Leaderboard

great exposure for Zips soccer

FYI only - there were some recent instances where the behavior of a couple members didn't meet the standards of ZipsNation. When this happens it drives good people away, and puts a damper on quality conversation. I apologize. I tend to give people a really long leash, and I probably need to nip this stuff in the bud quicker.

Making an entire thread to mock a potential punctuation snafu by spelling the title wrong is good stuff

If you add in the $4.5-$5 million we're paying for Infocision then we're spending about just as much as OU on football. The difference is on how the money is getting spent. OU using it for staffing, training tables, and whatever else. We blew it on a shiny stadium that we couldn't afford, which sits empty. Edit: Kind of gets back to the point I make 1-2 times a year when major JAR renovations are discussed. Facility improvements are prohibitively expensive and you get more return on your dollars (from a performance perspective) on investing in coaches, recruiting, and whatever else instead.

https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/article/?categoryId=21&articleId=55064&articleTitle=tds-mens-player-of-the-year-leaderboard I didn't want to create a separate topic for this. If you click on the article above, you can see that Top Drawer Soccer has identified Mitch as one of the 10 players that should be considered as the best college soccer player of the year. The Player of the Year leaderboard is a weekly list of the ten players making the best case to win the prestigious award. The latest update features three newcomers who have helped their programs to historic starts. Mitch Budler, Akron (Newcomer) Budler breaks into the leaderboard thanks to an incredible start to the season, where Akron is yet to concede a goal despite playing four teams that have been nationally ranked at one point or another. The reigning Big East goalkeeper of the year has so far proven he may be the best in the country.

The Hoban thing is complete BS.

Big talk from a guy who's offensive line makes more money via NIL than the Zips entire football budget.

I've been researching the roster limits and I believe the players who were walk-ons are grandfathered in - so Groce and Halligan wouldn't count toward the 15 player limit. They apparently did this so existing walk-ons weren't forced out of programs.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/education/2025/09/11/university-of-akron-sees-higher-undergraduate-graduate-enrollment/86093682007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z112727p000050c000050e009300v112727b0054xxd005465&gca-ft=39&gca-ds=sophi This is promising, would love that number to keep creeping up closer to 20k

I’m old enough to remember Zip Cat claim Akron had a $30mm football budget… We get what we pay for.

In the words of the great philosopher Bernard P. Fife- NIP IT IN THE BUD. 😁

I can see the argument for a division between the P4(2?) and FCS.

Correction, and trivia: There's at least two other country outside of North American that do: The Philippines, and South Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-League_(basketball) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_basketball_in_the_Philippines

So you're saying there is room for one more...

I made a mistake on defense. J.Frazier should have been yellow.

He obviously doesn't. To conclude this conversation on the level to which it has sunk- I am rubber, you are glue...

So now you are defending the MAC and calling someone a wussy for shitting on their own conference when all you can do is crap on your own team?? You are the 🤡

Thanks for the kind words. Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere regardless of Moorhead’s status. Sure, Moorhead coming to Akron and my family’s move to Ohio may have sparked my initial interest, but now I’m in it for the long haul. My kids look forward to going to an Akron game with me every year, and I’d be thrilled if any of them ended up attending Akron someday. It’s also been a pleasure meeting some of the posters here in person. I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here with my disappointment on how things have gone since Moorhead took over. Like I’ve said before, there are certain turnarounds in college football I really enjoy following. The two other programs I’ve kept an eye on are South Carolina and Illinois. Forget for a moment that they’re P4 and Akron is G5—the similarities are still there. All three were sitting in the bottom third of their conferences when their current head coaches took over. None of them are near the top of their conferences in NIL money. And the general consensus from the media and most college football fans was that it was impossible to win at those schools. Fast forward a few years, and two of the three are sitting in the top 11 nationally, depending on which poll you look at. All three schools have also assembled excellent staffs. Just the other day I was talking with a colleague who played at Bowling Green and later coached at Syracuse. We got on the topic of MAC football, and unprompted he mentioned what a great staff Moorhead has put together at Akron with limited funds. I had to agree. The flip side is recruiting. Because without great players, it really doesn’t matter how good the coaching is—wins will always be hard to come by. I’ve coached for well over a decade and also worked on the recruiting services side of things. From my perspective, Moorhead has brought in a lot of talent, but it just hasn’t translated into wins yet. Recruiting services will disagree, but here’s some context: most analysts have little to no football background—they’re writers. They put too much stock into measurables and camp performances without pads. On top of that, programs with long track records of success almost always get the benefit of the doubt with rankings. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a kid commit to South Carolina as a two- or three-star, only to decommit, flip to Georgia or Alabama, and suddenly get bumped to four stars. Same story with Illinois versus Michigan or Ohio State. I say all this because Akron football seemingly has what it needs in place to win right now—and just isn’t. I can’t explain why the offense looked like year one with a brand-new staff when this is year four with a returning starting quarterback who has the physical tools to make just about every throw at this level. I don’t have an issue with Moorhead being open about what the program is lacking financially. What I do have an issue with is the lack of wins despite a dramatically upgraded roster compared to when he took over and a really strong staff in place. All that said, I’m still hoping this week is the spark that finally gets the long-awaited wins rolling—and that I look foolish for even posting this. It’s past time.

True...but we made sure to better distribute those economic gains.

I am all for taxing the plutocrats into oblivion to support a healthier society; however, another reason the 1950s were so prosperous is that most of the rest of the industrial world was destroyed during WWII.

Reading comprehension is a thing ... I was using the example given by GP1 where he said "Does anyone really believe someone making $200,000 in 1954 was only taking home $18,000"; I was demonstrating that his derisive comment demonstrates he has no idea what he's talking about. But to answer your question, I personally define "wealthy" as top-20% of the percentile income of an area/country. So if you're in the top-20% you are, indeed, wealthy. It's the most logical way for analysis; five categories of 20% of the distributions of income that can be compared to each other.

You should probably admit that you were demonstrated to be wrong on your point, instead of pontificating some boilerplate, generic nonsense. Have the integrity to admit when someone demonstrates something you said is wrong. It's the first level of intellectual integrity and courage. You also must be living under a rock if you think most people share in your opinion that this is "the greatest day in American history" and that Tomorrow will be better. Just about nobody believes that, because all we're doing is goosestepping backwards, erasing all the gains made over the past 70-years in just about everything. Goodness, you're the first one to complain about the current state of college athletics, and you're going to make that statement with a straight face? LoL

I mean this is part of the decay of American society. Blow off good, fact-based points because they're inconvenient for you and sssshhh people because you just want to watch Football. Do better. Also, nobody asked you to read the reply; but you could have called out GP1 for his commentary, or the other posters for theirs...instead you target mine for the derision. Curious about the hypocrisy... this is a post-thread about cuts at the University of Akron because of dire financial circumstances, this is exactly the type of conversation that should be taking place in this thread.

I'll be brutally honest. This is really, really, REALLY basic stuff that (judging by your age) you have absolutely no excuse not to understand. How are you an Akron grad and not know this? Marginal Rates aren't a universal rate. They're brackets. So while the Marginal rate might be 91%, ZERO people pay that as a total of their income: (just an overly simplistic example): 1-20,000 = 5% 20,001-40,000 = 10% 40,001-100,000 = 20% 100,001-150,000 = 60% 150,001-200,000 =91% Someone making $200,000 when the marginal rate is 91%, isn't taking home $18,000. They're taking home $126,500. Just because the marginal rate is 91%, doesn't mean it's your effective rate. Only money over that margin is taxed at that amount. And yes, yes it is a fact that the marginal rate was 91% from 1951-1963; and era of unmatched economic prosperity in the USA, where we expanded the middle-class to the largest middle-class in human history. You have no excuse to be at your age and not understand this. And I'm sorry, you cannot argue that the wealthy in the 1950s were just hiding their money in more creative ways. No, there wasn't as concentration of wealthy in that wealthy class as there is today. It's just a fact. Our country was most prosperous when it had higher marginal taxrates to prevent the concentration of wealthy. It is a fact.

Because they probably can't I take Hoban over them right now Who are we fooling? I am very loyal but like politics I will always call out my political party when warranted. Fact is Moorhead is literally destroying our football program to the possible point of no return financially. FYI going into week 3 we are the Only Scoreless Team in FCS

I can't believe I have to continue to bore myself with this but here we are. The wealth of a society has to do with income gained from production and that income turning into purchasing of goods and services. There is no GDP if people aren't earning and spending money. The more money someone makes, the more they can buy. The more money someone makes, the less time they have to work in order to buy the things they need. Prosperous societies make and spend more than others. Prosperous societies also have workforce efficiencies that allow those who have bought all they want to relax, or it gives more time for those who want to make more to do that. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/data-reveal-that-the-average-working-american-is-better-off-today-than-in-the-1950s-and-wage-stagnation-is-a-myth/ Today is the greatest day in American history. Tomorrow will be better today.

Thank you for your analysis comrade. Do you really think that someone making $200k is wealthy? Lol