kreed5120

The MAC outside of 3-4 teams have all looked very bad. Even then none of those 3-4 teams are remotely in discussion to get the G6 bid. Given there aren't really anymore OOC games to measure ourselves against external competition, MAC play is mainly just about determining who is the tallest midget.

I don't think there is any possibility of Evan being ineligible, but Amani being eligible. They were both part of the Ohio case that you mentioned.

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but the landscape of college football has changed a lot in 20 years. Facilities used to matter much more than they do now. Money used to help, but you could still win without it. There is just no getting around schools offering players $50k-$200k+ when you're in no position to match in today's game.

The point I was making is I don't see it helping attendance. At least not materially. We would add a YSU game at the expense of losing Kent. At best that would be a wash, but considering Kent has significantly a larger alumni base and more history with Akron, that's a downgrade as a rival.

Akron is already operating it's program at an FCS budget, but are getting FBS revenue doing it. What costs would actually be saved by dropping? 22 scholarships? Those are mainly just intercompany transfer dollars anyway. The marginal cost of educating and housing 22 additional students is much less than what the University charges the athletic department. Dropping down to FCS isn't going to magically fill the stands. YSU isn't filling their stadium and their stadium is smaller than Infocision.

I feel Guthrie and Goodrich already have looked at it and arrived at the same conclusion. They just haven't publicly came out and admitted it. Akron doesn't have the money to compete at the top of the MAC. Top G5 programs in the MAC, SunBelt, C-USA are spending about ~$15 million on football and an additional $3-$5 million or so on players. That's like $18-$20 million combined between the two. Akron is spending maybe $10 million between the two. Basketball meanwhile requires ~$3 million operational spend and an additional ~$1 million to field a competitive roster. Much of which is funded by a booster. It makes sense Akron has prioritized basketball at a time that football costs have exploded to a point that we're incapable of keeping up.

Once we get CB back I'm hoping the offense shows signs of life that we saw earlier in the year. Really any MAC offense is going to look terrible when you're playing your 3rd string QB. You can look at Miami (OH) and their $8 million roster vs. BG this past Saturday as a prime example. I don't know how the Zips defensive coaches whiffed on players, scheme, development, or whatever you want to blame the poor performance we've seen the first 5 weeks of the season on. Bring Joe back for the last year of his contract, but we need to switch up something defensively. We can't stop the pass, can't stop the run, and can't even limit opponents to field goals.

It's honestly a tough job to sell. I was thrilled when Moorhead took it as even though Moorhead had question marks, he was more accomplished than any candidate I would have expected. Obviously that didn't materialize into on the field success. If you're an up and coming assistant you're probably just better off working your way up the chain wherever you are and bide your time until an opportunity opens up somewhere that sustained success is achievable. Akron is where coaching careers go to die.

So their strength is our main weakness? This should be a fun game. Only hope is CB returns and Akron can match EMU score for score. Teams have clearly figured out Roggow. He's no longer having the same success that he had earlier in the season during mop up duty.

I'll settle for replacing defensive play calling duties. At least the offense has some sort of reason for the regression we've seen and there is chance for improvement once CB returns. I haven't seen anything from the defense, outside of Robert Morris game where opponent was clearly over matched, that leads me to believe we'll see any improvement there this season.

A few things. 1) The stadium cost $61.6 million, not $70 million. I'm by no means an engineering expert but I have read studies were conducted and repair costs were substantial. You can maybe go back and find the studies if you dig hard enough. You have to remember the stadium was built into a hill and was a defacto giant retaining wall. Repairing it wouldn't have been exactly cheap and that's not getting into updating it, which would have added 10s of millions more. 2) Infocision seats 27K traditionally. The hill adds 3K bringing it to the advertised 30K capacity. Maybe they could have eliminated 5K-7K seats and eliminated a few other things and brought the overall cost to ~$55M, but it's not like they got carried away with it adding a bunch of bells and whistles. You have to remember when the stadium was built the NCAA still enforced the 15k attendance requirements. You really couldn't build a stadium much smaller than Akron did if you wanted to game the system. Akron didn't attempt to build a P4 facility at 3x-4x the cost of what is really needed. That's what Miami is doing with their basketball arena.

That's a fair take as it's taboo to be the first to make those tough decisions.

Yes, obviously our stadium can be second guessed, but it was at least modest in scale and price. The alternative would have been milking the Rubberbowl for a few more seasons until it was condemned then disband the football program since we'd no longer have a home. $280 million basketball arena is absurd. That's more than what Baylor paid for theirs and they play in the Big 12 and built it after winning a national championship. For comparison the newest MAC arena is BGSU and in today's money that would cost about $40 million. The projects Akron were exploring when there was talks of a new arena ~10 years ago were in the ball park of $70 million. Miami is building a P4 arena, but plays in the MAC. It would be different if they were a Gonzaga type program, but they aren't.

Still need some sort of passing game to sustain drives. You can just keep running it when you're in 3rd and medium or long situations.

Should have been fired when he proposed a $280 million basketball arena, but instead the school board approved it. They have delusions of grandeur in Oxford and the next administration is going to take the hit by having to clean up the mess.

Roggow didn't look good against UNLV either. Our defense is horrendous so our only hope to win is to win high scoring games. If CB returns soon perhaps that can salvage the season as the offense looked much better with him running it. Roggow clearly isn't the guy.

I came to that realization about 2 seasons ago when NIL first started to become more widespread and our financial situation as a University was at it's peak of being in dire straights.

You can't really compare professional sports to collegiate sports. There are mechanisms in place that at least give smaller market teams a fighting chance. Players can't even hit free agency until they're nearly pushing 30. In college sports everyone is on a 1 year deal with no draft or other forms of evenly distributing talent. EMU actually has a billionaire alumni who gifts athletics money. They're better funded than you would think. Kent is fairly comparable, but it's not like they're anything special. They're on par with Akron most years.

Of course the players care, especially the ones with additional years of eligibility. They're playing for their next paycheck. The good news is it looks we won't have much competition in retaining most of them. The bad news is most of them will likely be playing here again next year making the same mistakes they are this season.

Don't like they're out, but thanks for sharing.

Speaking of QB, do we know who today's starter is?

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