GP1

You might want to reconsider these two comments.

Sounds depressing. I'll pass.

Might be a good question....

I'm finding myself increasingly less interested in this game than I was even a week ago. Am I the only one?

It's one yard (one step), not one mile.

I find it interesting now that the size of LB is going down because of the rule changes. This is a good thing. I find his comments about "sissify" the game comments foolish though. We hear this a lot from old timers. I ignore them because most don't understand the modern game. Case in point, what does Mike Ditka offer in terms of explaining the modern game to ESPN viewers?...and Tom Jackson for that matter. An athletic contest is about people displaying athletic ability, not reaching out and grabbing people, which takes very little athletic talent. Case in point, old men at strip clubs. The Mel Blount rule introduced athleticism into football and forever made the game more athletic. There was one player though who completely thrived after the adoption of the Mel Blount rule.....Mel Blount. He made more Pro Bowls after the bump rule (3) than before (2). He was able to do that because he had the athletic ability to adapt to the rules that his peers did not have. Getting back to concussions, I think things like eliminating the three point stance, forcing the d-line off the ball one yard, weight limits, etc. would make the game even more athletic because we would see much more mobile players on the field and we would also see a safer game. I don't buy that rule changes would make the game worse. Eventually, those who can't adapt to the rules will phase themselves out of football and those who can adapt successfully will be the people we see on TV. Not sure how the elimination of the three point stance would work though. Maybe the moving the line one yard off the ball and keep the three point stance is the answer, or the other way around. Do one or the other.?.? What do you do about the center who has to stand with his head in front of him to reach the ball? Lots to think about and the people in charge of the NCAA and NFL need to hunker down and start thinking.

No. I'm just interested to see what coaches have to say. Would be interesting to see if there was a comments section where the supervisors could enter in information about why their decisions were made. What's wrong with that? I'm not interested in how they make their decisions. I'm interested in why people make the decisions they do. Some say this is about betting and fixing games. Maybe, but if the public knew exactly what was going on before the season started and why those decisions were made, how would that be underhanded? To me, bringing things into the sunlight reduces the risk of corruption. Sounds like a decent hacker could have gotten into this website in about five minutes and these guys get suspended for a year? Doesn't make sense to me unless they are worried about something else.

Article reminds me of the SI articles hysterically stating that Oklahoma State football players have sex with girls. This story makes me want to see another story about this issue though. I'd really like to know more about the content of this website. My guess is this isn't really about compensation packages because I'm sure these guys talk in hotels bars about what people are making. Again, guessing, it would be a PR disaster if some of the coaches comments came out. If the coaches are giving fair criticism about the officials, I don't see them viewing fair criticism as a problem. It might even be a good thing. A way for the officials and coaches to communicate in a professional manner if you will. Heck, I'd like to see what the coaches have to say. People in and around the NCAA are very concerned about people finding out they may not be as intelligent as they want people to think they are. Maybe the criticism by the coaches is over the top and would be an embarrassment if it came to light. If I had to guess, this would be the issue. There might be some really high profile coaches who make really stupid comments. Reminds me of the Jack Woltz quote in The Godfather, "...a man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous". Let's see what is on this website.

Good post Dave. If anyone could get up close to a linemans helmet and see the damage on it, they would understand what a beating their heads take on every play. Force = Mass x Acceleration, we know the following....lineman are stronger than ever for natural and unnatural reasons. They are also faster and quicker off the ball than ever. That's all it takes to increase the Force. The concussion protocols are what I like to call "The Lawyers Answer" to concussions. They are process changes to protect the players and teams. The link you post to above must be "The Scientists Answers" to concussions. They need to look at not only the damage to the body, but how the damage takes place and why it takes place. This is where the structural changes must come in to play. At some point, someone is going to read the science and say, "Maybe the three point stance is part of the problem. Let's get rid of it."..... "Maybe linemen are producing too much force, let's make them smaller." ...... "Maybe the linemen being so close to one another at the start of the play isn't a good thing. Let's separate them a little."

I think the NCAA has done a good job with process changes to address this problem. By process, I mean the protocols in place AFTER the possible concussion event. In my opinion, they have neglected the structural changes necessary to help lessen concussions. Here are some structural changes that would help reduce the need for concussion protocol procedures by helping to reduce the event itself: 1. Players are unnaturally heavy, oversized and unhealthy. Weight limits placed on players similar to pee wee football to reduce the amount of force (force = mass x acceleration) they can produce are important. Five year implementation plan for this because it would be hard to get all the weight down in a short period of time. The average high school offensive lineman is too fat for his body type and is being set up for a lifetime of health issues due to his physical condition. 2. Eliminate the three point stance. It is a technique that causes you to start with your head in front of your body, with a guy in front of you with his head pointed towards yours. We are trying to protect the head for crying out loud. 3. The defensive line must line up one yard from the ball like in the CFL. Smaller linemen will be required to be more nimble. 4. Allow multiple receivers to be moving prior to the snap and towards the line if they want to pause the defense. 5. Serious PED programs year round to eliminate unnatural strength. The game will survive, but if the answer has to be more than process AFTER the event. There must be systematic changes.

I have a brother who is an airline pilot and is home based in NYC. Had some celebrities on a flight he was piloting from NYC to Cleveland.

Nationally? +/- 3% of what it was his first game with Miami.

I'm actually, I'm looking for value in my stock, both short and long term. Stocks aren't about what you have done. They are about what you think a company will do. A good stock analyst is an expert in their field and understand when to buy and sell one based upon current conditions and past experience in an industry. They know the signs of a failing stock and react accordingly. If we Zips fans understand anything, it is losing and the impact of losing. Losing short term impacts everything you need to attract good players long term....winning. If we get destroyed by BG next week, they remain the best capable in the MAC East to attract good players. Solich won't be down for long at OU....Hell, they proved to be better than us this year. Bowden has put the program in a horrible long term and short term position. Losing keeps you out of bowl games, which is another reason to sell. Losing makes your program less marketable to the general public in addition to recruits. In a world where people buy, sell or hold stocks, this losing may be causing a lot of people to sell their Bowden stock and maybe for good reason. It could be at its high point right now. Stocks don't always go up. Sometimes people within companies make such bad decisions that the stock never recovers. I've sold some of my position in Bowden and have made a good profit. If they lose next week I'll sell some more with the amount being dependent upon how bad we lose and I'll probably still make some money. After that, I'll probably hold the remainder unless we don't win a game the rest of the season. I probably won't be buying any Bowden stock next year. At this point, if the stock goes to zero, I've made money overall so I can write the loss off. Too bad I can't write the past 25+ years off.

Complete with Maji delivering gifts of turnovers, bad play calling and poor personnel utilization to BG? If anyone sees those Maji walking around campus next Tuesday, tell them they made a wrong turn and point them towards Can't.

The status is clear. Pohl can play and they don't want him playing because they think an exciting, turnover prone QB is better. Pohl's days at Akron are over. I'm more interested in why they are over. That's the real story. It's all very strange.

Stop talking like a sane person. It has all gotten so strange in a two week period it's hard to even describe. Want to have the craziness reinforced? Send a note to a friend out of state describing exactly what is going on and wait for their reaction. I did. The person thought I was making up the story.

This is a game of Contenders vs. Pretenders. Confidence and momentum are a huge part of football. I doubt we have very much right now and I'm not sure we are capable of making the big plays on offense or special teams that gain it back. BG is going to be ready after losing badly to WMU and they aren't going to let the Zips, mired in mid season stupidity, off of their backs. Starting QB only difference in how bad the Zips lose next week. If a horrible BSU team destroyed us last week in Muncie. A good defending MAC Champion BG makes a statement to the rest of the MAC East and destroys us in Akron. BGSU 48 Akron 17

It would be nice for me to know so I can decide whether or not to be in front of my TV next Tuesday.

A big one?

Why not? Would it have been too much to have gone from 5-7 with a QB that had won 8 of his last 11 games to 10-2? With six games to go, Zips fans should have expected a 9 win season minimum. A win over BG would have given 10. The funny thing about the "building process" I have had to listen to about for almost 30 years now is that those who believe in it use it as a way to excuse away failure or not reaching your full potential....that, somehow, we shouldn't expect much because it is a process that provides slow improvement that will lead to great things down the road somewhere, but not in the current season of course because things have been so bad for so long that is too much to ask. We were on our way to a great season this year...not three years from now, but THIS YEAR! Akron was in the midst of what I like to call a "winning process" six games in. The had a QB that the team had won 8 of 11 games around, they limited turnovers, they had a good defense, they had some good running days, they blocked, they tackled, they were OK at catching passes and in general showed they knew how to play football. The "building process" is about ideas that may or may never happen. The "winning process" is about executing in a way that makes you better than the other team today. That's the difference. It's about competition, not plans and any other pile of horse poop the "building process" people want us to believe.

I've had just about enough as well. In all seriousness, I'm just about at the point of tuning out permanently. I really can't take much more of the utter stupidity that goes on around this football program. Sometimes I feel like I'm in one of those psychological studies where you put a test subject in a room with 6 other people and the 6 other people are actors. The actors start to act like they smell smoke when there is none and over the course of time, the test subject will claim to smell smoke as well. A small percent of people never claim to smell smoke. I would be in the small percentage because I would tell the rest of the room they were full of crap and insane. Bowden is trying to tell us something right now that is just not true and I've had enough of that as well. In the next coming weeks, I'm going to make a personal decision as to whether or not this football program is worth another second of discussion or even wasting time watching a second on another game. I sure as shit never going to spend a couple of thousand dollars flying and staying the weekend in Akron with Mrs. GP1 to go to a game in Akron again. I've really just about had it. I'm not even angry at this point. I'm just about defeated.

You're over thinking it. Pohl isn't a Bowden Ball guy so Bowden doesn't want him in the game so he dodged a real answer with one covered in altruism. Pohl is just a plain, old, ordinary QB that wins 8 of 11 games without aggression or excitement. There is no room in this program for that type of player so you have seen the last of him.

Almost 30 years of abuse hasn't been enough? 4-2 starts with a chance to have 8-9 wins means nothing if you can have 7 wins three years from now. Have you learned noting about the "building process"?

What you thought it was is exactly what it is. We aren't getting what it is because we don't have a QB on the current roster to give us Bowden Ball. So, we have to settle for plain old boring winning with Pohl or exciting losing with Woodson. Seems to be a tough spot for Bowden. Doesn't see to be that tough of a spot to me.

When Bowden talks of Woodson, he gets all excited and uses words like exciting and aggressive. Why? Because Bowden just isn't a coach, he's a brand...Bowden Ball. He wants everything about the program to be about Bowden Ball. The problem he has is Pohl is the better QB if you are looking for someone who does things like keep turnovers down, but he is going to do little exciting or aggressive; however, he wins. Bowden doesn't want that type of player at QB but at the same time he wants excitement and aggression without all of the mistakes that can lose a game. He wants a brand guy. A successful brand guy is very hard to get and the Zips don't have a single one on the team. The guy who comes closest to fitting the brand is Woodson. Woodson is everything Bowden says he is, exciting and aggressive. He is also something that Bowden can't say he is and that is turnover prone. Bowden passes his insertion into the game as a spark for the team. If the last two weeks are any indication, that spark will burn down the house eventually, but he keep Pohl on a short leash. Turnovers will destroy a team faster than anything. He continues to shovel Woodson on to the field in the hopes that some magic will happen and the turnovers will stop. It's not going to this year so we have to do the best with the cards we were dealt. Early in the year someone made a comment on the board about Bowden doing what is right for Akron with the existing players. Maybe Bowden made it. In the end, I think he believes Bowden Ball is right for Akron and I believe he is right for believing that. Our problem is we don't have anyone to fit the QB bill in Bowden Ball right now in a way that will allow us to WIN. So, we need the bridge player that may not be desirable for Bowden Ball, but wins. Pohl is the bridge until a better brand guy is developed or recruited. Bowden is at a crossroad. Does he want to risk losing with Woodson to build the brand, or does he want to continue to win with a guy who isn't anything he wants in a QB but wins? The other major problem is Pohl is only a junior. If he ended up being successful this year starting every game (we were on that way with a 4-2 start to the season), it presents Bowden with a huge problem for next year. If you want Bowden Ball, how do you bench a QB who maybe won the MAC East for you, beat a BCS team and maybe took the program to a bow game, but doesn't fit the Bowden Ball mold? Somehow you have to move that player along. Pohl isn't exciting, but the team wins around him. Woodson is exciting, but the team loses around him. It really isn't a tough choice for me because I value winning and QBs who have teams win around them over everything. I'm not promoting a personal brand though so the decision is made much easier.