Scheduling

[GP1]

While our OOC scheduling disaster is fresh in our minds, does anyone still believe playing three BCS schools is a good idea? Let's play one BCS, one I-AA and two D-1A non-bcs schools. Miami and BG both played nonbcs schools and won games at home. Both games were evenly matched and won by the MAC schools.

As it stands now, we are 0-4 with little momentum going into the MAC schedule and we have a disinterested community. How is this scheduling working out for us? Does anyone still believe this is the direction we should be going.

[zen]

we'd be 0-4 if we added Morehead State, Slippery Rock, and Murry State to our loss to Gardiner Webb. What's the diff?

However, for a sure win, schedule YSU.

[skip-zip]

While our OOC scheduling disaster is fresh in our minds, does anyone still believe playing three BCS schools is a good idea? Let's play one BCS, one I-AA and two D-1A non-bcs schools. Miami and BG both played nonbcs schools and won games at home. Both games were evenly matched and won by the MAC schools.

As it stands now, we are 0-4 with little momentum going into the MAC schedule and we have a disinterested community. How is this scheduling working out for us? Does anyone still believe this is the direction we should be going.

I think the factor that I highlighted above is the most valid point in not playing too many BCS teams.

But....

It's not like we played some Floridas or Alabamas in the last few weeks. With the exception of maybe Kentucky, all 3 of those teams were beatable. But even Kentucky got destroyed the week after playing us. Syracuse got destroyed the following week also, by a very average Washington team, and should have been VERY beatable for us at home. And Indiana? I don't see them as much more than a good MAC team.

I still think the Gardner-Webb loss hurt us the most. But even with that loss, if we could have pulled off at least one win against one of the BCS teams, I think the people in the community who pay attention to college football would have possibly still stuck with us.

Right now, I might feel more distant from the top of our own 1-A division than I think I've felt at any time in our 20+ years in this division.

[Roo]

I love the way the current schedule is set up. How can you not?

You get the chance to beat a BCS team that is not a traditional power, a should be easy win, and you aren't getting embarrassed. Atleast that is the idea.

Playing big time BCS teams is a mistake. We have no reason to play the Penn States, Ohio States, etc.. etc.. The games we are playing are winnable, we beat Syracuse two years ago. Toledo has beat Michigan and Purdue. These lower level BCS games are what this program needs. We just dont have the talent to compete at the moment.

I would like more one for ones instead of two for ones, and if we have go to a smaller conference to get that, then I am all for it. However, the only thing I dont want to see is more OSU etc... I know they are money games, but that is really pointless because there is pretty much zero chance we beat that kind of school.

[ksu sucks]

I have to agree with Roo. If NIU, Toledo, or Temple has our schedule, there's a decent chance that they are 3-1 right now.

However, I do agree that 3 BCS in one year is excessive. The ideal OOC schedule would be something similar to what GP1 suggested.

We need to quit scheduling Ohio State. It's pointless.

[Buckzip]

While our OOC scheduling disaster is fresh in our minds, does anyone still believe playing three BCS schools is a good idea? Let's play one BCS, one I-AA and two D-1A non-bcs schools. Miami and BG both played nonbcs schools and won games at home. Both games were evenly matched and won by the MAC schools.

As it stands now, we are 0-4 with little momentum going into the MAC schedule and we have a disinterested community. How is this scheduling working out for us? Does anyone still believe this is the direction we should be going.

I think the factor that I highlighted above is the most valid point in not playing too many BCS teams.

But....

It's not like we played some Floridas or Alabamas in the last few weeks. With the exception of maybe Kentucky, all 3 of those teams were beatable. But even Kentucky got destroyed the week after playing us. Syracuse got destroyed the following week also, by a very average Washington team, and should have been VERY beatable for us at home. And Indiana? I don't see them as much more than a good MAC team.

I still think the Gardner-Webb loss hurt us the most. But even with that loss, if we could have pulled off at least one win against one of the BCS teams, I think the people in the community who pay attention to college football would have possibly still stuck with us.

Right now, I might feel more distant from the top of our own 1-A division than I think I've felt at any time in our 20+ years in this division.

I agree. We lost to Kentucky and Indiana. 2 Middle to lower teams in their conferences.

I don't want to schedule Florida, Alabama, USC, OSU, Wisci, but the lower portions of those conferences certainly help.

I think playing better competititon helps make the team better prepared for the MAC. Our goal is to win the MAC. We aren't going to win a NC and we aren't Boise. I feel we should get as much work against better competition as possible.

I doubt anyone would be questioning scheduling these guys if we could pull off a win. Toledo, Miami, N. Illinois have all done it.

[Buckzip]

I have to agree with Roo. If NIU, Toledo, or Temple has our schedule, there's a decent chance that they are 3-1 right now.

However, I do agree that 3 BCS in one year is excessive. The ideal OOC schedule would be something similar to what GP1 suggested.

We need to quit scheduling Ohio State. It's pointless.

Just because someone is in a BCS conference doesn't mean anything. The Big East and ACC are both BCS conferences.

They have some pretty crappy teams in those conferences. Again, I agree with not scheduling the tradionally top teams in those conferences, but the bottom feeders we should play every year.

[Big Zip]

I could not disagree more. This was a very winnable schedule.

I love the one big time game every year.

I love it as a fan as it gives me the opportunity to root for my college and see a different stadium, atmosphere etc.

I love that it helps our program financially.

I love that upsets happen all the time and one of these times I hope it will be the Zips

I love that you can use it as a recruiting tool.

I love playing the lower level BCS programs regularly (Syracuse/Indiana etc.).

There is no reason to think we shouldn't beat these programs.

These games should be used as fodder for why you should be in a better conference...but you have to win them.

These games should be checks on our programs growth.

I hate playing Div. 1AA programs

I hate that they are lose/lose situations. If you win you're supposed to and if you lose you suck.

Losing to these teams provides more ridicule than anything.

Winning counts as nothing.

I give a big thumbs up to the schedule maker. This year's schedule was the best I've seen.....keep it up!

[eguins]

we'd be 0-4 if we added Morehead State, Slippery Rock, and Murry State to our loss to Gardiner Webb. What's the diff?

However, for a sure win, schedule YSU.

Maybe if Coach Heacock, or Hiccup, was still here, but not anymore lol!

YSU is off to a 3-1 start after winning three in a row at home against the defending Pioneer, Northeast, and Missouri Valley Conference Champs.

In 2012 and 2013, I believe, the FCS teams have 12 game schedules due to the # of Saturday's during the regular season, perhaps we can meet up then!

[GP1]

Again, I agree with not scheduling the tradionally top teams in those conferences, but the bottom feeders we should play every year.

We should play ONE of those bottom feeders a year....I would totally agree with that.

This is just a general comment. Sometimes when I read a fan board, I wonder how often the fans go to games outside of their own team. The one thing you guys have to understand is we are lightyears away from the level of play of the three top conference. We should never schedule a Big 12, PAC 10 or SEC school. Those are the top tier conferences and we would have zero chance of winning.

Once we get into the second tier, we should stay clear of the upper 75% of the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. That would get us past the BCS schools and we would still only have about a 25% chance of winning.

We need to schedule two third tier teams each year. I don't care who they are, we should be able to compete against them. The level of player should be equal and we should have a 50/50 shot at winning. 50/50 is where you want to be. At that level, you competing fairly against good teams at your level and the best team that day wins.

[Captain Kangaroo]

I could not disagree more. This was a very winnable schedule.

I love the one big time game every year.

I love it as a fan as it gives me the opportunity to root for my college and see a different stadium, atmosphere etc.

I love that it helps our program financially.

I love that upsets happen all the time and one of these times I hope it will be the Zips

I love that you can use it as a recruiting tool.

I love playing the lower level BCS programs regularly (Syracuse/Indiana etc.).

There is no reason to think we shouldn't beat these programs.

These games should be used as fodder for why you should be in a better conference...but you have to win them.

These games should be checks on our programs growth.

I hate playing Div. 1AA programs

I hate that they are lose/lose situations. If you win you're supposed to and if you lose you suck.

Losing to these teams provides more ridicule than anything.

Winning counts as nothing.

I give a big thumbs up to the schedule maker. This year's schedule was the best I've seen.....keep it up!

+1. I liked the schedule too.

Just because we suck doesn't mean the shedule sucked. All games were very winnable, if we were an upper-echelon MAC team. OU beat Kentucky a few years ago. We beat Syracuse. Others have beaten Indiana.

Additionally -- In all three circumstances, the Zips received home games with these opponents (a scheduling debacle in 2009 robbed us of the home game vs. Kentucky).

Additionally -- Title 9 means we need to play a "money game" each season. Someone has to fund Zips women's tennis.

Additionally -- Northern Illinois killed Minnesota last night. Toledo pounded Purdue. Temple performed well in Happy Valley and beat UConn last week. Upper-echelon MAC schools have proven to be more than competitive against lower-echelon BCS programs.

If the Zips get better, a schedule like 2010's will be perfect. If we don't improve, the schedule won't matter.

[GP1]

I love playing the lower level BCS programs regularly (Syracuse/Indiana etc.).

There is no reason to think we shouldn't beat these programs.

I give a big thumbs up to the schedule maker. This year's schedule was the best I've seen.....keep it up!

There are reasons whey we can't win. They have more money, better fan bases, better access to TV money, more alumni support, more support for their foundation, bigger stadiums, etc.

When a MAC school beats a BCS level school, it says more about the BCS school than it does the MAC school. For example, Toledo beats Purdue. Is Toledo a great program (see how they did against a midlevel PAC10 school in Toledo earlier this year), or is Purdue a laughable Big 10 program? I'd go with Purdue is a laughable Big 10 program.

Could someone please go see how the MAC's record against BCS schools this season? While you are at it, how did we do against non-bcs schools and I-AA schools?

If this is the best schedule ever, you must enjoy 0-4 and 1-3 starts. In fact, I'm pretty certain that as a Browns fan, you have become accustomed to these starts and find comfort/enjoyment in them the way an abused wife finds some level of comfort in her wifebeating husband. I for one have seen enough losing and I don't want guaranteed wins, but I want to see some competition against equal schools. We have around a 25% chance of beating bottomfeeder bcs schools, that is not equal competition. I would go as far as to say that if we played Indiana ten times, we would lose 9 of 10.

[skip-zip]

I love playing the lower level BCS programs regularly (Syracuse/Indiana etc.).

There is no reason to think we shouldn't beat these programs.

I give a big thumbs up to the schedule maker. This year's schedule was the best I've seen.....keep it up!

There are reasons whey we can't win. They have more money, better fan bases, better access to TV money, more alumni support, more support for their foundation, bigger stadiums, etc.

When a MAC school beats a BCS level school, it says more about the BCS school than it does the MAC school. For example, Toledo beats Purdue. Is Toledo a great program (see how they did against a midlevel PAC10 school in Toledo earlier this year), or is Purdue a laughable Big 10 program? I'd go with Purdue is a laughable Big 10 program.

Could someone please go see how the MAC's record against BCS schools this season? While you are at it, how did we do against non-bcs schools and I-AA schools?

If this is the best schedule ever, you must enjoy 0-4 and 1-3 starts. In fact, I'm pretty certain that as a Browns fan, you have become accustomed to these starts and find comfort/enjoyment in them the way an abused wife finds some level of comfort in her wifebeating husband. I for one have seen enough losing and I don't want guaranteed wins, but I want to see some competition against equal schools. We have around a 25% chance of beating bottomfeeder bcs schools, that is not equal competition. I would go as far as to say that if we played Indiana ten times, we would lose 9 of 10.

I was not a math major at Akron, but I believe in this scenario, we'd win 1 out of every 4 times, not 1 out of every 10 times

[GP1]

I love playing the lower level BCS programs regularly (Syracuse/Indiana etc.).

There is no reason to think we shouldn't beat these programs.

I give a big thumbs up to the schedule maker. This year's schedule was the best I've seen.....keep it up!

There are reasons whey we can't win. They have more money, better fan bases, better access to TV money, more alumni support, more support for their foundation, bigger stadiums, etc.

When a MAC school beats a BCS level school, it says more about the BCS school than it does the MAC school. For example, Toledo beats Purdue. Is Toledo a great program (see how they did against a midlevel PAC10 school in Toledo earlier this year), or is Purdue a laughable Big 10 program? I'd go with Purdue is a laughable Big 10 program.

Could someone please go see how the MAC's record against BCS schools this season? While you are at it, how did we do against non-bcs schools and I-AA schools?

If this is the best schedule ever, you must enjoy 0-4 and 1-3 starts. In fact, I'm pretty certain that as a Browns fan, you have become accustomed to these starts and find comfort/enjoyment in them the way an abused wife finds some level of comfort in her wifebeating husband. I for one have seen enough losing and I don't want guaranteed wins, but I want to see some competition against equal schools. We have around a 25% chance of beating bottomfeeder bcs schools, that is not equal competition. I would go as far as to say that if we played Indiana ten times, we would lose 9 of 10.

I was not a math major at Akron, but I believe in this scenario, we'd win 1 out of every 4 times, not 1 out of every 10 times

That's around 25%.....

[zen]

we'd be 0-4 if we added Morehead State, Slippery Rock, and Murry State to our loss to Gardiner Webb. What's the diff?

However, for a sure win, schedule YSU.

Maybe if Coach Heacock, or Hiccup, was still here, but not anymore lol!

YSU is off to a 3-1 start after winning three in a row at home against the defending Pioneer, Northeast, and Missouri Valley Conference Champs.

In 2012 and 2013, I believe, the FCS teams have 12 game schedules due to the # of Saturday's during the regular season, perhaps we can meet up then!

I figured I could unlurkify you.

[MDZip]

Could someone please go see how the MAC's record against BCS schools this season? While you are at it, how did we do against non-bcs schools and I-AA schools?

I had the same thought, I'm just not too lazy to do it myself. I didn't count MAC games.

Akron FCS 0-1 BCS 0-3 Non-BCS 0-0

Ball State FCS 1-1 BCS 0-2 Non-BCS 0-0

BGSU FCS 0-0 BCS 0-1 Non-BCS 1-2

Buffalo FCS 1-0 BCS 0-2 Non-BCS 0-1

CMU FCS 1-0 BCS 0-1 Non-BCS 0-0

EMU FCS 0-0 BCS 0-1 Non-BCS 0-1

Can't State FCS 1-0 BCS 0-2 Non-BCS 0-0

Miami FCS 0-0 BCS 0-2 Non-BCS 1-0

NIU FCS 1-0 BCS 1-2 Non-BCS 0-0

Ohio FCS 1-0 BCS 0-1 Non-BCS 0-1

Temple FCS 1-0 BCS 1-1 Non-BCS 0-0

Toledo FCS 0-0 BCS 1-1 Non-BCS 0-0

WMU FCS 1-0 BCS 0-1 Non-BCS 0-0

So FCS 8-2, BCS 3-20, Non-BCS 2-5.

Most surprising to me is how few non-BCS games there are. That may be one of the MAC's big problems, we really aren't playing like competition. Most of the BCS games are against the Big Ten which probably has to do mostly with geography and travel. I've said before, I'd take one payday game, one FCS game (since you're not going to get a payday team to come here) and then two games against whoever (BCS or non-BCS) we can get to do a home-home series. If it is a BCS team. it is likely they are not going to be a top team so then it would be like competition. I'd be fine with a schedule like that.

[you am i]

The schedule is fine. The team is bad.

[ZachTheZip]

The schedule is fine. The team is bad.

Bingo. We didn't play a tough OOC team. We don't have a rough conference schedule.

[Dave in Green]

..... If the Zips get better, a schedule like 2010's will be perfect. If we don't improve, the schedule won't matter.

That about summarizes it for me.

[RACER]

so you would rather play bcs teams like ohio state that akron has to play on the road.

that's great logic.we have a stadium that's two years old. we will in play in four times a year.the only

reason we have six homes games is because we played a 1-aa team.no 1-aa teams mean one less home game. why

build the new stadium for four home games.im sorry ,but no major bcs team is giving home/home games.we have no

business playing teams like ohio state.how does

getting pounded like emu did help thier program.if you think cuse and indi are coming back to akron again it won't

happen in the future.they can get any 1-aa team to play at thier place.

[RACER]

gp i agree 100%.we overschedule every year.by the time the mac season rolls around we are 0-4,or 1-3.

then no one even cares.that's why we will have about 7k at the next home game.you have to give the team a chance

to win some games.we are going on our fourth losing season in a row.tell me how our scheduling has helped?

[Buckzip]

so you would rather play bcs teams like ohio state that akron has to play on the road.

that's great logic.we have a stadium that's two years old. we will in play in four times a year.the only

reason we have six homes games is because we played a 1-aa team.no 1-aa teams mean one less home game. why

build the new stadium for four home games.im sorry ,but no major bcs team is giving home/home games.we have no

business playing teams like ohio state.how does

getting pounded like emu did help thier program.if you think cuse and indi are coming back to akron again it won't

happen in the future.they can get any 1-aa team to play at thier place.

You may want to read the entire thread. Most are discussing this seasons schedule. The op mentioned this season schedule as being bad. I disagree with that. IU and UK are mid to bottom feeders of their conferences.

I agree we shouldn't schedule OSU, USC, Alabama, etc. But Indiana and Kentucky are perfect.

[Dave in Green]

UA is only "overscheduled" for the team as it currently exists, not for the team Zips fans aspire to have. How many teams have successfully pulled themselves up by the bootstraps from doormats to powers by underscheduling? Would UA football fans really show up in greater numbers to watch the Zips beat no-name cupcakes than at least try to compete with bigger-name programs?

It seems to me that UA is making many of the right moves to become a football power, even if only a mid-major power. The facilities are all now first class. The effort was made to bring in a quality coaching staff, regardless of whether or not all fans believe it was the right choice. The current OOC schedule also fits a plan to move up.

But without well-coached, talented players executing as a team to the best of their abilities, the whole thing becomes a house of cards that falls apart in the winds blown from the mouths of disgruntled fans.

If only the transformation from doormat to power were as easy as flipping the imaginary switch on the wall that some disgruntled fans envision in their dreams.

I honestly don't know the level of commitment at UA to improve the football program, or how far they're willing to go to make it happen. It may be that in their heart of hearts the powers at UA would be satisfied to have the football program rise to the level of slightly above average. Maybe their priorities are to make UA a leader in other areas, and not overobsess over football. If so, then the football forum on ZN.O is never going to be a happy place to visit.

On the other hand, if the powers at UA are making a sincere effort to raise the level of football, the path will be full of ups and downs, and the football forum on ZN.O will be a heck of a roller coaster ride.

[zen]

but your recruiting slowly erodes when you don't win.

Football players want to win. They don't want to walk off the field into that locker room a loser.

If the wins come on the head of un-prestigious opponents, that's something slightly more nuanced to deal with.

Talented players (just like all players) want to go somewhere and be apart of something great and something fun.

It's no significant consolation when someone is recruiting you for a mid-major that has a consistently losing record to have them tell you that they are playing more BCS teams than the other guy who is winning.

Over-scheduling is a good thing if you overschedule within reason.

Get the winning started first... even if you have to underschedule first to do that.

When the ball is rolling, then set the bar higher.

[you am i]

"Don't schedule Syracuse, Indiana or Kentucky. They're too tough."

Too much losing breeds a loser mentality.

I'm an Akron grad and I know this is an Akron board, but indulge me for a few seconds. I also have a degree from Toledo and I follow both teams. Both cities are comparable in size and demographics, and they both have very nice football facilities, but there's a huge difference in the fan base, at least for football.

Toledo always puts BCS teams on its schedule and they beat their share. This year it is was Purdue. Last year it was Colorado. In recent years they've beaten Kansas, Michigan, and a few others I can't think of right now. The fans love it and its a recruiting tool, for sure. One of the most thrilling games I have ever been to was when UT beat Pitt at the Glass Bowl during Larry Fitzgerald's senior year. I remember reading the next day that a bunch of recruits were at the game and they had to be impressed. The place was filled to the rafters and it was rocking the entire game.

If the Toledo AD was to announce tomorrow that fewer BCS schools would be scheduled because "They're too tough," he would be fired.

What Akron needs is a head coach who can create a winner. Sooner or later they'll get the right guy (law of averages?) and then people will get what I'm talking about. We got a taste of it with JD, and it was great.