UAZipster0305

Princeton is a great match up for us, and the bracket is favorable. Every team up to the final is beatable. I even like our chances at IU, if we beat Princeton.

This is the best we could have hoped for. We would not meet OSU or Georgetown until the final, and I honestly believe: 1) we are good enough to get there, and 2) there are no other teams that we can't beat, even on the road.

We're hating on each other during Kent week?!...really??? It's 9:44 PM EST, and...

Except in the NCAA Championship game...our PK loss to UVA many years ago in the NCAA final was not counted as a tie, but a loss.

I'd love for us to host IU or Michigan, and I think these outcomes are entirely possible. I don't think there is any way that we do not make the NCAAT. A few bad losses very early in the season leading to a misleadingly high RPI is the only thing that even makes us borderline. We are currently one of the best teams in the country and could make a deep run. IMO, there is no way the selection committee overlooks these things. We also no longer have the MAC as a terrible, no name conference as an excuse. The Big East is legit, and we are the regular season champions.

Not to mention parking, concessions, and merchandise revenues. We can dream!

That same link also shows that we are the #6 highest scoring offense in the country. Pretty amazing considering how poorly the season started. Also, Georgetown and UConn are top rated defenses. We broke through and drew blood to defeat one but not the other. It will be interesting how the balance of offensive strength versus defensive strength plays out in a rematch with Georgetown.

At this point, the only scenario I can envision in which we do not get in to the tournament is by losing to Georgetown by two or more and then Georgetown losing and not playing well in the final. We are afterall, the Big East regular season champions, and we've not lost (thus far) in about thirteen games. (I am too lazy to review the schedule and figure out the exact number.)

I think there's a case to be made that even if we lose to Georgetown by 1, especially if Georgetown go on to win the Big East Tournament, that we should get serious consideration for a top 16 seed. Will we get it?...likely not, but a case can and should be made.

Agree to disagree. Why a full 20 minutes? In my opinion, the teams had the opportunity to settle the scoreless tie that starts the game, and that opportunity was the full 90. Sudden death is an attempt to decide the game on the merits of field play rather than having to resort to penalty kicks. Like fknbuflobo said, I also appreciate the potential for injuries when additional time is added, which is another reason I think extra time should be limited to sudden death.

Let's both agree then on our endorsement of Sudden Death for NCAA tournaments then! Cheers!!!

I watch a TON of European football. The argument for ties in such leagues are much different because it is a table format with other simultaneous competitions such as Champions and Europa leagues, domestic cups, and international team games and tournaments. Players and even entire rosters need the rest. Also, very few inferior European teams "park the bus" to play for a tie for fear of being shamed. Instead, nearly all try to score on fast counterattacks with only 2-4 players committed offensively. The comparison is not relevant to NCAA soccer. NCAA teams literally play only ~20 games per year, and I have watched many Zips' opponents put all 11 players within 35 yards of goal. It's the epitome of boring and pathetic. From a fan's perspective, and specific to this season, I much would have preferred to risk losing and play OT against Notre Dame, Western Michigan, and Cleveland State. Notre Dame and Western Michigan were top 5 teams at the time, and wins for us would have meant much more than ties...and who wouldn't want to watch more competition between some of the best teams in the country?! Again, nobody plays to tie unless they are an inferior opponent...it's a loser's mentality.

That's the nature of soccer. It's low scoring in general, so with only 22% (20/90) additional time, a goal to break the tie is not expected, unless one team is really dominant. I still say play the ET. I don't show up to watch the Zips tie, I watch to see them win, especially against high caliber opponents. Even as a player, I play to win and would choose the ET. Nobody plays to tie unless they are an inferior opponent.

I also respectfully disagree. The extra minutes reward a team with a deeper bench or more fitness, both of which mitigate injuries. It's up to the coach to manage these risks appropriately.

I wish the regular season were like this too. No OT rewards teams for parking the bus and allows underdog teams to play not to lose. If OT were implemented for the regular season, I think we would have a few more W's on our resume.

Good thought, but I respectfully disagree with this strategy. The players should start and be coached to not be so aggressive that they get carded. I think it's important to keep continuity in the lineup and maintain our winning momentum, especially against a big brand and traditionally strong program like UConn.

Always looking for a chance on goal with every touch...that's what makes a striker an assasin!

No game thread for yet another notable Big East opponent, so I'll start one. I am excited for potential win #9 in a row, and we are undefeated on the road so far. Is this a trap game before heading to UConn next week? Marquette is 6-5-4 (2-2-2) on the season with no wins against top-tiered teams. The Zips are 8-1-5 all-time against Marquette with the lone loss coming in the NCAAT on the road about ten years ago. I don't recall specifics, but I have the perception that we somehow got shafted in that game. If anyone has details, please remind me. Anyhow, I'd love to see another solid team win with Emil getting in on multiple goal contributions and a shutout for our defense. Prediction: another 3-0 domination. Go Zips! Keep it rolling!

...if only we could have those games against CSU, IU-I, and Temple back. Ouch! Those hurt, but man, we are on a roll now!

Solid win! 3-0 by score, 17-4 on shots, 5-2 on corners...dominant by all superficial metrics.

I believe we may have a Herman Trophy finalist on our pitch!

I'm sorry that's upsetting to you, and I say that sincerely. The lack of success is painful for anyone who is a passionate supporter of UA, which obviously includes you and anyone else on this forum. However, discussion of the past is certainly relevant to the future because we keep doing the same thing over, expecting different results. We are not learning or evolving in a positive way. It's insane. I want to see Coach Moorhead succeed but so far he has not. Due to experiences from the past and the fact that UA cannot afford to buy out more contracts, he should not be replaced until either he leaves on his own choosing or his contract expires. Had we done that with two prior coaches, the program and UA as a whole may be in more favorable conditions.

At least 2+ of those seasons were in trying to turn around the program, and Bowden's success is still way better than any other coach has done since and arguably before. How many other Akron coach's at the D-1A level have had multiple 6+ win seasons? Our MACC coach JD Brookhart was also run off because there are people here believe we can become Boise State who we as a university, athletics department, geographic region, etc., have nothing in common with. It's delusional because it does not accept that we will still have some down seasons, even with a solid coach. Bowden and Brookhart both got us to the top of the MAC, and that is what is realistic. They both should have been retained. The revolving door of coaches, essentially playing roulette, is not going to get us to the top of the MAC. UA can no longer afford to be buying out a multi-million dollar contract every five years either.

I don't see a statue for Bowden for our an 8-5 season and our only bowl win ever.

15-20 years old or not, our facilities are still tops in the MAC, and a competent staff should be able to leverage them. Is it just bad luck in not being able to hire a coach who is capable of such a strong reversal of momentum? BUGS hired Urban Meyer. The WMU coach from about five years ago was excellent. Someone out there like them is available, it's just a matter of finding them and getting them committed before their skillset is too expensive. Why can't our administrators take a risk on someone young and charismatic who we can afford? Hiring coaches in their '60's, despite their experience, is not going to get the program turned around because they do not have a hunger, vision, or connection to high school and college men. Also, if we can afford them in their '60's, they do not have the skillset to get things turned around. If they did, we would not be able to afford them. Bottom line, we need a Moneyball approach to think outside the box. Trying to do things as we have been and like everyone else is futile.