Back when cutting sports seemed like the abyss...

[kreed5120]

15 minutes ago, LZIp said:

I'd rather have 75 players given full value scholarships than 85 players at 90%, which we operated at and will be operating at this year unfortunately.

 

Why would anyone come here if they could get a full ride somewhere else?

 

I believe what he's referring to is that full cost of tuition stipend the NCAA started allowing schools to pay 3-5 years ago. It's something in the neighborhood of $1500-$3500 per full scholarship. Akron eliminating paying it would impact all sports, not just football.

[UA1987]

2 hours ago, Lee Adams said:

Again, didn't say numbers, but a possible reduction in the value of EACH of those 85 schollys. 

I believe what you are referring to is an article written by young Cameryn Justice of WEWS news on 5/14 where she says - 'The school said that while football remains, the scholarships players receive will likely be reduced while they work on making the program more lucrative.' I don't see anything about a value reduction in her vauge article and I still believe they are referring to the scholarships that the football program awards will be down (now in the mid-seventies or so) as the University works through this crisis (and NCAA recruiting rules). I also beleive that our OOC schedule going forward is going to require that we get to full strength in scholarships (eighty-five) as we will be playing in alot of big stadiums each year (more than prior years - $$$$).          

Edited May 19, 2020 by UA1987

[morris buttermaker]

FBS scholarships are all full rides.

[GP1]

If G5 schools got together and made a decision to reduce scholarships from 85 to 74, it would be a meaningful cost savings that would not impact the quality of play. It would be a number higher than FCS. It would help create a structure where these schools could complete against one another on a playing field where they are equal. 

 

The players will go somewhere else?  Where?  There is nowhere else to go. There are limited teams and limited scholarships. 74 players is plenty. The coaches just have to do a better job of recruiting.

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, GP1 said:

If G5 schools got together and made a decision to reduce scholarships from 85 to 74, it would be a meaningful cost savings that would not impact the quality of play. It would be a number higher than FCS. It would help create a structure where these schools could complete against one another on a playing field where they are equal. 

 

The players will go somewhere else?  Where?  There is nowhere else to go. There are limited teams and limited scholarships. 74 players is plenty. The coaches just have to do a better job of recruiting.

 

The bottom 10-11 scholarship players on FBS rosters would definitely be getting scholarship offers at FCS schools. I'm not opposed to it. I just feel it's disingenuous to state those players would have no other options.

 

I've actually stated a few years back I'd like to see the NCAA reduce the scholarship to 80 as that would trickle some of the talent from schools like OSU down to schools like Iowa. In turn players who normally would go to Iowa would then trickle down to other schools like Akron. This would help create a more level playing field. The current 85 scholarship limit makes it easy for OSU to hoard a player like Warren Ball on their 3rd or 4th string when in reality he's good enough to start at a school like Akron.

[Blue & Gold]

 

[NWAkron]

59 minutes ago, Blue & Gold said:

 

1. Getting a waiver?

2. I hate Title 9

[zippy5]

They already denied the G5 petition to lower the number so I doubt a waiver would happen. Curious to see what they have to say. Cross Country was cut to a non scholarship sport so maybe they could get creative there somehow

[Spin]

4 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

The bottom 10-11 scholarship players on FBS rosters would definitely be getting scholarship offers at FCS schools. I'm not opposed to it. I just feel it's disingenuous to state those players would have no other options.

 

I've actually stated a few years back I'd like to see the NCAA reduce the scholarship to 80 as that would trickle some of the talent from schools like OSU down to schools like Iowa. In turn players who normally would go to Iowa would then trickle down to other schools like Akron. This would help create a more level playing field. The current 85 scholarship limit makes it easy for OSU to hoard a player like Warren Ball on their 3rd or 4th string when in reality he's good enough to start at a school like Akron.

An NFL team has what, 45, 50 players on the roster, and plays 16-20 games? Yeah they have a pool of talent to bring in as backups when they have injuries. But why do colleges need twice as many?

[clarkwgriswold]

All of this roster number talk makes me think back to the broadcast of the 2017 game against Penn State when the UA radio color guy explained that the biggest difference between the teams was not in starting talent but in depth.  This was in the 3rd quarter when the Zips were down 42-0 and the reserves had not seen the field.  Yikes!

[zippy5]

12 minutes ago, Spin said:

An NFL team has what, 45, 50 players on the roster, and plays 16-20 games? Yeah they have a pool of talent to bring in as backups when they have injuries. But why do colleges need twice as many?

Well they have 65 including practice squad, they don't have redshirts for freshmen that aren't physically ready, and they can sign free agents to replace injured players. 

[Dr Z]

Per new CBA, the game-day active roster will increase from 46 to 48 players. Practice squads will expand from 10 players to 12 in 2020 and 2021 and to 14 starting in 2022.

[zippy5]

So if the total active roster is 55, then they'll have 67 this year and 69 next year. Nice. I would still say 85 could be reduced a little, say to 80, but I'd probably be against going lower than that. 85 is 16-18 more than an NFL roster before redshirts, ineligibility issues, kids that get upset and transfer, etc. Plus these kids aren't getting paid to put their bodies on the line.

[Zip-Grad '13]

On 5/15/2020 at 11:01 PM, LZIp said:

Reminder: Groce finished tied for last in the MAC his first year, didn’t do much better his second year, and was picked to finish 5th of 6th in the East this year although they were thankfully able to break through.

 

Rebuilding takes patience and I really struggle to value anyone’s opinion who is writing him off after a season.

Groce had, at the very least, a resume that showed he could have success at the D1 level.  Arth on the other hand...

[ZipsVoice]

2 hours ago, Spin said:

An NFL team has what, 45, 50 players on the roster, and plays 16-20 games? Yeah they have a pool of talent to bring in as backups when they have injuries. But why do colleges need twice as many?

Try 3 times as many, or close to it.  It always amazed me when you look at D1 NCAA football how many double numbers team rosters have.  IMHO, 99 or 100 numbers are plenty!  Why does a team need to have 6 QBs on their roster, and why does that #6 QB stay at a school he is never going to play a game for?  Just one example.  Carrying that man kids, even if not on scholarship, costs a helluva lot, just in uniform and equipment costs....

[Captain Kangaroo]

44 minutes ago, Zip-Grad '13 said:

Arth on the other hand...

He took over a program with 3 D1-A wins the previous season, and who lost 9 of its 11 defensive starters. He began recruiting at a point in time when most programs had their full class committed.

 

How many games should he have won? 1...2...?

 

I hope he can turn it around. Like any HC, he gets 4 years to show what he can do. 

[kreed5120]

He should get 5 years because I believe that's how long his contract was signed for and frankly we're in no financial position to pay someone $500k to not coach for us, even if only for 1 season.

[94zipgrad]

I’m hearing they are making the football players pay for their summer classes if they need to take any.  That is new this summer

[Captain Kangaroo]

19 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

He should get 5 years because I believe that's how long his contract was signed for and frankly we're in no financial position to pay someone $500k to not coach for us, even if only for 1 season.

I would disagree. If you are a D-1 program, whether you're Ohio State or Akron, a cost of doing business is eating year #5.

 

You can't keep an underperforming, lame duck coach around.

 

If we hired good coaches, then they'd get hired away, and we'd net some cash. That would be refreshing.

[clarkwgriswold]

It's a strange world where we have to hope for the kind of success that leads a more prominent program to take away the person that brought that success.

[NWAkron]

17 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

It's a strange world where we have to hope for the kind of success that leads a more prominent program to take away the person that brought that success.

You guys always say that in the basketball thread.  Groce is gone if Zips win a tournament game 

[Zip_ME87]

4 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

I would disagree. If you are a D-1 program, whether you're Ohio State or Akron, a cost of doing business is eating year #5.

 

You can't keep an underperforming, lame duck coach around.

 

If we hired good coaches, then they'd get hired away, and we'd net some cash. That would be refreshing.

 

Stop giving them straight up 5 year contracts. Make it 3 or 4 years with 1 or 2 optional years based on performance. Gives both parties an out. Given UA's history with football head coaches, it's more likely to work out in UA's favor and ensure avoiding the complete $inkhole iCoach could have been if he had not been hired elsewhere by an even more incompetent HC.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Zip_ME87

[GP1]

3 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

 Like any HC, he gets 4 years to show what he can do. 

4 years would be good after taking over a disaster. I heard Lou Holtz once say that if a coach isn't winning after 3 years, he's probably not going to. I figure Coach A gets an extra for the circumstances he took over the program. 

 

Eating one year of a coach's contract is peanuts compared to the $300 million budget. Bad coaching creates a bad product. This is far worse than the one year cost. The goal should not be counting pennies. The goal should be to create a good experience for players, students, alumni and fans. Eating a year of a contract is part of that process. 

[Cykron]

4 hours ago, 94zipgrad said:

I’m hearing they are making the football players pay for their summer classes if they need to take any.  That is new this summer

 

 

Interesting.  Make the potential grad transfers pay for setting themselves up?  Seriously, I would think that Arth would want guys taking courses in the summer, especially this summer.

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, Zip_ME87 said:

 

Stop giving them straight up 5 year contracts. Make it 3 or 4 years with 1 or 2 optional years based on performance. Gives both parties an out. Given UA's history with football head coaches, it's more likely to work out in UA's favor and ensure the complete $inkhole iCoach could have been if he had not been hired elsewhere by an even more incompetent HC.

 

This right here. If we're not prepared to keep a coach around for 5 years, we shouldn't be offering him a 5-year deal. If it's deemed it takes 3-4 years to effectively evaluate a coach, we should be offering coaches a 3-4 year deal, especially inexperienced ones. I didn't see anyone else bidding for Arth so his only other option would have been to stay at Chattanooga for about 1/3 of the pay.