Terry Pluto is wrong

[mcperp]

To borrow a line from the moviemaking Coen Brothers, "The Future is Now". It would be difficult to find a UA football campaign that is as critical as the 2006 season. Let's face it, a 3-8, 4-7 season will significantly stymie any momentum, and make the building of a new stadium much more difficult if not impossible. Zips administrators won't admit it as such, but number one on their strategic plan is a new on-campus stadium. If you're going to tap into casual fans and build your fan base it's essential to have a family-friendly, amenity laden stadium. The Zips will always draw 6-7k at the Rubber Bowl thanks to a small, but loyal fan base. Momentum from an exciting 2006 season will exponentially increase donations and support for an on-campus stadium. You can bet that the university won't be getting much if any help from the state legislature for capital improvements, and especially an athletic facility. If Terry Pluto were to wag his ample pen and influence to help lobby for a 30-35k capacity stadium, his contribution would be invaluable.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Excellent point linking this season to the new stadium...and this is what I don't get. This might very well be the most important season ever for UA. The confluence of elements giving the program real momentum could just as easily disappear as continue. If it continues, a new 30K+ stadium becomes much more doable in the near term, which I think really creates a tipping point for support for UA in NEO. But this momentum needs to be nurtured...it's smoldering but it needs to be carefully tended to become a real fire. Where's JD's extension? Where is the creative scheduling of a breakthrough game at home (or at Cleveland Stadium)? You get the drift...What the Miami U idiot said above is crap-- Colorado agreed to a 1 and 1 because of (1) a relationship and (2) money. It's a contractual relationship-- Miami put sufficient money in to make it make sense to CU. THIS IS THE YEAR TO SECURE A NEW FUTURE FOR UA-- so why does it feel like it is the same ol same ol in so many ways? Why isn't there a ton of creative and bold things happening like Miami signing this deal, like BG and UT getting Big 10 schools at Cleveland Stadium. Does anyone else share these concerns?

[mcperp]

Nicely stated LA Zips Fan. One can only guess about the reasons behind the relative quietude from the Athletic Department. It's almost as if last season's success caught everyone off-guard, including the Athletic Department. The Zips' culture of second-class citizenship was momentarily replaced by a "how the hell did this happen" elation of a last-second championship. Factor in the transition of a new AD, and you have a department in flux. Certainly these people are aware of the need to stoke the fire, and one hopes they are able to do so. The new stadium is a doable proposition, but for good or bad, nothing will help more than a solid season, and an aggressive, creative scheduling plan that will build the fan base. For those of you who remember the great run Cleveland State hoops had back in the mid-80's, it culminated in the construction of the 17,000 seat Convocation Center on-campus.

[Zips Win!]

Again, just back from vacation and I missed a great blog. While I agree with CK assessment of why we all hate the Beacon and it's horrible coverage of UA athletics, this time I have to agree with Pluto's slant on the schedule.Well, the schedule SUCKS.Having to wait until the 4th game to play a home game is atrocious while having all those November home games does nothing to build momentum to get people to the stadium early and often.Sure, the schedule is such that we do have a shot to win 9 or 10 games, but it's also set up that we could only win 5. Reality will be somewhere in the middle.While I do can see where Pluto is coming from on the money front, his point of grouping all the money together is misleading.This has been my gripe for years when it comes to finances. Make what you can from NC state and Cincinnati.........but making $400K from PSU is truly a disaster beacause it can be a stepping stone to a BCS bowl bid.Last year for example, PSU made the medium ten conference over 14 million dollars by playing in a BCS bowl game. My take has always been that these funds (after expenses) should be split evenly between all of their opponents...not just their conference. The MAC should be in a position to make additional funds at seasons' end for playing top rated schools, but we aren't. Therefore, I, too would not schedule schools like this who pay out paltry sums, only to reap huge rewards from the BCS.Finally, yes, MU, BG, NI and Toledo all want and do play top BCS schools. But where does this really get them? Other then UT beating a bad PSU team several years ago, who has the conference really beaten? Share revenue fairly, play BCS schools with a realistic chance to beat.....And play more home games in Septemeber and October.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Other then UT beating a bad PSU team several years ago, who has the conference really beaten? 

Someone help me here...The list of BCS shools MAC teams has recently beaten (in the 90's and beyond) is pretty extensive. Off the top of my head I can recall:Iowa, Minnesota, Pitt, Northwestern, Kansas State, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, Penn State, Indiana, Clemson and Iowa State. I'm intentionally leaving off the Rutgers', Kentucky's, Navy's, Army's, Cincinnati's and UConn's of the world, although these BCS schools have recently fallen to MAC teams too.There's probably at least 10 other very respectable BCS schools that MAC teams have recently beaten. Don't sell the MAC short just because you/we were stuck with Gerry Faust and Lee Owens for 18 years. The rest of the MAC has fared pretty well as of late.

[Zips Win!]

Someone help me here...The list of BCS shools MAC teams has recently beaten (in the 90's and beyond) is pretty extensive. Off the top of my head I can recall:Iowa, Minnesota, Pitt, Northwestern, Kansas State, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, Penn State, Indiana, Clemson and Iowa State. I'm intentionally leaving off the Rutgers', Kentucky's, Navy's, Army's, Cincinnati's and UConn's of the world, although these BCS schools have recently fallen to MAC teams too.There's probably at least 10 other very respectable BCS schools that MAC teams have recently beaten. Don't sell the MAC short just because you/we were stuck with Gerry Faust and Lee Owens for 18 years. The rest of the MAC has fared pretty well as of late.

I guess I wasn't to clear on my point. My intentions were in no way to downplay the BCS schools that the MAC has beaten.I thought the post was about scheduling and how much money we make from these opponents.Again, while I completely agree with scheduling the NC State's of college football, I generally disagree with playing the tradional power schools--PSU, Michigan, Florida etc., especially for the paltry sums of money that we receive when they make millions on the gate alone. Add in the fact that these schools then reap millions more in BCS bowl money at years' end which they share with their conference. In a perfect world, these funds need to be shared more fairly. In the current scheduling setup, the rich just get richer.