GP1

This author uses the word genome in his article. It reminds me of the guy who mapped the human genome and wrote a book called The Language of God. Like many great scientists, he believes in God and is a Christian, but not in a way in which many neo-Christians believe in God. Many new-Christians are like that smiling, creepy preacher (I can't think of his name right now...Joel Olstein, sp?) from Houston who believes if you pray enough, God will reward you with riches...literally. This guy believe much more in the idea that God created the Universe and with the free will we have been given by Him, can do whatever we want with it. Sometimes we do good and sometimes we do bad. Neo-Christians believe they have a "personal relationship with God"..whatever that is supposed to mean. I actually think that type of thinking is for people who really believe they are God and want to look down their noses at others. The thinking is very anti-intellectual. The Bible is clear, "I am who am".....Not, "My name is Joe". The point being you will never truely know me, but you should spend your life trying to get to know me by doing good works and praying. We should use our free will to do those things and post on ZipsNation.

Maybe. A little too early to really know. The problem real conservatives have is they are being pushed aside by the the noise maching that is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, the lunatics on the religious right who believe the Earth was created 6,000 year ago and that crazy woman from Minnesota. Sane people like Ron Paul are beginning to be heard because people pay attention, but they can easily be painted with a broad brush by the media and discounted as something the are not when they will ultimately have to associate with the noise machine. FOX News, which is actually a liberal network because of their embracing of neo-conservatives, has duped many in this country to believe their brand of conservatism is the only one out there. They are a bunch of stupid people, who happen to look nice, for the most part, playing the ratings games and a lot of people can't see through that because the "conservative" option is FOX News and the "liberal" option is MSNBC. It's moronic and childish. Ron Paul holds adult ideas and is a smart guy...there is no room for him on FOX News. As much as I like Ron Paul, he has to much of a public record to run for office. People who get elected today are lightweights like Obama and GW Bush who had little in the way of accomplishments prior to being President. Compassionate Conservatism, what the Hell is that? The Audacity of Hope, what the Hell is that? It's nothing. Great one, I think your thinking is misunderestimated because you are often counterintuitive! And so is Ron Paul. Paul is an "anti-politician". He speaks his own mind too much to be taken seriously by any "serious" (i.e., American "mainstream", or establishment) party. This is why Paul receives support not just from the political Right, but from populists across the spectrum, not unlike Ralph Nader, or even (at times, though not much recently) Patrick Buchanan. Another anti-pol politician who gets support from Left and Right in his home state is Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. People support leaders who aren't afraid to speak (and vote) their mind. Sanders started his career as Mayor of Burlington, a city with a heavy student and Lefty population, and to appeal to that crowd, he called himself a (small 's') socialist and formed the Vermont Progressive Coalition to get elected Mayor for 3-4 terms. When he ran for Congress first in 1988, a (moderate) Republican was elected, showing the Dems that if they run their own candidate, they only split their own vote, but joining in a broad-based coalition gains votes and wins elections -- and Sanders has voted with the Dem Caucus since going to Washington. But, my point is, he claims conservative and Republican votes (at least 10%) because of his frankness. I would not hesitiate to say that Bernie and Ron have a lot more in common with each other, than they have with the establishment pols of the Dem or GOP parties. Check out Paul's recent comments at the Southern Tea Party convention -- or whatever they called it. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/ron-paul-...es-like-empire/ Good post. I think one of the main differnces between Paul and Sanders is Sanders is embraced by MSNBC and is a regular on their evening line-up. He is slowly becoming part of the mainstream left. The word "sellout" comes to mind. On the other hand, the neo-conservative talking heads like Fred Barns, Bill Kristol and Brit Hume on FOX News giggle at Paul because, among many other reasons, he does not hold their "military intervention at all cost" view of the world. In reality, Paul cares about the people in the military and does not want unnecessary harm come to them. Neo-conservatives could care less about the people we send off to war and could care less if they are killed fighting for an elected dictator in lieu of a run of the mil dictator who may have come to power through a military overthrow. Some cultures lend themselves to dictators. We are not going to change that with bombs. Neo-conservatives bashed Colin Powell because he told GW Bush, "If you break it, you buy it." Iraq is like a case of Herpes, it just won't go away. Bush wasn't looking past the first wave of bombs in Iraq. If you listen to a guy like Kristol speak even today, he wants to drop bombs and then see what happens. Neo-conservatives have no idea as to what to do after they drop bombs other than more bombs. That's the problem witih neo-conservatives in a nutshell. Their ideas are very shallow when you see them in action. Deep down, they are a bunch of liberals. It's hard to have ideas like Paull because ideas such as freedom from government are difficult to describe and he is not the most well spoken guy. One of my favorite things Paul does is ask the obvious questions about topics many have neglected to discuss in years? Does the US still need troops in Germany to protect the Germans from the whore chasing, alcoholics in Russia (OK, I inserted whore chasing, alcoholics only because they are whore chasing alcoholics)? We don't have enough troops in South Korea to adequately defend S. Korea against N. Korea, so why do we keep troops there? Paul's comments are actually much smarter though, because they center around what the Constitution says about wars and where troops should be. If there is no declaration of war in Europe, why are there troops there? If there is no declaration of war in Korea (there never was one), then why are we still there? It was actually a very conservative Republican who warned the country of the "military industrial complex". Look where we are today. Sorry for the long paragraphs, but Sanders is becoming more mainstream every day on the liberal MSNBC and Paul is not becoming mainstream anywhere.

I would bet the Big Ten makes a lot off of their network. It doesn't seem to me though that having your own network would be that difficult. If the Big Ten can do it, the SEC, Big 12 and PAC 10 could do it as well. Speaking of lucrative, the split between the BCS and FBS would rake in a ton of cash for the non-BCS schools. College football needs to do something. Simply leveling the playing field financially will not work because the non-BCS schools wouldn't know what to do with a pile of cash if they had it. The big schools got big for a reason....they knew what to do and they did it. The smaller schools sort of know what to do and can't execute on a plan because anyone with any vision goes to a big school and becomes the AD there.

I would be interested to know what the opinions of the current Big Ten teams are. I would like to see WVU in this group in lieu of Rutgers. If ND says no thanks to the Big Ten, which I think they will because they don't want the competition, then Rutgers makes sense. My guess is tOSU will lobby heavily against the expansion of the Big Ten. Games involving Pitt, WVU and PSU instantly become more interesting than the tOSU vs. Michigan game. Not only that, but tOSU would have to play WVU, PSU and Pitt every year. I doubt they want to do that. Kansas and Nebraska will never join the Big Ten. They are already in a better conference than the BT. It doesn't make sense for them to leave. Texas will NEVER join the Big Ten. Some of you give the BT more respect than it deserves. It's a good confernce, but it isn't better than the PAC 10, Big 12 or SEC. My guess is all of the speculation will amount to nothing by the end of the summer.

Sometimes when a person is wrong, they should just admit they are wrong and just move on. Digging the hole deeper is not the best thing to do.

That's because football has become a passing game with the QB in the shotgun. The game moves too fast to put the QB under center unable to focus downfield. Nope. I think Lee Corso has had too large an influence on your football knowledge. The are disadvantages and advantages to both. For example, the QB gets a better read on the secondary when under center as opposed to being in the shotgun. So you are saying a QB gets a better read hunched over with his hands on the sweaty ass of a center than he does standing erect in the backfield with a wider range of vision? It's amazing anyone would even type that. If that was the case, wouldn't every QB have his hands under center on 3rd and 10 so he could get a better read instead of in the shotgun...they could always run that play action fake on 3rd and 10 running from under center. We all know how well that works. Are you also saying football has not become a passing game? That would sort of fly in the face of reality. Football has not just become a passing game, the rule changes have made it so you almost have to pass to take advantage of them. Not sure where the Lee Corso comment comes from.

Try to look at it philosophically....the day you are conceived is the day you start to die. Buildings are the same. The day they are finished is the day they start to die. Think of the replacement of the concrete as a sixth toe. It does happen, but can easily be fixed the first couple days after birth. UofA is just removing a sixth toe.

That's because football has become a passing game with the QB in the shotgun. The game moves too fast to put the QB under center unable to focus downfield.

If you go back and read some of my posts from when the stadium was built, I predicted this would happen rapidly. The problem is they installed the concrete during the winter, which is the worst time possible to pour concrete. If I remember right, it was extemely cold when they poured it a couple of winters ago. Some cracking should be expected during the first year as the structure settles, but large scale replacement should not be required. I'm sure the subcontractor who installed the concrete has a trail of letters they wrote about pouring concrete in the winter protecting them from lawsuits. The pressure to get this job done on time was pretty big. Contractors know risk and when a problem will happen so they protect themselves. Contracting is actually a form of legalized gambling. You gamble on material costs, labor, weather, etc. There are three ways to get a construction project: good, fast and cheap. What most people don't understand is you can only get two of them. The stadium was finished fast and cheap ($64 million really isn't that much). Because of that, some problems should have been expected. There are probably more problems out there waiting to happen, but drywall covers up a lot of potential problems until they show themselves and it is too late. In gerneral, the stadium is probably an extremely safe place, there were just some things that had to be rushed and now they have to fix those things. It should have been expected.

Under a new coach, a defense will be more mature early than an offense. My biggest question mark has to do with whether or not PN's accuracy has improved. Is it any better? Some guys with great arms never develop accuracy like a pitcher who can throw 100 mph but not over the plate.

Anyone who has gone through winter workouts and spring practice knows tonight will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, party night for the football team. Bigger than the last game of the season. Workouts during the season are a cakewalk compared to what the players have to go through in the winter and spring. Six AM workouts were always funny during the Faust years. Half the guys weren't done throwing up from the night before. Looking back, I don't know how anyone didn't die. On this day, I would like to tell the current group of Zips.....Cheers! Go have some fun and be safe.

I don't miss this. It's going to be between 70 and 80 at my place today. Will probably go to the lake to hang out for a while.

The answer is....not very. Few guys with a ton of talent rarely turn into stars in KDs system. I doubt this guy has much talent or he would have seen more time at UNO.

They played on grass once last year (Penn State) and will play twice this year (Kentucky, Temple). The MAC title game is on artificial turf as well. Seems like the 50 yard practice field is fine for the frequency of play on natural grass. It's impossible to run a college football practice with over 100 guys on a 50 yard field, individual drills would be impossilbe, not to mention the kickers need a place to practice, and being that we have no goal posts on the grass space, that's impossible. If there's one position where practice on grass before a game on grass is an absolute must, it's kicking, and right now they have nowhere to do that. I've seen them practice kicking from the grass before. It's not that big of a deal. As far as "not enough room for a 100 guys", I would beg to differ. I can't even believe you're still on this topic. The practice facilities that we have access to are excellent, and all facilities have more use than just Varsity athletics. Are you joking?? You really think a 50 yard field is big enough to run a FULL TEAM practice??? It's a tight squeeze with different position groups running into each other's drills with a 100 yard field!! Most programs and all NFL teams have TWO outdoor fields for this very purpose, and the offense and the defense each take a 100 yard field. You do realize how many position groups there are that need space for individual drills don't you? QB's, RB's, OL, WR's, TE's sometimes split off, DL, LB's, Corners, and Safeties. You've obviously never played college football. A hundred yard field is a tight squeeze. A 50 yard field would be impossible. All I'm saying is that we built multi-million dollar facilities and didn't include a grass practice field, a standard of all college programs. Hell, Can't State has 3 of them. Find me one other school with facilities like ours that doesn't have a grass practice field. Heck, I bet every other school even in our crap conference has a grass practice field, regardless of what the quality of their facilities. Whether you think it will or not, the fact is is that it will make a difference when we play grass teams. Are you kidding me? We have an indoor facility, an outdoor facility (2 practice fields) an all weather game day surface (3 areas to practice) and a grass practice field (4 areas). I'm pretty sure you're aware that warm up drills can be run anywhere. You need the grass practice field (which we have) to practice kicking and run Team O and Team D for the whopping 2 games a year we play on grass. Not only that but you also have the infield of the track that you can use (5 areas). Unbelievable. You just want things to complain about I think. Trying to build in excuses. This isn't the old days, there is barely any difference between prograss (artificial surface) and real grass anymore. And like Zach said, the Rubber Bowl practice facilities also still exist (8 areas to practice, 5 grass 3 artificial). Individual drills are not warmups, they're probably the most important part of practice. That was an incredibly ignorant statement. And practice in the infield of the track complex, Really?? Number one, it isn't lined. Harshmarks are incredibly important to things like alignment and you're basically wasting your time trying to practice without them. Number two, there's a nice long hard surface running down the middle of it for pole vaulting. I'm sure that would make for some interesting injuries. Incredibly ignorant statement number two. There's a no difference between prograss and grass?? Ignorant statement three. I've played on both partner, I'm not THAT old. And there's a huge difference, grass sets the game at a different speed than turf not to mention its a different running on it and making cuts. It throws off everything from QB-WR timing to running backs footwork to the ability of defensive lineman to make pass rush moves. You wouldn't understand what I'm talking about unless you've played a college football game on both surfaces, but it makes a HUGE difference, and our players should be able to practice on grass before they have to play on it. The bottom line is all college teams have grass practice facilities. We built a multi-million dollar practice facility, and don't. The fields out at the Rubber Bowl are no longer kept in practice caliber condition (not that they really were to begin with, but that's beside the point...), and the fact that we would even have to think about bussing to the rubber bowl with as much money as we've spent on facilities is ridiculous. It was a stupid decision to change the original plans, and now we're landlocked and have no options correct it. Thus, we have a multi-million dollar practice facility that puts us up shit creek when we're playing a team on grass. Stupendous. Once during the Faust years, when spring practice lasted a lot longer than it does now (these kids today are pampered), we had a snow storm during spring practice so we couldn't practice at the RB. We had full contact-full pad practice on the basketball court in the JAR. Practiced a lot of running plays that day.

Agree. If you are a difference maker in college basketball, you play more and score more even as a freshman. It's not like this kid is transfering from an SEC school or something. He is transfering from a school that I had even forgotten had college basketball. Whe we talk about the transfer route, this isn't what I had in mind.

Maybe. A little too early to really know. The problem real conservatives have is they are being pushed aside by the the noise maching that is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, the lunatics on the religious right who believe the Earth was created 6,000 year ago and that crazy woman from Minnesota. Sane people like Ron Paul are beginning to be heard because people pay attention, but they can easily be painted with a broad brush by the media and discounted as something the are not when they will ultimately have to associate with the noise machine. FOX News, which is actually a liberal network because of their embracing of neo-conservatives, has duped many in this country to believe their brand of conservatism is the only one out there. They are a bunch of stupid people, who happen to look nice, for the most part, playing the ratings games and a lot of people can't see through that because the "conservative" option is FOX News and the "liberal" option is MSNBC. It's moronic and childish. Ron Paul holds adult ideas and is a smart guy...there is no room for him on FOX News. As much as I like Ron Paul, he has to much of a public record to run for office. People who get elected today are lightweights like Obama and GW Bush who had little in the way of accomplishments prior to being President. Compassionate Conservatism, what the Hell is that? The Audacity of Hope, what the Hell is that? It's nothing.

I'll take Syracuse at home and I'll take whatever 1-AA team we play next year. I don't think we will beat Syracuse, but the 1-AA scrap should be a gimme. We lost to Indiana at home last year and I don't see us winning there next season. Kentucky on the road will be brutal. Most SEC teams could beat a MAC team with their back-ups. The Zips play back to back road games three times next year....that's terrible scheduling. Your scenario of NTSU, MTSU and FIU is exactly the schedule the Zips should be playing....throw in a 1-AA team and replace one with a BCS ATM game. All of those games would be a potential win. I'm not sure why we have to guarantee three loses a year so we can hope to win one of those BCS games every 10 years....wait, I do know. The football program is the cash cow that funds the rest of the "growing" Athletic Department. I've watched this program flounder (I had some fried flounder at Hymans in Charleston last week, must still be on my mind) for 20+ years now playing brutal schedules and I'm sick of the losing. I'm sick of starting out seasons 1-3 with an uphill climb to some sort of respectability. I 'm sick of the wet blanket a 1-3 start throws on a season and fan interest. You can't continue to put players who have lost over and over again in a situation where they fail early in a season and the losing becomes just another part of the ongoing routine. Scheduling is a huge part of the problem as to why the Zips can't seem to get moving in a positive direction. Just like JD didn't put the Zips players in positions to be successful, the AD can't put the coach into a position where he can't be successful. Scheduling is a huge part of what an AD can do to help a coach be successful. I hope that our new AD, when he is not suspending innocent assistant coaches, hiring his friends and giving away free tickets can find time to plan a better schedule for the football program. I'll excuse the AD for this schedule once, but no more. He had to play with the cards he was dealt. If three BCS teams are on the schedule the year after next and into the foreseeable future, it is proof that the football program is nothing more than a cash cow for the Athletic Department. We need to shift some of the financial burden off of the football and onto other programs that have scheduled weakly in recent years (hint: MBB).

Too bad our early season schedule is set up for failure. If playing Syracuse and Indiana means that we are setup for failure then we might as well give up and implode the new stadium. Those are two teams that are lower-mid level D1 programs. Kentucky is a stretch for us at this point in the programs current status, but we should be able to compete with the Kentucky's of the world. I 100% agree with you, but GP1 in 3...2...1... The football schedule is set up for 6-7 win season and failure. The basketball schedule is set up for a 20 win season and the illusion of greatness. The basketball team has it right. It isn't about tearing down the stadium if the Zips can't beat Syracuse or Indiana. We needed the new stadium anyhow. The Great GP1 is too brilliant to look at the world in such a narrow frame. The problems the Zips have competing against BCS schools are not isolated to just UofA. There is a growing disparity between the upper level of FBS and the lower level of FBS. Neither group is either good or bad. They just exist as they are. The solution isn't "growing" D-IA from 130 to 150 teams. It is about making it smaller....much smaller. We probably have the best facilities and stadium in all of FCS (I-AA to you old timers....I'm trying to make the adjustment but I'm finding it difficult). UofA would be a powerhouse I-AA team and the MAC would be a powerhouse I-AA conference. Instead, we are bottom feeders, which is exactly the way the NCAA wants it to be. There is an old saying, "You can't fight city hall". We can't beat the NCAA because the rules are stacked against us as a I-A team/league.

Still just AWFUL advertising for it. What does the marketing department do all day?! Any spring game is about the most pointless thing a fan could go to. It's like going to watch a practice and the marketing department should not advertise boring events. Anyone who has been to a college football practice would see how boring they actually are. If 318 people go to the spring game, then there are 318 people with nothing better to do on a Saturday. Wake me when the real games start.

I read this article as a positive. We should not expect the new coach to say much nice about the progress in the media. The biggest positive I see from the article is the problems are more mental than physical. If a guy doesn't have the physical ability, it is a huge problem. Our guys have the physical ability. If a guy is a little slow on the uptake of information, that can be corrected with reps and study time. Guys are adjusting mentally from how the story reads, just not at the rate the coach would like. I sort of expected to read a story like this. It's critical during the summer that the leadership of the team focuses on getting the small mental things right. Be on the field when your formation is called. Line up in the right place. Know the basic terminology. Know the 10-20 most basic plays inside and out. Our problem with JD was not there was not talent. It wasn't that the kids couldn't learn. It wasn't effort. It was the coaches not putting the kids in the best position to win. If Coach I just puts the kids in a position where they have a shot at winning, it should be worth two more wins next year.

I'm not saying it creates chaos. I'm saying it creates a situation where a handful of drunks can create a public relations problem for the University. The ABJ paints every problem that happens in the sports programs as "the program is out of control". If one innocent person is hurt at a game by a drunk, the ABJ headline will read: "Zips Fan Hurt At Game: InfoCision Stadium Unsafe". Terry Pluto will have a story titled: "My Dad Was Right, Beer Shouldn't Be Served at Games". Every decision the AD makes should be made with the assumption the football program will be good and people will come to games to watch good football because it is entertaining. Serving beer at the stadium to generate lost revenue is making the assumption the football team will be bad. The only reason beer works so well at Can't is there is nobody at the games to get drunk and cause a problem. I'm all for getting drunk. Let's try getting good before we get drunk.

ESPN reports the MAC and WAC will play one another in the Humanitarian Bowl for the next four seasons. I was surprised to read that last year's game (BGSU vs. Idaho) tied an all time TV rating for the game. If the game continues to have 43-42 scores like last year, a lot of people will watch it over time like they watch the Holiday Bowl waiting for a high scoring game.

I'm not against beer in stadiums on a moral level. Hell, I love to get drunk and did so last night. Intellectually, I am against it. CK mentioned it was not a problem 60 years ago when he was in school.......OK, it was probably less than 30. Anyhow, even 30 years ago, our society was much more civil. I'm also against beer as a marketing tool. Winning is actually king in college football and winning would get people to games. Sell football to a recruit based upon a new stadium and you get a kid who comes to school to play in a new stadium. Not to win. Sell fans cheap tickets, and they will buy because of cheap tickets and expect cheap tickets in the future. Sell fans a beer based gameday, and you will get drunks at the games making problems more likely and making a lot of people who want to responsibly enjoy a game uncomfortable. Don't market to drunks. If the Zips win and can generate 3,333.33 more fans per game in a six game home season at $10 per GA ticket, they make up the $200,000 net the story refers to. That fan total is roughly 14% of what the stadium holds. Let's try winning first. Selling beer will be a sign of panic.

It's certainly not the Amish. Says you. English! Well put, Paradise Z.I.P. Probbably most readers on ZN do not know that the term "English" is what the Amish call the rest of us. As for the Amish, this Catholic boy is thinking declaring himself Amish to get out of the insane Obamacare non-heathcare system. That's all well and good, but let's see how fast that horse and buggy get you to the hospital when there is an emergency.

A problem in sports today, as entertainment, is everyone is a diplomat. Nobody says what is really on their mind or admit to what everyone already knows that they are thinking. I like when people say exactly what they belive. It is not just more entertaining, it is more honest. Guys like Tiger Woods (pre-bimbo explosion) are boring because they say nothing when interviewed. In a lot of ways, LB James is boring because he speaks in Nikelike robot speak. They say the same thing every time they are interviewed. Charles Barkley was at least interesting because you never knew what he was going to say. Yogi Berra was interesting because you never knew what he was going to say next. Bobby Knight was interesting because he was completely honest and revealed his opinions. I wish we could go back to the days where an athlete was as interesting as he was athletic.