UAZipster0305

Are you a Browns, Indians, and Cavs fan as well? Loyalty is admirable to a point and then it becomes masochistic. If the Zips looked as bad every game as they did last night, they wouldn't be worthy of dedication from the most loyal of alumni. Fortunately, we've had 7 seasons of relatively constant improvement and may have the most talented team in the history of the program. I'm chalking up last night to immaturity. Let's move forward.

Down 19 at half? Really? I don't know why the only nationally televised game we play well in is the MACC. IMO, this is the source of our lack of national respect.

I meant my correction in a good-natured way. ZtZ, you're one of the most prolific posters on this board and I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage that. The win against Kentucky was huge. From what I can judge, UK is a mid- to top-level tennis program in the SEC. The scheduling has been outstanding...Big Ten (MSU), SEC (UK), Big East (WVU, Cincy, Louisville)...who can ask for anything more? This program is going places. And in an uppity sport like tennis, a win against a nationally-ranked Ivy League opponent is impressive too. I expect Brown to be much more difficult as they are ranked higher and beat us soundly last year. Nonetheless, I think the wins against UK and Dartmouth should be enough to put us in the Top 75. Unless UNM or UNA are exceptionally strong, the only other opponent that should be a struggle to win against this year would be Miami (until the NCAA Tournament, anyhow). Go Zips!

Good thread. One point that wasn't brought up in this article about Zeke: http://www.ohio.com/sports/ua-notebook-cen...-slump-1.266868 is that he wasn't in foul trouble throughout the game and was not constantly frustrated by the refs. He was able to just play his game. Sure, Dambrot's personal attention may have helped, but it wasn't the major factor in Zeke's solid performance against BUGS, IMO. Well done by the officials.

Some well-researched and highly thought out posts by wadszip in this thread. Kudos. As for wrestling, your point about some of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the area is noted. However, Can't having a nationally-ranked program is detrimental. As an analogy, consider academics...what are UA's nationally-ranked programs?...Polymer science/engineering and I/O psychology. Does Can't have those programs?...Nope. UA is competitive nationally because there is not a struggle to be the best in this region of the state. Also, does Can't have men's soccer?...Nope. There's a reason for that too. If UA adds a men's athletics program, it needs to be tennis. Look at what the woman have done / are doing. A men's program could be equally as successful. On-campus facilities are warranted, and a men's program would use the same facilities with no additional capital costs. Also, UA used to have a men's program, but I believe it was eliminated sometime in the late '90's. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Tennis and wrestling are also the same size in terms of roster and coaches. I understand if you're partial to wrestling, but it just won't happen. The likelihood of any programs being added before we are in a more lucrative conference and the football program being in better shape on the field (and subsequently on the balance sheet) are slim to none. Then, there's the Title IX issue. With regard to the conference move, I think it's definitely UA and UT. I also think it's a toss up if only one is taken. UT has the better past, UA has the brighter future potential and larger media market. Either way, it would be a good move both for the adding conference and the institution that moves and a big loss for the MAC.

If GP1 makes a statement in the forest and Mrs. GP1 isn't around to hear it, is he still wrong?

Great post, CK. I agree about the board buzzing in a very positive way all season long. This is the same fan base that withstood 2-22 with iCoach. For some perspective on what negativity is, Frenchy should revisit some of those threads.

matches

...never gets old saying that!

And what would the Captain know about that?

Kudos for being a good sport, but I was referring to you ALWAYS equally presenting both sides of everything. Fair analysis of the trends in today's game too. I didn't have to post because you already voiced (typed) many of my thoughts. I'll add that we got waxed on the boards today in spite of us having the size advantage and anticipating it as a relative strength.

This statement is the essence of 95% of your posts, DiG. Prop Joe strikes again. (And I mean this in only the friendliest of ways.)

I question the mental health of anyone supporting Cleveland professional teams. Why would anyone electively tolerate that level of abuse?

A good coach/teacher recognizes the difference and always motivates.

To this end, I am mentioning that this is the last opportunity for the conference to improve its RPI. If the MAC wins enough games in the Bracketbuster, it may be enough to marginally improve our at-large chances.

A secondary MAC team is worthy of an NIT bid this year. Regular season champ or not.

The NIT bid goes to the winner of the MAC regular season. I'm greedy and want that in hand for the exact reason you mentioned...here, Can't (Bobkitties, Canadians), go on a date with your sister while we strut to the prom and charm the queen.

What I want to see in a new basketball facility (in no particular order)... 1) Location: Downtown across from Canal Park with street front shops/restaurants like at the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh. This replaces a blighted property in an optimal downtown area adjacent to the edge of campus and new student housing. The football stadium should have been on campus because there is a tailgating culture that requires being outside and having a park-like campus that draws fans and alumni during the day, which adds to the experience. This is not so for basketball. The nightlife is where it is at for the basketball crowd. And even though my proposed location is technically "off-campus" it is not the off-campus that was the Rubber Bowl. Big difference! 2) Size: <8,000 is thinking way too small...especially if we make it to a real conference with name brand opponents. Thinking small is what got Cleveland an outdoor only football stadium that is only used 10 times per year. Meanwhile, cities like Detroit and Indy host the Super Bowl and college bowl games. We should aspire to NOT be like Cleveland. I want to have a credible bid to host NCAA Tournament games. No way that happens with <8,000 when Columbus, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all have large, elite arenas. Hosting such events bring economic benefits and carries national exposure. >=10,000 is necessary and could be fully utilized if a conference upgrade is in our future. 3) Functionality: The venue needs to be designed to provide an intimate atmosphere for basketball, but also be able to host hockey, concerts, and other events (Cirqu du Soleil, arena football, indoor soccer, etc.). Having a great basketball environment and a multi-purpose facility are not mutually exclusive if done intelligently. 4) Financing: Cut a deal with the City such that it is a jointly owned property. Doing so assists with paying for the arena provided it is multi-purpose (primarily for the City's benefit) and UA has 90% of the design input. The location noted above also benefits the City. Everyone wins!

I refuse to think like a Can't fan. Though I don't want the team taking this attitude, I'm prepared for nothing less than another MACC.

...and it only took three minutes to get that out there. I love the Nation!

It's 10:08PM, and...

Wow, a 6'6" sniper. That is tough to defend. We can't give this guy any second looks. Rebounding will be crucial, and it sounds like we have the advantage on that front.

It would be way short on members for soccer, which has to be considered vitally important to us. I'd add NIU and SIU in all sports (natural geographic rivals, one in each division) as they are good overall fits, have soccer programs, and add another state to the footprint. I would also invite Kentucky and South Carolina for soccer.

Or John Heisman. We don't capitalize on that at all even though he led us to victory over OSU and may have invented the forward pass on our campus.