Zipgrad1990

I'm a big Charlie fan, but even I couldn't rank him much differently based on his play so far. I don't know how much higher you can rank him based on the bad team he had around him. The only way to know for sure would be to take the top ranked qb and play him on the Browns last season to see what it does to that qb's rating. Since this is impossible, Charlie may deserve being a couple of spots higher due to the state of his team last year. But I don't see moving him up more than 2-3 spots. Besides if you do this for all the qbs, maybe Charlie would end up back at number 31 anyway.This is the year for Charlie to proof himself. Either he improves or his career as a starter is over. I think he can hang around as a backup somewhere, even here in Cleveland if he wants.

It takes more then a qb to win at a team sport. I am sure it will be. Its the Brown's coaches decision on who starts the regular season after they look at all 4 qbs during the preseason.Am I biased because I am a Zip in my admiration of Frye? Probably so, but I still think it was a mistake for the Browns to draft a qb this year and especially not Quinn. Hopefully I'll eat have to eat these words, but I don't think Quinn is any better then Frye!I have no problems with Frye being in competition to be the Brown's starting quarterback. I'm just glad is a coaches decision and not one left up to Brown's fans! Most of them have already cut Frye from the team or at least demoted him to third string!

The 2 things that really irk me are - Quinn is ready to play now and Charlie Frye is worthless. On the first issue I don't think any rookie qb is ready to play from game 1. Of course lots of teams throw them in anyway. On issue 2 the jury is still out, but I hate everyone crowning Quinn as the starter and savior of the Browns before he has even thrown 1 NFL pass.

I read the comments on the website you listed-At least a number of people realize it would be better to have BQ sit for all or most of this season. Other idiots slam Frye and think he is worthless. A guy who had no offensive line and is still a young qb without a vetern qb to mentor him and Frye only has what 18 starts and that makes him worthless? This is a make or break year for Frye, if nothing else to get another team interested in trading for him.I wish the Browns would have waited until next year to pick up a qb (if Frye doesn't pan out). But supposedly next years qb crop is weak. Assuming Frye is the starter for the beginning of the season one bad game and the BQ chants will come out. Hopefully Frye does well or it will be a tough year for him!

Why don't you think Frye will ever start again? I think the Browns need to sit BQ for at least half the season and hopefully all the season. That is the smart thing to do with rookie qbs! That means Frye (or Anderson) should start most if not all of next season.Why does everyone think Frye is leaving the Browns? Sure he would rather be the starter but he is a team player and I'm sure he will assume the role of backup when the Browns decide to start BQ.Frye's stats aren't that much worse then Peyton Manning at the same time in their careers. Now I don't think Charlie is in Peyton's league, but he has only had 16-17 starts under his belt and too many Brown's fans aren't giving him enough of a chance. I think Charlie might be able to be the starter on a team that emphasizes the run and has a good offensive line. (See Steelers of 2005). He at least should be a backup either with the Browns or elsewhere.My biggest problem with the BQ pick is the Browns have more pressing needs and qb could have been addressed next year if required. I would have stopped being a Browns fan if they would have picked up BQ with the third overall pick. However picking him up at number 22 is about where he should be. I just hope the Browns didn't overspend by giving away next year's number 1 pick. I'm no BQ fan, but we will see if he is the francise qb everyone hopes for. I just hope we don't see him play until 2008!

I agree but judging by the boards on Cleveland.com most Browns fans believe this is a great trade. They also think BQ is the next Bernie Kosar!

I agree and grow weary of all the Frye bashers on cleveland.com. I think Frye should play and hopefully start next year as BQ sits. Then with our improved line he can show what he is capable of and move on to a better franchise. I'm still not convinced BQ is any better then Frye, but we shall see.Maybe Frye can go to Miami and join fellow Zip Jason Taylor?

If this pick is correct I think I am going to

According to what I can find on roster limits:12 scholarships per team 15 players may suit up and travel with the team to away games, conference tourneys and the NCAA tourney You may exceed 15 players on your team. The total number and the names of those players on your "team" must be submitted before the start of the season and you may not exceed that number for that season, it is from that number you may "draw" your 15 "traveling" players from. All players may suit up and sit on the bench for home games even if they are not "active" for said game. Since I found this on a discussion board, it may not be accurate but it does sound reasonable so hopefully it is accurate too.

I agree! The committee has not selected high rpi teams on many occasions because they weren't from a major conference. And on the flip side the committee likes to argue rpi when it lets too many teams in from a major conference. One 2007 example of this was the Big Ten getting 5 teams in when they should only have gotten 2-3.

I think smart teams keep a rookie on the bench for most or all of his first season so Charlie will still get his shot to start for the beginning of the season at least. If he doesn't perform at a high level he will either be gone or become the backup. And regardless the Browns won't pay big dollars for a backup qb (Quinn) for long if Charlie does do a good job. So if the Browns draft a qb this year at best Frye wil play as the potential starter for this season only.That said, I don't think the Browns are a smart team to draft a qb. They need an offensive line and then they should keep the existing qbs to see if they pan out. They have so many needs they can wait until next year to draft a qb.If the Browns did draft a qb they would probably be stupid enough to play him right away too, thereby hurting the new qb and taking away any chance Frye has to play. Except of course when the new qb gets pounded so bad due to our lack of O-line he is injured giving Frye a chance.

I see the Zips finished number 10 in the final Mid-Major poll. Apparently all these polls and even the RPI don't mean anything though since the Zips didn't get any post season selections.

Akron has a better chance of beating OSU at the Jar then at OSU. That said I think 999 times out of 1000 OSU will win. That other 1 time would take career nights from everyone on the Zips plus off games from everyone from OSU.I think the point most people are making is that it IS possible (as slim as those chances are) for Akron to win at the JAR, whereas at OSU the changes are virtually non-existant, and therefore OSU won't play us here. I think it has just as much to do with money though. I think OSU would play us at the JAR if the JAR held 10,000 or more. otherwise they will want a bigger site such as the Q.Even to get OSU to play us at the Q would take one of those 2-1 or 3-1 deals. I think a 3-1 deal is ridiculous. I think a 2-1 is okay to get the chance to play OSU.One other thing Oden won't be with OSU next year so the chances are better next year of us winning then this year anyhow.

My wife isn't looking over mine, nor would she care is she was. My only problem with Title IX is that their is no equivalent to football for women, which leads to cutting of men's sports to make the numbers equal.Rather than cutting men's sports I wish they would be allowed to give out an equal amount of scholarships for women to equal the number of football scholarships. That would be more fair then cutting men's sports programs to make sure the number of men and women athletic scholarships are equal.

I thought it would be cool to have a shirt (or maybe just a cartoon) depicting a bunch of old men playing cards with Rejects written on the table with cards scattered around the table and each card showing a team NOT selected to the NIT. In each old man's hand are several cards of the teams that were selected. The caption would read something like "Does everyone have their favorites for the NIT in their hands?" Maybe each old guy could have a jacket or a shirt depicting the major conference they came from too.On the floor is a card by itself which is The University of Akron card. If I had any drawing skills at all I would just draw it. It would be far more interesting seeing it then just the words.

Niagra lost by 40 to #1 seed Kansas and Miami of Ohio lost by only 2 to #3 seed Oregon, I would hardly lump Miami in with Niagra. And I think both Akron and Can't were better than Miami, possibly Toledo was better than Miami too. Okay maybe not Toledo after their sorry performance in the NIT.A guy I work with from Ohio University said they should only have 30 or so teams in the NCAA because no small schools will ever win it. I told him that may be true, but if you do that then the major schools get all the money and exposure. Besides I enjoy watching the "little guys" win even if only for a round or two.Maybe they should have a small school tournament for teams like Akron that should have been in - Oh wait that is what the NIT is for I thought!

I find it easier to pull for Miami then I did for Can't State. But I still pulled for Can't and I will pull for Miami too!

Since the NIT now takes the conference winner if not selected to the NIT, the MAC needs to either go back to one division or at least play a balanced schedule. Akron only got to play Toledo at Toledo, and Toledo played most of their games against the weaker west. Maybe Toledo would have still won the division, but I would prefer they would have had to earn it by playing every team from both the East and West twice. And who knows years from now the shoe might be on the other foot with the west being strong and the east being weak.Another thought - why did we have Duquesne on Monday 2/26? Miami of Ohio only had to play 2 games (3/1 & 3/4) the week before the tournament, Akron had 3 (2/26, 3/1, & 3/4). Maybe that explains why we seemed to be the more tired team at the end of the MAC Championship game.

Why is OSU Ohio's college anyway? Ohio University existed before OSU. Maybe OU is Ohio's University?I am a Zip Alumni, but my parents both graduated from OU so don't think I am serious about pulling for OU, but I would certainly pick them over Columbus University.

I think a bracket buster should be just that. The Austin Peay game didn't help us (and may have hurt us) and wouldn't have helped Austin Peay if they would have won.Instead of mid-major verses mid-major as it is now. It should be mid-major verses major. Now that would be exciting especially if the mid-majors got to host all the games. Of course the majors would never go for it. No upside for them. We would see how overrated some of them are and hurt their chances come NCAA tournament time. And beating a mid-major is expected so they get now gain out of a win.

Looks good. Any type of calculation is better than leaving it up to humans. I posted the below on Fox and as a late add to my thread started about using computer selection. I'll add it below since it indirectly relates to this thread:What other ways would improve the selection process?How about this?Get rid of the NIT, add those 32 spots, toss out the play in game so the NCAA tournament is 96 teams. The 32 strongest teams get a bye, first round is 64 teams (as is the second round).Teams must play at least half their games on the road and no team (other than conference tournament winners) can be considered for the tournament without winning at least 65% of their games (sort of how college football teams aren't bowl eligible unless they are .500 or better)The last 2 are to try to force major conferences to play more mid-majors at the mid-major site or at least play them more (since they think they can beat us easily to help with the 65% rule).

I find a 10 seed hard to believe. Since Miami got a 14 seed, I would think we would be more like a 12 or 13 seed.Its all moot now. Oh well at least

What other ways would improve the selection process?How about this?Get rid of the NIT, add those 32 spots, toss out the play in game so the NCAA tournament is 96 teams. The 32 strongest teams get a bye, first round is 64 teams (as is the second round).Teams must play at least half their games on the road and no team (other than conference tournament winners) can be considered for the tournament without winning at least 65% of their games (sort of how college football teams aren't bowl eligible unless they are .500 or better)The last 2 are to try to force major conferences to play more mid-majors at the mid-major site or at least play them more (since they think they can beat us easily to help with the 65% rule).

I think their should not be comittees to pick either the NCAA tournament bids or the NIT bids. Instead once all the automatic bids are filled in, the computer ranks and picks all the remaining teams. The computer would also rank them all an fill in the brackets. All they need is someone to submitt the printouts for publication.I know the NCAA claims they use RPI, SOS, etc, but as you can see the human element is unfortunately alive and well. I would vote for using the Saragin Ratings instead of RPI and SOS (even though his ratings do take into account SOS too) alone.Many times the NCAA tournament has said its all about RPI only to turn around and snub a team for the tournament that based on RPI should be in. I'm not talking about Akron as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned or even necessarily this year. I am sure their are many examples this year for the NCAA tournament and our own example in the NIT.Of course the NCAA will claim the human element is required. That is their line of BS to make sure they get in as many teams from major conferences as possible. I think interest would be even greater if it was all done by computer - more fair, more mid-majors, more excitment! I get tired of the same old teams year after year.

I agree - Go Toledo and go Miami!Show the selection committees what asses they are for not taking another MAC team in the post season!I think next year the MAC will be much tougher. At least I think Toledo, Can't, Miami, and Akron will be better. I'm not sure about the rest of the conference, but I hope they will all be better too!Hopefully in 2008 we will break the 1 bid we have been stuck on in the NCAA tournament since 1999. In fact I want to see us get 4-5 teams in (2 NCAA and 2-3 NIT).