GJGood

As has been said by coaches and administration alike..."We have to think bigger than the MAC."I think the MAC just has to think bigger.

I agree about the best way to start off in the new stadium being with a solid 'W" but not against an FCS school. No FBS school should play an FCS school unless there are special circumstances involved. I am happy to see an opponent we should beat coming in for game one, but there are FBS programs (that carry the same number of scholarships as Akron's program) that can fill that bill. Why not play a bottom feeder from the Sun Belt, C-USA, or even the WAC?Oh well, at least we have the Carlton Jackson story. I just hope the game isn't competitive because we really are in a "no win" situation with this opponent. If we win people will say (and deservedly so) that we only beat an undermanned FCS school, if we lose or the game is even close then what will people say?Overall, it will likely be a landmark day for the University but it would have been with an FBS opponent as well.

In the Columbus and Central Ohio region I was forced to watch online at March Madness On demand. They showed the Clemson-Michigan game here. If you ask me something just wasn't right about that. I mean here I am in the same city as Ohio State and I have to watch Michigan when an Ohio school is playing at the same time.This fact is even worse when you consider that Linhart, the McKnights, Hitchens, and Ronnie Steward are all from central Ohio and some of their biggest and longest tenured fans had only a sporadic chance to see them.Somebody capable of showing multiple games on the tube without an extra charge needs to get the rights to the tournament, whether it be ESPN, NBC, FSN or whatever.

We can say the exact same thing. When we don't play well it seems that we are fundamentally sound but just half a step slow on defense. Our primary achilles heel, though, is cold shooting. In our first round game of the MAC tourney we went for an incredibly long stretch where we didn't make a single field goal yet somehow we ended up with 93 points after 45 minutes of play. That wasn't the first time by any means that we went on a prolonged scoring drought either.Our other issue at times has been rebounding, especially offensive rebounding. That problem seemed to go away for much of our run in the MAC tournament. In fact at times during the last week we looked pretty formidable on the offensive glass. That being said I think we will have problems in that area on Thursday simply because of Gonzaga's size. We went into this year considering it a rebuidling, or I guess I should say reloading, year. I think I can speak for most of us on here when we say we wouldn't have expected to be dancing this year any more than in the prior two years or in the next few years to come. The key for us will be taking care of the ball and shooting well along with playing our usual good defense. Anyway, you look at it though the Zips really have their work cut out for them in this matchup.

While we are carrying the mantle for the conference on the main stage, other MAC schools will continue playing as well.Bowling Green recieved a #8 (out of 8) seed in the NIT and will travel to Creighton.I have also seen that our arch nemisis from Portage County was selected to play in the inaugural CIT and will be travelling up to Oakland University in Michigan for a Tuesday night game.I would have to think that Can't State's inclusion in the CIT means that Buffalo will be in the CBI field and that there is a good chance Miami will be as well. As of this moment, the CBI website says nothing.So, will you all be cheering for all of ur MAC brethren or just pick and choose who to root for?Personally, I'll be cheering for Bowling Green because a good MAC showing in the NIT could garner some attention. I will root for Buffalo because I like their program as a whole as much as any of our MAC rivals. With Miami and Can't State it depends on who they match up with. I have no strong feelings either way about Can't State @ Oakland.

If we do in fact win tonight is there any way we could get Frenchy's call of the last 10 to 15 seconds or so posted on here. I live out of area but would still love to hear that. That being said, this will be a tough game tonight.

Actually I believe it is 32 for the NIT and 16 each for the CBI and CIT for a total of 129, but your point is well taken.I do know, though, that the CIT (run by the people who do the mid-major Top 25 poll) has said that they would rather not take teams that already have more than half of their conference in the postseason. I take that to mean they'd rather have a pretty good mid-major team over a 9th, 10th, or 11th place team from a "major" conference when they are making their selections.

What a way to get win #20! Not to put the hex on them for the next game or anything, but is the 20 win mark for Akron enough to have this team continue playing should they not win the MAC tourney? I doubt the NIT would give us a shot but what about the CBI and CIT? Is 20 a magic number of sorts?Congrats Zips on another 20 win season!

I don't know how much zone we'll see on Sunday. I just don't know that it fits that team's "personality". I would certainly expect to see a lot more zone defense against the Zips in game one of the MAC tournament no matter who the opponent may be though.

Scout.com doesn't even show Akron as a possibility for Payne. My guess is that this is because so many schools are interested in him that they didn't have the room, but what do I know?After Payne, the highest ranked uncommited 2010 player in Ohio according to Scout is PF Craig Sealy. Does anybody know if the Zips are showing any interest in him? He is actually out of my high school so that would be kinda sweet for me personally if he ended up playing his college ball at the JAR.

Has anybody heard any updates on Ronnie? How likely would a medical redshirt and 6th year of eligibility be?

I voted for "Any Postseason Play" because of the youth on this team. The longer this team can play the more experience it will get, particularly in "do or die" games. Even if it is one of the tourneys below the NCAA and NIT it will give this team more experience to rely on in upcoming seasons.It may even be better for the players we have on the court now to go two or three rounds in one of the other tourneys rather than go one and done in the NCAA or especially the NIT, which everybody knows would never seed us correctly or give us any chance at a home game.I'm not saying going to the 3rd or 4th tourney is better for the program overall than going to the NCAA tournament and winning a MAC title. The recognition would have potential to do great things for an already strong program but the individual underclassmen players may be just as well off in the long run if the team can string together a few wins in something like the CBI or the new CollegeInsider tourney.

Just looking at this matchup on the surface it doesn't make much sense.When looking closer, though, I think this matchup was put together with next year in mind more than this season. Both Valpo and Akron are in what most of their own fans are calling "rebuilding" years. Both fanbases seemed to be pointing toward next season by the time this season was just a few games old if not before it started.The difference is Akron is having a pretty decent year (we still have a shot at another 20 win season) despite a roster that is primarily freshmen and sophomores. Valpo is struggling this year. Both programs are arguably bringing in the biggest (by size and/or reputation) recruits in their programs' history next season.One of the posters on the Valpo board said that we better get them this year because next year might get ugly. I assume he meant that we will not be able to handle them next year. Obviously that poster knows nothing of our program. The exact opposite is true if Valpo wants to beat the Zips they better do it this year because next year this program which is 60-7 at home the past few years will be fielding more talent than it ever has before and the game is at Rhodes Arena.

In this case, it might be favorable for Akron to face a better team than JMU -- one who like Nevada two years ago would lead to their coming to Akron in the fall of 09, in a 'trap' they may not be aware is awaiting them. IOW -- we might be better off playing a team we have little chance of beating THIS year, in exchange for an opportunity to beat someone nationally ranked or 'name' in the NEXT year (of course to acquire such a foe we need more 'W's for the ESPN selectors). I don't know who that might be though. Any ideas?Bracketbuster games are to be selected on Monday, Feb 2nd. My educated guess is that well be sent to either Drexel or Old Dominion. While JMU is a possibility espn usually does not pit schools against each other when they have a history. We played a home and home with JMU in around 2003,2004 ( or so). Another possibility is Milwaukee from horizon league. Our RPIs are similar 110 vs 122. All things considered weve gotten treated pretty well by espn in bracketbuster selections in past. Certainly better thanCant St going to Mt St Mary Calif, or Cleve state going to Pepperdine.I don't know if they take such things into account but I would wonder if the fact that we played a CAA and/or another Virginia team in last year's event would lead the selectors to choose someone other than JMU.My question of this...would we rather play a team in the top half of a pretty decent conference like UW-Milwaukee in the Horizon League or a team that is at the very top of their middle ranked conference but doesn't play as tough a schedule like Vermont? I think either of those teams are possibilities at this point as is a team like UIC or Tennessee-Martin. It will be interesting to see how they do this with us this year since we are likely well out of the TV games mix.

I think it was a good move if he continues to see minutes. If he just ends up being a guy who sees very few minutes per game down the stretch then I would rather have had him an additional year when he could have more chance to contribute in a big way.Right now it is a good thing but the jury is still out overall for me.

I agree but if they are successful against the West it will still likely build more confidence and experience which is critical to young teams even moreso than to veteran ones. Plus, no matter where this team finishes compared to other East teams if their record is good enough a postseason tourney like the CBI will at least take a look at the Zips barring a MAC tourney title.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread it can't be Cleveland State this year. The Zips and Vikings are both road teams in the BracketBusters pool.

Anybody know anything about Ronnie's condition? I just think he is the best ball handler on the team. I like Hitchens and he will have big games but he is also a little more turnover prone than Steward from what I have seen (in their limited Akron time but also from what I saw both of them do in high school). If the Zips had just taken A LITTLE BETTER care of the ball in these close losses I think we'd all be pretty satisfied right now.Still, gutsy comeback last night in one of the toughest venues we play in. This is a good sign for the future. Now, let's take care of business at home Saturday then hopefully play well against YSU and the MAC West squads.

I am exactly the opposite. I don't have a specific team in mind yet but I want the Zips to play somebody that is less regional than CSU if that makes sense. I think it can only help the program if they get exposure in areas where they are not all that well known. More exposure could mean being in the mind of more potential recruits. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see us play CSU but I'd like it to be a scheduled game and if Waters won't go for it I'd like to see that fact get some publicity in NE Ohio.Maybe right now I'd say somebody like UT-Martin, Long Beach State, or Boise State (they'd all make interesting opponents at home next year) would be who I'd most want but really I just want a televised game.

Good article, but why are we always referred to as Akron University, or in the case of the ESPNU guys against Bowling Green, Akron U? Last I checked my alma mater was the University of Akron.Just a pet peeve. Sorry.

I think Darryl Roberts showed a lot in this game. I'd like to see him get some more time on the floor. If nothing else he seems to be a decent shooter and can defintely make his free throws.

Like others have noted, this is a very intriguing post GP. I have a couple of counterpoints which I will provide as part of my "ideal" scenario. I have long favored a 16-team playoff, with ALL 11 FBS conference champions given automatic entry and 5 "at large" bids. I also agree with many sportswriters who believe that many of the more desirable bowls themselves could be used in the tournament. Perhaps, the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals could rotate between 7 bowls? I would also allow for the continuation of additional bowls that are not part of the tournament.Now to address a few of your assertions. First I believe the FCS, D-2 and D-3 comparisons do not hold water. While I agree that these divisions are SOMEWHAT hampered by a lack of competition at the top, I think the FBS landscape is different. The most significant difference is that people CARE about FBS football from coast to coast and in between. Outside of Alliance and portions of Wisconsin and the Pacific Northwest, D-3 football is an afterthought for the most part. The GLIAC has dominated D-2 football in recent history, but remains only of regional interest. The FCS of course gets the most national exposure, and perhaps this is why it's been a little more competitive at the top (Richmond had never won a title before this year). Since a conference championship (NOT a conference TOURNAMENT championship) would result in an automatic NCAA bid, the regular season conference games would absolutely maintain their significance. Even the non-conference games would have some meaning in terms of selecting the 5 at large teams. In fact, you might see better non-conference match-ups now that the "biggies" wouldn't feel as compelled to schedule FCS cupcakes since a a non-conference loss would not prevent a team from still getting a shot at the national title.I agree that having two teams and their fans descend upon the same city during the days surrounding a bowl game is extrememely exciting. But, I don't see why this same environment couldn't occur if that bowl game just happened to also be the 1st round or quarterfinal of a tournament.A 16-team playoff (three extra weeks, since the BCS national championship already adds one) would not necessarily have to run beyond the current season. Multiple bye weeks from every teams schedule could be eliminated and the early round bowls moved up a bit in the calendar.I think the "player compensation" aspect is really a separate argument. Either we pay them all or we don't pay any of them. Teams (schools) already benefit greatly from the deeds of the student athlete, and I don't think a tournament really changes this situation much.Those are my 2 cents.Sorry, I missed your post before. We pretty much agree, but I have 14 teams with the top 2 getting first round byes and those schools hosting the national semifinals. That way even teams that clinch their conference early and do not have a conference championship game still have something relevant to keep playing for. Plus, all the drama that we see now with teams trying to make the top 2 would be preserved. Plus I'd rather see 3 wild cards than 5 and no more than two teams from one conference that way there could still be some bowl games in existence featuring some very good teams that didn't make the playoff. I'd like to limit the damage to the bowl system as little as possible, at least to the mid-tier and low-tier bowl games. I know it would have to change some but I'd still like to see 7-5 or 8-4 teams rewarded like they are now.

I agree completely with what you are saying, that is why in the system I propose it would put an emphasis on conference champions with respect to inclusion as well as seeding. The best non-BCS conference team, assuming they won their conference, could be seeded no worse than 7th (but would likely be even better in most years) in a 14 team field and a minimum of two non-BCS teams would be better seeds than their opening opponents, which would mean home games if the games were played at campus sites.

Thanks UA Zipsman.Uakronkid, I agree with both of those points. I deally 6 home and 6 away in a 12 game schedule would be the way I'd like to see it. I know, though, that due to the $$$ factor they would never agree to have the big money schools only have 6 home games by rule.The bigger thing is the 1-AA (or FCS) thing to me. In my opinion, since they started allowing those FCS wins count toward bowl eligibility more of the "big boys" have been scheduling those types of games. In the past they likely would have scheduled teams from conferences like the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA. It not only gives the BCS conference teams cupcake wins and easier bowl eligibilty but it also makes it more likely for non-BCS teams like Akron and their MAC counterparts to be told that they "didn't play anybody" but they never mention that it is a lot more difficult now to schedule one of those "anybody" teams now that they want to play 1-AA schools.They really need to get rid of that !-AA rule or at least add to it "if you lose to a FCS school you are instantly bowl ineligible", that may make some of them back away.

I do not favor going to a playoff system for one simple reason....THEY WILL NEVER GET THE FORMAT RIGHT.In my opinion, a playoff system (assuming it is done incorrectly) would be a giant step back for those schools not in BCS conferences now. They would almost certainly say it should be something like an 8 team playoff using the top 8 ranked teams. Keep in mind that these rankings are hugely influenced by the human polls which often appear to be biased toward the bigger name conferences, and especially the schools that get the most publicity.On top of that in 2007 after the last week of the season the polls jumped LSU from #7 to #2. This meant (if memory serves me correct) that they jumped two teams that lost, one that won, and two that were idle in that week alone. The result was LSU playing in the National Championship Game. One can infer that the only reason they were able to do this was because it was the matchup for the title that the voters wanted to see despite how they had voted in previous weeks.Given that they can make that can happen does anybody really think a current non-BCS school would have a real chance at making the 8 team playoff if it were to come down to them or schools with names like Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, or LSU. If a playoff came about that was based on rankings you would start to see schools currently outside of the BCS conferences being rated much less favorably than they are now. In the current system they'll just keep them out of the top 2 before the bowls, then it would be the top 8 before the playoff.The only way a playoff could be done right is if it took every FBS (1-A) conference champion. I just don't see them doing that. Does anybody really think that if a national playoff were in place this year that Buffalo would actually have been included? I sure don't. For what its worth, if a playoff ever did come about I'd like to see it be one that included 14 teams. The field would consist of the 11 conference champions and three 'wild cards'. The seeding would be done giving the 11 conference champs the top 11 seeds and seeding the wild cards 12-14. This is the way the NFL does it now, putting an emphasis on winning your division (i.e. conference in college). The top two seeds would get first round byes. This would allow teams to fight for the top 2 spots like they do now in the BCS system and continue to make the regular season very relevant for nearly every team. I also would have the first two rounds of games be played at the home field of the better seeded team. The national semifinals would be at the home of the top 2 teams, regardless of whether or not those teams actually made it to that game. The actual title game game would be at a predetermined neutral site. This would allow every team in the top 4 a chance at hosting two games but it would be impossible for anybody to host 3.Like I said, that is all a pipe dream though. The "powers that be" would never let it happen. Once a playoff is established and teams from the "smaller" conferences start being left out, the recruiting at those schools will drop off somewhat as well. Why would good recruits want to go to a place where they won't have a chance to win a championship (or at least make the big stage like a BCS game) no matter how well they play? More and more those not recruited by the "big schools" would look toward current FCS schools.Those are just my thoughts on it. Ultimately I'd love a fair playoff, I just don't have faith enough in those in charge to believe they'd do it right so my current answer to question of if there should be a playoff is always "no".