GP1 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Zip Watcher said: GP1 said: goodthts said: Guys, guys.....NO WAY IN HELL does Akron look good to other conferences. Other than Temple, there is not a single team in the MAC a BCS level conference would want. In all the talk about realignment, there has not been a single peep about a MAC school going anywhere. The Big East may not want to take Temple back in a couple of years, but they may have to take them back out of necessity. Everyone, please listen to me and listen good. The MAC is a I-AA league. Any move the league makes should be with both eyes on I-AA and forgetting the fantasy that somehow we are going to "grow" into something different. The MAC is being crushed under the weight of the BCS conferences and we need to move and move quickly so we can do it on our terms and not in a panic. The league has one year to figure out what to do and they had better think fast. We could still be D-I in every other sport, we just need to free ourselves from the clutches of the BCS. Much of what you say about the MAC may have its merits, but we didn't build a $61M stadium to be FCS. Not happening @ UA. One of the major reasons the stadium was built was because the NEEDED one. The last one was falling down...literally falling down. I don't think we are going to have anything to say about realignment and may be forced out of our current position along with other MAClike schools. I dont' think the BCS schools want anything to do with schools like UofA and as soon as they can separate themselves, they will. We really need to plan for when that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-mann17 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 GP1 said: Zip Watcher said: GP1 said: goodthts said: Guys, guys.....NO WAY IN HELL does Akron look good to other conferences. Other than Temple, there is not a single team in the MAC a BCS level conference would want. In all the talk about realignment, there has not been a single peep about a MAC school going anywhere. The Big East may not want to take Temple back in a couple of years, but they may have to take them back out of necessity. Everyone, please listen to me and listen good. The MAC is a I-AA league. Any move the league makes should be with both eyes on I-AA and forgetting the fantasy that somehow we are going to "grow" into something different. The MAC is being crushed under the weight of the BCS conferences and we need to move and move quickly so we can do it on our terms and not in a panic. The league has one year to figure out what to do and they had better think fast. We could still be D-I in every other sport, we just need to free ourselves from the clutches of the BCS. Much of what you say about the MAC may have its merits, but we didn't build a $61M stadium to be FCS. Not happening @ UA. One of the major reasons the stadium was built was because the NEEDED one. The last one was falling down...literally falling down. I don't think we are going to have anything to say about realignment and may be forced out of our current position along with other MAClike schools. I dont' think the BCS schools want anything to do with schools like UofA and as soon as they can separate themselves, they will. We really need to plan for when that happens. I actually disagree with you. The common theme for you is that BCS schools are different. Well the BCS is made up of all 120 FBS schools. The difference lies in bowl qualification status. There are 65 automatic qualifiers and 55 non-automatic. The AQ's actually need the Non-AQ's to survive. You will ask "why?" or "how?", for the most part up to 25% of every AQ schedule is made up of Non-AQ from their region. Travel is consistantly more expensive and traveling a great distance and losing is even more expensive. Keeping region D-1 schools (even if inferior) allows you the ability to fill out your schedule with opponents that provide a healthy test/warm up. Additionally, those 55 Non-AQ's have huge pull in many of the states. The conferences will change, but there were always be talent heavy conferences and talent light conferences. So GP1 needs to quiet down already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Watcher Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 GP1 said: Zip Watcher said: Much of what you say about the MAC may have its merits, but we didn't build a $61M stadium to be FCS. Not happening @ UA. One of the major reasons the stadium was built was because the NEEDED one. The last one was falling down...literally falling down. I don't think we are going to have anything to say about realignment and may be forced out of our current position along with other MAClike schools. I dont' think the BCS schools want anything to do with schools like UofA and as soon as they can separate themselves, they will. We really need to plan for when that happens. Agreed that the stadium was NEEDED. No question whatsoever. However, the scope and facility that was CHOSEN to fill the NEED represents a much deeper commitment to FBS football. No doubt we needed a FB stadium. The manner in which UA addressed the need reflects UA's desire to compete in major college football, not FCS. My hope is that the Zips fall somewhere in between. There are MAC schools funding Football improvements (both operationally and facility wise), and there are some that are focused on the status quo. I think those lines will reveal themselves before any real options become available. Then my hope is that some of the eastern C-USA come looking to create a new middle level FBS league needing 4 new teams. UA & UT could do ok in a league with Marshall, UAB, MTSU, WKU, ECU ... etc. No idea whether or not Temple or U@B would follow. I am still bummed there's not utter chaos right now. Would have been fascinating summer theater. Go Zips! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 g-mann17 said: GP1 said: Zip Watcher said: GP1 said: goodthts said: Guys, guys.....NO WAY IN HELL does Akron look good to other conferences. Other than Temple, there is not a single team in the MAC a BCS level conference would want. In all the talk about realignment, there has not been a single peep about a MAC school going anywhere. The Big East may not want to take Temple back in a couple of years, but they may have to take them back out of necessity. Everyone, please listen to me and listen good. The MAC is a I-AA league. Any move the league makes should be with both eyes on I-AA and forgetting the fantasy that somehow we are going to "grow" into something different. The MAC is being crushed under the weight of the BCS conferences and we need to move and move quickly so we can do it on our terms and not in a panic. The league has one year to figure out what to do and they had better think fast. We could still be D-I in every other sport, we just need to free ourselves from the clutches of the BCS. Much of what you say about the MAC may have its merits, but we didn't build a $61M stadium to be FCS. Not happening @ UA. One of the major reasons the stadium was built was because the NEEDED one. The last one was falling down...literally falling down. I don't think we are going to have anything to say about realignment and may be forced out of our current position along with other MAClike schools. I dont' think the BCS schools want anything to do with schools like UofA and as soon as they can separate themselves, they will. We really need to plan for when that happens. I actually disagree with you. The common theme for you is that BCS schools are different. Well the BCS is made up of all 120 FBS schools. The difference lies in bowl qualification status. There are 65 automatic qualifiers and 55 non-automatic. The AQ's actually need the Non-AQ's to survive. You will ask "why?" or "how?", for the most part up to 25% of every AQ schedule is made up of Non-AQ from their region. Travel is consistantly more expensive and traveling a great distance and losing is even more expensive. Keeping region D-1 schools (even if inferior) allows you the ability to fill out your schedule with opponents that provide a healthy test/warm up. Additionally, those 55 Non-AQ's have huge pull in many of the states. You have no idea what you are talking about...again. You need to expand your thinking beyond the existing structure of the NCAA because it is changing rapidly. MAC schools need to be thinking about it because whether or not they like it, things are going to change again next year. If there is a movement to super conferences, the bowls are finished. I feel bad about that because I like bowls. A playoff system will take the place of bowls. The teams that don't make the super conferences should have their own division so they can have a playoff as well. Most bowls lose money for the schools that attend. College football will change very quickly in the near future. Super conferences will eliminate warm up games. It should be in their charter to not play out of the super conferences. They could even have a preseason game or two as long as it is going to be a quasi professional league. TV revenue and the additional price fans would pay to attend super conference games would more than make up for the revenue generated from BCS schools playing non-BCS schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Zip Watcher said: However, the scope and facility that was CHOSEN to fill the NEED represents a much deeper commitment to FBS football. I agree that five years ago the stadium was chosen do exactly what you say. The problem is college football is changing faster than anyone thought. Soon there will be no more FBS or FCS. It will be different levels in college football named whatever they name it. If the super conferences force the creation of a division between FBS and FCS, so be it. I would love for the Zips to be part of it. We could compete well at that level with what we have. We'll never be able to compete with the super conference schools with what we currently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTheZone Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 GP1 said: Zip Watcher said: However, the scope and facility that was CHOSEN to fill the NEED represents a much deeper commitment to FBS football. I agree that five years ago the stadium was chosen do exactly what you say. The problem is college football is changing faster than anyone thought. Soon there will be no more FBS or FCS. It will be different levels in college football named whatever they name it. If the super conferences force the creation of a division between FBS and FCS, so be it. I would love for the Zips to be part of it. We could compete well at that level with what we have. We'll never be able to compete with the super conference schools with what we currently have. I disagree. If we get a new arena built soon for basketball at 9-11,000 capacity (and I'm all for working with the city and putting it downtown, which is pretty much campus anyways), then our facilities will be on par or superior to many BCS schools (who'd have ever thought we'd be able to say THAT ten years ago?). All we need is a winner in football and the fan support will come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 InTheZone said: GP1 said: Zip Watcher said: However, the scope and facility that was CHOSEN to fill the NEED represents a much deeper commitment to FBS football. I agree that five years ago the stadium was chosen do exactly what you say. The problem is college football is changing faster than anyone thought. Soon there will be no more FBS or FCS. It will be different levels in college football named whatever they name it. If the super conferences force the creation of a division between FBS and FCS, so be it. I would love for the Zips to be part of it. We could compete well at that level with what we have. We'll never be able to compete with the super conference schools with what we currently have. I disagree. If we get a new arena built soon for basketball at 9-11,000 capacity (and I'm all for working with the city and putting it downtown, which is pretty much campus anyways), then our facilities will be on par or superior to many BCS schools (who'd have ever thought we'd be able to say THAT ten years ago?). All we need is a winner in football and the fan support will come. I agree and disagree. It depends on the sport. If we had a BB arena as you describe, then I would agree we would be on par with a lot of BCS level BB programs. As great as our football stadium is, it is still years behind some of the 60K-100K stadiums out there that BCS schools play in. The school has no money, the Athletic Department spends more than it makes every year and the State of Ohio is broke. The Big Dialer looks today exactly as it is going to look 25 years from now and not a single seat will be added. Facilities don't make you a winner, winning makes you a winner. I hope we have all learned that after the football season we had last year. If facilities are the end all, be all, how come our BB team has been to the MAC Championship the last four years and our football team stunk as of late? I really think that if the super conference scenario takes place, we are in a great position to be in a middle level the NCAA could create between D-1A and I-AA. If there are 130 (appx) teams in D-1A and half went to the super conference (they should only take 40 IMNHO) and half went to a new level, that would still be pretty good football at the new level. With our current facilities, we could compete there all day long. We are never going to compete at the BCS level, or at the high level college football is going. MAC ADs really need to think about the direction of the league in the next couple of years. I never get the feeling they are looking at the landscape of college sports (where it is and where it is going) and making decisions based upon that. I know a lot of us wish it was different, but wishing makes me think about one of my mother's favorite sayings. "Make a wish or $h!+ in your hat. See which one fills up first." Our hats are getting pretty full at UofA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Zip Watcher said: However, the scope and facility that was CHOSEN to fill the NEED represents a much deeper commitment to FBS football. No doubt we needed a FB stadium. The manner in which UA addressed the need reflects UA's desire to compete in major college football, not FCS. The University, from everything I read, took the money it would have cost to refurbish the Rubber Bowl (in essence putting lipstick on a pig), plus the sponsorships that came along with the new house, and spent that much. It was all paid for the day it was built. I haven't heard anybody say they were building a top notch college program here, and everything they've done leads me to believe they're not trying to. To me, spending the money on a NICE stadium even for an FCS team, makes perfect sense. Reference Canal Park, All Pro Freight Stadium, Classic Park, Huntington Stadium. I don't see how this school can go "big time" with the budget they have, the recruiting they do, and the seven other FBS schools in our backyard. Not to mention the 800 lb gorilla in Columbus. Even with the talent we have right now, we're outside the Top 25 in FCS. Personally, I have a LOT more fun watching the Akron Aeros play for championships than watching the Cleveland Indians try to play major league ball with a AAA roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xu9697 Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Wow, are we off topic or what?!!? Ah well, it always comes back to the same 3-5 topics anyway. For at least the past few years, I definitely see a trend toward a new division of football. I could definitely see a "FBS Tier One" with 64-80 schools (more towards the 64) and a "FBS Tier Two" with the remaining schools and perhaps the CAA (schools like Villanova, Richmond, Colgate, etc.). Fact is this, though. If Big 12 takes a couple more and some of these middle conferences (MWC, CUSA) start needing programs...Akron can be on the radar. And while that may not mean being in the power conferences, it may mean being one of the better programs in that 2nd tier at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 xu9697 said: Wow, are we off topic or what?!!? Not really. Being in a top 20 market is one thing. Taking the big step to being a BCS program is another. I see it going to four 64 team conferences, each with a title game in football, then a two week BCS. Anyone outside the 64 loses it's bowl bids, for what they're worth, and most likely their big payday whoopin' against top teams. Outside the four mega-conferences, does it really matter what conference you're in? Take the top teams out of MWC and CUSA, and you have the MAC. With a lot more travel. And the hoopsters have a much harder road to the Dance... If the program was in a better way right now, the big conferences might look at the market size of C-A-C. But our program is just "not ready for prime time", and I don't think they want to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lance99 Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Captain Kangaroo said: lance99 said: Keep this in mind, If the Big East wanted Akron (and I belive in my mind they do because of the NE Ohio market) I almost promise you that if the Zips is offered to join, they are going to say "If you take us, you take Can't also!" So the Zips would turn down a Big East conference invite if the Big East didn't also offer K.e.n.t.? And the Zips would feel that they were in a position of power to make the Big East cave to such a demand? Good Lord... I knows it sound crazy, the out would be either take Toledo(Detroit market), Buffalo, Marshall or any Conference USA team(long shot), or the Zips get tons and tons of $$$$! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxZIP Posted June 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 xu9697 said: Wow, are we off topic or what?!!? Ah well, it always comes back to the same 3-5 topics anyway. For at least the past few years, I definitely see a trend toward a new division of football. I could definitely see a "FBS Tier One" with 64-80 schools (more towards the 64) and a "FBS Tier Two" with the remaining schools and perhaps the CAA (schools like Villanova, Richmond, Colgate, etc.). Fact is this, though. If Big 12 takes a couple more and some of these middle conferences (MWC, CUSA) start needing programs...Akron can be on the radar. And while that may not mean being in the power conferences, it may mean being one of the better programs in that 2nd tier at some point. What does the NCAA stand to gain from making yet another tier of DIV-1 football. Individual schools have the choice to remain FBS. If schools are willing to put the money up to remain in the league then let them. FCS is always an option but to force the hands of programs that are willing to dedicate resources to the cause is a bad call. The BCS is already a monopolistic organization and gaining the attention of disgruntled congressmen. Why push the issue and go to 64 teams if the majority of college football fans know that non BCS teams are already playing from behind. I think the NCAA would be silly to further restrict the potential growth of programs that want to experience top-level college football. ECU, South Florida, Boise State, and countless other programs have made the jump and had marked success. Splitting the league would make the rich richer and the poor even more broke. It is very un-American to have a more defined class system in college football. At least having the ideal that any team can succeed against the big boys is better than playing in a second class league. Will the number of schollys be cut in the new middle league? Will the stadiums be taken off the map? Will TV companies flock to cover the new league? The answer to all is no. Where will the perceived advantages to the lower tier div-1 schools come from. They won't be saving money and won't be playing in the top league. In fact they might lose money due to not receiving any BCS money, multiple cash games, and/or fan support. I know that Akron could probably win on the field playing other mid-level teams but what does it matter if they are losing as much money. I think that all of you who want to drop see it as the easy way out. Drop down and win now because we are Akron and we will never be good. I trust in the dedication of Dr. Proenza and we can finally see his support in facilities and salary dollars. Give the new program a few years to grow and see where we are in 5 years. Dropping to FCS is basically quitting. Wining some games at the highest level is better than a couple more at a handicapped level. Naming new levels of DIV-1 football is a way to give organizations excuses for not being able to build a successful program. It is also a way for anal fans categorize teams so they are neat and pretty in their place among similar programs. Please don’t even try to tell me that Akron is second tier because they haven’t had success in the past. We are in a different situation now with growing fan support (despite poor record), new stadium, stronger academics, higher enrollment, higher profile, and most important of all a president that values athletics as a tool. Commence ripping my ideas now GO ZIPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 No shootin', I promise. The NCAA is not behind this, it's the individual schools and conferences chasing the lucrative network TV dollars that are behind this whole thing. That's what it's all about. The schools want the network money from the conferences, the conferences involved want to spread their new networks into more markets, the schools want to be on those networks. Meanwhile Notre Dame is sitting pretty by itself, how that would change if their opponents were all restricted from playing them (as a power move by the Big Ten), nobody knows. And then there's Texas, wanting to start their own cable network, but the wouldn't be able to in the PAC-10, so they're not joining. And they have the Texas legislature behind them to "persuade" other the Texas schools to stay with UT. It's all big business, and the NCAA can't do anything about it. If they tried, the big conferences would pull out and start a new league. Anyone else remember the CFA? Anyway if this all takes shape, there's nothing Akron can do. They can build a college football power, against the odds, but it'll probably be too late as this is taking shape now. Maybe it doesn't come to that, hopefully not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xu9697 Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Spin said: No shootin', I promise. The NCAA is not behind this, it's the individual schools and conferences chasing the lucrative network TV dollars that are behind this whole thing. That's what it's all about. The schools want the network money from the conferences, the conferences involved want to spread their new networks into more markets, the schools want to be on those networks. Meanwhile Notre Dame is sitting pretty by itself, how that would change if their opponents were all restricted from playing them (as a power move by the Big Ten), nobody knows. And then there's Texas, wanting to start their own cable network, but the wouldn't be able to in the PAC-10, so they're not joining. And they have the Texas legislature behind them to "persuade" other the Texas schools to stay with UT. It's all big business, and the NCAA can't do anything about it. If they tried, the big conferences would pull out and start a new league. Anyone else remember the CFA? Anyway if this all takes shape, there's nothing Akron can do. They can build a college football power, against the odds, but it'll probably be too late as this is taking shape now. Maybe it doesn't come to that, hopefully not. Exactly. I would love to see nine to ten, 12-14 team conferences that make sense, personally. And I would like to see a playoff. But how often are many college football fans really getting what they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxZIP Posted June 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I understand the argument. It is based on speculation. 5 or six teams have made the jump to FBS in the last 15 years. Some of the major conferences are getting larger, some have shrunk, and some non AQ teams have gotten better and moved up. Why does everybody think that even if the super conferences form that they won’t break up again in 5 years. There will always be disgruntled teams especially in a 16 team league. The super conference Armageddon is probably being hyped too much. I think that 16 team conferences will actually make the bottom 50% (8 teams) of each competitive with the non AQ conference teams. Most top level recruits will be attracted to the same teams as they are now. Will Colorado suddenly have a recruiting class like USC? Nebraska should realize little difference in their recruits besides where they come from (Not to bring up southern talent vs north). Utah made a jump and will probably improve slightly but most likely they will only steal from BYU and other PAC-10 teams. Top to bottom there will be more disparity within conferences. Some schools will add to coffers and some will be a liability. Why will the top 5-8 teams in a super conference continue to support the bottom half instead of breaking away and form a smaller richer conference? The conference change cycle has been happening for years. The push for conference owned media companies adds an interesting twist to the decision to leave or stay in a particular conference. The Big ten network model will not be as successful everywhere and will lead to disparity among conference members. Launching a station requires a large initial investment from involved parties. What happens if the network fails or just plain doesn’t get the ratings to meet conference members lofty revenue expectations? The conference will probably break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.