Dave in Green

It's looking more and more as if there's really no dominant team in college soccer this season, and that it may be wide open for any of the top 10 teams to get it all together come tournament time.

@GJGood, it's a tough call. With credit to Kenny Rogers:You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away, know when to run. If I was a genius, I'd lay out a definitive game plan right now and shout "Go for it!" But since I'm not, I can only say that my inclination would be to do all the right due diligence to be prepared to move fast, but not move too fast just yet. The landscape is still fluid, as TCU just demonstrated. At some point there will be a good opportunity for UA to make just the right move, and we're going to have to hope the right people are in the right positions to make the smart call when the time is just right.

Good to see Betancourt here for an early look at this year's team. He's going to play an important role in the near future, especially if Walsh only has two years of elibilbility instead of three, as just mentioned in the Scholarship Thread in the Recruiting forum:Walsh Eligibility?

Doug, it doesn't matter. People will find something to whine about no matter what. America leads the world in whining. It's what we do best.

The Globetrotters played at the JAR in January 2010. I wonder how many people didn't go due to the uncomfortable seats and poor sight lines? Maybe that's why they skipped Akron this year.

@GoZips, Kevin Durant played for Montrose Christian.

Trick question. How would we know if any recruits were affected by LeBron's presence unless the recruits happened to volunteer that information for public consumption?We do know because it has been documented elsewhere and discussed on this forum that at least one college basketball recruit had his decision influenced by the appearance of a team's uniform.So, yes, I think even the small things can add up to influencing the decision of some college recruits.

Here's just one example of an event that could play well at an Akron arena:When the Harlem Globetrotters play in the Detroit area on Dec. 26, they will be playing at the Palace at Auburn Hills where the Detroit Pistons play and where they have more big concerts than the Q. The Palace can seat 22,076 for basketball, the largest seating capacity in the NBA.On Dec. 28, the Globetrotters are playing at Toledo's Huntington Center, seating capacity 8,000.On Jan. 28, they are playing at Youngstown's Covelli Center, seating capacity 5,700.On Feb. 1 they are playing at the Canton Civic Center, seating capacity 5,200.There are many entertainment events like the Harlem Globetrotters that could perform in Akron if there were a suitable facility.

@Zip2Go, good call on the NBA combine bench press. Derrick Williams and Justin Harper, two big and strong power forwards, tied for best at 19 reps.Sounds as if Zeke is already NBA-ready in that area, as 15 reps would put him alongside JaJuan Johnson and Chris Singleton, who tied for fifth best at the 2011 NBA combine.It's true that some players in previous combines have benched more than 20 reps, and some NBA vets are probably stronger than that. But Zeke still has time to improve over 15.2011 NBA Combine Athletic Testing Results

@GP1, that sounds like a reasonable approach.How about starting with some basics:The NCAA is an organization of member colleges and universities. That is, it is not some separate organization. The NCAA only exists because colleges and universities maintain their membership in it, i.e. colleges and universities collectively run the NCAA.From the NCAA website: The NCAA is made up of three membership classifications that are known as Divisions I, II and III. Each division creates its own rules governing personnel, amateurism, recruiting, eligibility, benefits, financial aid, and playing and practice seasons – consistent with the overall governing principles of the Association. Every program must affiliate its core program with one of the three divisions.It appears to be entirely within the NCAA system for member institutions to create their own rules consistent with the NCAA's overall governing principles.It seems to me that what you are suggesting is that schools representing the lower half of Division I football should get together and create a fourth division between Divisions I and II.Is that correct, or did you have something else in mind?

Do you honestly believe that anyone has that misconception?Now, if you're questioning whether it's Rowdies or non-Rowdies using foul language, that's a good question.

What would the repercussions be to other sports if schools like UA ditched the NCAA in football? Could it in any way compromise the good standing of the Zips' soccer or basketball programs?I'd want to study all the implications pretty closely before going off on a wild whimsy.

@RowdyZip, agree it's a waste of bandwidth to quote a huge post immediately above one's response. It's cleaner to use the Add Reply button instead of the Reply button.You're right, the broadcast schedule is included in the Zips basketball schedule.

It's really pretty simple. The Rowdies claim to be pretty close to Coach Porter, and that he appreciates what they do. Just ask Coach Porter what he thinks about the Rowdies using profanity.End of story.

That sounds like a negative the way it's phrased. If it was worded slightly differently to imply that Porter is honest with his current players in letting them know that incoming players might be more talented and take their playing time away, and that if they wanted to be assured of a lot of playing time they might be better off transferring to a team less loaded with talent, then it becomes a positive about Porter rather than a negative.

"Off-balance sheet financing, while retaining control over the ownership of the new facilities" has to be the key attraction to UA for this type of project.The big positive for Zips basketball fans is that this may be the most likely way to get a new arena built to replace the JAR in the near future despite the current weak economy.A small negative for basketball fans is that a multipurpose arena might not be optimized for basketball. But as we've discussed here previously, if done right, a multipurpose arena can still be really good for basketball.Another negative for some people would be having this facility downtown instead of on campus -- a discussion that was previously beaten into the ground on ZN.O. The general consensus of past discussions has been that building the facility on the east side of downtown, right on the city's border with UA's campus, would satisfy all but a few hardcore advocates who would only be satisfied with a Zips basketball arena built inside the current UA campus borders and clearly separted from the downtown area.

No excuses from here on out.

Apparently someone at GoZips.com pays attention to ZipsNation.org. Gilliam's weight on the roster has been adjusted up to 230 pounds. So he's apparently lost 5 pounds while turning some fat into muscle. All other "official" weights remain the same. So Michael Green is now alone at the top of the weight change charts with a 15% increase from 200 to 230. It will be interesting to see how that works out for him.

@GoZips, thanks for mentioning Tim Campbell. It sounds as if he's doing a great job, and deserves credit for getting Zips players in shape to take it to the next level. As for 'bad numbers" on player weights, since I'm not able to personally put each player on scales to view their actual weights, I have to go by the "official" numbers published by UA. UA listed Gilliam at 235 pounds when they signed him and 195 now (-40 pounds). UA listed Green at 200 pounds when they signed him and 230 now (+30 pounds) UA listed Egner at 200 pounds when they signed him and 215 now (+15 pounds, not +30 pounds). Which of the above numbers are good and which are bad?

I believe that building bigger, smellier piles of crap is one area where The Great GP1 doesn't really need any input from DiG.

Hey, Doug, no need to apologize for the political references. It's real easy to go back and edit all the political references out, which is a good practice for all sports forum members to learn so they don't have to apologize. The subject of this thread is great for discussion. It's made me think about the cost of sports in general. But it's always hazardous to try to arrive at definitive conclusions based on incomplete data. For example, it's entirely possible that the percentage of student tuition set aside for sports could actually result in reduced overall costs for students. That is, the percentage of tuition invested in sports may help generate more income and donations through sports than the amount invested. To know if this were true, one would have to be able to analyze the books in detail and also get into people's minds to know if some donations to academic areas of UA were generated by well-to-do benefactors who were motivated to support the school in part due to enthusiasm generated by UA athletics. In other words, if the portion of student tuition invested in sports were eliminated, would UA then need to raise the price of tuition to offset losses in other sources of income created by reduced investment in sports? I can see both sides of the debate on whether UA students should have a portion of their tuition used to support sports. I just can't make a definitive conclusion based on the data I've seen to date. So I hope this discussion can go on in a collaborative effort to learn more as opposed to belittling each other's contributions to the conversation.

Am I the only one who is astounded by the fact that Gilliam was listed at 235 pounds when it was announced he was transferring to UA, and he is now listed at 195? That's a loss of 40 pounds or 17% of his total weight -- a huge transformation for a 6-5 wing. He goes from having more bulk than the Serb to less bulk than Nitro. It may mean that Gilliam will no longer have the bulk to move opponents around under the basket, but may be flying at a higher altitude when attacking the rim. It may totally transform his game from what he played at UMBC. Close behind on the percentage of weight change charts is Michael Green, who went from 200 to 230 over his redshirt freshman season. That 30-pound weight gain is an impressive 15% increase in body weight. I'm pretty sure at Green's age that he didn't add 30 pounds of baby fat, but more likely has responded well to weight training. That gives Green the bulk not to be moved around so easily under the basket by other MAC forwards. Remember early last season when there was concern that Green might be the freshman not able to earn a spot on the Zips' roster and might end up transferring to a lower level program? Instead, it was Euton who moved on and Green who appears to have worked his way into a shot at playing a role with the Zips. Maybe I've missed something along the way. But in all the years I've been following Zips basketball, I don't recall two players ever losing or gaining 15% or more body mass over the course of a season.

Actually, UA is shown as a 14 seed and Kansas a 3 seed. The only way a MAC team gets much higher than that is to approach 30 wins on the season.

I'm talking about modern sports in general, not UA specifically. The spending is nuts because so many of us are nuts about sports. The big spending is driven by the fans. As long as enough of us are willing to part with a big chunk of our money to support sports, sports will continue to suck up the cash and demand more. It's all about supply and demand. We're not just content to have sports teams. We demand winners. If our team isn't winning, we demand eating the coach's contract and popping more cash for a proven winning coach. If we can't attract top athletes and sell-out crowds due to poor facilities, we demand palaces. It's a never-ending spiral. At some point it can get so crass that it's no longer fun for a lot of fans. Some of those fans might go to an amateur or minor league game at little or no cost and actually have fun. I think that's part of the point that Spin is making. You can have sports without spending big bucks. It's just that so many people today are hooked on the spectacle that big bucks bring to ordinary games that they consider anything less to be inferior and unsatisfying. I'm not trying to make a value judgment here for anyone else. I'm just trying to point out that there are many ways to look at a situation, and not everyone should be expected to see it in exactly the same way.

There absolutely should be a diversity of opinion on this subject, because there's a range of people from those who love sports to those who hate sports and everything in between. Included in the in between are those like Spin who like sports but don't think so much money should be spent on them. That's as valid a position as anyone else has. On the other hand, you have those who don't think UA spends enough money on sports. Over in the basketball forum someone was complaining that they wouldn't attend many basketball games at the JAR, not because they didn't like the Zips basketball team but because the bench seats are too uncomfortable. Comfy seats cost more money. But some sports fans demand to be pampered. What you see in college sports is just an extension of pro sports. The old-timers among us can remember the days when professional athletes had other jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. Today's pro athletes are a bunch of pampered millionaires playing for billionaire owners. Some fans spend a small fortune on season tickets and team paraphernalia. Some people on ZN.O argue in favor of paying college athletes on top of their free athletic scholarships. There's no end to the money spigot when it comes to sports, yet here we are in the midst of the country's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. When you put your love of sports aside and stand back and try to objectively look at the economic situation in modern sports, it's just plain nuts.