TheZipCat

Bowden? Sleeze? You and I must have been watching entirely different coaches during that time.

As is reality. (sans the Akron Zips) 😆

College football is more entertaining/competitive? It looks less competitive and less interesting in my view...(completely unrelated to the Transfer Portal). But that also might be the apathy derived from Akron Football. I've never been impressed by Libertarian Ideology/Philosophy. It's mostly adolescent fantasy. Existentialism is infinitely more profound.

Why do Libertarian beliefs matter in regards to College Football? They (Libertarian Beliefs) are largely adolescent fantasies that, when critically analyzed, fall apart at the most basic direct observation of reality.

I disagree, It's trying to learn...as a fanbase...from the poor decisions of the past, as how to judge "success" at Akron.

As I've come to realize.

Was Bowden really a "fiasco" though? Like Bowden doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Tom Arth. First Bowl win in program history, a re-appearance in the MACC in after a Decade-Long Hiatus. Basically Bowden made Akron football a 5-7 team with hopes of a season here-and-there of more. That doesn't belong in the same UNIVERSE as Tom Arth. And let's not bring up Jim Dennison as if college football hasn't fundamentally changed since the 1970s/1980s. And now with payers getting paid, it's going to be even worse.

I remember vividly people being run off this forum for not only stating it was a bad move to fire Bowden with 2-years on his contract, and buying out Arth from the remainder of his contract, for a coach who was 9-13...there are people GONE from this forum because people ridiculed them for stating the obvious. "Hope" doesn't improve football programs.. Smart and strategic long-term planning does. Firing Bowden for Tom Arth (a not even high-upside risk) was hitting the reset button twice over.

You provided no evidence. You provided only conjecture and unverifiable claims. That's. Not. Evidence.

The program was the most stable it had been in a decade prior...yeah no-one here was in charge of the decision but there were some REALLY loud voices and those who were saying it was a bad move were ridiculed, and even some ended up leaving this forum.

Whoa, something you and I agree on!

Yes I forgot that 2011 was Ianello. 2011 1-11, 2021 1-11. Goodness That's a decade anniversary I would have prefered to miss.

2/3 of which were with the current coaching staff.

Akron is down by 10 with 6:00 on the clock, and their running up the middle? Good lord...

Do we "know" it does though? Ohio State denies students entry, and those students have to go to 2nd 3rd options. Because the true test of that assertion is at non-OSU like schools, where it objectively does not. UA had its highest enrollment when it's football team was at its worst. And that's just one example. We only "know" something if it's demonstrable. And student "preference" or "interest" is not the same as increasing enrollment. If it's true that Akron GAINS enrollment from successful sports or merely playing in big-time games, it should be directly observable.

Two master's degrees? Goodness I just have one and I can understand how to make a basic evidence-based-claim, this is even more embarrassing. Yeah...cool...some president of some university said something. Here's the only thing that matters: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION? Yeah, sure they're in a marketing war against each other. Sweet. Wheres the evidence that shows Akron Football has any measurable impact on said marketing? I've already demonstrated with the actual numbers, it does not. (This is where, with the knowledge you gained from TWO master's degrees, you provide actual evidence and not just hearsay from some University Professor in a News article). I know Capitol Hill is filled with self aggrandizing group-think pricks who circulate their own farts around the cocktail circuit, but in the real world of science research we eviscerate those who cannot support their assertions with evidence. Literally all I asked you to do was provide the evidence. Where is it Dre, where is it? If it's "common sense" it should be directly observable and mathematically quantifiable. IF you can't do that, you're full of crap. Perhaps you've been on Capitol Hill too long you're starting to believe spin that is created there.

Don't write a cheque with your mouth you can't cash with your ass Dre. Because apparently your reading comprehension sucks, I'll happily recount the thread you could easily re-read yourself, as if you were a 3rd grader: Your comment: My response: I directly quoted the fall enrollment for two high-profile games: 1) Night Game vs Tennessee and 2) Where we almost beat Michigan. No "helped the University as a whole in regards to enrollment and notoriety" as you put it, as we saw a near-constant decrease in enrollment since those two games. Not to mention we also had other "high profile" games that we did far better in than the OSU game....did you hear that? That's the sound of your bullshit being flushed down the toilet. You like to throw around "common sense", but when a position demonstrably fails to conform to reality...it's called bullshit. It's the motto of science: Nullius In Verba, see for yourself. Or, as I like to translate it: put up or shut up. You can't actually support your position with actual data, so you run to the "cOmMoN sEnSe" bullshit. Are you a graduate from UA? Because you're embarrassing us.

My logic is onpoint Drey. I supported it with the actual numbers. You specifically said "enrollment" and I proved that your contention doesn't even hold water. Clearly it's not "COMMON SENSE" because if the actual real-life numbers don't support your position...it's not true. if you can't actually prove it mathematically it's not "common sense". Newton's Laws of motion are "common sense" but they took the invention of Zero and calculus to prove actually existed. Your version of "Common Sense" ain't worth pennies brother. I sure as hell hope there isn't an accounting department that runs on your "Common Sense" because they might as well run on fairy farts and rainbows.

100% agree. Except the caveat is it does help the University of Akron because it helps the anemic program stay at least a little more soluble financially...so in that that in turn technically benefits the University. As you say, it objectively does nothing for students, alumni or fans. The argument isn't over we isn't over us doing what we need to do to survive financially, it's over the contention that it helps enrollment. It does not. People have been justifying D-1 FBS football at schools like akron because of poor arguments like "it helps with advertising" or "it helps with alumni donations" or "it helps with enrollment". It's objectively not true. Yes if you're already stuck with FBS football, then yes...you have no choice but to sacrifice for the paydays...but we shouldn't pretend it's anything but that. Getting drummed by OSU during a night game DID OBJECTIVELY NOTHING for Akron other than for us to collect the paycheck. It did not help with enrollment. It did not help with rentention.

Yes. I don't care about hypotheticals. I care about tangible, measurable impact. Where is it. Show me dre. In $, in enrollment in some actually tangible metric. Yes, 1.075 million viewers had NO impact on the University of Akron outside of the payday we got for getting drummed. I'll also add that you've now moved to goalposts. You claimed it "helped with enrollment" then when it was demonstrated that it absolutely did not, you've now gone to the viewership card. Please stop.

What's that?

I definitely will! My family is all from Tennessee, and my cousin and I were both in college at Akron and UT when they played last. Looking forward to making the journey down there again

What utter nonsense. In what UNIVERSE are you living in? Seriously...it's not the 1920s. Precisely ZERO people watched that game and went "GeE I mIgHt Go To AkRoN" like come on. Getting drummed by OSU on not-national television does nothing for enrollment or notoriety, nor does it help with any level of advertising. Akron played a hell of a game against Tennessee in 2012, and followed that up by almost beating Michigan in 2013. If that contention is true, that it "helps with enrollment" there should have been a bump no? At the very least maintained right? UA's enrollment in Fall 2012 was 30,000. In Fall 2013 it was 27,000. Which was the verge of a half-decade of constant declining enrollment which in large part created the financial mess the University has been in for nearly a decade, because it was built on the debt-mirage of constant growth. This is the same tired, easily debunkable argument made to justify ridiculous spending by administrators who want to pad their resume. Kinda unbelievable to see people on this board still making it lit it's a serious argument.

As opposed to the seasons since that have been nothing but 💩?

Remember the last time that happened?