GP1

Rasor posted this article on his blog about what the coach at Can't had to say about one of his recruits. Mike's response is a good one. How Martin keeps his job is beyond me. Maybe the administrators at Can't think he will go postal if he is fired. Maybe he has been fired and keeps showing up for work like that strange guy in the movie Office Space....I think his name was Milton.Mike also posts a note to KD. Strange and unnecessary note if you ask me. First of all, Rasor should not be saying "your magesty" to anyone, even in jest. Rasor seems to be becoming a little full of himself..."critically thinking reasonable people"? I guess law school and Stow City Council is a bigger deal than I had thought. He seems to be developing the arrogance of a politician.

I couldn't agree more. Many a game have been lost by the Zips in the past few years due to KD not riding the momentum his players build. The way he runs things it's hard for shooters to get into any sort of rhythm.I agree also. He has a tendency to sub in 3-4 players at a time, which makes no sense. You have a good run going, momentum and chemistry working, if a guy is tired sub him out but not all of them. I feel like I'm watching hockey with all the line changes!If you can afford to, substitute liberally early in a game. Players are humans and not robots so they become tired.Getting a lead early in a game is critical in any sport. In basketball, it allows a coach to rest his players. If you have a 12 point lead and rest your starters, the other team has to leave their starters in to try to catch up. If they catch up to say four, then put the starters back in. The other team will be tired from trying to catch up and the starters can expand the lead again.Basketball is a game very much like hockey in there is constant motion. Rest is critical.

Pesky moralists. Always preaching about trying to maintain higher standards of right and wrong behavior.I'm not much of a moralist, but I remember people used to wear things that had WWJD on them. I wonder if he would see the inequity in the current situation and be offended by it, or if he would see the inequity as a method of setting standards of right and wrong behavior. Just kind of typing out loud.....

I really don't disagree with some of what you are saying.I repeat. There already is no money for the remaining teams. Most schools at our level function at a loss. UofA brings in less money than it spends for athletics. We actually have less than no money. We have so little money we have to be boosted by the tax payers of Ohio.We do have to whore ourselves out. That's the problem. It is something I find distasteful not just for UofA, but for all of college sports. It irks me that so many of the big schools are taking advantage of the little schools for glorified scrimmages. It irks me that those same schools force their fans to pay to watch that tripe.College football would become as competitive as the NFL week in and week out in my system. The high level of competition is what makes the NFL so good.My system rewards the best teams over the past 40 years, not recent history.The MAC has been in business since 1946. It is truely a black hole.I think a lot of you are missing the point about my post. My system is much more about increasing competition and not as much about money. I think the competition at the highest level would be great to watch. I also think that the competition at whatever level UofA fell into would be much better to watch as well. Every week UofA would have a winnable game and a meaningful game.

I just hope that isn't the same thing Notre Dame fans got.Oh yes, please don't curse us with 5300 total yards offense 43 touchdowns and 19 field goals. Especially after our super potent season of 3600 total yards 26 touchdowns and 7 field goals. And please don't make us the 8th best offense in the nation like Notre Dame was. Our 113 was so much better. Notre Dame went 6-6 against this schedule. Are you really impressed by their final rankings? Their coach got fired. They lost to Navy, USC (fifth place PAC 10), an overrated Stanford...It takes a lot more than a simple rankings chart to out smart the Great GP1 g-man. Now go to the back of the bus where you belong. You're no match....you're not even close.You were dogging their offense. I point out how wrong you were. We weren't talking records. The defense (which you don't need a great one according to the Tiny gp1) is what caused the team to be 6-6. Additionally 6-6 for a "Dollar General" school as you often bring up, would be quite a step forward, 1-2 wins away from being in the MAC Championship as you often point out.But keep on going Yankee Driver one day you'll get it screwed on right.Didn't I just tell you to get in the back of the bus?

JD has 250,000 reasons to sit out a year if he wants and wait for the next job.People from Pittsburgh are hard headed. The don't like Harris because they wanted a "Pitt guy" to take over the team. They got their wish. The last year Harris was at Pitt they went 10-2 and to a BCS game. They haven't been back since. They finished third in the Big East last year. They don't like Harris because they don't want to admit they were wrong.....

I just heard Gerry Faust would be the sideline reporter. By golly that makes sense to me.....

You're a better poster than this.The point isn't to play the Malones of the world, we have our basketball team to do that for us. How about a FAU or someone along those line? That is a more competitive game and makes more sense. UofA needs to play more home games and less ass kickings on the road. The schedule isn't helping.

I just hope that isn't the same thing Notre Dame fans got.Oh yes, please don't curse us with 5300 total yards offense 43 touchdowns and 19 field goals. Especially after our super potent season of 3600 total yards 26 touchdowns and 7 field goals. And please don't make us the 8th best offense in the nation like Notre Dame was. Our 113 was so much better. Notre Dame went 6-6 against this schedule. Are you really impressed by their final rankings? Their coach got fired. They lost to Navy, USC (fifth place PAC 10), an overrated Stanford...It takes a lot more than a simple rankings chart to out smart the Great GP1 g-man. Now go to the back of the bus where you belong. You're no match....you're not even close.

I just hope that isn't the same thing Notre Dame fans got.

Let's see....75% of OOC games against BCS teams. Coachers are going to be so excited when the team starts 1-3. They'll be packing butts in the stadium after that start.For the love of Christ, would someone please stop setting this team up for disaster at the beginning of every season. There isn't a single program at UofA that plays the percentage of difficult teams the football team does. This needs to stop. It isn't helping.

Was it: "GP1 Speaks on the Rise and Fall of the Suburban Athlete"?Nice!Actually, there was never really a rise. It was more of a fall. In fact, it wasn't even a fall...it was more of being passed by after narrow minded fools realized the flavor of winning was better than the flavor of losing.My book on race in sports would be titled, "Slow Footed and Easily Brought To Tears" It could be a book about why suburban parents have to suffer through soccer.Chapter 1: Why Does Pablo Hit Better Than Stephan? (pronounced steffen)Chapter 2: Why Does Antonio Play Basketball Better Than Stephan?Chapter 3: It's The Coaches Fault My Kid Is Slow.Chapter 4: Parents Swear Half of the Kids are D-1A Talent...How Come They Don't Get Scholarships?Chapter 5: You Win With SAT Scores.Chapter 6: We Have The Most Kids on the Honor Roll.Chapter 7: If the Best Catholic Kids Were All Put on one Team, They Would Have the Best Team in the Country. (The Great GP1 is Catholic; however, I believe a team of Baptists might be able to beat the Catholics.)And so on.....

First thing that needs to be done is to analyze the definition of professional and amateur. Up until now, the generally accepted definition is that professionals earn their living by being paid to do something and amateurs just do it for fun.Pee wee football, high school football and college football have generally been considered amateur, and the NFL professional. But it's true that many college players get monetary reimbursement through athletic scholarships, and many colleges make money on football. So the lines have already been blurred.The next question is how far to blur the lines? Can we legally get the money down into high schools? How about pee wee football? How about paying parents who have the genes to potentially produce good football players?Where does it all end?Wherever some fast-talking promoter and enough true believers want it to end.Good questions.I believe that an adult should be able to earn some income for their services. College football players are providing a service to their schools that in the top 40 schools earns those schools millions each year. It isn't like high school where a small number of people go to games, buy a five or ten dollar ticket, eat a hotdog, watch a game and go home....very little money is spent. When someone goes to a big time college football game, tickets are much more expensive, donations in the thousands of dollars have to be given for some seats, parking lots are full of thousands of cars that had to pay to park, merchandise is sold with the players numbers on them, etc.I find it almost immoral that college football players at the highest level don't get paid. We are talking about adults here, not children. I think people lose sight of that when they watch college football. The players are sometimes referred to as "kids". They aren't kids, they are grown men participating in an event that is making millions for someone else. The pressure is tremendous, especially from the coaches who are getting paid to coach.In reality, $12,000 a year is at the poverty level in the United States. Some college football players have children. While they can't support them on $12,000, it probably helps. Moralists shouting......."But GP1, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't be having sex." Riiiiiiiight. How many of us were having sex in college? Many of us could have easily had a kid had some things gone differently. Moralist guy needs to stay away. If moralist guy had any real morality, he would see the inequity and demand the players get paid on some level beyond the scholarship.

What benefits Akron wouldn't be a super conference. Where would the money come from for the other 80-90 teams that don't make the cut? TV? Advertising? Sponsors? Big game payouts? No-no-no-no. It puts all the money in a much smaller basket and turns the super teams into professional teams with paid students. In the gp1 scenario, there would be no promotion/relegation because no team could afford to do so. How would scheduling be accomplished? Do you inherit their schedule and they inherit yours? It's been brought up several times and it's still not a good idea or an idea that would benefit Akron or any other non super conference team. It rewards schools that already have the most. No more Boise Sts., no TCU's, no Appalachian Sts., I could do without that in college athletics. For every team not part of the chosen few, it would be like being the Pittsburgh Pirates and knowing you're going nowhere.I actually think this would be a better scenario for the teams that don't make the 40. If those schools were any good over the past 40 years, they would have made the cut. They can now go off into their own league where they don't have to whore themselves out every year, like UofA does. It creates more competition in the lower levels and higher level.In terms of the money, we aren't making any money now. What would the difference be?Most of the top 40 are professional teams anyhow. They are in the business of generating millions for their schools every year. Coaches make millions a year. My scenario creates a situation where the players are paid $1,000 per month up front in lieu of having go go pick up an envelop full of $100 bills in it every month.Please see my original post for scheduling method.

Is it really punishing success or is it leveling out the playing field?Good question. Why does it have to be either/or? It is both punishing and leveling. I don't like to punish others for their success. There is a level playing field everywhere except money. All schools have the same number of scholarship players, spring practices, games per year, most are on TV at some point.

1. Why punish coaches for success or punish schools for their ability to pay coaches?2. Why punish schools for spending decades developing alumni and booster relations? It is not the NCAA's money. It is the money of the University and the NCAA does not run our universities.3. If a team can schedule 8 home games, why should they be punished? My method would have closely equal number of home and away games.5. I agree. My method will eliminate that.6. Officials are the least of the problems in the NCAA.7. Why punish the successful schools by taking away their money and giving it to teams and conferences that can't find their ass with both hands. They my as well flush the money down the toilet.The NCAA should not be in the business of punishing success. The NCAA should be in the business of creating better competition. My method creates more competition and quite frankly, more exciting games. There is no way the NCAA can make 130 odd teams equal. If there is inequity, they need to separate the inequity and allow more equal team to compete against one another.

The non-top 40 teams wouldn't get a piece of the pie. They don't deserve it. My idea is structured to allow those teams in the league to benefit from doing the right thing and building successful programs over the past 40 years. 40 years is enough. If a school can't get it straight in 40 years, they don't deserve to be rewarded by being part of the top 40.These schools would be raking in cash like mad in my system. Paying the players a grand a month would be peanuts compared to the amount of money the schools would rake in. The players should get part of that money. After all, they are the factory workers in this system. My system would only cost a school $1,020,000 per year. They could easily make that up in increased ticket prices. Everyone should drive down to tOSU and look at their athletic facilities. They waste more money than that every year doing things like watering the astroturf fieldhockey field. Yes, I went to a baseball game to watch a friends nephew playing at UToledo play tOSU. Over the center field fence on a rainy spring day, the sprinklers were watering the astroturf fieldhockey field.The current playoff system for the lower divisions has created a situation where it has become the same teams year in and year out in the playoffs and finals. There is no institutional method for leveling the playing field for the schools. My idea reduces spring practices and sets up a schedule that levels the playing field for the non-playoff teams. If D-1A adopts a playoff system like the other levels, we will see the same teams in the playoffs year in and year out. It will destroy college football. It hasn't destroyed the othe levels because the amount of people who actually care about what goes on at lower level conferences is very small.

I'm not sure what you mean. It is completely the opposite of the BCS. No computers. No polls. Meaningful regular season. Playoffs. My method has mechanisms for keeping teams from becoming dominant in spring practice reduction and more difficult schedules for better teams.The BCS is killing non-BCS conferences. Most non-BCS conferences are in worse condition now than before the BCS. It is almost impossible to make around 130 teams equal. It is time for college football to live in the reality of what it has created for itself. If the NCAA wants college football the way it is now with big name teams playing on TV and in big games, let's make it bigger. Fans would embrace this like there was no tomorrow.

You're right. The decision of who and who does not make the cut is difficult. Some schools would throw a fit if they didn't make it. Real reform is not easy. Many of the debatable could easily be replaced by one of the excluded teams you mention above.Keep in mind, being included in this group would be voluntary and a team could leave whenever possible. Maybe bumping the divisions up to 12 teams and having a 14 game schedule could be an answer.I'm not sure what to do about the bowls. I love bowl season. After what I saw on TV this year, it appears as if people are losing interest in lower level bowls. Crowds seemed small. The bowls could die on the vine.After a couple of years, schools would adjust to their position and this system would settle itself out.

I have thought about posting this for a while and the crippling two inches of snow we have in the Charlotte area today has given me the time to post it.I was reading Drudge this morning and there was a story about the government forcing reforms on college football. The best way to prevent them from doing that is by reforming themselves. The Great GP1 is not of the opinion that dividing money among all schools is realistic or will accomplish much. Instead, the NCAA needs to take the following steps and structure.1. Identify the top 40 teams of the past 40 years. Joining this top 40 ranking would be voluntary and your school could option to leave it at any time after the season. Another team would be selected to take that teams place.2. Separate those teams into a league of their own consisting of four divisions.3. The season will consist of 12 games. 9 divisional games and three non-divisional games.4. Non-divisional games will take place against teams that finished in the same order from the previous year. For example, if you finish third, you play the other third place teams from the year before. The better you do, the more difficult schedule you have the following year.5. At the end of the season, a four team playoff will take place between the first place finishers of each division. A system of tie-breakers similar to the NFL will need to be established. A playoff match up system will also have to be established.6. There will be a two week layoff between the final game and the first playoff game.7. The championship game will take place on New Years Day Night.8. Expand spring practice to 30 sessions for these teams.9. Any team making the playoffs will only have 20 spring practice sessions.10. Expanded practice time for these teams will be required during the season.11. Scholarship players will be paid $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for their service in addition to their scholarships.12. Bonuses will be paid to player and coaches for making the playoffs. Pick a number.13. Each team will have 2 pre-season games against teams they are not scheduled to play in the regular season.14. Non-divisional games would be the first three games of the season.15. After six games, each team will have a week off.I took a look at the teams in college football and the following is what I came up with. The first 30 teams were pretty obvious. The final 10 took some thought and could be debated. My four divisions would be as follows (I tried to keep it geographically close):Division 1Boston College (debatable)PittWVUPenn StateVA TechtOSUMichiganNotre DameMichigan StateVirginia (debatable)Division 2ClemsonFL StateMiami FlFloridaNorth Carolina (debatable)GeorgiaGA Tech (debatable)TennesseeLSUAlabamaDivision 3WisconsinIllinois (debatable)PurdueIowa (debatable)Missouri (debatable)Arkansas (debatable)NebraskaOklahomaAuburnTCU (debatable)Division 4TexasTX A&MBYUUtah (debatable)CalUSCArizonaOregonWashingtonBoise St. (debatable)IMHO, those are four very strong divisions where every game would be tough and every game would matter. No more BCS teams beating up on non-BCS schools or worse yet, I-AA teams.I also thing this would be good for the remainder of college football. They could do something similar witht he remaining teams and really give those teams something to play for each week. Another division in college football wouldn't hurt it.

GP1, best piece you have ever written. I, too, know about playing for a losing college football team. Losing sucks.This evening I looked in the women's media guide and found that last year was Kest's best year as an Akron coach.She posted an 11-19, 6-10 MAC record. So, for the record, with ten games remaining the Lady Zips are on the verge of producing coach Kest's best year. Currently the Ladies are 11-9 and 5-2 in the MAC. The Ladies shouldfinish in the upper half. Quite an achievement for a once morbund program.While coach Kest may and probably should bolt at some future date, I do not believe that it is any sooner than twoyears away. Kest probably wants that MAC championship and a trip to the NCAA on her resume. She earned it.Thank you for your intelligence and open mind. Can't say the same for others.

You can suck it if you don't like it. At least my head isn't pearched one inch from my own ass or KDs ass for that matter.KD is a prick and that is what makes him a good coach. If a player doesn't do what he wants, they are on the bench. KD will use players to get back into college coaching (see St. V-M history). I don't have a problem with a guy driven to get what he wants and I think he did the right thing. Porter is driven to win. When it is time to cash in, he will be gone. One year will not matter. Decent team? A good group of young players in Dru, Wood and Travis. Name one player JK had on the team nearly as good as half of one of those guys. Spare me, JK had NOTHING coming into Akron. You like building, that's building. KD had at least the foundation poured. Porter had everything complete except painting the inside of the building. JK took over swamp-land and is turning the program around. Sorry if you disagree.

Great post. There were many things considered blatantly obscene in the mid 20th century that are no longer considered so. For example, it was once considered obscene for people of different races to dring from the same water fountain. Dancing was once considered obscene. Jazz music was once considered obscene. Rock & Roll music was considered obscene. The list could go on and on......Our country is now better because these things are no longer considered obscene. Our country is better because The Catcher in the Rye was published. God Bless America!

Very true.It is my interpretation that modern day "conservatives" actually think they are conservative..... Instead, they are big government liberals with half thought out, teetering on childish, religious views (George W. Bush or any Weekly Standard writer).

Given what I see on this board, I'm not sure how many read very often, but a great author died this week...JD Salinger.Anyone who has ever read the great book, The Catcher in the Rye, may have had periods in their youth where they related to Holden Caulfield. I have attached a NY Tiimes article on Salinger and this is a link to The Catcher in the Rye quotes. If you have never read the book, it is one of the truely great books of the 20th Century and you should read it. If you have strolled through the melancholy pages of this book, I would encourage you to take a trip back to the feelings you may have had at times in your youth and reread it. Try to remember if you have ever wanted to be the catcher in the rye.Edit: Even The Onion mourns Salinger in their own way. The last sentence written as if by Salinger himself.