g-mann17

I don't have a problem with the name of our stadium.As far as it being classy, InfoCision made a large part of their money in religious fundraising scaring little old ladies into giving $25 at a time and pocketing almost all of that money. We gladly took the money from a not so classy business. Let's not kid ourselves about where that money came from.To add with what GP1 is saying, look at any stadium and look at where the money came from, it is hardly ever "classy".

LOL we are the U of soccer. Everything they say is what was said about the Canes in the 80's and early 90's.

and each of those bowls were presented byRose - Pasadena department of tourismOrange - Orange growers association of AmericaSugar - Sugar industry of AmericaCotton - Cotton industry of AmericaBowls have always been corporately sponsored. It's just now they are done by companies like FedEx, Allstate, and Meineke instead of natural resource conglomerates.But the names were geographic amorphisms. Everyone knew they grew oranges in Florida. It wasn't the Sunkist TM pulp-free orange-juice bowl.Then you are really just complaining about naming, which would be a great stance if we didn't play our home games at Infocision Stadium-Summa Field and all those rich people didn't have to pass through the House of LaRose Lobby on their way to the FirstMerit Foundation Club Level.For the most part do you say "It's time to watch the Allstate Sugar Bowl" or "It's time to watch the Sugar Bowl"?I'm going to bet that 99.95% of everyone says the latter. It's a necessary evil that effects almost no one, because it doesn't change the day to day for anyone. Heck I say the Info, or "ready to go campus for the game".I think the comparisson between brand names sponsoring bowl games and sports venues are different.... though to tell you the truth, a venue would probably seem somewhat less tainted and perhaps more a true community asset if it did not have the whored out names. I had considered bringing up the sports venue issue in my earlier post, because I anticipated your response. Shame on me for being lazy.I don't really see how you can say they are different. If anything it's worse. You go to any concert or event and it's sponsored "Metallica brought to you by Seven Seas." But considering it's what you have to do to get money, so be it. Call the restrooms Jimmy John's if it makes it less burden on the school, and let the football team play well enough to get an invite to the McDonald's Big Mac Bowl. And trust me, the NCAA loves the money flow.

and each of those bowls were presented byRose - Pasadena department of tourismOrange - Orange growers association of AmericaSugar - Sugar industry of AmericaCotton - Cotton industry of AmericaBowls have always been corporately sponsored. It's just now they are done by companies like FedEx, Allstate, and Meineke instead of natural resource conglomerates.But the names were geographic amorphisms. Everyone knew they grew oranges in Florida. It wasn't the Sunkist TM pulp-free orange-juice bowl.Then you are really just complaining about naming, which would be a great stance if we didn't play our home games at Infocision Stadium-Summa Field and all those rich people didn't have to pass through the House of LaRose Lobby on their way to the FirstMerit Foundation Club Level.For the most part do you say "It's time to watch the Allstate Sugar Bowl" or "It's time to watch the Sugar Bowl"?I'm going to bet that 99.95% of everyone says the latter. It's a necessary evil that effects almost no one, because it doesn't change the day to day for anyone. Heck I say the Info, or "ready to go campus for the game".

and each of those bowls were presented byRose - Pasadena department of tourismOrange - Orange growers association of AmericaSugar - Sugar industry of AmericaCotton - Cotton industry of AmericaBowls have always been corporately sponsored. It's just now they are done by companies like FedEx, Allstate, and Meineke instead of natural resource conglomerates.

Now THAT is anti-capitalist. (Please pardon my radical and subversive pro-democracy position. And Merry Christmas to one and all!)How do you figure? Athletics started when most Universities started (17-1800's), and trust me they weren't running Track to earn revenue. Football started out as intramurals with Rutgers.

You're probably right about catching his eye. However, proving a negative is very difficult and until the Zips put a string of big wins together, the interest level will remain low.When anyone goes to buy a product, they tend to look at the entire product to see if it appeals to them. What are the Zips selling besides the team in blue and gold? Well, the other team is one of them. The game day experience is another. The concessions are another. The MAC is another. One of the problems the Zips have with selling tickets is they are good, but they surround themselves with bad products so people don't buy the whole package. The other teams, as a whole, aren't worth buying. The seats at the JAG, specifically the benches, are the stuff that puts chiropractors' children through college. The food at the JAR is bad. The MAC is bad. How many of you would buy a Hickory Farms gift package with summer sausage, dried cranberries, wheat thins, granola and tofu? Not many...the summer sausage looks great, but the rest just isn't worth the purchase. The Zips basketball team is like the summer sausage. On a cold winter day, the idea of it is appealing until you look in the package and see the cranberries, etc. You could still get 3,300 sausage loving fans to buy the box for the sausage alone (at a discount), you just probably aren't going to pick up the Joe Akron crowd interested in sauage, cheese, honey mustard and crackers.The ABJ argument. If the Zips were getting 3,300 fans per game a few years ago with little ABJ coverage and they are still averaging the same amount today with more ABJ coverage, how important is the ABJ? Everything about the Zips is better than it was a few years ago including the ABJ coverage AND Plain Dealer coverage. It kind of makes someone with an open mind think that maybe the theory that ABJ covering the Zips more would expand attendance was wrong. I used to believe it, but this makes me think I may have been wrong.So then what can be upgraded. Part of the "good team" is the "bad MAC". So schedule wise it has to be an OOC upgrade.I think everyone here recognizes that the JAR was a poorly executed mistake. Bad planning and slow government cost us first class facilities. So that is an upgrade opportunity but at what cost?Game day experience. That is directly tied to facilities. You don't tailgate for basketball so how do you improve it? Make it feel like you are going to watch big time basketball instead of walking into a gym. Improve access to seating, restrooms and concessions. Make it easy for people to find their way around. I went to school here, I've had classes in the building, been to countless games. I still have problems figuring out how to get from the Northside to the Southside of the Arena.So OOC schedule and better facilities?

Being the magnanimous GP1 and Steelers fan, I forgot offer a heartfelt congratulations to the Browns for their victory over the Steelers. It was a bad game in a bad season for the Steelers (although they are still in the playoff hunt somehow). It was a good game in a typical season for the Browns. I hope the Browns continue the same success they had this season again next year. Again, congratulations.Mighty backhanded of you.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?Football for the most funds itself. So I would say non-revenue sports. But I'm sure your question was rhetorical. Some would actually criticize Title IX. 85 scholarships for male athletes (football) must be equaled by 85 scholarships for female athletes. Now in a school where they can fund all of those scholarships through generous alumni donors no big deal, but for the most part schools are similar to us. Scholarships for 2009 alone total $6.7 million. Z-Fund contributions to date are roughly $600 thousand.But we also have to remember that sports in general were not designed to be "money makers" it was to create a well rounded student and scholarships for sports were designed to open the door to the university for individuals who were academically capable but had no other means to attend. The real problem is ESPN

I'm pleasantly shocked they're updating it in practically real time. 5 GA's(?)...that will help keep the costs down. Is it good to hire unit coaches before the coordinator? I guess RI is being very selective about a DC.Its possible that some of the hires won't be announced until the bowl season is over.Is it possible that we have an offer to a DC that also may be in the running for a HC job?Anything is possible

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.Except for the most part "lesser money" teams have had more success.Texas and the Big 12 don't even sniff 1/3 of what OSU and Florida make. USC and the PAC 10 have had huge success and the conference only makes around 60 million a year in TV money. Utah, Boise State, and TCU all get minimal cash (at least until recently) and compete better than most of the money teams.I know you said "top 40" except the problem with that there is no way to "qualify" who the top 40 are. They can't even justify the Top 25 and they have been doing that for over 60 years now. What's to keep media and coaches from making that an exclusive group?No, one of the fastest solutions is to actually make each big conference give fair portions of the TV money (the money that is in question) to the lesser conference they kick the crap out of every year.The Big 10 plays somewhere between 18-24 games against the MAC. One third of the schedule, they make big money of their network and kicking that game to affiliates. Pay up. As of right now the MAC get's about $1 million from TV revenue (ESPN mostly). They get nothing from the Big 10 or Big East.Additionally the NCAA and the Federal government needs to support regulations preventing excessive salaries and "strong arm buy outs" of coaches. The Big 10 and SEC deserve the money they make. But they also should be paying the teams and conferences they make that money off of. Another quick and non-socialist fix, is the NCAA says you have a cap on what you can spend on your sport. 100% of gate and sport related sales (concessions and merchendise), and 10% or TV revenue, the remainder must go to other non-revenue sports and academics.There is no reason there can't be a spending and salary cap for programs and coaches.I agree, the problem is difficult and finding the top 40 teams would be difficult. The first thirty would probably be pretty easy. That's why only the Great GP1 would be qualified to pick the top 40.However, given I have a real job, I would permit a group of journalists along with a group similar to the one that selects the NCAA field of 64 to pick the teams. A top 40 group would actually be a good topic on this board. I also think the joining of the top 40 would be voluntary and schools would have to petition for entry. At any point, a team could drop out of the top40 and another could be selected.One thing I am certain of is any regulations/restrictions placed on schools would not work. Just like the tax laws, these regulations could be maneuvered around. Also, I think the federal government is having trouble regulating it's own spending and I don't trust them to regulate university athletics spending. If anyone really listens to the average politician speak, they are actually very stupid people. If you read the report above closely, it is clear that the market will eventually take care of salaries because schools simply will not be able to spend more. Even if you restricted salaries, coaches would find other means of generating income, ie: endorsements.There has been a lot of talk about bubbles in the past few years. In the 90s we had the dot com bubble. This decade we had the housing bubble. Soon, we are going to have to face up to our government spending bubble and it is going to make all of the other bubbles seem small. Most of these schools are state school programs. If private funding slows and public money is in a pinch, we could see a "building" bubble in the near future for universities. See the word unsustainable in the report above....have we been hearing that word much in the past couple of years? Let's keep that in mind as we consider a new soccer field and bb arena. Only 20% of the lifetime cost of a building is the construction of the structure. The other 80% is maintenance. As we ponder or futurer building, are we sure we can pick up the other 80% over the next 80 years? Do we have $512 million over the next 80 years to maintain The Big Phone Booth? What about the fieldhouse? What if we build a bb arena? What if we build a new soccer stadium? I hope someone it thinking about this. I hope UofA doesn't have to sacrafice what I consider to be a good education over sports facilities. Hofstra just had to make that choice and we know what they decided.The difference being Hofstra is private, has an enrollment roughly half of UA's, and an endowment that between 20-50 million dollars less.I understand sustainability. But only two schools in the country have "sustainable athletics" OSU (makes a profit) and Texas (because it rapes the rest of the conference). Every other school puts money into athletics. There are about 96% of the D-1 FBS presidents that want a change. I'm pretty sure something will give, and it won't be the number of D-1 FBS schools. As far as UA's growth (I know you are a government fearing libertarian) but every project has to be approved by the University, Board of Trustees, State University oversight committee and then the actual senate. These projects and budgets and the ability to pay are scrutinized ad nauseum. You can't predict 12% unemployment and the toll that takes on taxes and private donations. But for the most part nothing has been approved that wasn't considered to be "sustainable".But I also have to remember that you are a "know your place, no reason to grow" kind of person and that does not align with the vision of the University.

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.Except for the most part "lesser money" teams have had more success.Texas and the Big 12 don't even sniff 1/3 of what OSU and Florida make. USC and the PAC 10 have had huge success and the conference only makes around 60 million a year in TV money. Utah, Boise State, and TCU all get minimal cash (at least until recently) and compete better than most of the money teams.I know you said "top 40" except the problem with that there is no way to "qualify" who the top 40 are. They can't even justify the Top 25 and they have been doing that for over 60 years now. What's to keep media and coaches from making that an exclusive group?No, one of the fastest solutions is to actually make each big conference give fair portions of the TV money (the money that is in question) to the lesser conference they kick the crap out of every year.The Big 10 plays somewhere between 18-24 games against the MAC. One third of the schedule, they make big money of their network and kicking that game to affiliates. Pay up. As of right now the MAC get's about $1 million from TV revenue (ESPN mostly). They get nothing from the Big 10 or Big East.Additionally the NCAA and the Federal government needs to support regulations preventing excessive salaries and "strong arm buy outs" of coaches. The Big 10 and SEC deserve the money they make. But they also should be paying the teams and conferences they make that money off of. Another quick and non-socialist fix, is the NCAA says you have a cap on what you can spend on your sport. 100% of gate and sport related sales (concessions and merchendise), and 10% or TV revenue, the remainder must go to other non-revenue sports and academics.There is no reason there can't be a spending and salary cap for programs and coaches.

You lose 100% of the games you never schedule. Can't beat good programs, or even compete with them if you don't schedule them. It is that simple.If that is true, then Duke, North Carolina, OSU, CSU have all lost to us because they never scheduled us.Quick call that in to the RPI people.edit* It's funny that you guys think we could even compete for an at large bid. 20 wins with 6 losses to Duke, Pitt, UConn, OSU, Michigan State, and Kansas, get's us the same thing we have right now. No bids and getting ready to start the MAC Tournament. Until we are good enough to compete and beat top 30 teams, we need to have an easy schedule with some bench mark games so that we don't get beat up going into MAC play. It's gotten us to the Championship game 3 years in a row, and taking away poor Ref work, should have been two Dance Invites.It isn't simply about earning that at large bid. In that respect you are probably right, we probably won't get an at large with a 20-6 season with losses against Duke, Pitt, UConn, OSU, Michigan State and Kansas. What playing those teams does for us, outside of the potential that we could actually beat them, is generates at least a little bit of excitement for the program. Let's face it, no one gave a crap when we played Malone, UNCGreensboro and St.Francis in consecutive games, and the attendance numbers bore that out. No one is going to care next week when we go on the road to take on Wyoming. If a team wins 26 games and no one is around to see it, did they really win 26 games? Well, yeah, but it certainly doesn't do anything to help the program. I don't know about you, but I think it sucks that we can't draw more than 1,500 fans for our OOC games. That is truly a shame. Now let's say you do go out and schedule a couple more games, on the road, against teams like Duke, Pitt, UConn, OSU, Michigan State or Kansas. Nobody that I know of has yet argued for the Charlie Coles method of scheduling all of your OOC games against powerhouses like that, but just a couple more. Now you can say, hey we went out and played some good teams. Teams that you want to see. And if you should beat one of those teams (see CSU over Syracuse last year), well then the flood gates open up. ESPN highlights, check. Increased attendance, check. Actually being able to win a game in the NCAA's, check. It isn't all about the at large bid. Playing a couple more teams on your OOC schedule that are worthwhile opponents has far reaching benefits.No one gave a crap when Top 25 Nevada came here. No one gave a crap when Dayton was here last year either so what does that mean? What was attendance 2500? (Not picking on you, just having a conversation)I will even go one more. No one gave a crap that Can't played Duke, and it didn't help their attendance because you have to play a "money" game at the opponent's house.

And that's fine, but at what balance? You say that football scheduling cripples the program but they schedule maybe 2 "unwinnable" games a year. We'll call it 1.5 because for the most part we do Big 10 monster (OSU, Wisc, PSU) and then Big East/Big 10 minor (Cinci, Syracuse, UConn, Indiana) which under normal circumstances are about a 35% chance of a win (decent odds). That equates to 12% of the schedule. (you say that is crippling)Your 3 money games for baskeball would be roughly 11% of the schedule. How is that not "crippling"?Good question. 35% is way to generous, but it is the holiday season. Look at it as the overall percent of ooc games. The football team played really 2.5 of their 4 ooc games last year against teams they shouldn't be able to beat. That's 62.5% of the ooc games. Let's look at reality though.In order for the bb team to play that percentage of ooc games against BCS level competition, it would be between 8-10 games. Just as crippling as what the football team does. If the bb team plays 15 ooc games, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to go to the ATM three times a year. That would only be 20% of the ooc games. BTW, the football team should only go to the ATM 25%.Right now, our bb program is good enough that they can weather that storm and destroy the crap that is the MAC. It's time for them to start contributing to the bank a little more.I think I can agree with you on this. Anyone know what a typical "money" basketball game brings in?

Very good find. There was also an ESPN Outside the Lines segment talking about the state of College sports and the Media and sighting this very report.The real question is, what can be done. It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money, and it was declared an anti-trust issue when they tried to stop the excessive pay wars for the top coaches.

And that's fine, but at what balance? You say that football scheduling cripples the program but they schedule maybe 2 "unwinnable" games a year. We'll call it 1.5 because for the most part we do Big 10 monster (OSU, Wisc, PSU) and then Big East/Big 10 minor (Cinci, Syracuse, UConn, Indiana) which under normal circumstances are about a 35% chance of a win (decent odds). That equates to 12% of the schedule. (you say that is crippling)Your 3 money games for baskeball would be roughly 11% of the schedule. How is that not "crippling"?

I'm saying SOS doesn't matter if you don't beat the teams that gave you the strong SOS in the first place.Do you think the selection committee is like, "Oh look Akron has 20 wins and a top 50 SOS. We'll let them in."No, they look at it and see, "ok, they have 15 wins against MAC teams 5 wins against eh teams and they lost to every one of the top 25 teams they played. Forget them".Our conference isn't 1 bid because our SOS is so low, it's because our RPI is so low (meaning we and the other teams in our conference do not win against "great" teams). And yes "you have to be in it, to win it" as my coach used to say, but there is no point in playing teams you are going to lose to and getting your confidence in a funk (meaning poor shooting) and risking injury. The reason we play Gonzaga so tough was because the team had a heck of a lot of confidence after sweeping the MAC Tournament. Gonzaga's depth is what beat us.Right now, the focus is on MAC Championship, Invite to the Dance, win a game in the Tournament, get better recruits. It's how Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis have all done it.

You lose 100% of the games you never schedule. Can't beat good programs, or even compete with them if you don't schedule them. It is that simple.If that is true, then Duke, North Carolina, OSU, CSU have all lost to us because they never scheduled us.Quick call that in to the RPI people.edit* It's funny that you guys think we could even compete for an at large bid. 20 wins with 6 losses to Duke, Pitt, UConn, OSU, Michigan State, and Kansas, get's us the same thing we have right now. No bids and getting ready to start the MAC Tournament. Until we are good enough to compete and beat top 30 teams, we need to have an easy schedule with some bench mark games so that we don't get beat up going into MAC play. It's gotten us to the Championship game 3 years in a row, and taking away poor Ref work, should have been two Dance Invites.

Currently need, a D-line coach (Bryant Young, but until he's on there I don't count it), Defensive Backs, Receivers, D-Coordinator and an O-line coach.Maybe a waterboy :cheers:edit* can't help but notice that we are getting more press in Chicago than we are in Akron.

Yes and? Latina is our offensive coordinator not Miceli. Miceli is assistant head coach and recruiting coordinator, running backs coach.Miceli's our recruiting coordinator and the assistant head coach. If he was just a position coach I wouldn't be so concerned. He was in charge of half of a team going through its worst stretch in program history. Might that have had something to do with poor recruiting?As I recall, Reno Ferri came from Army (haven't been to a bowl game since the 90's) to be our "recruiting coordinator". The guy is 54-37 as a head coach, he went to a perenial loser (sorry they have been since coming back into existance in 1970) school to help them try and build their program up (something Miceli accomplished once before in D-III).

Yes and? Latina is our offensive coordinator not Miceli. Miceli is assistant head coach and recruiting coordinator, running backs coach.

So how many Notre Dame coaches is that? 4?LatinaYoungIanelloMendoza (strength and conditioning)Grimes (GA)Powlus (?)5 and a Grad assistant (assuming Powlus actually took the job).

That could apply to a lot of schools.I don't know what the Colonial plans to do about the football vacancies.North New Hampshire 6-2 10-3 Maine 4-4 5-6 Hofstra 3-5 5-6 - Can't StateMassachusetts 3-5 5-6 Northeastern 3-5 3-8 - Miami (OH)Rhode Island 0-8 1-10 South Villanova 7-1 14-1 Richmond 7-1 11-2 William & Mary 6-2 11-3 Delaware 4-4 6-5 James Madison 4-4 6-5 Towson

I forgot about him. It is kind of fate really.Cruz drops footballs, Hofstra drops football.

Do you really mean to imply that only the wealthy can qualify as true supporters of the university, and those who do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to give don't count?Wow, people really overgeneralize statements.The basic statement is "you called yourself a supporter, are you a donor?" and yes a "donor" has a bit more signifigance than just general "non-contributing" alumni. Alumni opinions matter immensely, the University has to answer those question and pay attention because Alumni help drive future enrollment and are the watermark of performance for the University. But a donor is the reason change get's to happen, the reason new facilities exist. (and yes I know some of those buildings are part of student fees etc. my tuition went to half those buildings and I never got see the benefit as a student)I was trying to get Spin to qualify his use of "supporter" I wasn't trying to imply his opinion didn't matter if he wasn't a "donor" I was trying to find what background the statement came from.