Balsy

Oh, Polonius...

Always with you, with such little substance.

You can't be serious. Really? Each promotion is as lazy as the other...oh and basically their the same year in year out. No creativity, No newness. Just what in the hell are people supposed to get excited for? Just what in the hell are people going to go to an AKRON game for? I graduated 4 years ago. The "I'm a loyal student fan" has definitely worn off. The "I want to be a loyal alumni" is constantly being tested the poor decisions of people running my alma mater, and the lack of effort in just about everything they do publicly. But you act like I haven't offered any solutions. I have. Many times. But I can't pretend to know the answers, but I do know the people they should search out. Oh Teddy, my favorite man of American History. Truly a unique one. Segway aside: look, I don't need to suggest a solution. I'm in no position of power with the University of Akron, and my influence as student no longer exists. I have suggested tons of possible solutions, but at the end of the day it's not my job. It's the people who don't give enough of a damn at the University to figure out. By saying I'm whining, I take it you're defending their half-assed lazy attempts at marketing? Like seriously...in that Ad posted in earlier posts, tell me just who in the hell is going to look at that and buy tickets? Who!? The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that there is one. Second step is seeking solutions. Dear lord, by the mere suggestion that maybe advertising at UA could improve, and it seems incredibly lazy, there are certainly a lot of people here willing to step up and defend it. Good lord. Good luck getting new people to come to the toilet bowl called the JAR with that approach.

What I'm pointing out is the central problem in College Athletics. The assumption is, because student athletes are getting a "free education" the universities, tv networks, "non-profit" organizations like the NCAA, can financially benefit from the likeness of the athlete. But education isn't free, they earn it by working. Essentially by playing for the team without a scholarship was free labor. The University directly (well supposedly so) benefits from the play. Getting a scholarship now, even after working and getting PT in the regular season is work. If you have to work in order to get something, it certainly ain't free! Can he not play on the football team and still get the education? Nope. Certainly ain't free, it comes at a cost. A cost he seems to be okay with. But there is a transaction that takes play and therefore, again I feel compelled to point out that it isn't free. It's earned.

There used to be like a cellphone upload of it that wasn't the best quality. I saved the link, but in has since been "removed".

I like how they say $195 value! Sure. As if there were really people willing to pay $195 for general admission tickets. I pay less than that for tickets to everything as an alumni. But seriously, this is part of the problem at UA. What unique thing is going on in advertising? It's the same, lazy crap year-after-year-after-year. No wonder people don't want to go. What the hell are they doing? Let's go with advertising schemes from the 1970s and 1980s!!

Because that would mean someone in UA athletics would have to give a damn. Akron suffers, has suffered, and will continue to suffer from the plague of having people who simply don't give a damn.

It isn't free. He works, trains, attends meetings, practices and then plays on Saturdays (or is available to play on Saturday). That's not free, it's definitely a transaction that takes place. I feel compelled to point that out.

Hopefully with one year under their belt, they'll be able to gel better this year? QB uncertainty didn't help the run game because they were almost daring us to beat them with the passing game, which we clearly couldn't do.

I think I'll make this one this year. Didn't make it to the last two. Made it to Tennessee and Michigan, so who knows...maybe I'm good luck? If Warren Ball is back with the OL mostly intact from last year, I'd like to see what he can do against a BIG-10 team (not saying they'll win, just interested).

I don't think you understood my analogy. It wasn't directed towards me, or towards you, but the scenario.

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?

Even though OSU was beaten by PSU. That's the kind of "on the record" non-sense that we're pointing out is biased. So I'll give you that they both should not have been included. But saying there's a large gap between the two, when the one beat the other, is ridiculous. Head-to-head competition is supposed to be important. Nothing is more head-to-head than actually playing each other.

No. We could say that the only year they got things right was last year; when they used the logic they established the year previous. When they changed the logic to SOS is more important than winning a conference championship, it casts doubt on the decision made in 2014. TCU (11-1) had the 10th hardest SOS by the end of the regular season. OSU(12-1) had the 26th, even after winning their conference championship. The Justification for OSU that year was that "conference championship was more important" of which the Big-12 hadn't had one since 2010, (and is adding it again in 2017)...meaning their regular season had to be weighted less than a team that had a conference championship. Fast forward to this year, where OSU didn't participate in the Conference Championship. OSU had the 1st overall SOS, Penn State had the 10th, but won the conference it's championship. Picking and choosing when something is important, and when it's not is cherry-picking. For something not to be cherry-picking you have to have established, objective criterion that is used, not something that is changed every year. Objectively, using the 2016 logic for picking the CFB field, TCU should have been in over OSU several years ago. Objectively using the 2014 logic, OSU should not have been in this year over Michigan State. Let's not pretend this system isn't biased. It very clearly is.

I personally don't think any G5 team will ever have a chance at playoffs at it currently stands. There's way too much money and political influence to allow that from happening. There will always be an SOS argument and cherrypicked statistics to prevent that from happening.

It's rigged (perhaps you guys are getting hung up on the adjective "rigged"...perhaps favored would be better?...w/e it's besides the point) to favor programs that are at the top of the P5. The argument is that all of the measures used to "evaluate" a team are inherently biased. Each measure comes from a subjective, arbitrary, not really good, system of evaluating teams. And these arbitrary measures are biased in that they benefit the "haves" and not the "have nots" or the "maybes" It just so happens that OSU is the "haves" team that has benefited from it in both instances. Take the entire Big-10 and the SEC. Numerous teams ranked at the begining of the year. They (for the most part) beat up on low programs, and maintain those rankings. When they get to Conference play, they have half the conference ranked. When you play half of your games against ranked opponents, it looks favorably on your future rankings. Those rankings (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) are taken into consideration when "your highly ranked in both the AP and the Coaches poll". Those pre-season polls are nothing more than popularity contests. There's no viable methodology, no criterion for how teams are selected...simply people picking favorites. That's it. It's inherently a system that self-fulfills itself.

I decided to quote this seperately because it goes to the heart of the matter: EXACTLY! If the CFB were to expand, and continue under the SAME LOGIC IT HAS NOW, the G5 would NEVER GET A SEAT AT THE TABLE. That's why you NEED a criterion of CONFERENCE CHAMPION to be considered. If you give automatic bids to conference champions, or at least the top 4 or top 8 (or however many teams) are selected from the conference champions... that's a sure fire way that G5 teams get a seat at the table, or stand a chance to get at a seat at the table. Now let me ask you: do you seriously ever think thats going to happen? I'll tell you right now that it's not. Because college football is about $$$$ not the sport of football. And until people realize that, and demand it to change (which will never happen) it will continue to be a bottom-line, best $$$ Business. The G5 conferences would never risk losing to a G5 team in a playoff game, how embarrassing would that be!? So they'll continue to use their power and influence to keep the P5 teams out. And those with the most to gain or lose (the Ohio States, Alabamas of the world) will continue to influence how the CFB committee makes it's decisions. Again, because it's a bottom-line, best $$$ business.

I could care less about Penn State. I'm merely pointing out that the CFB selection committee is biased. It has been biased against many different teams. I'm sticking up for my Alma mater by pointing out the hypocrisy in college athletics as well as bias that exists in it's complex. I never claimed there wasn't an aspect of politics involved. Two BIG-10 teams, would definitely anger the other conferences. Especially the almighty SEC. Yes I am, see comment above. Skip has good reading comprehension skills, his defense of me is 100% on point. You apparently struggle with reading comprehension and logic. Ohio state happens to be the team at the focus of these comments yes, but it also goes for Alabama, which is why I have made comments in the past about them needing to rename the CFB "Alabama, Ohio State and two other random teams". Now, Alabama can actually back itself up for why it belongs there...it's a conference champion for starters. Ohio State can't. Washington and Clemson certainly deserved to be in, they were conference champions. Ohio State IS the focus of these comments yes, but not because of my personal dislike of Ohio State, but because of my observation that the CFB committee seems to come up with whatever explanation they want in order to justify OSU getting in. And it's happened TWICE now. Conference Championship matters, now they don't matter. Late season losses matter, now they don't matter. Early season losses don't matter, now they do. I mean it's pretty clear what I'm arguing here and it's not my, or Skip's fault that you're not understanding it.

Well I think you do see skip...to generate more $$$ from the discussion, publication, faked hype etc... Great points Skip, I ran out of likes, but I would have liked every one of them. For the rest of this thread; I'm done trying to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes and trying to ask about the man behind the curtain. I'm actually kinda shocked how many people on this forum rush to the defense of a system that literally is designed to screw your alma-mater over in athletic programs in every way possible. It's the same asinine system that gives you Ohio State at home vs Akron in the NCAA College Cup (when Akron has the better record, better SOS, better RPI). But who cares?

Because the AP poll is a popularity contest, that's why. I may give a little, and I mean a little, credence to the coaches poll but not much. If either of them had any real value the first AP and Coaches poll would have better predictive power. It's entertaining yes, but really self-serving to the "big" guys. The whole premise of my argument though is that the ranking in upon itself is flawed, isn't objective, and benefits the "Big" guys. Was Michigan REALLY the 3rd best team in the country? Was Ohio State REALLY the 2nd best team in the country? By slapping the label of "2 vs 3" on the game, you're now creating a dialogue so that if either team loses, theres the possible justification for why they can be in the CFP at a later date. OSU looked TERRIBLE in that game. As did Michigan. They definitely didn't look like the 2 and 3 best teams in the country when I watched the game, and I think that's been all but confirmed in the post season with both teams losing, OSU in a blowout to Clemson and Michigan in a good game to FSU. Winning your conference should be FIRST PRIORITY. Then OOC should be considered. Period, end of discussion. THAT is more objective than trying to shoe horn this nonsense about "they played x ranked team and lost only to y ranked team". It's not objective at all. And if teams don't like being out because they didn't win their conference championship, then expand the field. Can you imagine if the NFL worked on this asinine system? It'd be the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers and (insert other good team in any given year) in the playoffs. They'd always be the higher ranked teams, and teams in their conference would always be "ranked" higher due to popularity and by virtue of being in the same conference as they are. Sorry for the rant, I just don't get how theres so many people trying to justify this system as fair and balanced. It's IMHO, very clearly not, by the virtue of how it's set up.

No. That's the rationale of the Selection Committee. OSU has a bad loss in it's OOC to Virginia Tech and still makes it in, giving the "rationale" that an early season loss is LESS than a late season loss. OSU then loses LATE in the season, and the come up with a rationale to overlook that loss. All I'm saying, is let's stop pretending it's a fair system that isn't biased. It isn't. And I was proven right. OSU proved last night that they didn't belong in the top-4 by getting waxed 31 - 0. EXACTLY. Bingo.

"Top 25" means nothing. It's a popularity contest. Of course a popularity contest that benefits those in the Top-25, and that are a part of the P5 conferences. And then one year, so that Ohio state can be justified to get into the Playoffs Jumping over TCU, which had a better record and better Resume, the Committee rationalized that winning the conference championship game was a FAR MORE IMPORTANT thing than any one particular win or loss in the regular season. If you guys think it's a fair system, you guys are nuts. Its a system set up to justify why the top teams in popularity and $$ potential are constantly given the opportunity and benefit of the doubt to be in the playoffs. Were Michigan and OSU really the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country playing each other? No. No they really weren't. But if the Number 2 team loses to the number 3 team, it won't hurt you as bad because "it was the second best team in the country". It's a system that reinforces itself. 2/2 times OSU has been in the playoffs the committee has either had to make up some bogus rational to let them in, or go against said bogus rational to justify them getting in. Its a joke. Penn State BEATING OSU in the regular season, and winning the Big-10 is enough of a resume to be over OSU.

Oh I completely agree, I did too. It's a rigged system.

G5 undefeated teams will never be included in the National Championship conversation. IDK why we keep entertaining this idea? It. Will. Never. Happen. Fairness doesn't matter in the world of $$$$$. All that matters is the bottom line $$$$$. Ohio State shouldn't (IMHO) even have a seat at the table this year. They might as well rename the College Football playoff: Alabama, Ohio State and whatever other random two teams that would make for interesting pre-game headlines.

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this. 2016 was the last year of Bowden's original contract. He got a contract extention after going 5-7 in 2013, meaning his contract is up in 2018. Though I don't think Bowden will be gone after 5-7, he will be on the hot seat in 2018. Akron can't afford to buyout a coach's contract to bring in new blood, short of a disasterous 1-11 or something like that. I think Bowden is safe for 2017...but the seat is definitely getting warmer. If Williams were smart, he'd be demanding the changes now, giving Bowden 2-years before considering a new contract.