GJGood

it is for me. I get about 20 seconds then it freezes and I have to hit the play button again. Truly annoying.

If Noah's homecoming was a factor in this year's schedule then I wonder if the Zips will be traveling to the Houston area in a future season or two?

Not sure how this qualifies as being called a "tournament". There needs to be more real non-conference tournaments that include mid-majors, especially since Bracketbusters met its demise.

What do most of you expect from the UCSB and Iona matchups in Las Vegas? Will there be any way to watch the games, either on TV or streaming online? What will the impact of going home for a few days have on Noah Robotham and his game? Just some questions to get some conversation started.

Obviously these rankings aren't based on how close and competitive the games are likely to be. The rankings look like the based more on they are name brand of the teams involved.

Yes they are 6-6 but how beatable is this opponent? If you would have told me at the beginning of the year that Boise State was not winning the MWC, I would have thought it must have been Utah State that did. Injuries hurt them. If they have healed this team is very strong and the Zips will more than have their hands full. The upside, though, is that defense can win games like these and Akron's D, especially the against the rush, is as good or better as anything USU will have seen. I just worry about their passing game against the back end of our D and which of Akron,s Jekyll and Hyde offenses shows up.

I am not complaining about anything about where the Zips are going or who they are playing. I love the fact that they are going bowling. My only beef is the payout. Doesn't it make sense that 5-7 teams that would normally be ineligible should be delegated to the lowest payout bowls by rule? I don't care about conference affiliations, these teams were NOT eligible. I don't know who makes the rules on such things but I do think there should be a writing campaign started to suggest that losing teams granted eligibility simply because of vacancies should go to the lowest payout bowls. It just makes sense.

If this indeed is true it goes toward what I said earlier in this thread, no offense to Georgia Southern but the MAC champion deserves a better opponent than an a four loss Sun Belt team. That's not to say that GSU can't beat BG just that it doesn't give the MAC champ a chance to make much of a blip on the radar of national perception. I'd rather see someone like Ohio or WMU in the GoDaddy.

I'd even be OK with Detroit if there could be the promise of a P5 team or a top 25 type G5 being the opponent every year. The Motor City/ Pizza game had a B10 tie-in but many years they couldn't qualify a team. A conference champ, ANY conference champ deserves a guaranteed better bowl matchup than that.I'd love it if somewhere down the road we'd start seeing G5 champs in games like the Liberty, Alamo, Sun, or some other well known long standing current second tier (or would that be third?) P5 bowl. Since the BCS first came about I have always thought it fantastic that the best ranked G5 team was guaranteed a big bowl spot but I have also contended that the drop-off in bowl possibilities is far too far if you aren't that single G5 team. No offense to the Go Daddy or Carmellia Bowls but ten or eleven win conference champs should play in better bowls against better or more prestigious opponents than those games can offer. Don't get me wrong I love those bowls and I am happy they exist but they should be more for the six to nine win G5 squads.

That is one of the things that disappoints me the most about MAC football. There needs to be that one bowl that everybody strives for, win the MAC title and you go there and play a quality national opponent if the biggest bowls or playoff don't invite you. I think every group of five conference needs a specific bowl for their champion.

Boise State did not make it to their conference championship game. That would be Air Force and San Diego State. I actually wouldn't mid seeing the Zips play Air Force. I don't like the matchup with SDSU as much though and especially not if it was in San Diego. I just have never thought it was right to have true home teams in bowl games. Plus, for those teams how excited can they really be for the bowl if they aren't going anywhere different for it? I don't think it rewards their players enough for a successful season.

Why is Marshall playing a home-and-home with James Madison in one season?

I don't like that one. No problem with getting matched with Boise State, although I think it is a bad draw for us. I just don't want to play a team on their home field or basically in their home city.

Black or blue, I just want the traditional Akron font for the numbers and lettering. The black jerseys don't have that currently as far as I know.

I know it probably won't happen but I believe the Independence Bowl has a decent payout, could provide a P5 opponent, and Louisiana is some good recruiting ground that we could use a presence in.

I may have worded my comment badly. What I meant was if they decline on a school like Akron in hope of landing a 5-7 P5 they may end up with no choice but to take somebody like a 5-7 San Jose State. This could happen if APR decides which 5-7 teams get berths. If I recall SJSU had one of the top APRs among schools with 5-7 teams. I would think a bowl may want to think about that fact before declining to invite the Zips.

That is the exact combo I'd like to see for the bowl game.

This may be true but there is also no guarantee that they will get to pick if the rules end up stating they need to select 5-7 teams in order of their APR. They could end up bypassing a 7-5 Akron for a 5-7 San Jose State depending on how this all shakes out.

I dislike these because they are basically true road games. I realize you don't get "home" bowl games in northeast Ohio but it doesn't have to be in the heart of the opponent's fanbase either.

Is the Independence Bowl in Shreveport going to fill its normal tie-ins with bowl eligible teams? This is a bowl I would consider. If I was given a choice. It. Is a bowl that has passed the test of time and the Zips already proved they are capable of playing well in Louisiana. Could it do something for recruiting in that part of the country if the program goes down there and wins twice? I'd love to make recruiting strides in LA.

WMU beats Toledo 35-30. This may knock the Zips down a rung in the MAC bowl pecking order as both Akron and the Broncos end up 7-5 and that Toledo. Win has to look pretty attractive to bowl committees. Akron should still be bowling but they may now be part of the "at large" pool instead of going to one of the official MAC tie-in games. In general I like the at large bowl choices better than much of the MAC bowl lineup anyway. The one exception to that, of course, is probably the Bahamas. I'm still holding out hope that the Zips can matched up with a 6-6 Power 5 team. This team is better now than when they played Pitt and I'd like a shot at a middling "major". I just don't think it will happen and beggars can't really be choosers at this point.

I have a hard time imagining that they would let a 5-7 team go if it meant having a 6-6 team stay home. if they are forced to take a 5-7 team or teams it will only be after all 6-6 and better teams are selected. My question is how much control would Akron have over which bowl they go to? If there are only 77 or 78 eligible teams for the 80 spots that would mean that at least three or four bowls are looking for a team, if the Zips were the last eligible team remaining would Akron then get to pick which vacancy they'd like to fill? If that would be the way it works, should they select based on location, date, opponent, or something else?

For what its worth the latest SI projections have both Akron and Buffalo getting bowl berths, and in fact have the Zips as the only MAC team playing a "Power 5" team in the postseason. http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/11/16/college-football-bowl-projections-week-11-playoff I would really like to see the bowls reorganized to a point where at least a MAC team or two was in a bowl opposite a Power 5 conference team. I have never understood the logic in a MAC champion or runner-up playing a seven or eight win team from another Group of 5 conference. I'm not saying that all MAC bowl games should be against "name" schools or anything just that the MAC Champion and maybe even the runner-up or next best team should be given a little bigger stage in the bowl season.

Check out Sports Illustrated's current projection... http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/11/09/college-football-bowl-projections-week-10-playoff

There was a rule a few years ago that stated a team with a winning record had to be taken ahead of a six win team when there were at-large spots open because conferences could not fill their tie-ins. That rule was dropped, likely because they didn't want 7-5 MAC and Sun Belt teams having to be taken ahead of 6-6 power conference schools. I hate that they dropped that rule. When talking about 6-win teams versus 5-win teams though you are talking about teams that are bowl-eligible versus bowl-ineligible teams grabbed up to fill slots. Dipping into the otherwise ineligible pool will only be allowed to happen after all eligible (6+ wins) teams are taken.