GP1

There is no actual Tea Party. Actually, I belong to the Libertarian Party so I can say that freely. Maturity is not being a servant of the government. Maturity is not allowing another to tell you how to live your life. Anyone who wants more government is actually fearful of maturing. People who are in government are actually the most stupid people in our society. Why should we look at what they do as mature? They are children like Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today. The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today." Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News. As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun. No matter how much you try to twist, push and pull, the so called red herring argument is going to be Rand's undoing. You can't mess with the civil rights laws. Once it gets out that he wants to repeal social security, the dept of education, the IRS, etc... the election is lost. I can't turn you arguing his policy points. Tea Baggers are the hard right of American Politics. Everytime I talk to one of you, guns or something racist comes out. Your fringe party is unelectable. America has matured. This is not your father's Paul-itician. I'm sure daddy's eyes went a-rollin' when he watched THAT interview. Do you guys really thing Paul is going to lose an election in Kentucky? If so, you believe Maddow is fair and Olberman is illuminating.

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today. The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today." Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News. As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun.

Maybe everyone should keep their eyes open for Delonte and Gloria taking romantic drives on Arlington Road at 4:00AM next year......

Maddow is an intellectual lightweight with a PhD using an extreme case that would never come up in today's society to try to make the guy look bad. The entire interview can be seen on the internet. The point Paul made throughout the interview is that people should not discriminate. He is right. If someone wants to have a whites or blacks only business, then so be it. Let people be free to shame the owners of these business until they are out of business. The unemployment rate shot up today and people like Maddow are worried about things that are not relevant in 2010. Maddow should be asking questions like..."How do we bring down the debt? How do we bring down unemployment? How do we bring our troops home from a never ending war in the midddle east?" These are questions that matter in 2010. The question Paul brings up is important for society today. What is the line between private and public? A leftist like Maddow thinks she is smarter than everyone and should be able to make laws governing our lives and businesses. She is actually a very dangerous person and people who are like her are dangerous to our freedoms. Paul needs to focus on freedom, employment and smaller government. Maddow and her ilk will be in the minority debating silly issues from the past. Paul will win going away.

It won't be so.....

Actually, I'm at complete peace with everything. Over the past 20 years, I have come to understand what is wrong with the mac and UofA. It isn't as much anger as it is frustration. The mac and UofA remain on a constant building process that leads to nowhere.

What does it matter? It's the posted topic......

A-freaking-men! Who in the Hell wants to go to a game and watch a fat, slow fullback who in all probability will have to get a real job after college plunge into the line for two yard gains? Same goes for the TE. Those positions are secondary. The QB is the most important player on the field. His WRs are the second. We have a QB with NFL potential. Let's use his talent.

Isn't that what the Zips are doing this season? It is the dream come true about to become a nightmare. UofA plays an even more difficult schedule than UB does. We play a I-AA team, they play a I-AA team. We play IU and KY on the road, they play two BCS teams on the road. We play Syracuse at home, they play UCONN at home (both Big East teams). We will go 1-3 with our ooc and they will go 1-3. I can't believe some of you who think UofA should schedule up would also complain about the schedule we play and actually think UB is better scheduling than us. Can you make sense of this picture for me? You seem to find meaning and order where I dare not look. The Zips play Syracuse, GW, at Kentucky and at Indiana. UB plays UCONN, SB, at BC, at Pitt. Throw out the I-AA teams. Kentucky is better than any team UB is playing. Indiana is on par with Pitt, UCONN and BC (believe me, the bottom of the Big Ten is just as good as the middle of the ACC). Syracuse...we'll see. The point is everyone seems to think UB has come upon a great scheduling strategy. They are scheduling regional ooc games....so are we. The last time I checked, KY and IN both touch Ohio.

1. Why would you want your brand on TV getting its ass kicked by the competition? The last thing we want is the Zips on TV getting a beat down. This is like watching Kyle Petty race a car. You know he isn't going to win and you know he is a bad driver. Nobody goes to watch Kyle Petty. 2. They may fill the coffers, but when Joe Akron sees they are 1-3, they aren't going to fill any seats at The Big Dialer. 3. Give the players what they want? Why? They are the same guys who got the last coach fired. Why would we listen to them? Why would we have an AD? Just let the players run the program. 1. defeatist 2. they aren't going to get filled losing to Marshall 3. I don't even know where to begin with that. Support the team? 1. Realist 2. Who is the defeatist now? I'd much rather watch the Zips play Marshall than Syracuse. Syracuse is just a school everyone has forgotten about in a part of the country we could easily give back to Canada an not miss a step. There will only be between 15-20 K at the Syracuse game. Scheduling Marshall would pack the place with the Marshall crowd. 3. You support the team by putting them in a position to be successful. Your scheduling guarantees failure.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way. One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks. Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win. My Bad. Botom line for me is: Good Competition begets better competition, a stronger/better team, more wins against teams that actually mean something, puts UA on the map, begets national TV exposure where we don't embarrass ourselves, but instead leave an indelible "ZIPS are the real deal" mark on the psyche of NCAA football. GO ZIPS!! Then why is the mac getting worse after a few years of success? The mac gets more TV exposure than ever and it gets worse. The problem is you have to win more than one game against BCS teams for people to take note. In the mean time, we just continue to lose game after game ooc. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Isn't that what the Zips are doing this season? It is the dream come true about to become a nightmare. UofA plays an even more difficult schedule than UB does. We play a I-AA team, they play a I-AA team. We play IU and KY on the road, they play two BCS teams on the road. We play Syracuse at home, they play UCONN at home (both Big East teams). We will go 1-3 with our ooc and they will go 1-3. I can't believe some of you who think UofA should schedule up would also complain about the schedule we play and actually think UB is better scheduling than us.

Why, people watched the Browns in droves (3 times as many as we need to fill the stadium)? The Browns over the last decade could hardly be called "entertaining football". Unless everyone in the upper deck of Cleveland Browns Stadium is showing up dressed as an empty orange chair, many have stopped attending Browns games and I don't blame them. There is no entertainment in watching them. My as well work in your yard or go for a walk on a nice day with the family. If the Browns were somewhat entertaining, more would go to games. The mac just needs to be more entertaining and I'm convinced people will go to games.

1. Why would you want your brand on TV getting its ass kicked by the competition? The last thing we want is the Zips on TV getting a beat down. This is like watching Kyle Petty race a car. You know he isn't going to win and you know he is a bad driver. Nobody goes to watch Kyle Petty. 2. They may fill the coffers, but when Joe Akron sees they are 1-3, they aren't going to fill any seats at The Big Dialer. 3. Give the players what they want? Why? They are the same guys who got the last coach fired. Why would we listen to them? Why would we have an AD? Just let the players run the program.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way. One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks. Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win.

It is an opportunity, but I would be interested to see how big of one. You have to be a pretty big football fan to go to an NFL game because of the cost. Maybe that person would need to get their "football fix" somewhere. UofA might be that place for some if we can play an entertaining brand of football. Make the football entertaining and it won't matter if there is an NFL strike or not because people will come to the games for the entertainment value of good football. We need good football, not clowns, fireworks, etc.

That's fine, give it to them once a year.

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning. MAC Champs from 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 (Lost 1 BCS and to Army), 2004 all lost to at least 2 BCS teams to start out the season. The 2003 Miami Championship team lost to Iowa on the way to a #13 ranked season. They beat Northwestern, Colorado, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Louisville. The 2009 CMU Champ team lost to Arizona away and beat MSU in East Lansing. Losing to BCS teams early apparently has nothing to do with MAC success or momentum. Once again, the exception and not the rule. Miami had the best QB to come out of his draft class that year. They are an exception. You are thinking in the extreme. Losing to one BCS team is fine. Two maybe you can be OK. Three is a disaster waiting to happen. I think you guys are nuts if you think we should continue to schedule 3 BCS teams per year. There is no evidence it is helping the program in any way but financially. Let's keep pointing to the exceptions to the rules though and that one time out of 20 we beat one BCS team we can all feel good. Man, I can't wait to see how we stacked up in the other 19 games.

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning.

There is no way UB or UofA are going to get three BCS teams to come to their stadium in one year. The only thing they boost is their loss total against BCS teams. I don't believe Joe Akron or Joe Buffalo sits around and says, "Hey, let's go see UB play this week. I see they got their asses kicked by 50 by PSU last week. I want to see that team play." Is Wake in a good conference? Yes, but they are also a middle to bottom of the pack team in their league. Wake struggles to make .500 each season which would get them to a bowl. They stand a better shot at a bowl by playing Stanford, Navy, Presby and Vandy than they do Presby, Alabama, Florida and Texas. Want to impress a bowl selectoin committe? Don't go 1-3 ooc and 0-3 against BCS teams, go 2-2 or 3-1 in ooc play then finish 5-3 in the mac and you are more impressive. The mac schedule should not be the crutch for teams to get to .500 and a bowl....it should be part of a strategy combining quality conference play with quality ooc scheduling.

5-3 in conference is better than average. It is still very difficult to argue with numbers. I think that momentum is important, but facing good competition is better. That Penn State trip was fun. Sucks we lost. Cool to see where we stacked up. Do we really need to get our ass kicked three times a year by BCS schools to know the MAC is at or extremely close to the bottom of D-1A conferences? I have a real problem with the thought that it is fun to go somewhere and watch your team get killed for three hours three times a year. I'll stand by a 5-3 MAC record as average. The league is terrible and one game over .500 in a bad league is average. If you want good competition, why wouldn't the schedule I posted prevously of MTSU, Troy, BCS and I-AA constitute "good competition". It is good competition for both schools. When we play PSU, it is good overwhelming competition for us and scrimmage for them. We should be playing I-A teams from conferences that are on par with the MAC. I'll break out another Wake Forest analogy. I know how much you guys like them. Wake's scheduling philosophy is not to load up on Florida, Texas and Alabama to see where they stack up. Their philosophy is to schedule teams at the same academic level they are at. Wake is an EXTREMELY good academic school. Translation, good academic schools can not attract the type of "athlete" lesser academic schools can attract so they play within their competition level. Next year, Wake plays an ooc schedule of at Stanford, Navy, at Vandy and Presbyterian (promotional item for the Presby game is free admission to a post game book burning of books that use the word "breast" in them). Anyhow, all of the D-I ooc games are against schools that have very high academic standards giving Wake a chance to compete in a realistic way. Our ooc schedule does not take realistic competition into account...it takes money into account. If they AD is going to destroy the football program, like Miami's has, with one BCS school after another in order to make money, he should just admit to it. It will save me the energy of worrying about the first four games of the season. We should play one BCS school per year, one I-AA and two non-BCS teams we could actually beat.

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006? 2007 5-3 conference 2008 5-3 conference 2009 3-5 conference Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard.. It is hard to argue with numbers. I thought I was the only one having trouble understanding that. The non-conf schedule has nothing to do with MAC record. It may or it may not. Football is a game of momentum. Extremely difficult ooc schedules make it difficult for a team to gain early season momentum. Other things that impact are the number of back to back road games teams play. The Zips play back to back road games three times this coming season. That's no good. 5-3 is actually an average to below average MAC record. The league is terrible and if you have a pulse you should be able to win five games. Lastly, 5-3 is one thing, but if you go 1-3 ooc, the final record is 6-6. Nobody gets excited about a 6-6 team that gets their ass kick by BCS teams three times a year.

UB will go 1-3 against these teams in each of the seasons they play them. I'm not sure why this is such a good schedule for them. You are right...they should schedule Malone, Prairie View and SW Texas State instead. If you really think MAC teams should not strive for schedules such as this, why do you even bother paying attention to Akron games? Your small potato schedules will keep the program dormant for years. I would rather lose to a BCS than beat a garbage team nobody has heard of. It at least draws somewhat of an interest from the community as opposed to NONE. I don't know why your thinking has to be so extreme. How about this instead? Game 1: Troy Game 2: Morgan State Game 3: Middle Tennessee Game 4: Pitt, UCONN or BC That is a sane schedule for a MAC school.

What makes you so sure they can beat Morgan State?