Dave in Green

Ianello explained both 2-point attempts in the post-game radio interview.The first one was an automatic call the Zips make on the field when they see the defense lined up a certain way that makes the 2-point conversion more likely to be successful. This is a fairly common play at all levels of football. The Zips read the CMU defense correctly, but did not execute the play, falling just short.The 2-point conversion attempt at the end of the game was planned before the touchdown. Ianello told the offense on the sideline that they were going to play to win and not to tie. He said he wanted to encourage a winning culture. He said the play that was called was the Zips' best play in that situation, and that he would have to look at the video to see all that might have happened to cause it not to be successful.Anticipating the action in the endzone, we walked down from our upper level seats and were standing at ground level right behind the corner of the end zone, so the play unfolded coming right at us. The defender was right on the receiver, but the ball was almost perfectly thrown -- high enough to clear the defender but not too high for the receiver to have a good shot at it. It appeared there might have been slight contact between the receiver and defender. The ball went through the receiver's hands. It would have been a great catch if he'd made it, but it was catchable.Given all of the above, I can't fault either decision, even though it ended up resulting in a 1-point loss. I like Ianello telling his players he has faith in them to make the winning play. They just need to keep believing in themselves that they can do it.

Zach, as I mentioned in another thread on another subject, follow the money. No one cares about giving more money to student athletes who don't generate money. Put aside any idealism in your heart and think of the world in the crassest of terms. This is all about money. College football generates more money than all the other sports put together. Stud football players make winning football teams. Winning football teams generate more money. Feed the stud football players with all the steak they can eat and let the rest of the student athletes eat cake -- qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

Our offense can't control the ball to save it's life. I can't recall one long drive this season that wasn't aided by some inane penalty or mistake by the opponent.The Zips are the Get Well Card for the MAC's downtrodden. Look for a bad CMU team to be the latest in a looooong list of D1 opponents to thoroughly drub Rob Ianallo's team on it's home field.The MAC has figured it out - stop Chisholm and the Zips are done.Its gawd awful that the Zips coaching staff has not figured this out.Chisolm has really been stopped exactly one game in a row, averaging only 2.3 yards per rush against OU. The only way the coaching staff could have figured this out in advance would have been to have ESP prior to the OU game. How about giving them a chance to see how they adjust in the next game. If they get that wrong, then we can start thinking of it as a trend, i.e. more than one game in a row.

There's one we can all agree on. Happy 21st birthday to PN7.

The Zips appear to be pretty loaded at the wing position this season.Nitro graduates at the end of this season, and next season will be the final for Q and Gilliam.There will be a need for more backup at wing starting next season and especially the following season.Ibitayo and Justice will both be called upon to help fill that growing wing void over the next two seasons after the current one.

When it comes to the future, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. (Have I heard that before?)It's unlikely that everything that worked in the past will work the same way in the future, so it's best to be open to new ideas to deal with new challenges.On the other hand, it's not smart to completely ignore the accumulated wisdom of the past -- tribal knowledge, so to speak. History has a way of repeating itself, and those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (Have I heard that before?)Then, not heard as often, but words of wisdom, nonetheless:Profound skepticism is favorable to conventions, because it doubts that the criticism of conventions is any truer than they are.

Nah, what did Joe in was that he trusted without verifying, a common mistake across the generations.Another common mistake across the generations is to trust in the belief that everything in the past is inferior to everything in the future or vice versa, again a case of trusting without veryifying.

True dat. Me and Proposition Joe prefer peaceful solutions to disputes.

If Carmelo Betancourt is as good as many believe he is, whoever plays backup PG to Rico this season will probably only have a one-year assignment in that role. I suspect that Betancourt will be the backup PG next season as a true freshman unless he has a harder time than Rico at adjusting to college ball.

Sounds vaguely like something Marlo Stanfield might say. But, yeah, it could be either, both or neither. That's why I suggested keeping score with a pencil. I'd also suggest keeping extra erasers around, as the pencil will likely run out of eraser before it runs out of lead.

We had a good discussion about Ibitayo potentially being a backup PG in his commitment thread back in 2010:Ibitayo Commitment ThreadBut I didn't realize that he had worked his way up into the position of being the Zips' leading candidate for that position. I was under the impression that Walsh was still the most likely option for backup PG.

Anyone keeping charts on which teams are going to which conferences should be using a pencil, not a pen. Latest is that Louisville, not West Virginia, might be Missouri's replacement in the Big 12:Not so fast on West Virginia to the Big 12

Got it, CK. Very sensible way to look at it. Everyone needs to be aware not to send a PM that could be interpreted as threatening even if it's not intended to be. Thinking twice before sending a PM is as important as thinking twice before posting publicly. A good lesson for all of us.

On some forums, members are encouraged to take testy disagreements "off line," which many interpret as PMs.I just thought it might help avoid potential future misinterpretations of the forum rules to make it clear that it's NOT OK to take a public disagreement "off line" and continue it one-to-one via PMs on ZN.o.If you prefer staying with broad rules that require interpretation from time to time, that's fine with me.

Captain Kangaroo made some good points in this post:CK PostAt the very least, I think that consideration should be given to adding in the AUP that negative use of the PM feature on ZN.O will not be tolerated in order to clarify this issue for all forum members. I think this might help avoid future problems in this area for those who may not have read CK's post.

Doug and I don't always agree on things, but he's always respected our differences of opinions. If Doug sent a PM like that, perhaps it was in response to this public post:dbag reference

I don't see how Porter's input as part of a search committee could hurt in the search for a coach in any sport.

Weather isn't the only variable. There are other variables including day of the week, whether or not classes are out and students are out of town on holiday, whether or not other major local or televised events are going on, etc., etc. Actually, you can drive yourself crazy trying to keep up with all the variables. I think bobbyake is doing a good job of tracking the basic stats without making himself go crazy trying to track all the variables.

@ZachTheZip, follow the money. When ticket sales, sponsorship packages and alumni donations drop far enough, the message will have been delivered and received in a way that an infinite number of signs and internet comments could never approach.

The current model of athletic scholarship has not changed for 40 years?Heck, Rip Van Winkle only slept for 20 years and became a legend.

Why start now? Agreed. Asking for clarification is not sniping. Thanks for taking the time to expand on your original statement, which was not totally clear to me. As always, I appreciate your contributions to these forums.

@trimmy10 and @ZachTheZip, I think you've both now clearly stated reasonable viewpoints that leave me with no doubts about where you stand. I agree with both of you and others who've said that Ianello is more focused on winning in the future than in the present.I don't agree that he is not at all interested in winning now, but just that he is more interested in producing a longterm, sustainable winning program as opposed to the old George Allen "the future is now" philosophy.GP1 makes a good point that this is the plan that UA bought into when they hired Ianello.I'm always looking for signs of progress, and am disappointed at the lack of tangible results. It may mean that Ianello's plan needs more time to produce results, or it may mean that the plan and/or execution of the plan is flawed.In any case, we can all agree that long-suffering Zips fans do not have the patience to suffer quietly through yet another slow-moving plan to turn the Zips into consistent winners as long as that plan is not producing tangible results.

@trimmy10, the above statement makes it clear that you believe that Ianello would rather win than lose. This was not clear from your exchange with GP1: I think he wants to win. The problem is his ideas on how a team wins are wrong.We can agree to disagree. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter because the outcome is still the same.

Urban legends are created out of statements like this.Not only will Ianello's performance be evaluated on an annual basis, so will Wistrcill's. The performance of every employee of every state institution will be evaluated on an annual basis. If this isn't being done, I want a refund on my tax payment for every Ohio state institution that is not performing best business practices, which include annual employee evaluations.Do I need to call someone at UA to make sure this is being done?