UAZipster0305

What a dominant performance! This team is flying high. Given the teams we've played, this could be one of the most impressive runs ever to an NCAAC. What's even more incredible is that we've won every game in regular time. Avoiding extra time has been tremendously important in dealing with being on the road for several consecutive weeks. With the starters in, MSU only had two chances. It's too bad the subs couldn't keep the shutout for Lundt. Oh well. Indiana was an excellent team, and Maryland is peaking at the right time, but I firmly believe we finish this thing off tomorrow night. We are a freight train / buzzsaw right now. There is so much confidence and joy on the field, and it's amazing to watch. Second star! Great media coverage and fan participation...exactly the kind of stuff the University needs during these difficult times.

I think it is much more likely that we regress to where we are now or not even that.Expecting otherwise is the quintessential definition of insanity. Look at our history. What makes this time around any different?

Bowden remains the best D-1 coach we've ever had. The expectations of so many of you are unrealistic; we will never be a Boise State and likely not ever an NIU or Toledo. Someone like Solich is difficult to find. Anyone younger we get who is successful will be courted by larger schools with more money, and we will thus be repeating this process regularly.

Okay, maybe it wasn't the best analogy. I still had faith Bowden would have gotten us there.

Discount the initial 1-11 season and things look very different, especially given the MACEC, most ever wins in a season, the two bowls, and our first bowl victory, all in the last four years. We weren't at OU consistency yet, but I think we were headed there with Bowden. A new OC would have made a huge difference in results this season and going into next. Instead, we are rebuilding again...

Bowden seems like a reasonable guy. If the AD approached him about demoting Milwee and bringing in someone else, I think he would have complied. I highly doubt that conversation ever took place though.

We can speculate all day. I see your point, but I disagree. I don't see us increasing attendance much in the first year of a new coach as the team performance will likely be comparable or not as good through the first season or two. Long-term, who knows.

I discount TB's first season. He walked into a true dumpster fire. Beyond that, I don't know what other seasons you are referring to that were terrible. Most wins in a season at D-1, first bowl victory, another bowl appearance, MAC East Champs, student-athletes graduating at a solid rate, no scandals,...those things make him the most successful D-1 coach we've had...and we fired him amid a financial crisis. He should've been retained and maybe even extended with the understanding that Milwee would be demoted or asked to leave. Don't forget, our second most successful D-1 coach (Brookhart, only MACC), and the most successful at the time, was fired by a headlining attempt to open the Info and build the career of an AD...and we got iCoach. At least one AD later and a new best coach, and we are wanting to repeat history. You're delusional. UA doesn't and never has had much of a paying public. And neither does any other G5 school wedged between a national P5/BCS powerhouse and an NFL team. Even if we caught lightning in a bottle with a coach like Fleck, he'd be gone right after and we'd likely be right back to where we've always been. Bowden would have gotten us to OU like stability, and that would have been great for UA. Our version of Frank Solich is fine by me.

It doesn't matter. At the very least, the optics of the situation are terrible. This is not OSU. Boosters aren't buying out a major portion of any coach's contract. Their money would be better allocated on addressing our real pressing financial problems. Athletics are a luxury. And yes, I enjoy Akron football. I attend games and listen to or watch them all. I had class with Dwight Smith and Chase Blackburn. I love that we have an NFL HoF'er in Jason Taylor. Our history involving John Heisman and the forward pass are great bits of our history and tradition. I reiterate, suspending a handful of the athletics programs, including football, is the prudent thing to do. If not suspending them, firing Bowden was a terrible decision.

We could find another conference if being in the MAC requires continuous football. As I said in a more recent post in this thread, I'd be all about reducing women's programs commensurate with the loss of football. UA's financial problems are easily fixable; athletics are a luxury. If those who donate towards athletics were told that UA's overall success depends on reductions in athletics and corresponding donations being best allocated to academics, I think most alums and friends of UA would concur and participate accordingly. Academic program reductions should focus on the liberal arts. as UA is more of a STEM school. However, all reductions should be made after negotiating with CSU, KSU, and YSU about corresponding reductions and concentrating certain programs at specific universities. For example, UA, CSU, and YSU don't all need colleges of engineering. What programs could UA and CSU cede to YSU to compensate for contracting their engineering?

Yeah, given the situation, the fact that UA is still trying to build and accelerate athletics spending says all I need to know about the cause of UA's problems. Suspending the football program in addition to several women's sports commensurate with Title IX is the right thing to do. UA softball and volleyball have never been good. They can be suspended until academics and finances recover. I'd rather have a physics department and comprehensive Ph.D. programs than athletics. We are afterall a University, not an athletics club.

Bowden deserved another year if for no other reason than UA cannot reasonably justify eating a $500,000 contract given its financial circumstances. Also, while the progrum wasn't where we hoped it would be, Bowden is probably the most successful coach of our D-1 era. One bad season does not justify being fired, particularly given our football history. This was not a prudent decision.

It is disgraceful that the justification for the cancellation of 80 academic programs was financial difficulties and then shortly after, we eat a $500,000 per year contract for a fired football coach for a program that costs around $10 million per year to run. Shame on the Board of Trustees! This is irresponsible and further proves that the BoT are not looking out for the best interest of UA or the Akron community. How much better off would UA be if football were suspended as a program for five years so that debt on the stadium could be paid down and additional support be given to the academic faculty to strengthen research programs? Though for different reasons, the suspension of the UAB football program worked out favorably for its competitiveness. That $50 million would go a long way towards turning UA around while not sacrificing anything academic. This is exactly what we need new, long-term leadership for.

Where's Bob Costas when you really need him?!

A la NCAA precedent from when this happened to us against Northwestern so many years ago, shouldn't the game be move to Akron?

Been a busy week, but I've been meaning to chime in here... The seeding was fair. The Akron men's soccer brand is well established and recognized. We were borderline for getting a seed and lost 3-1 at home to Syracuse among other mysterious losses throughout the season. Syracuse was seeded one slot ahead of us, fine and fair. That said, we have played well below our potential most of the season. Do you think there is a team that Syracuse and Wake would least like to face this early in the Tournament than us? I don't. Any one, any where, any time! Syracuse will play tough, but I think we have an overall edge in talent. If we continue to play as we have the past 2-3 weeks, 3-2 in favor of the Zips. Syracuse has lost five in a row and haven't played since the end of October. The opening NCAAT home game against a recently accomplished and respectable opponent (even if no name to Joe Akron) that we have never played was interesting and nice to have in spite of the poor weather. I was impressed with both teams' ability to pass and control the ball in spite of the field conditions. Maybe it wasn't as bad on the field as it looked on TV? It was great to be able to watch in HD on my TV while the weather outside here in MD was also terrible.

Most of those programs were not at all redundant nor out of demand. UA needs to decide if it is primarily an athletics club that happens to have academic programs or vice versa.

And after announcing that over eighty academic programs would be cancelled. Disgusting!

There is much more to a college education than vocational training. In general, relative to someone with lesser education, a college graduate should be able to: 1) think independently, 2) work within a team, 3) learn throughout life, etc, etc, etc... Again, I am not opposed to cuts or consolidation of programs. It is the hasty way it was done and outside of the context of stable leadership and a clear vision for the future of the University. There is inconsistency in the statements put out about the motivation for the cuts that makes things even more suspect. I am not a partisan, and I actually abhor them. It's unfortunate, particularly as a fellow UA alum, that you find the need to make petty opposition rather than seeing it as a great loss to our common interest.

A Letter to the Editor from one of the UA faculty members is here: https://www.ohio.com/akron/editorial/voice-of-the-people/letters-to-the-editor-aug-24-university-of-akron-is-alone-in-attacks-on-history-sociology-compromise-on-akron-primary-should-be-easier Why does it not surprise me to read that these cuts are being motivated by partisan politics? Members of the UA community looking to give feedback can write to: M. Celeste Cook Secretary of the Board of Trustees University of Akron mcook@uakron.edu

But good for him for demonstrating real leadership. I have already started to advocate against most of the cuts to STEM programs, and I'd like to encourage others to do the same.

They say there is low demand, but as today's article demonstrates, that's not necessarily true. Even if there is low demand in certain programs, that is bean counting at its finest. There has been no consideration for the impact cutting a graduate program may have on the corresponding undergraduate programs and faculty or research and innovation. Cuts to ANY programs without a cohesive new mission statement and 15+ year plan in place at the university level are unjustified!

President Proenza used to talk about university innovation and research being a key to the regional economic engine. Faculty and students are attracted to the research of Ph.D. programs, which are the foundation of university innovation and research. No Ph.D. programs, no innovation or research, no local economy. This is true for STEM programs. In the arts, less graduate programs mean diminished local culture.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/local/what-university-of-akron-programs-are-being-cut This isn't a comprehensive list, but it's the most extensive thus far. It's hard to believe that UA would cut ANY STEM programs. Fashion design and some of the hospitality programs I get, but physics, math, and some of the health and education programs...come on! Ph.D. programs are the last things that should be cut. They are the most difficult to establish, drive prestige and excellence, and are key to the regional economy. In another article, it specifies that, "The areas of investment are: cybersecurity, criminal justice and emergency services; polymer and chemical sciences; health and biosciences; performing arts; digital communication; and business, law and education." The statement is not consistent with the programs that are being cut. https://www.ohio.com/akron/writers/katie-byard/ua-sheds-80-degree-programs-plans-to-beef-up-others-including-cybersecurity-polymer-science-engineering-dance-and-business I am saddened by this development.

http://golobos.com/news/2018/7/18/general-changes-proposed-to-unm-athletics.aspx I was surprised to learn that men's soccer is one of many sports that are being dropped by the University of New Mexico. That program has been very strong, nationally, for a couple decades and was in serious contention for several national titles. Like us, they are one of a small handful of schools that are not P5 but still a major national power. UNM has great soccer facilities too. What a poor decision by the administration. The article also includes a nice tally of men's and women's NCAA programs added and discontinued over the past decade for which data is available.