Let'sGoZips94

Wait, what? So having political thoughts is part of the problem? I don't identify with a political party either, but I have political thoughts based around certain ideals. That's not the problem in the least. 1) I don't even know where to begin. 2/3) There's a difference between putting people in positions to succeed based on their personal experience in that field, and putting lobbyists in positions as favors. I don't know how I feel about DeVos, but her idea of privatizing our educational systems shouldn't be automatically dismissed. Actually, several of Trump's cabinet picks have the goal of privatizing at least certain parts of their departments. Government is too big. Privatizing certain areas would kill two birds by shrinking government (therefore cutting spending, stretching our tax dollars the extra mile and even allowing more tax cuts), and drain the swamp. There is nothing wrong with people getting rich in a free market, capitalist society. There is something wrong with people getting rich on my/our tax dollars (Obama, Bernie Sanders, Clintons, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain to name a few). Look deeper into Trump and his actions, by the way. They are far from the swamp. He has been donating the presidential salary. Melania cut the number of her assistants from Michelle's 24 (totaling $1.24M in annual salaries) to 4 (less than $500k in annual salaries), saving the tax payers hundreds of thousands already. The number of people working for Trump is down 110 people from Obama's staff, saving taxpayers $5.1M per year. He took care of ISIS. He's been deregulating the economy and EPA, which promotes job growth and takes the foot off our farmers' throats, but maintaining an emphasis on taking care of our planet. Look at what our economy is doing (BOOMING); economies don't boom like this under the swamp's socialist leadership and policies. Instead of funding other countries, he's taking that money and putting it into our infrastructure, military, and other areas of need that have been neglected. Draining the swamp isn't about preventing already wealthy people from getting wealthier with their own business. Draining the swamp is about preventing the overgrowth of government and foreign influence in our government; it's about preventing our capitalist republic from being destroyed, and preventing our government from taking advantage of the people for their own gain. Have you heard about Uranium One? How about Operation Fast and Furious? Did you see the Politico article about Obama preventing the DEA from doing its job (they were targeting drug trafficking by the Iran-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah) in order for the Iran Nuclear Deal to go through? THAT'S the swamp. THAT'S what needs drained. The fears that have been mentioned, they're repetitive talking points from a playbook co-written by Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. They pray on the public's bleeding hearts and fears. If you don't agree with them, they then label you as racists, sexists, homophobes, misogynist, etc. Do you know how many times I've been called those things, or an extremist? HUGE amounts; like Trump's exaggerations amounts (see, I can have fun ). Are they true? Heck no. My beliefs stem from our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Does that sound so extreme, racist (no, I don't share the belief in slavery that of the Founding Fathers had), sexists, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.? No? Then be careful with the personal attacks. As I previously stated, politics is a very important topic to discuss, and I don't believe it's something that shouldn't be publicly discussed. However, when it is discussed, it needs to be done in a civil manner. We have gotten so far off the topic of Net Neutrality, so I will most likely end my involvement with this thread with this post. Good talk, gentlemen. As always, Go Zips and .

Responses in order of the bold... - In general in the last 17 years, I think people have voted based on issues that don't matter, at least not nearly as much. But last year's election was fully based on important issues. - Trump is doing what he can to drain the swamp. I believe he's a chess master, playing 10 moves ahead of his opponents. Hence why he hasn't fired Mueller and the special counsel; he's letting them discredit themselves, and eventually they'll go away. There are certainly some questions I have, but ISIS has largely been defeated, the economy looks to be headed like a freight train in the right direction (like I said, we need to get our spending under control and lower our debt), and tax cuts (although I don't think taxes are being cut enough) look to be getting passed. A lot of good is happening for me to believe he is keeping his word on most everything. - The swamp put in Net Neutrality. Why would they want to get rid of it? The swamp is largely of the same ideological group that is crying about it being gone. Also, keep in mind who put Net Neutrality in place in 2015 - the same people that gave us the Affordable Care Act, which there is nothing affordable about. Just like there is nothing neutral about 2015 Net Neutrality. They label their big ideas as such that the sheep in society buy into it.

There's an Ohio Bobblehead Collectors page on Facebook for anyone looking to make a bit on their unwanted bobbleheads.

He was the first president since Hoover to never see an annual GDP growth of 3%. Don't kid yourself. The reason he never saw 3% GDP growth, even in the years where he had 4-6% quarters, was because the other quarters were so incredibly poor, even negative at times. Additionally, if we're throwing out the outliers at the beginning of a presidency, Trump hasn't seen a quarter of GDP growth under 3% yet. Again, I don't want to get into Trump vs. Obama. Talk about escalated Groce vs. Dambrot discussion.

Wait just a minute. You're telling me being the only mid-major on the list of teams with X amount of consecutive seasons with 21+ wins, that didn't separate us? This makes sense. I forgot about the conference realignment that took place. I am surprised CBS or Fox hasn't restarted it.

What was the loophole they exploited, and what was the benefit for the corporations? What if the status-quo was improper to begin with? Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, it is still against the law for these ISPs to selective throttle or accelerate individual sites. I'm not siding with lawyers; I'm on the side of capitalism and a free market. It's amazing how the government will close the supposed loophole these corporations found in the internet/Net Neutrality, but won't simplify the tax code and close the tax loopholes that each of them and their lobbyists exploit. The bold part above shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of this country. The Constitution was written to protect the people from the tyranny of government; they weren't written to portray government as some sort of God, with the Bill of Rights being its Ten Commandments. First of all, I said most things. Some regulations to keep an industry/companies honest and accountable can be good. I don't believe I've yet made a blanket, 100% statement about the evils and corruption in government. Second of all, my "narrow" point of view is hardly "narrow" as it has a pretty expansive view of the history of the world, not just the US. The US is a very unique country, with its Constitution and capitalist economy, yet still being VERY young. Third of all, for every example shared about government being "good", I can share multiple, negative examples of government involvement. This is a back and forth I don't want to get into at this point in time, but would be more than happy to debate/discuss another time. To get back to the main purpose of this thread, we are now a couple days into the repeal of Net Neutrality. Have any of you lost your internet capabilities and accessibility?

Why did those go away again?

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.