GP1

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.

It's certainly not the Amish. Says you. English! Just go build a barn....and take a bath for crying out loud, it's Saturday.

Hats off to the AD for setting the right tone.

Devoe Torrence is better than any YSU running back there or coming. Regardless he is a linebacker first and foremost and eventually will figure that out. Also, I dont see him as this "bum" as some people are calling him. He is a tremendous talent that just hasn't got his chance to shine, like i said, when he figures out what his true position is he will be a star. Same thing I was thinking. There is no way YSU has any running backs anywhere near as talented as him... I can't help but laugh when someone comes around here and tries to act like YSU is so superior to akron. Trust me the worst players on Akron's team would be stars for the penguins... I don't know if I would go that far... I think we've seen in the last few seasons that the difference between FBS and FCS isn't as great as we'd all like to believe, and Akron right now is a bad FBS team. Certainly, our talent level is superior, but there are guys at YSU that would see significant time here, and there are probably a few bums on our roster that would be bums on their's just the same. Well stated. Player from FBS make the NFL every year and there is talent there. Heck, kids from D3 make it every year. There are just too many teams in FBS and the differences between the top and bottom are so drastic the NCAA should find a way to separate these teams. By applying logic, it is impossible to believe that in a 130 odd team division, all of the schools have the exact same ability to compete fairly against one another. I know people don't like to read that, but that's the reality of college football today. It's the way the NCAA wants it. The MAC is an FCS league calling itself an FBS league....we aren't doing ourselves any favors. The biggest problem is there isn't a single AD out there who would vote for separating FBS because the majority of ADs would find their schools in FCS when it was all over and those remaining would no longer be able to pad their schedule with cupcakes at the beginning of the year. Nobody wants to have on their resume they were the AD who downgraded a program. I'd love to read an AD's resume and see how many times they use the word "build" in it.

I won't say one was better than the other, but I will say if these two are the best we can do, we are in deep poop.

Now your getting it. For comparison's sake, it would help if they played for the same team in the same era, but I'll let you slide for the point of illustration. Okay, I can do that too. The goal of every season at the University of Tennessee is to win the national championship. Tee Martin 1, Peyton Manning 0. Tee Martin > Petyon Manning for the same reasons that Luke Getsy > Charlie Frye. The thing is you can extrapolate the logic into Frye's career. Akron wins nothing while he was there then Getsy wins...winner Getsy. The Browns win nothing until Frye is sent packing to Seattle (to be the #3 of all positions) and the Browns go 10-5 in their last 15....Winner DA. There is a pile of evidence showing Frye is a loser and NONE showing he can win anything....winner, everyone but Frye.

Until Getsy hit the field you are correct, once that happened, it was Charlie-WHO? 1. Getsy 2. Frye Getsy's best season was 7-6 and 5-3 in the MAC. Same as Charlie's. His stats were worse. The man barely completed 50 percent of his passes. His senior year, he led the team to a very "winner-like" record of 5-7. Charlie was drafted in the 3rd round. Luke was not drafted and cut as a free agent. Both were good QB's for us, but I don't think the facts support you in saying that Luke was the better QB. His MAC championship happened because he was the very fortunate benefactor of circumstances and a very weakened MAC East with Marshall and UCF gone and Miami on the decline. I mean we lost to Ball State that season for craps sake. If...if ....if ....if ...if .....if ....if .......if....if....if......if......if.......if.......if......if.....if........if ......if........if..... No "ifs" here. Charlie Frye had a career losing record at AKRON. Any winner in the five years leading up to his career and five years after his career won the MAC. Charlie could beat any team with a losing record. You can take the statistics and flush them down the toilet. The guy was/is a loser. Getsy won when it mattered.

Luck? Isn't there a saying that goes something like this, "If it wasn't for bad luck, he would have had no luck at all." C'mon GP, I know your disdain for Frye, but can you honestly look this board in the screen and tell them that any first year coach wouldn't be jizzing himself to inherit a QB coming off a 273/421 (64.8%) for 3549 yards and 22 TD, 111 carries for 288 yards and 7 TD, season?? I know Robby I. would. I would agree if the guy wasn't a career loser. Stats are one thing, winning is another.

It's certainly not the Amish.

You guys are old. True, but Z.I.P. is older! But he does have the whole "living in paradise" thing going for him I got you all beat, my freshman year was 78. You guys are old.

Luck? Isn't there a saying that goes something like this, "If it wasn't for bad luck, he would have had no luck at all."

What if he never figures it out?

A step in the wrong direction. However, it is one of many wrong steps since that liberal George HW Bush was elected in 1988. Bill Clinton made the Bush presidents look Marxist. George W. Bush drove the country to the edge of the cliff and Obama is going to drive the country over the cliff. Even Paul Krugman had a difficult time in the NY Times this morning trying to explain how the country is going to get out of trouble. He seems to be all in with healthcare reform being a huge money saver but really has no further solutions. After WWII, the country inflated it's way out of debt, but there was enormous growth so the debt became less of a percet of GDP. Inflation today would require increasing interest rates, which would decrease growth and actually make paying down the debt more expensive...couple that with a president who is in favor of anti-growth policies (higher taxes and more regulation) and protecting government employees at all costs, we have huge problems. Krugman seems to believe we will not become the next Greece, but there are few examples of countries who got out of financial problems by inflating their way out of them. The last couple of years are just the start of what is going to be a long recovery for the USA. The country just doesn't have the stomach to make difficult decisions. Required reading by everyone on this board should be: "End the Fed" by Ron Paul.

You guys are old.

I'm with another school. Further prediction will be he will play one year there and then be out of college football completely. At which point he will not be picking up garbage, but he will be sweeping floors.

QBs not panning out is the story of the MAC. Any team with a decent QB has a great shot of at least winning their division. I think the real point is there aren't that many good QBs out there. If Nicely starts four years, wins not a single MAC Championship and has a career losing record, he will be on the same level as Frye. If he wins one MAC Championship, I'll take it and we can say he was at least as good as Getsy. If he wins two, best QB in school history. The advantage Nicely has is the league is worse now than I can remember. He doesn't have to have the talent of the others to be successful. We joke about the guy from CMU, but CK is right in that the guy has limited talent and any NFL team that takes him is making a mistake. As long as this league is as horrible as it is, I still remain bullish. My only concern is a pro style offense in college football. "But GP1, Alabama won the National Championship with a pro offense." They sure did...against a Colt McCoyless Texas team. Texas almost pulled that game out with a freshman with a pile of crap in his pants by running the spread offense. Cincy, FL, tOSU, Oregon, Boise State, TCU, etc all now run a type of spread offense and we are not. I'm not saying we can't win, I'm just saying I have a concern.

All they need to do is dip into their bottomless pit of money and build them. Then everything will be just fine.

To where? Are you saying we could be the next Seton Hall or Providence of the Big East? Wow, that sounds great. There is something basketball fans need to understand. The mid west is a football area. Basketball is something that takes place between football season and spring football. The football team pays the price for keeping the Athletic Department (yes, that means the basketball team) in business. The football team pays the price for paying KDs bloated salary, which I'm sure is not covered by the overflow crowds packing the JAR to watch them play the crappy schedule they play. The football team makes it so the basketball team can continue to dodge every decent team out there in order to continue their "building process". My guess is this "building process" will continue well into the next decade with little change. Take away the football team and everything else wilts. Good night.