GP1

What makes Rasor's opinion or the players valid? The players are college kids who aren't exactly experts at the big picture. Rasor is a law student who writes a blog and has limited access to the program these days. I could get posts from the AD and Coach I saying they expect to win next year. That doesn't sound like "writing off this season as a rebuilding year" to me. I'm sure that in this age of the internet, there is a certain desire to start searching for any quote by anyone in the program that may have used the word "rebuild". Save yourself the time. High school debate club does not interest me. None of us really know what they are thinking because they have been so closed mouthed. I have no problem with that. Patience. Let's see how they do on the field.

You list 31 examples (and Barry Alvarez twice). 26 of those (Miles, Saban, Peterson, Walker, Alvarez, Smith, Petrino, Tiller, Leach, Mangino, Bob Stoops, Friedgen, Pinckel, Pelini, Tuberville, Jones, Schiano, Dantonio, Golden, Mike Stoops, Erickson, Tedford, Richt, Hill, Davis, Edsall) were at least offensive or defensive coordinators before becoming a HC. Something Ianello has never done. 9 of them (Miles, Saban, Petrino, Friedgen, Pelini, Schiano, Hill, Davis, Edsall) coached something in the NFL along with having coordinator experience. 2 of them (Barnett at Fort Lewis College, Davis at Tulsa Rodgers High School) coached as a HC at a lower level first. Out of your list, only Shembechler, Fry, and Neuheisel started off going from a college position coach to a FBS head coach. If you go back and look at the threads that were around during the coaching search, you would find that I was not opposed to hiring someone with coordinator experience but believed that head coaching experience would be the preferred option. At least coordinators deal with half of roster (40 or more players) and call plays in game situations instead of just coaching 8 or 9 guys as a position coach. Ianello has never been more than a position coach. He can recruit for easy-to-recruit schools and he can sort of coach WRs. What he can't do is call plays or recruit for a school that doesn't sell itself. I agree with you. This has to at least concern people that, not only has he not been a head coach, but also has not been a coordinator. But the thing that really bothers me is that Akron, one of only 120 or so D-1A schools, SHOULD be able to get a guy with HC experience, if they wanted one. And someone else tried to make the "well...everyone needs to start somewhere" point. And that's fine, IF they are "starting somewhere" much earlier in their career. With the length of time he has been in coaching, you have to at least wonder why he has not at least been a OC or DC by this point. If he's been offered such jobs, and just has not taken them, then that would explain it for me. But, it just seems odd that he has not reached at least coordinator level with his lengthy tenure in coaching. Time will tell. He's coaching football at a MAC school, not running General Electric. I'm sure that for every success story you could point to where a guy with HC experiece did well, you could find 10 where he failed. Failure and getting fired is the nature of coaching. Coach I has done nothing wrong (with the exception of the texting mishap, but that seems to be working out and was really a small thing). Most of what he has done seems to be good. He ran a difficult and spirited spring program and he seems to be working hard at getting ready for fall camp. His players, especially PN, seem to be buying into his program. You guys may not like not having a golf outing, but he put on a program to support breast cancer research...that's a good thing. He had a good recruiting class for his limited time and staffing at UofA. With all "coachers", there is a search for points of reaffirmation about their idea. If a player fumbles, then we hear, "See, if the coach had HC experience, he wouldn't fumble." If an INT is thrown, same thing. And so on. It is the nature of being a "coacher". I say the PLAYERS need to get their asses in gear this season. There are enough returning starters (70%) to make a huge difference. They need to start playing. At the end of this year we will know more. I expect some bumps with any new coach, but as long as we don't fly off of the tracks, we should be OK. I expect the team to win 4-6 games this season. Anything above six and below four would be shocking to me.

You'd be surprised how many student-athletes have kids. Not if you think it is still the 1950s. ??????? Since you ask........ I sometimes get the feeling that we have a group of Puritans posting on this board who believe that any sign of what they see as immoral behavior should be cause for stoning. They live in a world where if a kid gets a girl pregnant in high school, then that is a sign of bad character. I'm sure that if the sex odds had turned out different for a lot of us, we might have been in the same position as Mr. Howard in high school.

Maybe they weren't being reported. I find it hard to believe that a guy with his money and fame wasn't doing these things years ago. Personally, I would be doing the same thing if I was in his position so I'm not looking down on his behavior. There is a big difference between what people want to believe about professional athletes and what they actually do.

You'd be surprised how many student-athletes have kids. Not if you think it is still the 1950s.

You'd be surprised how many student-athletes have kids. I'm sure your right about that. I just don't understand why this kid is making things difficult for himself. A baby is just one more obstacle and distraction. He has talent, but I question his work ethic and priorities. If he backs up the girl and kid the way he needs to, and never sees a D1 FB game, seems to me his priorities are fine. Isn't backing up the girl what got him into this trouble in the first place?.?.......

The only undies worth savoring belong to libertarian politicians, right? It depends on what she looks like......

Dear LeBron, Step 1: Fire the clowns you have around you. Step 2: Talk with Nike about replacing the clowns around you. Please call with questions....you know the number. Sincerely, The Great GP1

This is just a bunch of nothing. Seriously, this means absolutely nothing and these people should have better things to do with their time than passing resolutions like this.

The Zips are making me neither sad nor angry or happy or any other emotion. I'm starting to have a problem with my lack of emotion about the whole thing. I hope they do something to make me happy this season because I don't like to be mad or sad about anything. I'd rather feel nothing which is exactly where I am right now. If they stink, I will not be mad or sad. I really don't know what kind of a coach RI is going to be and I am completely open minded about him. He has the one of the best, if not the best QB in the league, this season. That makes me feel good about the upcoming season. Let's be clear again about JD's championship season. No Biggs (JD player) no championship. No Getsy (JD player) no championship. No Hixon (A guy JD took off of LO's scrapheap of a defense and turned into an NFL player in two years) no championship. JD gets all of the credit for the championship. If RI wins this season, he should get all of the credit as well. Why are the "fans" laughing stock? That's silly. The fans aren't the laughing stock, teams are or aren't. Does UofA deserve to be a laughing stock? I really don't know. My experience in life is you deserve what you get. UofA has mistaken building buildings as the key to winning. I don't think that is the case. A focus on winning and not building is the problem. I think Coach I has come here to win and get the Hell out. I say good luck with that and God's speed. If some of your feelings are hurt because you don't get to talk to him at a golf outing, tough crap. If he wins sooner rather than later, you will have a new coach's to sniff the jock of in three years. Give your olfactory nerves a break for the fall sports season. Most of your olfactory nerves are in full bloom during basketball season anyhow.....I'm surprised some of you can take fawning over another grown man more than one sports season a year anyhow.

Here's another way to look at it. Instead of everyone in Cleveland waiting for the next savior, they make it a business friendly city where people want to move their companies to Cleveland. Then, they can make it advantageous for people to live in Cleveland by improving the schools and communities. It wouldn't take much to draw 6,000 people into Cleveland to LIVE instead of going to basketball games. 6,000 x 42 home games a year = 250,000. You are correct about that. 6,000 x 365 days a year = 2,190,000. That would be the same as having 156.4 MORE home games a year with 14,000 people in attendance. The answer is not having good basketball teams. Is New York City a great place because of the Knicks? Hell no, the Knicks stink. New York City is great because there are tons of people working and living there and those people contribute to all sorts of businesses, not just the Knicks. Cleveland has just as good of an orchestra as NYC. Cleveland has the second largest theater district in the US next to NYC. With the exception of hockey, Cleveland has all of the same pro sports teams. Cleveland has great museums just like NYC. Cleveland has a better hospital in the Cleveland Clinic than anything NYC has to offer. Cleveland is a hub for medical research around the world with the CC and University Hospital. In less than an hour from downtown Cleveland, you can go sailing, get drunk on South Bass Island, Cedar Point, fishing, Cuyahoga National Park, ski, D-1A MAC football, visit historic homes such as Stan Hewitt Hall in Akron, Don Drumm Studio, hunting, visit farm country, etc. Cleveland needs to stop feeling sorry for itself. The answer is having a business friendly city that people would want to live in. It is not unreasonable to think that increasing the population of downtown Cleveland by 6,000 people would be that great of a stretch. What LBJ leaving Cleveland has done is provide cover for the government of Cleveland for the next few years. Anything that goes wrong they can throw blame on LBJ. It isn't LBJ's fault Cleveland is in the shape it is and it isn't his fault if they can't get their act together.

I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but there is no malice in the following question. Why does a dog lick his balls? BCS schools know you have to take at risk kids to compete at that level. If you are going to take at risk kids, you had better put a bunch of money into supporting their difficulties in the classroom. BCS schools have a ton of money to throw around. Fans at MAC schools are immature and think at risk kids have poor character; therefore, they should not be recruited leaving the MAC in the pathetic state it is today. If we had the academic support we needed, we could hold onto better players. Instead, they come here for a year or two and flunk out because of the lack of help. Then the coach gets fired...then they start the "rebuilding" process. Fans of BCS schools understand they need to take at risk players. These fans are willing to look the other way at minor offenses off the field as long as their team is winning. Hell, they are willing to look the other way on major offenses as long as they are winning. Talent is hugely important. If it wasn't, people wouldn't focus on recruiting the way they do. You need talent to win. If you can't hold onto your talent, you lose. It's very simple. Yes -- but I was referring to non-athletes (see original post). Oh, well. Got it. They have bigger endowments at BCS schools so they can afford to spend a lot of money on students. Maybe someone could do a study on the level of endowments MAC vs. BCS and see what they come up with.

Awesome. Is there anyone out there who would like to continue to defend LeJackass?

I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but there is no malice in the following question. Why does a dog lick his balls? BCS schools know you have to take at risk kids to compete at that level. If you are going to take at risk kids, you had better put a bunch of money into supporting their difficulties in the classroom. BCS schools have a ton of money to throw around. Fans at MAC schools are immature and think at risk kids have poor character; therefore, they should not be recruited leaving the MAC in the pathetic state it is today. If we had the academic support we needed, we could hold onto better players. Instead, they come here for a year or two and flunk out because of the lack of help. Then the coach gets fired...then they start the "rebuilding" process. Fans of BCS schools understand they need to take at risk players. These fans are willing to look the other way at minor offenses off the field as long as their team is winning. Hell, they are willing to look the other way on major offenses as long as they are winning. Talent is hugely important. If it wasn't, people wouldn't focus on recruiting the way they do. You need talent to win. If you can't hold onto your talent, you lose. It's very simple.

Thanks for the link Hilltopper. I've read a lot of what Ohlmeyer has written in the past and this has to be the most scathing piece ever. There is now no difference between ESPN and the NBA. The one guy I feel is really a pathetic figure in this whole disaster is Michael Wilbon. Wilbon is a good writer and journalist. I can't believe he allowed himself to be sucked into this whole thing and made a fool of himself along side of Lebron and the other clowns on the LeDecision. Maybe the job at ESPN is worth selling your integrity over.

Well said. Southern Cal is still layered in slime. The untainted players for USC have not yet been born. Do you mean USC or the NCAA? I think it is the NCAA that is layered in slime.

Paying the players is soemthing that gets thrown out there all the time as a solution to some perceived problem. But what problem does it address? Players being too greedy? If they're greedy, they'll still take money illegaly, get their rent payed for by boosters, and all that stuff. Paying them won't change that. They'll take all the illicit stuff and pocket the school's paycheck. Another argument I hear is that the schools make all sorts of money from athletics, so they should pay the players who bring in that money. There are 1080 schools in the NCAA. 18 of them actually make any money from athletics. At any given time, the top 25 in football has at least 10 schools in it that are losing money. And you think they can pay? $1k a month... every month of the year? Only during the season? If so, what about spring practice? What happens with Title IX? Do you have to pay 82 women athletes the same amount, too? Or extend it to all sports, so the men's rowing team and the women's golf team and all the other sports that don't bring in a dime of revenue get $1k per athlete per month as well, costing the school many millions? Somebody will sue for inequality if you don't. The $1,000 per month could be for those who don't sign agent contracts. If a player isn't worth a crap, $1,000 is what you get. If you are any good, an agent would be willing to pay you for future earnings. Let the free market decide who is good and who isn't. If schools can't afford their athletic programs, they need to look into cutting some of them. The gravey train is over. It's 2010 and our society has learned there is no free ride over the past 3 years. People will understand now more than every if cuts need to be made. If we instituted the Great GP1's Super Duper Division in college football, we could only pay those players. Those 40 schools would make plenty of money to spread it around to the players. 85 Scholarships x $12,000/year/player = $1,020,000. Around a 7% increase in funding for UofA (who wouldn't make the top 40 schools) and a drop in the bucket for BCS schools. Schools flush more than that down the drain each year in salaries for coaches and bloated athletic departments. Outlawing paying college players is like outlawing marijuana. Nobody is really hurt by paying players. Nobody is really hurt by people smoking pot in private as long as they don't drive while under the influence. In reality, we are taking up large amounts of space in our jails for pot smokers and dealers costing states millions. In reality, universities have to spend millions trying to police kids between the ages of 18-24 who are already taking money and nobody is really being hurt by them taking money. Who was really hurt by Reggie Bush taking money? Nobody. Reggie Bush won the freaking Heisman Trophy and he was taking money. He wasn't hurt by taking money and he didn't give less than 100% while taking money. The fans enjoyed his play so fans benefited while he was taking money. He's making millions in the NFL. USC benefited from his athletic ability so they weren't hurt by him taking money. The guys who came up short in the Heisman weren't hurt, they werent' as good as him so they didn't deserve the trophy. Does anyone really think the finalists for the Heisman Trophy from that year weren't getting some under the table money? The teams they beat had players on their team taking money and they just weren't caught so I don't see how they were hurt. They weren't as good as USC. The only people who believe they are hurt by Bush taking money are bitter jackasses who live in a fantasy world of how they think college football should be, yet never has been. In reality, these people aren't hurt because they love being bitter jackasses and Bush taking money actually makes them happy because they have something to be bitter about. Pay the freaking players for crying out loud.

Why not institute two reforms that would eliminate this type of situation instead of making the regulatory arm of college athletics even bigger? Keep the costs of college sports down. Reform 1: Pay the freaking players. It is already professional in everything except players getting paid. $1,000 per month isn't going to break the bank. Reform 2: Allow players to sign signing non refundable bonuses with agents while still in college without losing the ability to play in college? A player only gets to sign one of these contracts. Put the risk on the agents.

Most of you already know I find most of the people involved in running college athletics lazy and sort of less than reputable. At the top, you have the NCAA followed closely by Athletic Directors. Let's see what USC did to regain the moral high ground for getting caught doing what everyone else is doing at the high BCS level. Let's see.....they give back Bush's Heisman trophy. Oh, how daring and brave....if you believe they are actually daring and brave, I have some property that has appreciated in value the past two years. If they want to take the high road, they should do the following. 1. Give back all money made from Reggie Bush merchandising. 2. Give back all money made from marketing Bush's Heisman. 3. Give back all money made from marketing Bush's Heisman with the other Heismans men have won at USC. 4. Give Reggie Bush back all money he may have donated to USC since leaving school. The point is this. Giving back the Heisman is an empty action lacking in any REAL meaning. It doesn't cost them a penny to give back the trophy. Kind of shows how lazy people in college athletics can be. Sure, it probably makes some bitter people happy on some level, but they will be bitter again soon enough. These same people are probably happy they took away their wins for that season. I'm sure taking away those wins sure makes those guys who got their asses kicked by USC that year feel better. If they wanted to make a real statement, give back the money they made with him. Sounds simple to me. Absent of that, spare us the empty actions. USC went undefeated in 2004 regardless of what they say now. Reggie Bush won the Heisman in 2004. USC was National Champion in 2004. There is video to prove all of this. BTW, there is a great HBO Real Sports story on this. Had Reggie Bush just paid the guy who was buying the houses, etc. the $750K he owed him, none of this would have come out. It goes on every day at big schools, USC just got caught.

Akron isn't a BCS school. We are a MAC school. We have enough talent to win in the MAC. A good defensive line and LBs are a good start. A good QB is an even better start. A WRs performance can improve with an accurate QB because the ball is easier to catch. UofA has as good of a chance of making a bowl game next year as anyone else in the MAC. They just have to get the job done.

I agree. I've seen enough building and rebuilding over the past 20+ years. It's time to start winning. Think of the logic. We are always focused on "building" so we get what is supposed to be building and no winning. Maybe if we focus on "winning" we will get winning. Let's try focusing on some W's.

I love your line of though here. We did need a stadium, and it was more of a need in lieu of a want. With that said......There is a commitment at UofA, but it is a commitment to build buildings without a clue as to what they should do after the building is built. Universities are just part of our ever growing government. Who is paying for all of this building? They build more and more buildings and nobody ever asks what is wrong with the exising buildings. This is a common theme in government supported entities. Build the inventors hall of fame, everyone will come downtown...Didn't it close recently? That's just one example. Everyone buys the idea that "if you build it, they will come". That is a load of crap. It's one thing to build it, it is completely another thing to support it. Intent is different. They intend to do the right thing, but they don't know what the right thing to do is so they flounder. I'm too lazy to look, but is there anyone on the Board of Directors who has attended a class as an undergraduate at a BCS level sports school? I don't mean graduate school, I mean undergraduate where one would make sports more available to themselves. There is one other person, who at this point needs mentioning. Dr. Proenza. I've lost a little faith in him after our last AD hiring. The reality is we are right were we belong. Almost every other MAC school shares the same problems we do. Enjoy it for what it is. I do.

Well, I've tried giving this lady all the room she needs to provide a winner. She keeps giving away -- or throwing out, the resources she needs to win. Was Kyle Baumgartner not MAC Rookie of the Year? Akron would be MAC favorites in 2010-2011, if the team had all the players that she has shoved out the door. I'd can't wait to read the Great GP One's "Get rid of all those troublemakers. Winning is all that matters" reply. The program has, without question, gotten progressively better since JK took over the team at the expense of our long history of miserable WBB teams. I would argue she has performed the best turnaround in school history and there is still a long way to go. I would also argue she is the best coach on campus because of her results....winning, and where the team came from....look at past records. At times, there will be a bump along the road. We'll see if this is a bump or if it is nothing. I wouldn't be too impressed with post season awards in the MAC. We don't really know why these players are leaving. I would like to know. If they are problems, goodbye to them. If they don't like it at UofA, goodbye to a potential malcontent. You can't let the animals run the zoo. Hey, it's a rainy Saturday night in Honolulu, so what else is there to do but reply to my bud GP-1? The number of players who have departed coach Kest's program over the past three years is fast approaching double figures. No, we don't know the exact reasons behind the departures (some of them at least). But regardless of the reasons, in no way can it be other than a black mark on the team and its leader. Who is the one who recruited these players? I believe in nearly all of the cases, it was Kest who brought them to Akron (the W Va guard was a freshman on Kest's first team, maybe one other). Seems that if these players cannot somehow live up to the standards set by Akron Athletics, then Kest has to take the blame for bringing them here in the first place. If the players are departing because they prefer to play for another program and coach, that also reflects on her coaching style. In either case, it is a repetitive problem that is preventing the team from reaching it's potential. Kest has doubtless turned the program around, and deserves credit for that. The program is on a stronger footing than before her arrival. I think, however, that any objective observer would have real concern over the high number of players who have been unable to continue and graduate from UA. I think that according to the NCAA graduation rate formula, the program will end up losing scholarships on account of these departures. I'm not sure the program has been prevented from reaching its potential. They are functioning at a higher level than ever and have gotten progressively better each year. While I don't know NCAA rules completely, my understanding is if these girls go to another school and graduate, it does not count against our graduation rate. My concern about the recent departures is they were good players. Kest ejected a lot of the garbage that was around the program early on, but never good players. What I should say is the garbage was replaced by better players. What has changed in the past year? Well, Coach Kest has a boss as well. Maybe the culture of the Athletic Department has changed and JK is being required to manage her program differently than when Mack was at the helm. We saw how our AD completely overreacted to the Reno incident less than a year ago. Maybe some situations presented themselves in the past year that were reacted to poorly as well with these young ladies. I would be interested in knowing these answers. You worry about the leadership at the top of the WBB program, I'm worried about the leadership of the Athletic Department in general. As long as TW is the AD, I will be worried about the future of the Athletic Department. I just haven't been impressed and quite frankly, I've been mostly disappointed by what I have seen in the past year.

Maybe it isn't an either/or situation. Maybe the word AND would fit better. If they don't want to open it, then fine. Just make the decision work some other way. If they want to open it, open it and make the decision work. Someone make a decision please and execute on a decision. At the end of Huckelberry Finn, Huck leaves Jim for more exploration and his relationship with Jim unfinished in many ways. It was Twain's way of comparing their relationship to the end of the Civil War. At the end of the Civil War, Americans focused to the west and largely ignored the race problem in the south. People have a way of moving on before tasks are completed. We see that here with the football stadium. They are now moving on to other "building" projects and leaving the big one they had somewhat incomplete. It's an old story.

Right conclusion...wrong reasoning. In 2004, launching Heisman campaigns was the trendy thing to in marketing departments. It actually showed how lazy and uncreative so many in college football marketing are. If you follow the trend, you are not very creative. Heisman campaigns do nothing of substance ($). We had some good crowds in 2004, but that was a result of giving out thousands of free tickets more than the Heisman campaign. Temple should be focusing on developing a brand name. One good year doesn't build your brand. Look what happened to us in 2005. Part of building that brand should be the theme of, "Hey! Look at us. We don't suck any more. In fact, we have a pretty good thing going here." It's OK to use players in your marketing, but my advice would be to use several. That tells people you have a lot of good players worth watching, not just one. Use the fact Temple plays in an NFL stadium, which is part of their brand now. Use the fact they have a solid coach who stayed after last year and is now part of the brand.