or good coaching, a lot of good college QBs came through back then. Look how hard it was for JD to recruit and identify a QB the past 6 years.

Third, no question Marshall leaving hurt. At the end Marshall came back down and several others came back up so the margin between Marshall and everyone else wasn't much different, but they carried an attitude that carried over to the rest of the league. Temple is spending the money and builing a talented team in the same mold, but no one cares at Temple. At Marshall, they cared, and that made beating them relevant.

Fourth, who has gone down faster over the past 10 years, MAC or Big Ten? Maybe geography does play a part in what is happening.

I don't believe the mid week games on ESPN have hurt or helped. The MAC drew flies before and still does. One year BG and NIU played and they had college gameday at the game, I think BG. Sellout, 30K, etc. 2 weeks later, BG plays a Sat night game in Nov with announced attendance at 11K.

[Sergeant Zip]

Fourth, who has gone down faster over the past 10 years, MAC or Big Ten?

The four letter network is reporting the MAC has now lost 11 consecutive bowl games, dating back to the 2006 season. The last MAC team to win a bowl game was Central Michigan in the 2006 Motor City Bowl (31-14 over Middle Tennessee). The MAC doesn't exactly play powerhouses in these bowls either.

I don't know the Big Ten's record but it can't be worse.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Fourth, who has gone down faster over the past 10 years, MAC or Big Ten?

The four letter network is reporting the MAC has now lost 11 consecutive bowl games, dating back to the 2006 season. The last MAC team to win a bowl game was Central Michigan in the 2006 Motor City Bowl (31-14 over Middle Tennessee). The MAC doesn't exactly play powerhouses in these bowls either.

I don't know the Big Ten's record but it can't be worse.

It is an absolute crime that some of the great early-2000's MAC teams got totally shut-out of bowls, while the tripe that the MAC parades around today @ 7-5 gets a bowl berth.

After 5 wins in 2009, K.e.n.t. fan was all excited about his bowl chances. Bowl chances for what...to get smoked by 58 point against UCLA? If K.e.n.t. EVER goes bowling, the apocolypse is upon us.

The Football Zips need to get their act together quick. A crappy OU team won 9 games this year. That's embarassing the the MAC, not a positive.

[zip37]

Well, with today's showing the Blundering Turd is still the class of the MAC!

[GP1]

Well, with today's showing the Blundering Turd is still the class of the MAC!

All really good points.

As far as Marshall, Leftwich's team his last year at Marshall would have kicked the crap out of that Marshall team yesterday.

[GP1]

Fourth, who has gone down faster over the past 10 years, MAC or Big Ten? Maybe geography does play a part in what is happening.

The Great GP1 has been making this point for a few years now and it is on the money. If anyone is sensitive about hearing any criticism about the current state of Ohio high school football, please stop reading this post now.

I belive the current population in Ohio is at least not expanding as rapidly as other parts of the country. It's simple demographics. As populations grow, the possibility of generating D-IA players is expanded. The Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC are great conferences because they have a larger population of high school athletes to draw from. In addition, the good teams in those conferences tend to be in warm weather states. I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

tOSU is now bringing in what I consider to be "The Best of the Rest". After the tier one conferences get the majority of the best players from around the country, tOSU/Big Ten is left to select the remainder. A lot of those kids are from Ohio. The problem is not many kids from Ohio are "impact players". tOSU gets high rankings in recruiting because of players of secondary importance....linemen. If a kid from Ohio is really good and really wants to compete at the top level of college football most weeks, tOSU is not the place to go. Look no further than the kid who just won the Heisman Trophy. While not from Ohio, he is a midwest kid from Michigan who drove by a lot of Big Ten schools to play in one of the top three conferences and the competition that brings. tOSU isn't in decline because there are NO good players...they are in decline because Ohio simply isn't producing enough good players to make them competitive nationally.

The other thing hurting the Big Ten is the style of football. It's just plain borring. No good player with his eyes on the NFL would go to a Big Ten school where they plough into the line time and again. tOSU is the Big Ten champion and they have a QB who throws sidearm and the nicest thing anyone can say about him would be, "He throws the ball in the general direction of the receiver". Why would a kid good enough to play on Sundays go to tOSU and play with that stiff. There is zero opportunity to showcase your talents. I know that type of thinking offends a lot on this board, but it's not 1950 anymore and high school kids do think about going to the NFL if they have the ability.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on tOSU too bad, because it is a midwest/Big Ten problem. They serve as a good example of the problem though. Keep in mind, tOSU lost to a 1-5 Purdue, the fifth place PAC 10 team at home in USC and they could have easily lost to NAVY. Freaking Navy for crying out loud. The bottom line is Tressel has the very best of teams in a second tier conference and they are still an average team who wouldn't compete very well in a top tier conference. The lack of talent is killing tOSU, the Big Ten and the MAC. There is no other way to slice it.

One more display of the lack of ability in the midwest/Ohio will be on display at the Sugar Bowl this year. Cincy could have lot to Pitt. I saw Pitt play yesterday and they could have lost to UNC. UNC is a joke. Cincy is going to get steamrolled by UF at the Sugar Bowl. The talent level will be overwhelming.

[lance99]

I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

I think that it is a lot more than "sex sells" you still have to win

[FootballCountry]

I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

^^This is a very moot factor at best.

What we take for granted or simply do not know is that in the southern states, their Track Seasons start far earlier than up North. Also, State rules are more strict in the north regarding Track & Field than in the south. If you think this has no impact, just check the state records for sprints in northern states vs. the south.

It affects the overall speed and muscle-conditioning which may give a slight, but certain advantage to conferences like the SEC.

Compounded by the fact that the BigTen's 'game' hasn't evolved as fast as other conferences.

It's just like the Auto Industry - The domestics didn't evolve until they were the laughing stock and they lost market-share. They currently - realistically make some of the best cars (i.e. Ford & GM, not Chrysler), but still are perceived as inferior.

The Midwest still has some of the best athletes, but we're still behind in evolving our game to match the new benchmarks (i.e. SEC, Big 12 South). This doesn't mean we can't compete. Let's face it, Alabama plays 'Big 10' football and smashed Florida which plays purely 'SEC' football.
So it's not like it can't be done.

It's all about scheme and strategy. It would go a long way if the OHSAA would lax the rules.

[Ryno aka Menace]

I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

^^This is a very moot factor at best.

What we take for granted or simply do not know is that in the southern states, their Track Seasons start far earlier than up North. Also, State rules are more strict in the north regarding Track & Field than in the south. If you think this has no impact, just check the state records for sprints in northern states vs. the south.

It affects the overall speed and muscle-conditioning which may give a slight, but certain advantage to conferences like the SEC.

Compounded by the fact that the BigTen's 'game' hasn't evolved as fast as other conferences.

It's just like the Auto Industry - The domestics didn't evolve until they were the laughing stock and they lost market-share. They currently - realistically make some of the best cars (i.e. Ford & GM, not Chrysler), but still are perceived as inferior.

The Midwest still has some of the best athletes, but we're still behind in evolving our game to match the new benchmarks (i.e. SEC, Big 12 South). This doesn't mean we can't compete. Let's face it, Alabama plays 'Big 10' football and smashed Florida which plays purely 'SEC' football.
So it's not like it can't be done.

It's all about scheme and strategy. It would go a long way if the OHSAA would lax the rules.

Curious what rules are you referring to?

[GP1]

I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

^^This is a very moot factor at best.

What we take for granted or simply do not know is that in the southern states, their Track Seasons start far earlier than up North. Also, State rules are more strict in the north regarding Track & Field than in the south. If you think this has no impact, just check the state records for sprints in northern states vs. the south.

It affects the overall speed and muscle-conditioning which may give a slight, but certain advantage to conferences like the SEC.

Compounded by the fact that the BigTen's 'game' hasn't evolved as fast as other conferences.

It's just like the Auto Industry - The domestics didn't evolve until they were the laughing stock and they lost market-share. They currently - realistically make some of the best cars (i.e. Ford & GM, not Chrysler), but still are perceived as inferior.

The Midwest still has some of the best athletes, but we're still behind in evolving our game to match the new benchmarks (i.e. SEC, Big 12 South). This doesn't mean we can't compete. Let's face it, Alabama plays 'Big 10' football and smashed Florida which plays purely 'SEC' football.
So it's not like it can't be done.

It's all about scheme and strategy. It would go a long way if the OHSAA would lax the rules.

Curious what rules are you referring to?

My guess is the fact that Ohio does not have spring football practice. They can have it in the south because the fields are not covered with snow. UofA has an indoor arena that helps when there is snow on the ground.

[Big Zip]

GP1 if your explanation is correct you'll need to explain Boise State and Utah to me.

I'll even do you one better the worst thing to happen to tOSU recently was getting Terrel Pryor in the recruiting wars -- he of the No. 1 ranked high school football player status. While I don't disagree their are problems with the MAC your explanation for what is wrong is way off the mark.

I think it is a shame what the BCS did this year in pitting TCU against Boise State instead of playing TCU against Florida and Boise State against Cincy. College Football is scared to death about those games. When Boise State beat Oklahoma it was embarrassing for the BCS and then when Utah beat Alabama it happened again they were going to be sure it didn't happen a third and fourth time this year.

[FootballCountry]

I know nobody wants to believe it, but high school boys decisions are influenced in part by girls...I know that's hard to believe. When they can see girls in Florida in January in shorts and t-shirts, it makes for a lot better visual than girls in Columbus in parkas.

^^This is a very moot factor at best.

What we take for granted or simply do not know is that in the southern states, their Track Seasons start far earlier than up North. Also, State rules are more strict in the north regarding Track & Field than in the south. If you think this has no impact, just check the state records for sprints in northern states vs. the south.

It affects the overall speed and muscle-conditioning which may give a slight, but certain advantage to conferences like the SEC.

Compounded by the fact that the BigTen's 'game' hasn't evolved as fast as other conferences.

It's just like the Auto Industry - The domestics didn't evolve until they were the laughing stock and they lost market-share. They currently - realistically make some of the best cars (i.e. Ford & GM, not Chrysler), but still are perceived as inferior.

The Midwest still has some of the best athletes, but we're still behind in evolving our game to match the new benchmarks (i.e. SEC, Big 12 South). This doesn't mean we can't compete. Let's face it, Alabama plays 'Big 10' football and smashed Florida which plays purely 'SEC' football.
So it's not like it can't be done.

It's all about scheme and strategy. It would go a long way if the OHSAA would lax the rules.

Curious what rules are you referring to?

The OHSAA has rules that govern when high school athletes can practice, train, etc. They're a lot stricter in Big 10 states vs. SEC states.

A lot of the states in the south track seasons start earlier which gives provides an advantage in regards to speed & conditioning for football. While I do not like to use this as a crutch, it is a fact. While Ohio/midwest athletes are by no means 'slow' as some perceive, the warm weather of the south provides an advantage.

They have spring football in the south which again, provides another distinct advantage for student-athletes. In OH, you can't even have organized practice until July, let alone organized passing scrimmages.

[SeeTeeZip]

There is an underlying theme to most of GP1's arguments about college football, and it correlates directly to his self-pleasure with having moved to the Carolinas. The Great GP1 moved to the Carolinas and is happy with his move. Ergo, everyone who didn't make the same move is stupid, or at least ignorant. The weather is so much better, the economy so much better, the girls so much hotter, the athletes so much better, that anyone with a brain should be there too. So, only warm weather campuses are appealing to young kids, only warm weather programs prosper, all things in the cold are destined to wither away.

It's an incredibly simplistic argument made by a young man who is still enamored with his (likely) first move away from home. It ignores the facts, including that the southeastern states only left essential poverty starting in the 1960s when corporations decided to crush the industrial unions by moving production to the deep south where they could pay lower wages and avoid unionization. Also, starting after WWII, retirees from the industrial north "discovered" places in the southeast where they could retire, pay fewer taxes and avoid harsh winters. The southeast's prospects have improved since then, basically at the expense of the industrial north and midwest. Of course, "prosper" is a relative term. Many areas in the deep south are still crushingly poverty stricken, and in large swaths of the southeast, one may avoid harsh winters but the "heat season" is simply winter in reverse, wherein the heat and humidity are so bad that you basically rush from air-conditioning to air-conditioning to avoid being in the elements.

Of course, any region can enjoy temporary success, at the expense of other places, by promising no or low taxes and by giving freebies to corporations to entice them. There is no free lunch however, and between those same corporate entities finding some even cheaper place/way to operate, and the endlessly rising cost of infrastructure maintenance/improvement, the free ride is going to end. In fact, it's already happening. Some of the most current big growth regions are in places like Kansas City, Boise, the state of Wyoming, Lincoln and other decidedly NON warm weather places. So, does The Great GP1 have an explanation for why Des Moines is growing fast, or why Boise has such a fantastic football program? Nope, because they don't fit his myopia. His model is 30 years old and no longer applies the way it once did. He'll catch up. He is The Great GP1.