Lee Adams

I'll bet Nicely is just poopin' himself he is so happy to get into THIS game.

No problem. We were all 'blinded by the light ' last week.

Obviously there was no positive carry over from Saturday. Obvioussly CMU was ALMOST as bad as Akron. Obvioussly when Moore ran up against a decent defense he reveretd to what he had been doing most of the year. Obviously Ianello didn't instill that aggresive,winning attitude he was talking about. Obviously its time time go to bed.

Kinda like Miami "finally finding their running back"?Kind of like that. Miami didn't find their RB, their RB found our defense.

Not true. ..... So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?I will tell you with 100% certainty -- NO ONE would have complained if he took that game to OT. NO ONE.My son is 10 years old. He knew better. Everyone did.And I will tell you that in all of the years I've been following football, I have NEVER seen a situation where a coach played for a tie and lost in overtime that some fans didn't criticize him for not going for the 2-point conversion. You cannot seriously be trying to tell me that would not have happened on this forum about this coach.Of course since the players did not get a chance to win or lose in OVT. we will never know.

The figure of 43% of 2 point conversions being successful in college is the same figure I saw at least 3 different places. Whether Ianello knew that or took it into consideration,who knows? We know coaches don't always make decisions based on statistics. There is knowledge of the game(or lack thereof),emotion,the ebb and flow of the game etc,etc. Without making it a personal issue with this coach, the fans where I was sitting were reacting to the decision to attempt a relatively low percentage play as opposed to giving the team the opportunity to continue playing against a team they had been handling in the second half. There was no second guessing. We reacted when we realized that they were going for 2 not afterward. I thought the guy wearing the Wagner jersey in 210 was going to jump over the rail. Anyway,lets at least hope that the changes that were made on the offensive side of the ball continue the rest of the season.

The topic is 'Pro or Spread'. Leaving out the QB question lets go with that. A number of folks on this board observed that neither of these QB's appeared to be operating efficiently or comfortably when under center and having to drop back. What we saw Saturday might lead one to believe that Moore operates more comfortably and efficiently when he does not have to play under center AND when the offensive play calling allows him to get into a throwing rythm. He appeared more acurate and more confident. Obviously they weren't running from the spread on Saturday. Ianello finally let Moore set up in the shotgun or pistol or whatever. They still had a tight end in the game most of the time. The tight end was still lining up next to a tackle most of the time. Not always. They were still running with three WR's and a RB most of the time. Changes the running game a little but Chisholm got lots of yards.They don't have to run a 'spread' offense. It just seemed Ianello needed to get the QB away from center to give him a better opportunity to see the field. It may have helped the O-line also. The QB could see the rush better and he could get rid of the ball quicker. The O-line gets into a rythm too.Lets see what Ianello does Thursday.

Actually under the circumstances not too badly. We beat Can't with him at QB.

Its a shame that this coach at least publicly doesn't take responsibility. I get the feeling that if every once in awhile he came out and said I screwed up people could tolerate this situation a little more.

Not true.There were 20 people around me at game's end. Every one of them was aghast at the 2-point decision.We had a HORRIBLE team on the ropes, at home. A team proven to choke. A team we'd outscored 22-3 to finish the 2nd half, and we handed them the game. What a gift for CMU.If we were down 1 to Ohio State, on the road, and our team was gassed from giving some Herculean effort, THEN you go for 2. Like Air Force did against Tennessee. No way you go for 2 under yesterday's scenario. Ianello blew yesterday's game by his extra point playcalling. I've never seen that before. I'd never seen a team kick off twice in a game either. Or kick a mid-4th quarter field goal to take his team from a 20, to a 17 point deficit.What's the common denominator?

Thank you! Why did it take him so long?

Based on the 2nd half yesterday,we could say the PLAYERS are making progress. Ianello finally put Moore in the shotgun most of the time. By necessity,they had to throw the ball more because they were behind. That opened up the field. Moore was able to get into a rythm. That helped Chisholm because the defense couldn't just sit on him. He still needs to run behind his pads. But maybe he'll learn. Ianello was calling the plays in the 2nd half,not the O-coord. That was interesting.Players win games. Coaches do not. What is sad is that a coaches decision(s) cost the players a chance to likely win that game.

Coaches singlehandedly lose very few games. Ianello lost this one. I wouldn't be able to look my players in the eye.meh. He gave them the chance to win it, and they didn't. I don't think there was a wrong choice between going for it or kicking it. Everyone would be praising the call if he caught it.It seemed to the folks in our section that Ianello didn't give them the BEST chance to win. Players win games not coaches. Let them get the ball in OT and keep pushing CMU around like they did most of the second half. Even if they had made the 2 the decision can still be questioned.

Coaches do not win games. Players win games. Coaches CAN lose games by making decisions that do not allow the players to be in the best position to try to win. That is what Ianello did today. For whatever his personal reasons,he thought he could win the game from the sideline. In doing so he not only did not allow his players to be in the BEST position to win the game,he sent the message that he did not trust them to win the game in overtime. No matter when he made the decision to go for 2 it was a bad decision.Nobody in our section could believe it. That team played the best half of football they have played in two years and the head coach 'takes the pipe'.

When we get done with this, we can put signs above the lockerroom doors reading, "Whites Only...and Only If Your Parents Have Money".I'm not interested in turning on the TV and watching LSU vs Alabama with DIII talent. Sorry....I enjoy modernity.Sorry, throwing the bullshit flag on you here. Millions of college students somehow manage to make it through with combinations of loans, work, etc. And believe it or not, a lot of those students are black and they somehow do it too. The percentage who are helped by athletic scholarships is miniscule compared to that number. Throwing the race card in doesn't help your argument, especially if you just want that for your own entertainment.If you want the quality of D-1A football to remain where it is today, scholarships have to stay where they are. If you want to go to college football games where almost everyone looks like you, go to Mt. Union games. Everyone sits around those games patting themselves on the back on top of their high horse about the DIII players being "true student athletes". I don't need my world view boosted with a football game...I'd rather have good entertainment watching top level athletes compete.The other side of that might be that watching competetive games on a consistent basis at whatever level the team is playing may be more enjoyable than what we have now. I have lived in places where there are only D-II or D-III programs. Fans still go to the games. Sure they watch the big boys on TV like we all do. the MAC and conferences at that lvel can't compete at the highest level now. So do we want to watch those sacrifice games at the beginning of every season as we do now with little if any hope of ever competting at that level consistently? Or do we want to stop spending millions of dollars with the the impossible belief that 'some day' teams like those in the MAC or Sunbelt etc. will be able to stand toe to toe with the Russkys(thanks Slim) and win?

This another way for the big athletic programs like OSU et al to separate themselves from everyone else. Those schools can go play in their own back yardand not have deal with the MAC's of the world. Create another super division and let those guys beat up on each other while they throw more money at the kids they want in their programs.Wasn't there a time back in the dark ages when schools started playing football that athletic scholarships weren't given? Of course kids were still being paid to play. It was the $100.00 handshake.The idea that professional football and hoops should have their own minor league systems has been kicked around for years. It will continue to get kicked as long as those sports can get away with not having to spend the money to develop players. You can't make it lucrative for some kid to go school for a couple of years then leave to become a professional. Hockey and baseball develop their players who don't attend college.

: Our offense can't control the ball to save it's life. I can't recall one long drive this season that wasn't aided by some inane penalty or mistake by the opponent.The Zips are the Get Well Card for the MAC's downtrodden. Look for a bad CMU team to be the latest in a looooong list of D1 opponents to thoroughly drub Rob Ianallo's team on it's home field.The MAC has figured it out - stop Chisholm and the Zips are done.

I used to get notes like this all the time from people on this board. Never responded. I got sick of the notices so I turned off my PM function.it doesn't bother me in the least....but something keeps urging me to teach morons like this a little life lessonJust enjoy the game. There are too many morons in the world to correct all of them. It's a losing battle. Go Zips!

Maybe someone has talked this up before. Forgive me. I see Getsy is the QB coach at Indiana PA. Curt Cignetti hired him. All my relatives live over there. That program had been sliding a little since they got rid of Frank. Too bad Akron didn't take a look at Frank. Successful head coach at a lower level. Oh well.

It's hard to say this when any college team has 100% turnover every 4 to 5 years. If his "plan" had any merit whatsoever, halfway through his 2nd year wouldn't we have to be at least competitive? I hate to echo people here, but I skipped the game Saturday to go to an overcrowded, overpriced Cedar Point. I'm not sure what would've been worse, dropping $150 and riding 5 rides in 10 hours or watching the Zips give up nearly 600 yards of total offense and get squashed despite being +2 in turnovers.What's sad to me is that I'm embarrassed of the program. Maybe that's selfish, but when my co-workers are aware that I'm a big Zips fan and all I get come Monday is, "How much did 'you guys' get crushed by Saturday?" It's embarrassing. The only saving grace is that the majority of them are suckeye honks and their season, scale wise, is in the dumps as much as ours.Yes,we may not be winning but games would be much more competetive and we would see improvement in certain areas of the team. They have promise at WR and RB. There was some talent on the team last year. The AD and coach said it themselves. Problem is,a lnumber of guys playing now are going to graduate. If Ianello's guys are any good,next year should be there year where there is significant improvement in the won-loss.

I got a PM from this guy also. I didn't read it. Not worth my time. Given what I have seen,wouldn't surprise me.

Three observations you made are very interesting. 1)Chisholm wants to run 'East--West' more than 'North-South'. The coaches must be talking to him. There were times when he at least tried to cut it up. But he doesn't get his paids squared often enough to avoid losses. Reminds me a little of the way Dennis Knnedy ran when he first got here. But boy did he figure it out. 2) The defense just gave up tons of yards when OU ran right at them. There was nobody on the line or at linebacker plugging holes at the line. The OU O-line was getting on the linebackers and smothering them. 3) There was little pressure on the QB. Part of that is because Tettleton knows when to get rid of the ball and how to move behind the line. Akron was and has been trying to blitz. But, its hard for bitzters to get pressure when the DB's are playing 5-7 yards off the receivers. The QB has plenty of room to dump the ball. Heard an ex-coach talking about that. He said you have to play press coverage and make the QB hold the ball a little longer. Problem is when your secondary is getting toasted its tough to do.Find it interesting as Gaffney points out that in the middle of the second season the coach hase decided to start changing up his offensive scheme.

After a brief respite from such things,unfortunately there are one or two folks out there who for whatever personal reasons have decided to resume the personal attack mode when responding to posts with which they do not agree. Most people don't have a problem if you disagree with them if you can do it in a civil manner. If reading the posts on this site is that upsetting,please take a deep breath before responding. Or,have another beer!

How'd he feel about the FG attempt, down by 20 in the 4th qtr? Love cutting the margin from 20 to 17 with 8 minutes left. Nice job Rob. Way to quit. FU and your process.You could see the players' body language after that decision. They gave up because they saw that their coach gave up.Why kick a FG down 20 and follow it with an onside kick??? It's like the coordinators are all on different pages with each other and Ianello.Great point. It DOES tell the players that you've given up. And inexperienced coaches would tend to make such mistakes. A TD was the only way to still give us a chance to win the game. I still can't imagine what he may have been thinking, other than possibly wanting to say we put a few more points on the board. But, players want to win games.Even Steve French commented on that.

We need to look for someone who knows what they are talking about and talk with them.Excuse me.You really did not want to discuss football did you?? You wanted to discuss the failures of ICoach and Moore.Just reviewing sarcasm #1:..................YPR...........R/PCincy...........3.8..........34/36VMI.............6.4..........49/29 EMU............4.6...........32/29FIU.............3.9...........30/23 note: Moore "ran" the ball 11 times. Started as pass playSo...it does not appear an over commitment to the run. Based on the adjectives used and the tone of your writing, you are once again complaining about the type of offense we run. I totally agree that you have a right to bitch, whine and complain but it is others right be get tired of it and speak up. No?? I am really tired of the lame criticism of Moore and ICoach, the negativity and sarcasm on ZNO lately in regards to football. I agree we need to start winning. I get it...you want to use the "spread" and throw the ball all the time. I don't. I want to run the ball about 50% of the time and expand our options.Please. If it is going to get personal I will from this point on refrain from responding to your posts.. No I was not doing any of those things you ASSUMED I was doing. I get it too. So please don't start talking down to people who may not agree with your personal views of how the football program or the world should be. If you were offended I apologize. I can assure you that this is the last discourse I will have regarding any of your posts. I hope you do me the courtesy of the same.