Let'sGoZips94

Fake news. The Akron/FAU rivalry is the most lopsided in college football history. Have you not been reading this thread? Akron is 22 pt. underdogs to one of their biggest rivals.

So here's what I take from this history lesson. Near the very beginning of the internet, the government believed it to be a tool for the people. Companies eventually challenged this ruling, believing it to be a service that these ISPs provide, and therefore should be allowed to charge more/less for their services. The courts, which are designed to interpret and uphold our nation's laws (although they aren't always correct), ruled in their favor. Our government didn't like that, and then implemented their own Net Neutrality act. Thank you for sharing this, as it reaffirms my belief that Net Neutrality, especially the 2015 version, is truly government overreach. I don't necessarily have as much of an opinion on the 1996 version, as I was only 2 at the time and wasn't vigilant enough growing up to know right from wrong when it came to my internet experience. The internet is not a basic right; it is a service, and the courts ruled it as such. Therefore the service providers should be allowed to charge more/less. Just because the government has the oversight powers doesn't make it neutral. Lobbyists can easily influence the power. So I think the fear of selective throttling is irrelevant; just pay closer attention to your browsing speeds, and say something if you see something.

The corruption level in our government is unreal. Hence why the slogan "Drain the Swamp" was/is so popular. I actually think the problems derive from the two-party political system our Founding Fathers warned against. We've been divided into Democrats & Republicans, and instead of focusing on the issues, we focus on the parties. Not really a discussion to have in this thread, but it certainly is an interesting one to say the least.

Haha. Yes we do! I like political discussions, and believe they are VERY important, but we've lost the ability as a society to have them rationally.

The average GDP growth under the previous administration was 1.5%. Already this year, we've seen 3% GDP growth quarters, and possibly 4% to end the year. Based on your argument, we should settle for the 1.5% growth and never strive for better. Furthermore, we are not intended to be a socialist nation, therefore taxes should always be as low as possible. Why are you looking at how to make up for lost tax revenue instead of where the current tax revenue is being spent? To boot, we're $20 trillion in debt (which is double the debt when the previous administration took over, I should mention), so what we are spending, we don't have. Hold our government accountable. Until our debt is ZERO, or at least until our debt clock is counting down instead of up, our economy cannot be considered "good" or "great". Our economy is currently improving, but has A LONG way to go. We need to get back to our capitalist roots and away from the socialist ideology that has doomed (and has never been successful) so many countries throughout our world's history. I digress. Net Neutrality is simply government overreach, and was put in place to give regulatory powers to the government instead of letting the free market decide winners and losers, as Hilltopper previously mentioned. The law was put into place in 2015, 20(?)+ years after it was invented. The internet grew exponentially in that time frame, and was doing just fine. I am very pro small government. I think many of our issues in the present day USA begin with our dependence, as a society, on government. Therefore, anytime I read "repeal" when it comes to a government action, I'm usually pretty happy; actually, I can't think of a time I haven't been happy. History has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with. There are two fear-based arguments I've heard in defense of Net Neutrality: 1) ISPs will now have the power to regulate what each of us see, how quickly we see it, etc., supposedly infringing upon our First Amendment rights, and 2) ISPs will now be able to charge us for viewing internet sources. To debunk the defenses, here are my arguments. 1) - Regulation of source visibility has already been taking place, with Google and Facebook censoring Conservative sources. There have been numerous articles on this, and it's additionally proven when searching Net Neutrality via Google; the first "Conservative" source (which happens to be Fox News for me) doesn't show up until page 5. 1) - ISPs would be taking huge risks if they censored certain content. Lawsuits would be abundant, not to mention a presumed huge drop in customers. 2) - In regards to the ISPs charging for the use of internet sources, why shouldn't they be allowed to? The backbone of our capitalist economy is the free market. To apply it to this situation, let's say the only choice in your market is Spectrum. Say their business models show that raising their rates and charging for certain internet source packages is good for their business. That is their right. However, it is also your right to not pay for that service, or to create a rival company to challenge them. Additionally, if other existing companies (Comcast, AT&T, and local companies) see a high rate of customer dissatisfaction, they will probably be inclined to jump into that market and offer their services, thus creating competition and automatically driving down the rates, while improving the product/service quality. The inverse example would be our healthcare system, where there is virtually ZERO market, thus very limited or no competition, thus the incredibly high prices. Not to change the subject, but if health insurance were sold across state lines (like every other insurance is), the competition would drive prices down and improve the product/service quality. Without regulations, small business is allowed to excel, which will also help create competition. Should those companies fail, so be it. They are afforded the opportunity in this great nation to try and try again. Capitalism 101. 2) - As companies such as Netflix and Amazon have been mentioned to have seen massive growth since Net Neutrality, it should be mentioned that these companies were doing just fine before Net Neutrality, which also had nothing to do with their spike in growth post implementation. The Netflix growth is due to multiple factors, including a change in their business model (producing their own movies/shows) and the economic freedom of millennials having the funds to purchase Netflix themselves. Amazon's growth was also based on adjustments to their business model and services, with 2-day shipping via Prime being the icing on the cake. Neither company's success can be attributed to Net Neutrality, but who knows if they could have grown even more under a Net-Neutrality-free, free market. 2) - The fear of monopolies and/or oligopolies being created with the repeal of Net Neutrality are ill-advised fears. Monopolies and oligopolies can be created by the government just as easily, as seen with our healthcare system. This is very simple, and comes down to whether individual companies in a free market are trusted more than government. I, for one, find it very difficult to trust government. Period. Don't look to government to solve problems. Look to government to protect and uphold the basic rights (Constitution) that afford each of us to solve problems on our own.

Due to an emergency, I was unable to attend or watch the game. I'll probably watch the replay on ESPN3. It might actually be a positive thing to have beaten a team by 18 while playing sloppy. I'm excited for Hawaii. As previously mentioned, a win or two would be nice. Did anybody see Jerry Rice in attendance today?

I'm ok with keeping the JAR. However, all bleachers need to be replaced with chair backs. Additionally, the track needs to be removed and we need to have floor-to-rafters seating, maybe even some seating in the corners. The concourse needs redone as well. I like the idea of renovating the JAR if it's done properly. Arena uniqueness is fading across the sports landscape, with most new arenas using the same or similar blueprints. Not saying the JAR is a destination, iconic arena like Freedom Hall, Hinckley Fieldhouse, or Cameron Indoor, but it does have some classic characteristics. Lipstick on a pig? Maybe. But it isn't helpless.

Lolla was justified by his First Amendment right, but that doesn't mean he hasn't had egg on his face since, and it doesn't excuse the disrespect towards Akron behind the comment. I come from a thought process of beat the system, don't flee from it. Lolla fled. Porter beat it.

It's important to me because he left Akron similarly to how Ken Lolla did, spewing excuses left and right about the MAC and the JAR. I would love nothing more than to schedule Duquesne each and every year Dambrot is there, and beat him each and every year Dambrot is there. But I don't see them appearing on our schedule.

Welcome to being a fan of a G5 school. Although I will say what Clark said isn't entirely true. The MAC could definitely be a 2 bid league, but it would take an unworldly successful season with only a couple losses, and some nice wins OOC. That team would then have to lose in the MAC Championship Game. We've had seasons with as many as 26/27 wins, and haven't gotten in, but that's largely due to those wins being hollow in competition - i.e. last year. Yes, I'm saying there's a chance, but the odds are most definitely against us.

Get off this board.

USC is the replacement for Creighton/Gonzaga, and not having 2 of Creighton/Gonzaga is just fine for this team. MTSU/Princeton will be a nice challenge, as well as one of Davidson/NMSU/Miami/Hawaii. The fundamentals I'm seeing this year that I haven't in the past... - Ball movement - Off-the-ball movement - Emphasis on rebounding at both ends, not just falling back onto defense as soon as our shot goes up - Different defensive schemes (zones) - Going up strong around the basket and either dunking the ball or absorbing contact and still getting the shot up and in

Some might call it... Balsy. I actually kind of like it. I don't think anything that's been said has been out of line, and I like learning more about FAU. Now if only they would bring their weather with them when they come on this board...

Not in my opinion. Most of the teams we've faced this year have shot in the mid-high 40% range overall, some of them even reaching the 50% mark, and many of them also shooting in the low-mid 40% range from beyond the arc. Teams may change, but the basket, ball, and court measurements/dimensions don't. They are also more athletic than "creampuff" OOC opponents from the past. At least two of the teams we've played thus far have had powerhouse transfers (UTC had a Xavier transfer I believe, and IPFW had a Purdue transfer if I remember correctly); I know that doesn't always mean much, but they were recruited by their original schools for a reason. Time will tell how good we actually are, as well as our early season opponents, but I don't remember 1) the statistical output by past years' opponents and 2) the athleticism by past years' opponents. There are simply fundamentals that I'm seeing this year - both from us and our opponents - that I haven't seen in the past that lead me to believe we're going to be just fine.

Declaring that his departure from Akron was due to his feelings that he couldn't win a championship here, might be considered disparaging and lead fans to have negative feelings towards him. It's similar, on a much smaller scale, to LeBron leaving back in 2010. Leaving and how he did it left a bad taste in LOTS of fans' mouths.

Not that this is the thread to discuss the schedule topic, but this schedule is getting praise for 3 reasons... 1) The same old crap teams aren't on it. I don't see any North Carolina Alphabet Soup teams, no Coppin States, nobody like that. 2a) The teams that are on this schedule, while their records may not reflect it, are competitive. They are athletic and for the most part can shoot the ball well. The lesser schools we've played in the past have lacked the athleticism and skills to truly challenge us. 2b) The level of competitiveness we've seen is perfect for the youth and inexperience of this Zips squad. Groce has mentioned in post game interviews that we're getting the right level of competition, really testing all aspects of our game. With all of this being said (and to turn this discussion back on the game), I think we should more easily take care of MVS - similar to the second half of CSU and the entire UT Martin game.

By referring to Kent as Can't, you're doing more than just pandering; you're helping all of humanity. Excellent insight on Groce's use of the zone. I've never understood using just one type of defensive scheme, as most teams don't just use one offensive play or scheme. As previously mentioned, the 1-3-1 is particularly interesting as it's not used as often by teams, and when you set up in a 1-3-1, everyone from above can see you're in a 1-3-1; it's a very definitive formation. Does Groce prefer the 1-3-1 to the 2-3, 3-2, or other zone formations?

After watching the FG at the 2:12 mark in the video, I no longer like our chances. Clearly you guys use witchcraft, at least in your kicking game. I also haven't heard whether or not our delayed draw play has been removed from the playbook yet.

At the beginning of the year: no. But after seeing Groce's offense and how the big men are coached, this doesn't surprise me. There is a lot of off-the-ball movement, back cuts, and slip screens that lead to easy points in the paint. Additionally - as I've mentioned in other posts - the strength at which our forwards go up is terrific. EMan has really found himself in a good situation all of a sudden, seemingly always finding the space behind the defense to get open. As Clark stated, his effort is nothing short of awesome. I will NEVER get upset with Olojakpoke as long as he's pouring in the constant effort we've all seen thus far. Keep it up! On a side note, this is the second MAC East Division Player of the Week honor for a Zip in this young season. That's promising.

Referring to Kent as Can't is more than enough. It's the gift that will keep on giving as word spreads that KSUcks is failure.

You're officially one of us!

Please tell me our marketing department has reached out to the Football HoF to try and get Jerry Rice to make an appearance, maybe even with Jason Taylor.

Stanford just 3peated. Embick needs to have the team watch tape on them. They ALWAYS look to score. I think there can be a nice balance between our style and their style.

67, 76, 75, 83, 94. Those are the point totals we've put up at home this year, with that first game including a measly 22 pt. first half. Additionally, we have three players averaging double digit PPG so far, with two more right on the cusp of double digits. Not sure how you've come to the conclusion we're not going to be able to score much this season, especially at home. Must have been old rubberbands that broke immediately, because I sure saw a lot of unfurling t-shirts. At least the ones that were rubberbanded didn't end up in the rafters. Three great and true statements here. The basketball has been very entertaining. In the past, I've watched these bigger schools (or even other mid majors ) do the simple things such as back cuts and zone defenses, and wonder why the heck we never did any of that. We are really covering all the bases early on this year. Lots of zone defenses, back cuts, offensive rebounds, jumping the passing lanes. It's a BLAST! This team is truly a TEAM, and they're only going to get better. I really commend Ivey for finding his role on this team as a leader and a do-everything-but-not-out-of-control-hero-ball player. His entry pass to Big Mark was a thing of beauty, and I don't know how many times he's kept a possession alive by tipping out an offensive rebound; it's intelligent ball. When was the last time we didn't bail out after shots and actually go for offensive rebounds? When was the last time we committed to playing a zone, and played the zone effectively? When was the last time we had a guard big enough, physical enough, and intelligent enough to drive to the basket for "easy" baskets? When was the last time we had players intelligently pull up for the mid-range jumper AND knock it down relatively consistently? When was the last time our big men actually looked to slam the ball home or at least go up strong?

Great win. That was fun. Best crowd interaction this season.