Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Conference Re-Alignment?


712 replies to this topic

#31 gozips19

gozips19

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 10:54 AM

Let the western C-USA teams go shore up the MWC. Take the remaining Eastern C-USA teams and some MAC schools who invest in athletics and you get:

North:

U@B
Toledo
Temple
UMass
Akron
Marshall

South:

So. Miss
E. Carolina
UAB
Tulsa
Rice
Tulane

All sports for all teams & there's some historically good teams there for both sports. Travel isn't out of control, and there's a good mix of urban and traditional campuses.

If the travel is too wide, you could let Tulsa and Rice go west , and try and get WKU and MTSU in from the Belt. Then the hoops in the league would be immediately a 2+ bid league most years.

It's tough with all of the flux to take a flyer on something like this. It really is. I want UA to keep pushing itself and make the most of it's investments in athletics. Those investments can benefit the entire campus if they yield results. Not sure if I would jump at this or risk staying pat where they are. The investment in FB tells me that LP & the Board would probably go for a transition like this.

I think we would need to bring a rival with us .. so hopefully UT would see it the same way.




You are missing three teams that will be joining the MWC next year. Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii

click me



:screwks:
GO ZIPS!

#32 hiroad1

hiroad1

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:10 PM

Or Marshall when they were in the MAC.

The question really is what is in store for college football? If conference shake-ups result in BCS schools having their own division in a few years, none of this will matter. In fact, if they don't, I don't see how any of this matters. At this point, teams below the BCS/remaining Big East teams are jumping from one bad conference to another. I don't see the point. We can have it really good where we are right now. We have a national soccer program, a basketball team that is dominating the conference and a football team that can easily be turned around with the current staff. Everything else is Title IX compliance or general nonsense. We can dominate the MAC in the three major sports we have invested or looking to invest. Let's get this right before we make a move that might damage momentum. The MAC survives like a cockroach after a nuclear holocaust. It isn't going anywhere so let's make certain we have the three major investments showing results, not potential results, before we do anything.


I agree with the comments above.

Which conference is going to invite Akron in as things stand today? IMO, a better conference than the MAC is a fantasy right now.

UA football needs to become a consistent force in the MAC before anything BIG can happen. Then, we can either stay in a stable MAC while gaining national attention, or maybe a better/new conference will take interest when we are winning and drawing large crowds in football, basketball and soccer.

The three best things that can happen to help UA achieve improved national standing - Terry Bowden builds a winning football program, a new basketball arena, and a drive to 40,000 enrollment by 2020 with many more campus-resident students. All three are in process to happen. Good things will come if these plans are properly executed.

#33 acstorfer

acstorfer

    Zips Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:01 PM

Yeah, before we look on to bigger and better conferences we have to prove we can compete. The sad fact is, UofA football is one of the reasons that MAC football is looked so down upon. If we can turn this around, and I hope we can, then so can all of the MAC and we can become more respectable. I also can't help but think, why do so many schools want out of the Big East? Why leave the MAC just to get done in by a sinking ship? Truth is with Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan all so close to the Akron area, Akron will never get the blue chip recruits. Besides, losing the Can't State rivalry in football and basketball would be a blow to both our schools.

#34 trimmy10

trimmy10

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,900 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:03 PM

Let the western C-USA teams go shore up the MWC. Take the remaining Eastern C-USA teams and some MAC schools who invest in athletics and you get:

North:

U@B
Toledo
Temple
UMass
Akron
Marshall

South:

So. Miss
E. Carolina
UAB
Tulsa
Rice
Tulane

All sports for all teams & there's some historically good teams there for both sports. Travel isn't out of control, and there's a good mix of urban and traditional campuses.

If the travel is too wide, you could let Tulsa and Rice go west , and try and get WKU and MTSU in from the Belt. Then the hoops in the league would be immediately a 2+ bid league most years.

It's tough with all of the flux to take a flyer on something like this. It really is. I want UA to keep pushing itself and make the most of it's investments in athletics. Those investments can benefit the entire campus if they yield results. Not sure if I would jump at this or risk staying pat where they are. The investment in FB tells me that LP & the Board would probably go for a transition like this.

I think we would need to bring a rival with us .. so hopefully UT would see it the same way.


It would be way short on members for soccer, which has to be considered vitally important to us. I'd add NIU and SIU in all sports (natural geographic rivals, one in each division) as they are good overall fits, have soccer programs, and add another state to the footprint. I would also invite Kentucky and South Carolina for soccer.
"Rule #76: No excuses, play like a champion!"

#35 Spin

Spin

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wadsworth, Ohio
  • Interests:RN, FD, EMS. Sports fan, auto racing. Trains. Music.

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:42 PM

I'm not excited about any of those schools. I would much rather play Can't and Ohio, and for that matter BG, and Miami. Road trips to Tulsa, Rice, Tulane? For what, another half ounce of credibility. I'd rather play in what's left of the Big Least, especially in hoops. Football against Cincinnati, Louisville. Still not as exciting without Pitt and WVU, but better than the other. SMU would be an interesting matchup. The team that got the death penalty from the NCAA, against the team that got the death penalty from its QB and later AD.
Most people do not listen with the intent to understand.
They listen with the intent to reply.

#36 Zipmeister

Zipmeister

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,835 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:15 PM

Or Marshall when they were in the MAC.

The question really is what is in store for college football? If conference shake-ups result in BCS schools having their own division in a few years, none of this will matter. In fact, if they don't, I don't see how any of this matters. At this point, teams below the BCS/remaining Big East teams are jumping from one bad conference to another. I don't see the point. We can have it really good where we are right now. We have a national soccer program, a basketball team that is dominating the conference and a football team that can easily be turned around with the current staff. Everything else is Title IX compliance or general nonsense. We can dominate the MAC in the three major sports we have invested or looking to invest. Let's get this right before we make a move that might damage momentum. The MAC survives like a cockroach after a nuclear holocaust. It isn't going anywhere so let's make certain we have the three major investments showing results, not potential results, before we do anything.

Four counting rifle.

#37 NewZipsFan

NewZipsFan

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 08:11 PM

I'd be interested to know exactly what a basic outsider who is new to the program sees that makes them think that the President is trying to use UF's model of success. Will you elaborate?
As for Florida being an elite educational institution, I do not hate Gators, but I have noticed that the farther south I go, the smarter I become.

Well -- just on the face of the moves I've seen in the past several months, along with seeing the "now famous" facilities (which do NOT disappoint in any possible way -- except of course for the JAR... and seriously - what's the deal with the "bridge to nowhere"???) basically what I said to begin with. UA has spent the money to upgrade facilities (before great athletic success.. "if we build it, we will win"), seem to have some very, very specialized programs that are ranked very high nationally, is located in an area that has the population to support the size/scope of the University as it is now - and what it plans to be in the near future, seems to value academics and the academic faculty - which leads me to believe that with some major successes/money from football - the appropriate percentage would be reinvested into that staff and academic facilities/programs, etc... All which begins/continues the cycle of attracting great students, great student-athletes, great faculty -- all which continue to build the reputation of the University and make it a sought after institution.

25 years ago - the joke was that it was easier to get into UF than community college. Now, 29,000 freshmen were vying for 6,400 spots in the 2011 freshman class. That is INSANE! But very true. I see the similarities - whether it is an actual "model", I don't know -- I may have not used the proper words. But its all semantics. Common sense is just common sense sometimes.

P.S. Zipmeister -- regarding your comments about feeling smarter the further south you travel -- I won't disagree with you 100%, but the state of Florida really isn't considered the South. If you want to talk Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc... you'll get no argument from me :)

#38 Zipmeister

Zipmeister

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,835 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:01 PM

Well -- just on the face of the moves I've seen in the past several months, along with seeing the "now famous" facilities (which do NOT disappoint in any possible way -- except of course for the JAR... and seriously - what's the deal with the "bridge to nowhere"???) basically what I said to begin with. UA has spent the money to upgrade facilities (before great athletic success.. "if we build it, we will win"), seem to have some very, very specialized programs that are ranked very high nationally, is located in an area that has the population to support the size/scope of the University as it is now - and what it plans to be in the near future, seems to value academics and the academic faculty - which leads me to believe that with some major successes/money from football - the appropriate percentage would be reinvested into that staff and academic facilities/programs, etc... All which begins/continues the cycle of attracting great students, great student-athletes, great faculty -- all which continue to build the reputation of the University and make it a sought after institution.

25 years ago - the joke was that it was easier to get into UF than community college. Now, 29,000 freshmen were vying for 6,400 spots in the 2011 freshman class. That is INSANE! But very true. I see the similarities - whether it is an actual "model", I don't know -- I may have not used the proper words. But its all semantics. Common sense is just common sense sometimes.

P.S. Zipmeister -- regarding your comments about feeling smarter the further south you travel -- I won't disagree with you 100%, but the state of Florida really isn't considered the South. If you want to talk Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc... you'll get no argument from me :)

All excellent points. If, in the next 25 years, we get to the point where the football team generates money to plow back into the athletic program rather than surviving by using funds obtained from the University general fund please get back to me.

#39 wadszip

wadszip

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:50 AM

While I agree with those who aren't enamored by a possibility of Akron joining CUSA/Mountain West, there is no doubt that if that was worst-case, the school would make the move. It's all about the money. The money that league would bring in just based on TV rights would offset the cost of travel. I had a conversation with Mike Thomas when he was the AD, and he was very candid about the university wanting to get out of the MAC, even if it was to CUSA. With the investments the university has continued to make in athletics since he left, I doubt athletic department/university's stance has changed.

Getting out of the MAC really didn't have much to do with level of competition, but rather, it's all about the money.

However, personally I don't think CUSA has to be the next step. I think the Big East is more realistic than people want to realize, if, and it's a big if, a new basketball arena is built.

NewZipsFan brought up the University of Florida example. I see where you're going with that, but it's not fair/logical to compare Florida with Akron. Florida is a charter member of the SEC (always has been a major power, and currently is THE major power in college football). It's also the flagship university of the state of Florida. Ohio State and Florida are equal comparisons, not Akron, as much as I love my university.

Akron, though, is comparable to both Central Florida and South Florida. All three are large, urban universities (located in major TV markets) that are still in their infancy when it comes to DI athletics. South Florida really began to invest in its athletic programs in the late 1990s and skyrocketed into the Big East within five years of becoming a DI-A school in 2001.

Central Florida, however, is actually the better comparison to Akron. UCF didn't begin D1-A football until 1996 (Akron in 1987). UCF joined the MAC in 2002 and played for three years before moving on to CUSA. UCF must have dominated in its three years to have been able to make that move up so quickly, right? Not exactly. They went 7-5, 3-9 and 0-11 (and 1-2 against the Zips head-to-head).

What was the difference for UFC? In 2004, with the impending move to CUSA (despite experiencing a 3-9 season the year before) UCF hired George O'leary as head coach. O'Leary was highly successful at Georgia Tech then was marked with the scarlet letter when after taking the Notre Dame job, it was learned that he had exaggerated his resume. UCF took its lumps in O'Leary's first year, the school's final year in the MAC. But with a new stadium in the works (which was finished in 2007), UCF went 8-5 in its inaugural year in CUSA (O'Leary's second year at the school) in 2005, and he has continue to improve the program since then.

Hmmm, does this seem familiar to Akron? New stadium, highly successful coach with "baggage." Seems to me that Akron is using the UCF model. Coincidence, that Akron opens with UCF this year? Maybe, but the UCF model is something the Akron seems to be following. After all, the same company that was responsible for UCF's new campus/basketball facilities, KUD, ( http://www.kudllc.co...ects/index.html ) is the same one that the University of Akron hired to head its 2020 plan.

What pushed UCF over the top in the Big East's eyes was the new basketball facility (the Big East will always highly consider basketball). With a top-notch basketball facility, UCF now has everything the league is targeting for new membership:

1. A large TV market (No. 19 Orlando).
2. Solid facilities in both football and basketball
3. An athletic department striving to improve
4. Fertile recruiting grounds (moreso in football in UCF's case)

What is Akron missing? Only the basketball arena. And the university didn't hire Jim Tressel to lead the fundraising effort for one to get built, just so JT could get a nice 200,000 a year retirement package.

And since some have mentioned soccer. The Big East, even with the defections, is still a league that still has some very good soccer programs. I'm sure that is another feather in the cap for Akron. While soccer is way down on the list of expansion priorities, having a school that can turn the sport into a revenue producer, like Akron, doesn't hurt.

People need to block out the noise (which likely stems from Can't State, CSU and YSU fans in this area) that Akron can never be more than a MAC school because of its lack of football success. First, that's not exactly the case (Memphis and its 5 wins in three years still is heading to the Big East). Second, we really don't know how successful Akron can become in football. The program was for the most part mediocre (not horrible like some like to exaggerate) while playing in an abysmal facility. I'd say even being able to field a mediocre MAC team playing in the worst facility in all of Division I football is more of an indicator of what kind of program Akron can have, than being horrible (for two years) in a brand-new facility. Let's face it, the Rob Ianello hire was the most important in the school's history, and they blew it. But considering the athletic department canned him, with time left on his contract, before it got worse, and went out and got Terry Bowden, shows that they realized the mistake and are doing whatever they can to make sure it's not repeated.

The Ianello hire cost the university two prime development years, but if Tressel can get the ball rolling on an arena and Bowden can mirror O'Leary at UCF, the school will be back on its original track in a couple of years. Luckily, the Big East won't really decide what direction it wants to go until 2015 when Navy comes aboard. That gives Akron a couple of years to show it's serious about continuing to improve all of its programs.

#40 NewZipsFan

NewZipsFan

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:35 AM

All excellent points. If, in the next 25 years, we get to the point where the football team generates money to plow back into the athletic program rather than surviving by using funds obtained from the University general fund please get back to me.

In my opinion, Akron is much farther ahead in many areas than Florida was 25 years ago. Florida was not always the "flagship" University in Florida. Florida State had better academic programs and facilities in many areas for many years. UF 25 years ago was maybe where UCF is now - with a lot less enrollment and far inferior athletic facilities.

What I am obviously not conveying properly - and I apologize for my inability to communicate my point -- is that Akron has a vision for growth, many of the pieces already in place, and the commitment from the administration to make it happen.

Why does a state have to have only ONE "flagship" University? Florida has a population of roughly 19 million, and Ohio has roughly 11 million people. Why can Florida have FSU, UF, UM - and to a lesser degree USF, UCF, FIU and FAU - but Ohio can only have Ohio State? There is plenty of population and love for college football for Akron to become a much bigger player in the state and the nation.

#41 xu9697

xu9697

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:27 AM

Or Marshall when they were in the MAC.

The question really is what is in store for college football? If conference shake-ups result in BCS schools having their own division in a few years, none of this will matter. In fact, if they don't, I don't see how any of this matters. At this point, teams below the BCS/remaining Big East teams are jumping from one bad conference to another. I don't see the point. We can have it really good where we are right now. We have a national soccer program, a basketball team that is dominating the conference and a football team that can easily be turned around with the current staff. Everything else is Title IX compliance or general nonsense. We can dominate the MAC in the three major sports we have invested or looking to invest. Let's get this right before we make a move that might damage momentum. The MAC survives like a cockroach after a nuclear holocaust. It isn't going anywhere so let's make certain we have the three major investments showing results, not potential results, before we do anything.


At this point, I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

For a long time, I have hoped for a conference for UA that included Temple, Buffalo, Toledo, Navy, Army, ECU, etc. For a little while, I even dreamed of getting Memphis involved and having Temple and UMass join in basketball (even though I know it would hurt my alma mater's conference). Obviously, things have moved in a direction that already make some of this impossible.

I still think that a time may come where the non-BCS schools join up with perhaps the CAA schools to form another division. I know some are vehemently against that kind of situation and dream of being "the next Boise", but I find the possiblity of a 16 team playoff with CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, CAA and WAC with 1-2 possibly home playoff games at INFO much more appealing as being something that is realistic.

#42 Zipmeister

Zipmeister

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,835 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

While I agree with those who aren't enamored by a possibility of Akron joining CUSA/Mountain West, there is no doubt that if that was worst-case, the school would make the move. It's all about the money. The money that league would bring in just based on TV rights would offset the cost of travel. I had a conversation with Mike Thomas when he was the AD, and he was very candid about the university wanting to get out of the MAC, even if it was to CUSA. With the investments the university has continued to make in athletics since he left, I doubt athletic department/university's stance has changed.

Getting out of the MAC really didn't have much to do with level of competition, but rather, it's all about the money.

However, personally I don't think CUSA has to be the next step. I think the Big East is more realistic than people want to realize, if, and it's a big if, a new basketball arena is built.

NewZipsFan brought up the University of Florida example. I see where you're going with that, but it's not fair/logical to compare Florida with Akron. Florida is a charter member of the SEC (always has been a major power, and currently is THE major power in college football). It's also the flagship university of the state of Florida. Ohio State and Florida are equal comparisons, not Akron, as much as I love my university.

Akron, though, is comparable to both Central Florida and South Florida. All three are large, urban universities (located in major TV markets) that are still in their infancy when it comes to DI athletics. South Florida really began to invest in its athletic programs in the late 1990s and skyrocketed into the Big East within five years of becoming a DI-A school in 2001.

Central Florida, however, is actually the better comparison to Akron. UCF didn't begin D1-A football until 1996 (Akron in 1987). UCF joined the MAC in 2002 and played for three years before moving on to CUSA. UCF must have dominated in its three years to have been able to make that move up so quickly, right? Not exactly. They went 7-5, 3-9 and 0-11 (and 1-2 against the Zips head-to-head).

What was the difference for UFC? In 2004, with the impending move to CUSA (despite experiencing a 3-9 season the year before) UCF hired George O'leary as head coach. O'Leary was highly successful at Georgia Tech then was marked with the scarlet letter when after taking the Notre Dame job, it was learned that he had exaggerated his resume. UCF took its lumps in O'Leary's first year, the school's final year in the MAC. But with a new stadium in the works (which was finished in 2007), UCF went 8-5 in its inaugural year in CUSA (O'Leary's second year at the school) in 2005, and he has continue to improve the program since then.

Hmmm, does this seem familiar to Akron? New stadium, highly successful coach with "baggage." Seems to me that Akron is using the UCF model. Coincidence, that Akron opens with UCF this year? Maybe, but the UCF model is something the Akron seems to be following. After all, the same company that was responsible for UCF's new campus/basketball facilities, KUD, ( http://www.kudllc.co...ects/index.html ) is the same one that the University of Akron hired to head its 2020 plan.

What pushed UCF over the top in the Big East's eyes was the new basketball facility (the Big East will always highly consider basketball). With a top-notch basketball facility, UCF now has everything the league is targeting for new membership:

1. A large TV market (No. 19 Orlando).
2. Solid facilities in both football and basketball
3. An athletic department striving to improve
4. Fertile recruiting grounds (moreso in football in UCF's case)

What is Akron missing? Only the basketball arena. And the university didn't hire Jim Tressel to lead the fundraising effort for one to get built, just so JT could get a nice 200,000 a year retirement package.

And since some have mentioned soccer. The Big East, even with the defections, is still a league that still has some very good soccer programs. I'm sure that is another feather in the cap for Akron. While soccer is way down on the list of expansion priorities, having a school that can turn the sport into a revenue producer, like Akron, doesn't hurt.

People need to block out the noise (which likely stems from Can't State, CSU and YSU fans in this area) that Akron can never be more than a MAC school because of its lack of football success. First, that's not exactly the case (Memphis and its 5 wins in three years still is heading to the Big East). Second, we really don't know how successful Akron can become in football. The program was for the most part mediocre (not horrible like some like to exaggerate) while playing in an abysmal facility. I'd say even being able to field a mediocre MAC team playing in the worst facility in all of Division I football is more of an indicator of what kind of program Akron can have, than being horrible (for two years) in a brand-new facility. Let's face it, the Rob Ianello hire was the most important in the school's history, and they blew it. But considering the athletic department canned him, with time left on his contract, before it got worse, and went out and got Terry Bowden, shows that they realized the mistake and are doing whatever they can to make sure it's not repeated.

The Ianello hire cost the university two prime development years, but if Tressel can get the ball rolling on an arena and Bowden can mirror O'Leary at UCF, the school will be back on its original track in a couple of years. Luckily, the Big East won't really decide what direction it wants to go until 2015 when Navy comes aboard. That gives Akron a couple of years to show it's serious about continuing to improve all of its programs.

Actually his retirement package is already closer to $500K per year.

#43 wadszip

wadszip

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 02:26 PM

Actually his retirement package is already closer to $500K per year.


True. So, I should've said the university didn't hire him just to add $200,000 a year to his retirement package.

#44 wadszip

wadszip

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 02:51 PM

In my opinion, Akron is much farther ahead in many areas than Florida was 25 years ago. Florida was not always the "flagship" University in Florida. Florida State had better academic programs and facilities in many areas for many years. UF 25 years ago was maybe where UCF is now - with a lot less enrollment and far inferior athletic facilities.

What I am obviously not conveying properly - and I apologize for my inability to communicate my point -- is that Akron has a vision for growth, many of the pieces already in place, and the commitment from the administration to make it happen.

Why does a state have to have only ONE "flagship" University? Florida has a population of roughly 19 million, and Ohio has roughly 11 million people. Why can Florida have FSU, UF, UM - and to a lesser degree USF, UCF, FIU and FAU - but Ohio can only have Ohio State? There is plenty of population and love for college football for Akron to become a much bigger player in the state and the nation.


I think you're selling the University of Florida way short. 25-years-ago, Florida was joining the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU). If Akron hypothetically applied right now (which technically isn't possible being that the AAU is invite-only), the application would be thrown in the trash without opening it. That's not a slam on the University of Akron, only 34 public universities are in that organization.

Athletics isn't even a debate, either, Florida has been a member of the SEC since 1932. The school's done a great job of enhancing its programs from meddling SEC-level to national power, but it's always had a chair at the big-boy table.

And Ohio is more than Ohio State. University of Cincinnati is in the Big East, while there are the six Ohio MAC schools. Realistically, Ohio could support three BCS-level teams. Ohio State, Cincinnati (Southwest Ohio) and Akron (Northeast Ohio), compared to Florida's 5. And support five MAC-level schools, compared to Florida's two.

So, we're definitely in agreement about Akron becoming a bigger player in college athletics.

#45 NewZipsFan

NewZipsFan

    Zips Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:15 PM

I think you're selling the University of Florida way short. 25-years-ago, Florida was joining the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU). If Akron hypothetically applied right now (which technically isn't possible being that the AAU is invite-only), the application would be thrown in the trash without opening it. That's not a slam on the University of Akron, only 34 public universities are in that organization.

Athletics isn't even a debate, either, Florida has been a member of the SEC since 1932. The school's done a great job of enhancing its programs from meddling SEC-level to national power, but it's always had a chair at the big-boy table.

And Ohio is more than Ohio State. University of Cincinnati is in the Big East, while there are the six Ohio MAC schools. Realistically, Ohio could support three BCS-level teams. Ohio State, Cincinnati (Southwest Ohio) and Akron (Northeast Ohio), compared to Florida's 5. And support five MAC-level schools, compared to Florida's two.

So, we're definitely in agreement about Akron becoming a bigger player in college athletics.

Not selling UF short -- I've really been very impressed with their positive growth - which is probably why I see similarities. Heck, I send them a check twice a year -- my son is a Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology major there. Thank goodness he is not a football fan - otherwise we would have issues :)



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users