kreed5120

This or Kent is the most winnable road game we have on our schedule. A win today and I feel there is a realistic chance of getting to 6 wins and making a bowl. A loss would make that pathway incredibly difficult.

The senate bill passed by a filibuster proof majority and had bipartisan approval at a time Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything. How long it drags out likely depends on if the house puts the senate bill up for a vote or tries to amend it, which would then means it has to go back to the senate for approval once again. If it's approved and signed into law by mid-November then that still would give the NCAA the power to make those players ineligible. Maybe a few get to play a few OOC games, but by in large the NCAA would still be able to ban them for the bulk of the season, particularly for the conference and postseason games, which are what really matters.

Not intending to get political, but I'm thinking once the house of representatives returns and approves the the senate bill it will give the NCAA the power to bypass the court rulings and govern the sport as it sees fit. That would make all these court rulings irrelevant. If that's true none of them will be eligible.

Already happening. I haven't fact checked, but I read LSU is running a $40 million sport deficit

I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison. UNLV also showed they could beat us with the pass so we weren't really in a position to fully commit to stopping the run. I'm not saying CMU won't be able to run it down our throats, but they are much more 1 dimensional than UNLV, which at least gives our struggling defense a fighting chance. Edit: I wouldn't be surprised if this game gets decided by the movable object meeting the stoppable force. Akron crowding the box to force CMU to pass. From there figuring out if CMU poor pass game is better or worse than our poor pass defense.

Number of teams are the same, but mid-majors still will end up losing postseason slots. Those 8 additional spots will almost certainly go to the P5, maybe occasionally a PAC-12 or A10 can use it to sneak in. Last year only 4 P5 (P4+Big East) participated in the NIT.

NIT shrinking to 24 teams. I imagine much of this is driven by how many programs reject participating these days. https://x.com/GoodmanHoops/status/2105684213538107773

I don't disagree. There is a reason those other venues in Akron attract those smaller to mid-size events that you see Akron size arenas in other cities land.

I'm inclined to agree. Plus his name is already plastered all over the program from the signage, practice gym, and pretty much every press release related to the program. Getting Wentz Financial on the building doesn't do a ton more for him. He would probably just prefer another local company to step up to help him elevate the program. Naming rights to an arena in a city the size of Akron shouldn't be a hard sell, but it must be since we have no takers. What's probably holding it back is outside of men's basketball, which averages ~2,500, it's mostly just used for women's basketball and volleyball, which maybe attracts a few hundred. I know it has some one off events, but those are too far and in-between. If it had a fuller calendar it would probably become an easier sell. My guess what's holding it back from hosting more events (besides it's current state) is EJ Thomas and Akron Civic Theater book the acts that would otherwise accommodate an arena Akron's size.

Louisiana schools are in a much more dire situation than Ohio schools. They have less than half the population of Ohio yet only 1 fewer public 4 year school. UL-Monroe has an enrollment of about 8500. For comparison Akron is around 13,500. At some point if enrollment shrinks too much the burden becomes too great.

Louisiana regent recommends all 3 Louisiana SunBelt schools drop down to FCS to reduce mounting deficits. https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2026/09/30/regents-say-louisiana-tech-and-university-of-louisiana-and-ulm-should-drop-to-fcs-football-division/92011705007/

Nemer signed 3 year extension, which was published by the ABJ. I found the attached article, which provides the details and isn't hidden behind a paywall. https://www.kentucky.com/news/nation-world/national/article317444289.html

If the NFL wasn't banned from playing football on Fridays and Saturdays they would have been doing it for decades by now. I can't see them getting a filibuster majority to overturn the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

I feel the part worth pointing out that is most applicable to Akron is it limits players to only 1 transfer. Any additional transfers require a player to sit out 1 year. This should in theory reduce the number of transfers we see in all sports.

Opponents released for ESPN Events Invitational. https://x.com/ZipsMBB/status/2104695445930885415

Reggow is a fine backup QB for the MAC. The problem is the pass defense is so atrocious that fine just doesn't cut it. We need a QB that can put up points in bunches. Not one that can be a game manager.

I never claimed it to be an equal trade-off. There is no mistaking that this NIL and freedom of transfer era has further widened the gap between P4 and the G6.

Before any concrete decisions get made it's probably best to wait out and see what, if any, legal changes make it through congress. There are some parts of the legislation that would help mid-majors/G6, namely limiting players to only 1 transfer without having to sit out a year.

If there is one positive of the portal it's that we can land a higher caliber freshman than we could 5-10 years ago. Akron's best selling point to these kids is they will have an opportunity to earn playing time by year 2 and can use that to cash in elsewhere (if successful). The alternative for many is to go to a lowly P4 program, ride the bench for 2-3 years, and then transfer down to a G6 program.

No disagreement there. Generally these deals I believe include a signing bonus and then a monthly stipend so hopefully Akron is able to recoup a large chunk of it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're disputing here. I simply stated I don't think he was a highly coveted transfer, especially since his eligibility was a bit murky as it relied on an approved 5th year that had to make it through the courts, so I don't feel we spent a ton to acquire him. We're not in a position to win bidding wars against anyone. Especially at a premium position like QB. The other 2 QBs you mention also probably make little to no money. Maybe a small token stipend. I'm not really in a position to argue how much better he is or isn't than the players we have playing QB currently. The opinion I shared is irrelevant to whatever this point is.

Probably not as much as you would think. He was unproven at the FBS level. We were probably one of the few, perhaps only, school that gave him a chance to start. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our NIL went to keeping our skilled position players. That's where the majority of our returning talent resides.

I'm laughing because this post is pretty spot on.

That was before Freeman was a breakout star. I do agree keeping someone like him 4-5 years probably just isn't going to happen moving forward under the current rules. There is legislation that plans to limit how often players can transfer without penalty so perhaps that could restore some order for both basketball and football. The MAC is terrible. 6 out of the bottom 10 teams (per Massey) in FBS are MAC schools. That's not including NIU, who just left the MAC, that is also in the bottom 10. There is a big difference between beating 3-4 MAC cupcakes (who are on par with an upper tier FCS program) and actually being able to consistently compete with the top handful of teams in the MAC. I don't even think we have the full allotment of assistants and support staff so that would eat up a decent chunk to get just there before even getting into NIL.

We literally took UCLA to the final seconds in the tournament. Probably win if Freeman doesn't foul out on a bogus call. Ohio won a game just a few years ago. Buffalo a few years before that so MAC teams winning games can be done. The thing about basketball is it's significantly cheaper to compete. I think between operations and player spend Akron is around $4.5 million. Even if you gutted basketball to bare minimum and redirected all of that to football that might only free up $2 million. That's not enough to materially improve the football program. It's not a situation where Akron has the money to be competitive in football, but decides to invest it in basketball instead. It's that Akron acknowledges they don't have the resources to be good in football so they just decide to punt on the sport financially to free up a little extra for basketball. If they didn't do that Akron would be terrible at both sports and nobody would be happy.