Successful Sports Programs in the MAC

[Zipsrifle]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC? Here are a few thoughts:Tradition: Goes a long way in the MAC, a conference with little national coverage. Someone who just misses a BCS school will likely want to win to make it to the next level. Miami has it in FB. BG, NIU, and CMU have some in FB too. Can't in BB along with OU. Akron in Soccer.Campus: Lets face it, nobody wants to go to a place that looks like Crap. I think this is a big factor in Miami's success. OU on the other hand also has a very nice campus but has come up short in FB for some reason. WMU has a good thing going on too. I've been to CMU's campus and I don't know why anybody in their right mind would want to spend their 20's in Mt. Pleasant????Facilities: Nice stuff always lures kids, but that can't explain everything. Why is our Soccer team so good when their field, lets face it, is eclipsed by many small HS football fields? I think ICS will make an impact...just how much??Continuity: I think this has a lot to do with setting up a good groundwork. Miami had a string of promoting coaches for quite some time, and I think that allowed them to build a winning program. How long was Amstutz at Toledo and Novack at NIU? CMU on the other hand has had more coaches in the past decade than Akron has? KD is an excellent example of this at Akron. I think many of us feel he is here to stay and I hope we are right. This has to be a big factor for kids knowing they will be working under a successful coach.This was just something that popped into my head today and I wonder what others think.

[GP1]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC?

Answer: Bringing in good players year after year. Stadiums, tradition, etc. do not win games. Good players win games. Our soccer team brings in one good player after another year in and year out. Coaches come and go, but the talent remains high. Our soccer stadium has yet to win a game...the players do.Fans love football, m & w basketball, but some MAC schools get good at a sport like soccer at UofA or hockey at Miami and they really focus on those sports. Miami has gotten to the point where they use their horrible football team to fund the athletic department. They play three BCS teams and one top team in Boise State with no illusions of having a winning record. At this point, I doubt they care whether or not anyone even comes to the football games. They don't play a game on campus until October....do they really think anyone is going to drive out to Oxford to watch an 0-4 team play. They pump that BCS money into the athletic department and support a top ranked hockey team with it.UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

[Zipsrifle]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC?

Answer: Bringing in good players year after year. Stadiums, tradition, etc. do not win games. Good players win games. Our soccer team brings in one good player after another year in and year out. Coaches come and go, but the talent remains high. Our soccer stadium has yet to win a game...the players do.Fans love football, m & w basketball, but some MAC schools get good at a sport like soccer at UofA or hockey at Miami and they really focus on those sports. Miami has gotten to the point where they use their horrible football team to fund the athletic department. They play three BCS teams and one top team in Boise State with no illusions of having a winning record. At this point, I doubt they care whether or not anyone even comes to the football games. They don't play a game on campus until October....do they really think anyone is going to drive out to Oxford to watch an 0-4 team play. They pump that BCS money into the athletic department and support a top ranked hockey team with it.UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

OK, then for you GP1, what brings in good players?

[Dave in Green]

..... UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

Men's basketball has a big head start over football. Over the past few years it has grown into a consistent 20+ wins per season program. Last year it made the NCAA Tournament. It also got a commitment from the highest-rated HS player ever to come to the MAC -- and not a guard or forward, but that rarest of all basketball players, a true, quality 7-foot center who can run like a gazelle. How much would the Zips football team have to grow to successfully recruit the 6th highest-ranked HS quarterback or running back in the country?With Sporting News rating the Zips the 50th best men's basketball team in the country heading into this season, the team is tantalizingly close to being recognized as a national power. It would be a tragedy to lose focus on this just as the years of investment are starting to pay off.As much as I'd like to see the football team follow that same trajectory of success, I would be immensely disappointed if it was done at the cost of sacrificing men's basketball.

[GP1]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC?

Answer: Bringing in good players year after year. Stadiums, tradition, etc. do not win games. Good players win games. Our soccer team brings in one good player after another year in and year out. Coaches come and go, but the talent remains high. Our soccer stadium has yet to win a game...the players do.Fans love football, m & w basketball, but some MAC schools get good at a sport like soccer at UofA or hockey at Miami and they really focus on those sports. Miami has gotten to the point where they use their horrible football team to fund the athletic department. They play three BCS teams and one top team in Boise State with no illusions of having a winning record. At this point, I doubt they care whether or not anyone even comes to the football games. They don't play a game on campus until October....do they really think anyone is going to drive out to Oxford to watch an 0-4 team play. They pump that BCS money into the athletic department and support a top ranked hockey team with it.UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

OK, then for you GP1, what brings in good players?

Winning. Players that want to win go to winning programs. Players that want to play in nice stadiums, get involved in rebuilding, etc. are motivated by those reasons. We nned to do some winning in order to attract winners.I believe good soccer players come to UofA because they want to win. It sure isn't the fancy stadium they play in. It isn't the coach because we have turnover in that position.

[UADavid]

UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

Why would any Akron or any school want to pigeonhole a sport. This thinking is backwards and should never be adapted as part of any strategy. Every great program at any school has cycles of great and down years. The big schools cycles are shorter. Any coach and AD should never be satisfied with one "great" program. We should in fact strive to dominate the MAC in all sports. Dr. Proenza And Tom Wistrcill said as much.

[GP1]

UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

Why would any Akron or any school want to pigeonhole a sport. This thinking is backwards and should never be adapted as part of any strategy. Every great program at any school has cycles of great and down years. The big schools cycles are shorter. Any coach and AD should never be satisfied with one "great" program. We should in fact strive to dominate the MAC in all sports. Dr. Proenza And Tom Wistrcill said as much.

I'd love us to be great in every sport as well. I just don't think it realistic. Right now, our best sports program is soccer. It is a low cost sport and something we can be great at with limited resources.

[GP1]

With Sporting News rating the Zips the 50th best men's basketball team in the country heading into this season, the team is tantalizingly close to being recognized as a national power. It would be a tragedy to lose focus on this just as the years of investment are starting to pay off.

Rankings mean nothing. It is what goes on on the court that makes a team a national power. Winning the MAC is a good start, but they need to win an NCAA game. Right now, they are not even close to becoming a national power. I go to ACC basketball games....they have national powers playing. I can assure you UofA basketball is many years away from getting to that point. I do enjoy their success, but I can't kid myself.

[ZachTheZip]

UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

Why would any Akron or any school want to pigeonhole a sport. This thinking is backwards and should never be adapted as part of any strategy. Every great program at any school has cycles of great and down years. The big schools cycles are shorter. Any coach and AD should never be satisfied with one "great" program. We should in fact strive to dominate the MAC in all sports. Dr. Proenza And Tom Wistrcill said as much.

I'd love us to be great in every sport as well. I just don't think it realistic. Right now, our best sports program is soccer. It is a low cost sport and something we can be great at with limited resources.

It's not realistic to be good at everything. But it is possible to be great at a few things and average at everything else. Akron is already great at soccer/rifle/women's track and is getting there in basketball.If you look at teams that are great at football, they are able to parlay that into being good at other sports. Football is the driver for all other sports except basketball. Akron needs football to make money, which it can spend on other sports to make them competitive. Basketball makes enough money to support itself but not to fund anything else. If the soccer team continues to draw well they might become self-sufficient, which takes a bit of the burden off of football.But the point is that Akron needs to be good (not great) at football if they want to create any more successful sports. Just getting to a bowl game every other year and threatening to win the MAC East every year. We would still be a lower-tier team in the national scheme, but it makes enough of a difference in attendance that the football team could be used as a catalyst for other programs to improve.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC?

Answer: Bringing in good players year after year. Stadiums, tradition, etc. do not win games. Good players win games. Our soccer team brings in one good player after another year in and year out. Coaches come and go, but the talent remains high. Our soccer stadium has yet to win a game...the players do.Fans love football, m & w basketball, but some MAC schools get good at a sport like soccer at UofA or hockey at Miami and they really focus on those sports. Miami has gotten to the point where they use their horrible football team to fund the athletic department. They play three BCS teams and one top team in Boise State with no illusions of having a winning record. At this point, I doubt they care whether or not anyone even comes to the football games. They don't play a game on campus until October....do they really think anyone is going to drive out to Oxford to watch an 0-4 team play. They pump that BCS money into the athletic department and support a top ranked hockey team with it.UofA needs to decide what it wants to be great at. Getting great at everything at a MAC school is unrealistic. Is it football? Is it basketball? Or is it easier to maintain a top ranked program in soccer rather than "growing" the other programs that may never become top ranked.

OK, then for you GP1, what brings in good players?

Winning. Players that want to win go to winning programs. Players that want to play in nice stadiums, get involved in rebuilding, etc. are motivated by those reasons. We nned to do some winning in order to attract winners.I believe good soccer players come to UofA because they want to win. It sure isn't the fancy stadium they play in. It isn't the coach because we have turnover in that position.

GP1, it sounds like you played, or were somehow involved in FB at UA back in your day. Great. You're apparently knowledgeable about football, but your reasoning is circular beyond belief. According to you, facilities don't win games, players win games. When asked what brings in good players, your answer? Winning. Surely you can see the silliness and lack of reasoning in your answers and arguments here. Unless winning programs materialize out of the ether, only THEN to draw winning players to keep the winning going, and to bring funds for facilities, you clearly have NO explanation for what the things are that truly make a winning program.I will also riddle you this: if you in fact earned your college football knowledge by being a part of the UA program, a program you essentially denigrate as being a hopeless and perpetual loser forever more, how can you possibly know ANYTHING about winning football programs? I'm starting to think you know everything, except the possible fact that you in fact know very little."The Great" STZ

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

With Sporting News rating the Zips the 50th best men's basketball team in the country heading into this season, the team is tantalizingly close to being recognized as a national power. It would be a tragedy to lose focus on this just as the years of investment are starting to pay off.

Rankings mean nothing. It is what goes on on the court that makes a team a national power. Winning the MAC is a good start, but they need to win an NCAA game. Right now, they are not even close to becoming a national power. I go to ACC basketball games....they have national powers playing. I can assure you UofA basketball is many years away from getting to that point. I do enjoy their success, but I can't kid myself.

Just when I was wondering when The Great GP1 would remind us of his current place of residence, since it's been at least 15 minutes since the last time, he busts in with a reminder. Great, since none of the rest of us have likely ever watched ACC BB teams play. Do ACC teams play on TV?"The Great" STZ

[Dave in Green]

With Sporting News rating the Zips the 50th best men's basketball team in the country heading into this season, the team is tantalizingly close to being recognized as a national power. It would be a tragedy to lose focus on this just as the years of investment are starting to pay off.

Rankings mean nothing. It is what goes on on the court that makes a team a national power. Winning the MAC is a good start, but they need to win an NCAA game. Right now, they are not even close to becoming a national power. I go to ACC basketball games....they have national powers playing. I can assure you UofA basketball is many years away from getting to that point. I do enjoy their success, but I can't kid myself.

Of course rankings mean something. They represent someone's best estimate of where teams rank relative to each other. Most folks generally rank Sporting News' rankings above those of sports forum pontificators. So having Sporting News rank the Zips 50th out of several hundred teams certainly does have significance. It's based on what they've done on court in the previous season, and factoring in how that should project into this season's performance. Obviously the ratings will shuffle around all year long until the final records are in the books.No one here, least of all me, would say the Zips are ready to take on the ACC yet (well, maybe NC State ), and no one knows how long that would take to achieve in the best case scenario. The point is that the Zips have clawed their way out of the depths of mediocrity to growing recognition as a rising power, and that investment should not have to be thrown away in order to focus on another sport.There's no reason for anyone to kid themselves about Zips men's basketball. It is what it is, regardless of how many sports forum pontificators try to build it up or tear it down.

[GP1]

GP1, it sounds like you played, or were somehow involved in FB at UA back in your day. Great. You're apparently knowledgeable about football, but your reasoning is circular beyond belief. According to you, facilities don't win games, players win games. When asked what brings in good players, your answer? Winning. Surely you can see the silliness and lack of reasoning in your answers and arguments here. Unless winning programs materialize out of the ether, only THEN to draw winning players to keep the winning going, and to bring funds for facilities, you clearly have NO explanation for what the things are that truly make a winning program.

The answer is to bring in players who are motivated by winning. Spend time interviewing kids about their views on winning instead of showing them buildings and hoping they turn into something. Treat recruiting somewhat as an interview process. Coaches run around offering scholarships these days without ever talking to players because the NCAA forbids it. It's insane. Bring in players who were on winning teams in high school. Don't bring in players who are motivated by playing in a shiny new stadium or fieldhouse. New facilities are pretty, but they don't win....just like the players who are motivated to come to UofA because of them. If facilities are so important, how come we have a successful soccer and basketball program? I think the coaches of these teams bring in players who are focused on winning and not looking nice in their new stadium/fieldhouse. The soccer field and the JAR are substandard yet we win.I hope this simple logic as not too difficult for you to understand.

[GP1]

Of course rankings mean something. They represent someone's best estimate of where teams rank relative to each other. Most folks generally rank Sporting News' rankings above those of sports forum pontificators. So having Sporting News rank the Zips 50th out of several hundred teams certainly does have significance. It's based on what they've done on court in the previous season, and factoring in how that should project into this season's performance. Obviously the ratings will shuffle around all year long until the final records are in the books.

Are you sure it isn't that there are a bunch of lazy people working at Sporting News, who really don't know about the teams they are ranking because they don't have time to research 50 teams, looking at the field of 64 from last year and placing them somewhere between 1 and 64?Grow that....

[Zip Watcher]

What contributes to a winning legacy of a program or programs at a school in the MAC? Here are a few thoughts:

The program can start by not embarrassing themselves, the fans / donors and the community. On the field, off the field and in the classroom.

No one here, least of all me, would say the Zips are ready to take on the ACC yet ......

Zips basketball currently has a 1 game winning streak against the ACC, does it not?

The answer is to bring in players who are motivated by winning ....Bring in players who were on winning teams in high school......If facilities are so important, how come we have a successful soccer and basketball program? I think the coaches of these teams bring in players who are focused on winning and not looking nice in their new stadium/fieldhouse. The soccer field and the JAR are substandard yet we win.

Good points, minus the obnoxious arrogance. Porter & Dambrot bring in winners. The guys they bring in have been successful in HS and expect to win .. know how to win .. and want to win.

[RACER]

honestly it has nothing to do with any of the above.the top football programs every year spend tons of $ to be there.that 's why a mac school will never end up in the top ten again.you may have a mac team once every few years pop into the top 25,but that's about it.the mac has no revenue stream to compete with the bcs schools.i am not saying there are not some non bcs that can compete like boise state,utah ect.even those schools spend alott more $ than any mac school.like it or not the bcs does not want to share money with teams like the mac.why akron cannot compete in the mac is another story.we now have the facilites to compete in the mac.i think it''s just finding the right coach.the problem ishow do you then keep him.when a school like alabama spends more money on thier head coach than akron spendson it's entire football budget there is no way to compete with that.when a booster gives okie u over $100 million for the football program there is now way to compete with that.

[Dave in Green]

Of course rankings mean something. They represent someone's best estimate of where teams rank relative to each other. Most folks generally rank Sporting News' rankings above those of sports forum pontificators. So having Sporting News rank the Zips 50th out of several hundred teams certainly does have significance. It's based on what they've done on court in the previous season, and factoring in how that should project into this season's performance. Obviously the ratings will shuffle around all year long until the final records are in the books.

Are you sure it isn't that there are a bunch of lazy people working at Sporting News, who really don't know about the teams they are ranking because they don't have time to research 50 teams, looking at the field of 64 from last year and placing them somewhere between 1 and 64?Grow that....

No, I'm not sure. Are you sure it is?