Balsy

I love when people say "move on"...it's lazy, and paves the way towards acceptance and apathy. UA in my opinion, deserves better. The only way you do better, is by analyzing the mistakes of the past. Firing Terry Bowden was a mistake. Holding on to Ianello for too long would have been a mistake...hell letting him have a second year was a mistake. We need to understand that, and we need to prevent it from happening in the future, or there won't be a UA football program worth saving. Yes it is that obvious that he should have been kept: your University is strapped for cash, he had two years left on his contract, he had been in the history of D-1 football at UA the most successful coach, and there weren't any viable options of replacement out there. It's pretty damn clear he should have been kept. And we need to learn that lesson.

Where was this comment in regards to Bowden? Like the hypocrisy on comments like this is just laughable...DON'T trust the process with Bowden (a proven commodity)...but Please trust the process with Tom Arth (an unproven commodity). Sometimes you DO have to just cut and move on...to use the Browns as an analogy: you didn't need season 2 and 3 of Hugh Jackson to know that Hugh Jackson wasn't going to cut it.

That's fair. I know I come across as die-hard-Bowden...I'm really not. I thought Bowden brought us a little fun out of a miserable siutation...but if we hadn't seen another winning season by the END of his contract, then I would have been okay seeing him leave. I just feel that there was/is way too much good will for this staff by virtue of them being new. I really, really, really don't want to see this team dismantled the way it was under Ianello again. I highly doubt there is another Terry Bowden sitting out there to come rescue us back to middling mediocrity instead of utter dumpster fire.

There is no doubt in my mind there were vocal VIP (or at least think they are VIP) alumni who were starting to run their mouths. They might not be on this forum; but there is no way in hell there wasn't alumni making a stink to people who can make the decision to jettison the coach.

Funny how the Bowden-Sucked-Trust-The-Process people are slowly tapering off. The thread should probably start after we lose to BGSU in embarrassing fashion. Can anyone really tell the difference between these two seasons: Oh wait...the season on the right we'd won a game. The guy is a disaster in WAY over his head. And it saddens me that there are serious Zips fans on here who were happy jettisoning what we had for this.

Have you been to the vast majority of Ohio? You might as well be in North Dakota...

And they have far more success and Fan support than Akron will EVER have

He already attended grad school...at AKRON. (yet we jettisoned him for a guy with no connection to Akron, a 9-13 record, no notoriety in college football...). It's to keep his "Resume Recent" and he probably just wants something to do that doesn't jeopardize the two-year free paycheck for Akron jettisoning him prematurely. I've heard the Clemson area is very nice. lol. If I was collecting two-years salary to sit on my ass...shoot, I'd go do just about anything I've ever wanted to do.

Yup. Ianello 2.0. No. No We wouldn't. We would at the least have two wins under Bowden, maybe 3; and we would have been far more competitive in the games that we lost. Welcome to the darkside my friend. We have taco-tuesdays and yuengling on tap. Don't hold your breath.

Not going to happen. This team is the first 0-12 Zips team.

Kent Sucks. Go Zips. Here's to hoping we'll overcome 20% chance...at home...

And yet...those same 16-17 year old recruits somehow give a crap about Jason Taylor being an NFL Hall-of-Famer who played at Akron? It's really not that hard to understand. Bowden THE NAME carries a hell of a lot more weight than Arth, Ianello, Faust, Brookhart could ever hope to carry...combined. That's just a plain, straight-up fact. The 16-17 year olds may not know the Bowden Name, and what that means...but their coaches, their administrators, even their parents would. It's not 1967, there is this thing called the internet. And as someone who teaches 16-17 year olds...with $600 computers in their pockets...its pretty easy to google. When you google Bowden, Auburn and National Championship would appear. When you google Arth you'd get...9-13 at EastJesus Tennessee University? If you're a 16-17 year old actively being recruited in football; you'll probably take the half a second to google the school that expresses interest in you.

RooWards was pretty cutting-edge with all social media being attached to scoring points/competing back when it first came out. Stood the test of time though? No. That's because, if I'm not mistaken, the guy who came up with it was a graduate assistant and then entry-level who found employment at another University. Because you know...their good enough to go elsewhere but not good enough to hire and attempt to keep at Akron. Akron's motto should be: "Think Small" -HillTop High.

I'll state this flatly again, just so I'm not misunderstood: I don't contend that there was an increase in donations, I'm saying it's not substantial enough to really matter as an argument. During the relative success of the Bowden Era and Dambrot Eras the University of Akron went through it's toughest times financially; and athletics has been the number one hole. Obviously there was not enough of an increase to even remotely even get close to making either program solvent; because anyone who remotely follows the financials released by the University would know that. I'd wager any increase had far more to do with the people involved and their charisma: Tressel (a name) and Bowden (a name) and Dambrot (became a Name to alumi), than the Zips being a "winning program". But the increase frankly in the scheme of things, is irrelevant. Jettisoning said names for unknowns (Tressel for Scarborough...Bowden for Arth...and Dambrot for Groce) certainly doesn't help.

It's objectively not True with Akron. Basketball had the longest winning streak of like 25-games in 2013 and got an NCAA Bid. They had 3 NCAA bids in the Dambrot era. Was there a substantial increase in Attendance/Support/Donations? No. An increase? Sure. Substantial increase? No. Bowden got the first 8-win season in school history, and won the first Bowl Game in school history. Was there a huge increase in people attending games? No. Was there a huge increase in donors to the now "winning program"? No. It's just an objective fact what you say here simply isn't true. There is a much deeper, far more long standing, cultural issue with the wider University of Akron Alumni/student/NE Ohio base that's affecting those things.

Simply saying naked platitudes like "build it and they will come" or "the right staff" and not understanding/accepting your true circumstance, nothing will ever change. Going 0-12 is not change. Blindly casting dice and hope that you eventually strike a seven isn't a way to change something. Bowden's Staff when he first got here was definitely far above what a 2-22 team with one bowl appearance in 10 years could ever hope for. And things improved. From culture to results on the field. It just seems some people have delusions of grandeur.

That's why I put OU in a different category, I put them as a Tier 2. Ohio is far more attractive than Akron is. They have a history of winning. They have a culture of fan support (two things Akron DOES NOT have). Therefore we aren't in the same tier as the WMUs, Buffalos and Ohio Universities. All the other schools also have Facilities. This argument about "facilities" is not a factor in 2019. It just isn't. YSU now has facilities equal (if not better by virtue of being new) to ours. It's not the factor you think it is. Yeah we got those good players, when College Football was a completely different thing. Some kid might go unnoticed and develops into a Star in the NFL like Baker Mayfield did...oh wait, even Baker decided to believe in himself enough to go walk-on at Oklahoma instead of transferring to a lower Tier school like Akron and shining. It's 2019. It's not gonna happen.

Attracting local talent is not the problem: its attracting GOOD local talent. As a history of drafting players ot the NFL who have been in Superbowls; so has Kent, Toledo, Ohio and Ohio State; Hall of Fame, Just one player...who played here almost two decades ago. Sure I'll even throw in John Heisman himself coached here AND developed the under-center snap at Akron. Those things might matter to Zips Alumni; they don't really matter to anyone else, that's just being honest. Akron is IMHO, a third tier of where local talent would go: Tier 1: Ohio States, Big-Tens, Alabamas of the World. Tier 2: Cincinnatis, West Virginias (Bigger Schools away from here) the OUs of the world. Tier 3: The Akrons, Kents, BGSUs of the world. The players Akron would be getting are those that can't get to Tier 1 or Tier 2s, or the rare...and I mean RARE individual who could get into Tiers 1,2 and choose not to be there. The Best Shot Akron has is to get what decent recruits it has, from where-ever it can, with a healthy diet of transfers who go to those Tier-1s that don't crack the starting lineup and want to play other than being benchwarmers. I think it's delusional to think Talent is going to come to Akron on their own...regardless of who is the coach (except a big name WOULD help...).

You guys are delusional if you think any of the good NE Ohio Football players are going to come to Akron when it's 0-12, and have a history of not being good, and look like they're going anywhere but up. It doesn't matter how much talent is in an Area if you can't attract any of it. Number of guys on a roster from a region do not reflect if they actually have the talent or not.

Oh so Arth defenders get to rant away, but Arth detractors need to shorten themselves to a sentence...

You're damn right 8-5 with a first Bowl-Win in school History is a "good season" because WE'D NEVER HAD IT BEFORE! If you think Akron is going to do any better than that under Arth, you're flat out delusional. Because there is ZERO indication the Zips will approach anywhere near that level of "success" before Arth is jettisoned. And NO I'M NOT SAYING THAT TO HURT THE PROGRAM: I'm saying it because it's objectively true until Arth et al. Prove otherwise. The Zips 2019 are more circa 2011/2010 than circa 2015. Oh...as for the won 40% of his games...if you exclude the 1st season (which y'all tell me is a "rebuilding year" so it doesn't count...therefore we must apply that logic to Bowden as well) he won 49%. One more winning season would have gotten that over 50%. For Context (because it matters) Frank Solich, has won 57% of his games in his 14 year tenure at Ohio. In his first 6-years (to compare to Bowden) he was 40-36 with two Bowl appearances (no wins) and one MAC Championship appearance. Bowden (excluding his first year) was 34-41 with two Bowl Appearances (one win) and one MAC Championship Appearance. I personally believe Frank Solich and Ohio's last 14-years SHOULD be what we would Want here in Akron. Stability, and a CHANCE to shine every couple of years to every year. Using the logic being presented here Frank Solich would have been jettisoned in 2008 after going 4-8 , two years removed from a Bowl game and a year prior to them going 9-5 with a MACC and third bowl appearance (Bowden was 4-8 and only ONE year removed from a MACC appearance and Bowl-game). All we bitter people are trying to point out is that perhaps, maybe, the decision was made prematurely. Especially when he had two more years on his contract (that we are still paying him for right now). Did we really gain ANYTHING by jettisoning him and Bringing in 0-5 Arth? We don't think so. And we are objectively correct.

Northwestern (first big-10 win in school history) Kent State (important rivalry game to win regardless of their record...a rivalry game we will lose this year) Assuming it's True that Kato was hurt in the latter half of the season, and Ramart didn't pan out like planned, is it any surprise that the Zips went 4-8. I mean you can apply the "is it any surprise" standard to just about anything, if that's magically a good argument. Not one of us Arth detractors has made the argument that Arth and his staff isn't hard working. We're critical of the contention that he's somehow better than Bowden was (he's not, verifiably): Bowden was 82-69 in D-1 football. Arth is 0-5. Those of us detract from Arth not because we HOPE he can turn it around, or cheer for the Zips: we're pissed that it seems no improvement has happened. Period. Verifiably. And no, if we repeatedly post on ZNO to bitch about Arth et. al, we are not trying to bring the program down. Not anymore than the myriad of posters here who repeatedly posted on ZNO to bitch about Bowden and Milwee et al, were trying to bring the program down. It was perfectly okay for you and many others to attack me as a Bowden defender, but it's suddenly not okay for us to disagree with you. Hypocrisy much? Double standard much? But I'll ask you...what is there to be "fun" about right now? What is there to be "interested" in with Zips football right now? Sorry there are those of us who haven't drank the coolaide. I also find it somewhat interesting that there wasn't comment from you about having a "toxic enviornment" here when people did nothing but complain about the previous years of Zips football and attacked it's defenders.

Goodbye WagonWheel.

Yeah this entire staff makes Milwee look like a genius.

I am personally glad that you are here. It's good to know there are those out there who give-a-damn and don't buy the bullshit. I love those on this forum and their passion even though a number of them don't care for me much; but it's because we refuse to sugarcoat the turd. We as an alumni base fought so hard over two-decades to shake the "Hill-top High" persona that UA had for decades. It feels like we're going backwards. When you have all the things you mentioned above going on, it's very difficult to find something to be happy about, and in my opinion leaves two options: Apathy, or a will to fight back. Apathy is what Akron Alumni have had for far too long.