GP1

Nice post. Are you saying going to a BCS game doesn't automatically boost your recruiting? I'm shocked to hear that because when I read MAC boards, I'm told that going to a BCS game makes your recruiting better. I'm shocked (not really) to find out the opposite is true.

Instead of scheduling gimmicks, wouldn't it be much better to create a climate where people come to games because the team is good and WINNING? Game day buzz is fun, but there has to be something after game day. It won't be long until the possibility of bringing in BCS teams will be gone because they will have their own division. Because of that, we need to start scheduling in a manner that creates a winning program for whatever comes next.

Thanks for posting Keener92. A few years ago, everyone bashed me for saying there would be a split in college football between BCS and non BCS. Here we are. The ncaa basketball tournament? People who worry about that being a hurdle worry too much. It is a fundraising event for the ncaa to operate itself. Why would those schools continue to have a basketball tournament to support a bureaucracy they all hate (90+% of the revenue from the ncaa tournament goes to run the ncaa) when they could have their own basketball tournament to line their own pockets? ESPN televises spring football practices because people watch it and they have to televise something. It is the most popular product to put on the TV available. ESPN is a business and they know what will sell. In 1986, ABC offered the USFL in excess of $150 million to televise games in the spring. There was a market for it then, and there is an even bigger market for an entertaining spring football league now. MAClike conferences are entertaining and people would watch. It's the only way these conferences can now support their bloated "building process". Playing in the spring might be the one good idea MAClike conferences have had in years.

The AAC will not be a BCS conference for long. Besides, any victory over someone in that league wouldn't be seen as a BCS victory. People aren't that stupid. The question you ask is based upon the idea that in a few years, college football is going to look like it does right now. It won't. I don't find it to be a serious question, but I'll play along. Should we schedule based upon something that almost never happens? No we shouldn't. If we have a scheduling problem, it has nothing to do with 1 for 2 or anything like that. There is a lack of vision for making programs better through good competition and increased probability of winning without scheduling all 1AA teams. BCS schools have it right. They play one 1AA team, two non BCS teams and one decent BCS team. It's a vision for winning, not some grasp at recognition that will be here today and gone tomorrow. Under Brookhart, we beat more than one BCS level team. How did that end up? Where is the recognition that bolstered recruiting? I'll give you a better scenario. What is the one thing that could catapult a team to national recognition with all that means in revenue and recruiting? Also, this scenario falls within the world of reality for a school like UofA. Answer - A National Championship during an undefeated season playing in a division outside of the BCS level in the spring. The TV networks are so ripe to pick right now it isn't even funny. ESPN's ratings are down and they had cut employees. FOX is coming out with a competitor to ESPN called FOX 1. FOX knows how to get ratings. NBC has their own all sports network now. These networks are going to need to televise something in the spring. Americans love football and would watch, in mass, a spring college football league that is entertaining. MAClike conferences are entertaining and they could sell TV rights/make money. Instead, we sit around and talk about scheduling in a way that we would benefit from in a one in a ten thousand chance. It's why we remain where we are.

I agree some of these are winnable games. Not at the percent some non BCS teams give us. Those include Memphis, Navy and Army and they aren't BCS teams. Throw in Colorado right now as well..they are the only BCS team on the list we could beat. My problem with the above is, if we are going to play a BCS team, let's play one a year where we break the bank...An ATM game. I don't see the above teams as the types of schools that we could break the bank with. Michigan, OSU, PSU (before Sandusky), Tennessee, etc. are bank breaking games. I hate ATM games, but until non BCS schools figure out how to make money to support their now completed "building process" (Who are we kidding, it never ends.) we are stuck with them. HINT: Playing in the spring would bring in TV revenue that would support the "building process".

My opinion is we should not do this, because our OOC schedule should look as follows, in any order: 1. BCS team on the road to break the bank but guarantees a loss. 2. D1A non BCS team at home 50/50 chance of winning 3. D1A non BCS team on the road 50/50 chance of winning 4. Cupcake 1AA team at home guaranteeing a win. My schedule guarantees one loss, one win and 50/50 shot at two other games. Replacing a non BCS D1A team at home with a BCS team increases the chances of losing and gets us little in return. No thanks. We need to play as many games as possible at our level and increase our chances of winning. This isn't shying away from teams, but an effort to compete against teams more like us. We also don't need to heap more misery upon ourselves. When we get this team turned around, we should start every year at 2-2. I'm sick of setting ourselves up for failure by starting every year out 1-3.

If some if you think Bowden had it bad coming in the door, it was nothing compared to what Kest had coming in the door. She took over what was basically a DIII program and now they are a contender for the MAC. Lots of decisions were made that seemed harsh, but in the long run they are paying off.

There you go again...dissing the "building process". This idiot MacIntyre should have known the only way to build a program is through 4-5 years of painful losing for the school, alumni, students and fans. Shame on this guy for producing a winner sooner rather than later.

None of us really know what is in someone's heart. Akron/Cleveland is a small enough area that everyone thinks they know everyone else's business, or they know someone who knows someone. I skeptical of a connection between Gloria James getting laid and LBJ "quitting". I'm sure he saw more than his share of losers parade through the door in his youth to let something like that roll off his back. He didn't quit, he was on a team that had reached the end and went out badly.

Mine has softened. The way he left Cleveland (not that he left, but the way he did it) was pretty moronic. I believe he understands that now and regrets it. My guess is if he watched the video of The Decision with his children, he would say it isn't a proper way to conduct oneself. He has publicly admitted he was wrong for doing it. The only time I ever think about the guy is when he is mentioned on this board or there is a game on with him in it. Positions I will never change my mind about as it relates to LBJ are as follows: 1. He is one of the greatest basketball players I have ever seen. 2. I believe contrary to the popular meme in Cleveland that he "quit". Nonsense...He never cheated the fans of Cleveland out of a dime. 3. I wish the NBA wasn't such a bad product because I would watch more just to watch him play.

It doesn't matter when he gets in. It matters how he plays when he does get in. Right now, Zeke is like the guy fighting to make an NFL team and does so by busting his butt on special teams or any other chance he gets to play. Every team has a guy a year who makes the team like this. The coaches are evaluating every second of every game and practice so it doesn't matter when you get in. It's about production.

About this seriously....

Some Zips with JUCO or transfer backgrounds include: Brett Biggs Luke Getsy Vic Green Mike Johnson Dwight Smith (I think) Jay Rohr (sp?) There are many more who have contributed. There are also some who haven't contributed much. What's the difference between them and a freshman who never makes it? We have guys transfer out all the time. Are they all bad guys? I don't think so. At least with a JUCO player, you can see some physical development and evaluate their mental development with an interview. Much more difficult to do with a high school senior.

It really doesn't and the MAC is a perfect case in point. It is easy to win right away in the MAC. It has been proven a lot in recent years. Think of the Zips football program as a patient. The Zips football program was hit by a train. We'll call that train the "Wistrcill-Ianello Express". The program spent last year in the emergency room and now has been transported up to intensive care. It is far from out of the woods. The medicine this program needs is some winning to make the patient stable. I would propose that the medicine TB is offering gets us closer to winning. I would also propose treating the patient who has been run over by the Wistrcill-Ianello Express with leaches (4-5 year "building process") is not the best treatment. If Akron wants to continue with a tradition of losing, a 4-5 year "building process" would be the direction to go. The Zips need to get winning and winning now. They have about 2-3 years to win. The program needs to be seen as a winning program. The Zips have had three one win seasons in a row. Bring in freshmen to come in and continue with that tradition?...No thanks! If under your advice, Akron was still only winning 4 games in three years because of their "building process" the program would be completely finished. Going from one win to two is not success, it is just another degree of horrible. Going from two wins to three is not growth or success, it is another degree of horrible. The mistake fans make is thinking going from one win to two or two to three is improvement. Who wants to play for a horrible program? No decent recruits would come to Akron, no decent assistant coaches would come to Akron and the stadium would continue to be a complete failure. I've seen enough losing and "building process" over the past 20+ years. It's funny. Top notch BCS teams field players with questionable pasts all of the time. If they win, nobody cares. If they lose, fans only care if the team is losing. Under Urban Meyer, Florida was putting players on the field who were actual sociopaths and firing guns into cars while in school. Does anyone think the average UF fan cares? Does any sane fan sit at a game and when a questionable players scores the winning TD with seconds to go in the game say, "I just can't cheer for him because he was in a bar fight." Of course not because everyone has been in a bar fight and I would bet a lot of posters on this board probably smoke a little weed in college. I'm not saying we should be that extreme and I'm certainly not saying Pittman falls into this extreme description, but we should understand that in order to win in college football, sometimes risks have to be taken on players. Pittman is a risk worth taking.

I'm with you GoZips. In my opinion, it is a pretty glowing representation of the state of the Zips basketball program. A program that is clearly the class of the MAC. A program that can lose players and replace them with quality players...rare in the MAC. I don't see how the author goes from a glowing report to predicting the Zips finishing fourth in the MAC. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe if the author predicts the Zips getting upset in the MAC Championship, it would be less of a head scratcher, but not from MAC Champion to fourth place.

You're a fountain of useless information....

So, what's your point other than bringing up a question someone asked?

Does Simon Bar Sinister play for them?

I don't know if this is in the spirit of the beer thread or not, but it was funny. Link

I'm still not 100% certain what his responsibility is. He seems to help with recruiting some football players. That's good if the players he feels are worth his time to help recruit influence the program in a winning manner. I also understand it is part of his responsibility to help draw people to the University. After all, I'm told his name would be a huge draw. Especially huge draw for kids from Ohio. As a point of fact, enrollment is down. Again, I'm totally open minded about it. I hope he helps recruit kids who lead the Zips to one MAC Championship after another. We'll see. I hope his involvement, at the cost of $200K per year, increases student enrollment. Doesn't seem like it is happening. Maybe the data just isn't clear yet. In time(hopefully in the next 2-3 years), we will know what we are getting for $200K per year.

Can we wait to see if any of his involvement results in anything meaningful? I'm missing the connection between success and his involvement. We are still sitting at three wins in three years. When that changes and there is a connection between his involvement and the success of the program beyond him being an employee of the University, I'll be open minded. Until then...I'm going to stick with he was a desperate hire by a desperate Proenza, and hires based upon desperation don't work out well. So far, it seems as if people badly want to give him credit for anything good that happens at the University regardless of involvement. It doesn't make sense to me. But then again, a lot of what has gone on with the University in recent years is beginning to make less and less sense to me.

I'm not sure how the MAC media will pick the league, but I'm pretty certain the national media will pick it in the exact order it finished last year.

Zeke was a great Zip and one of the all time great MAC players so please don't take this as bashing, but if he was a go-to starter in the NBA, he would have been drafted. He doesn't come close to having the offensive skills necessary to be a starting NBA center let along a "go-to" guy. We are all fans of his, but we should all stop living in a world where we deny the reality of what has taken place.

Excellent post in total. I always believed Zeke would play professional basketball and I still believe he will play somewhere, just not the NBA. After going to the CCU game last year, I was certain he would not play in the NBA because his ball handling skills were so suspect and that is what relates to your comment above. Zeke looks incredibly uncomfortable with the ball in his hands on the offensive end. That creates two problems: 1. He isn't a scorer. His lack of offensive ability would get him destroyed in the NBA. I never thought he was not an aggressive player. He was a player with limited offensive ability and it made him look non-aggressive. 2. This point is far worse than #1 I just made. It's one thing to have limited scoring ability; however, if a player is as uncomfortable with the ball as he is, he is a turnover waiting to happen at the NBA level. A player goes from not scoring to giving points away and that is completely unacceptable, especially at that level. The real question is, why weren't his offensive skills better developed over the past four years?

I put a lot more faith in their ability than my ability, your ability, the ability of those posting on this board and those "draft gurus" who seem to get everything wrong while sitting in their homes posting in their underwear. An entire league is incapable of scouting players? Come on, you can't really believe that.