kreed5120

I didn't previously respond as I didn't want to feed the troll. Two bowl appearances in 7 years would get any coach fired from any program in the country. Heck, Louisiana Monroe canned him after 3 seasons.

I don't really think television money is a big factor at the MAC level to matter in this discussion. The MAC TV deal pays like $800k a year per school. A few years ago, if I recall correctly, there was a quote from Larry Williams saying we spends $10 million annually on football. I'm not even sure if that figure included the cost of Infocision financing. There is more revenue in football, but there is also a considerable amount of more overhead. Most mid-major programs are spending between $1.5-$4 million on their basketball programs. You also play 12-15 home games in basketball vs only 5-6 in football. Let's say you spend $3 million on basketball and play 15 home games. You would need to generate $200k revenue per home contest to hit your breakeven. If you play 6 home football games and need $9 million to breakeven (10 million-1 million for TV), you need to average $1.5 million in revenue per home game. Edit: This is a simplified version. Obviously there are other factors, like NCAA tournament credits, bowl payouts, etc that can reduce the real breakeven number. The point I was more trying to illustrate is that even though football is immensely more popular, it's very costly to run. That's why you see spring football leagues constantly fail. Even when the ratings are fairly decent. If you add NIL into the mix, the gap between funding a football team vs basketball team grows even further. It's much more manageable to pay 7-8 basketball players than it will be to pay 20-30 football players.

I'm not as optimistic. As I understand it ASU returns the core of their team and added a few key contributors. I'm not saying we can't win, but it will be an uphill on the road and being the first real game this core has played together.

I assumed that quote was from the Buffalo coach since his team was terrible and he's only been in the MAC for a season.

An interesting read from the article is that it sounds like top MAC players are fetching offers between $200k-$400k to play elsewhere. The MAC will likely remain top heavy moving forward as only about 4 schools seem to care about investing in it.

If we were running it back returning our starters, I'd understand this more. This is virtually an entirely new team in a sport where chemistry can overcome talent. It's going to take several months before this team realistically "peaks". These early season OOC games are when Groce needs to evaluate what rotations work and don't work.

If we did that, people would moan, like they do in the football thread. Claiming it destroyed our players confidence and derailed our season.

Why do we shoot so many 3's?

In all seriousness, I'm glad to see the Zips didn't pee down their legs like they normally do in these type of games when they have the opponent on the ropes. That said, it only matters If they're able to build on this and show progress by finishing the season with 4-5 wins. If they revert back to their old tendencies of choking at the end of games, this game will just be an anomaly.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

A 1 win team is behaving like a 1 win team, no surprises.

FCS schools are still tehnically classified as division one. I wouldn't want to see you lose out on your refund due to a loophole.

If you want to think logically, if you're a kid from Westerville (who has no prior connection to either school), where are you more likely to go assuming you received offers from both 1) the perennial conference championship contender who attracts 10k+ fans each game or 2) the perennial cellar dweller who draws 5k fans? The reality is the Toledo job is easier as the program is built on a solid foundation. At Akron, the coach has to work much harder to overcome the stigma and challenges.

Leipold inherited a program that made it to back-to-back national championships. I wouldn't exactly say he rebuilt anything. He did certainly improve on what had a solid foundation already. I don't think there is any magical formula for guaranteeing success. Short of backing a Brinks truck up to Saban's house to tempt him to take the Akron job (sarcasm). Successful G5 coaches have come from all kinds of different backgrounds.

Things like planting your feet at the 10 and letting any ball over your head go was preached by coaches even when I was in middle school. They should know basic fundamentals even before putting on an Akron jersey. Why they choose to disregard them? Who knows.

You forgot Nick Saban

Not to mention, Luke played under Moorhead and was a coach on his staff. In a situation where Moorhead voluntarily leaves, Getsy might be a candidate. I don't see him wanting to usurp one of his mentors.

Which is pretty shocking considering Moorhead has coached the offensive side of the ball virtually all of his entire career.

I feel the approach isn't that great and a bit tone deaf. I don't have any hard numbers, but I imagine for schools like Alabama or Ohio State, that somewhere around 80% of their NIL comes from the top 10% of donors.

Movable object vs stopable force

Zips going to Zip

I'm actually thankful they didn't. He seemed to have found himself in a good landing spot. Allen and Mobley are both younger and play more minutes than Indy's Turner and Siakam. I just think he'll have more of an opportunity in Indy than he would in Cleveland.

Not meant to get off topic but what was really infuriating about that Ianello hire was that Akron was booming at the time. Enrollment was up, new stadium, relatively new fieldhouse, Akron's athletic budget was near the top of the MAC. We then decided to cheap out on what was the most important factor to success for a college program, the coach. I'm in the camp that doesn't think we should fire Moorhead as we can't afford it. Also, who out there could you get that you confidently believe could turn Akron into a winner? I don't necessarily think Moorhead is a bad coach. He might have been a great coach for us 15 years ago when we had an adequately funded program and bright spots to sell recruits. It's much tougher to win at Akron now as the stadium has lost that new car smell, the budget has been gutted, and apathy has set in. I'm not sure Moorhead has it in him to overcome the challenges.

To me it isn't as much about age as its about the fact that he has been out of the game for so long. It would be different if he was still involved in running camps or something to stay engaged. Having developed relationships helps with recruitment. Particularly when you don't have a giant war chests of NIL money to play with.

To be fair, I'm sure the Tigers had a bigger recruiting budget and more NIL than Kent.