Game Number One: Wyoming

[GP1]

48 minutes ago, ZipCat said:

 

Yup. 100% of the MAC programs lose money on Football, and there's a bunch of perennial losers (CMU, Ball St., Kent St., EMU) that cannot make sense to continue this farce. Even the programs that have "success" how strained are they financially to continue this farce?

If you want to eliminate all MAC sports that don't make a profit, there will be no Mac sports. 

[clarkwgriswold]

Nihilism- the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

[GP1]

6 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

Nihilism- the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

Incomplete definition. 

[ZipCat]

57 minutes ago, GP1 said:

If you want to eliminate all MAC sports that don't make a profit, there will be no Mac sports. 

 

Then there should be no MAC sports should there? It's time to stop mortgaging the future, so the greediest generation in history can sit in the stands of empty stadiums.

 

But more specifically: you don't have to eliminate all sports that don't make a profit, just the ones that cost you the most with no potential to ever be competitive...like football.

[ZipCat]

1 hour ago, GP1 said:

Your second paragraph isn't in the world of reality. 

 

Dude, we have to stop defending this BS. It's absolutely unacceptable that the University of Akron is cutting education, cutting tenured professors, cutting services for students (that students have every right to have because they're the one paying the bills), just so that a bunch of administrators can pad their resumes using Akron as a stepping stone, and so a bunch of barely-existent alumni can pretend in a reality that doesn't exist.

 

At some point it has to stop. We're not talking about how it happens, we're talking about that it needs to happen.

 

I'm sorry, you're not a serious person of you're still defending this crap.

[MangoZip]

Yet the football team is the only one bringing in any revenue. Didn’t they bring in close to 4 million last year by playing Rutgers, SC, and Ohio State? Where is the athletic budget without that cashflow? Yet the football program has no training table, no money to recruit, etc etc. Appears to be a sinking ship

[ZipCat]

Just now, MangoZip said:

Yet the football team is the only one bringing in any revenue. Didn’t they bring in close to 4 million last year by playing Rutgers, SC, and Ohio State? Where is the athletic budget without that cashflow? Yet the football program has no training table, no money to recruit, etc etc. Appears to be a sinking ship

 

 It brings in the most money, while also costing the most. It's a net positive if you get rid of the Football program; because the money brought in by the football program doesn't even cover the expense of the football program.

 

Some people just live in denial.

[GP1]

11 minutes ago, ZipCat said:

 

Then there should be no MAC sports should there? It's time to stop mortgaging the future, so the greediest generation in history can sit in the stands of empty stadiums.

 

But more specifically: you don't have to eliminate all sports that don't make a profit, just the ones that cost you the most with no potential to ever be competitive...like football.

There should be MAC sports. Football should be part of MAC sports. They need to find a way to make all MAC sports work. 

[GP1]

9 minutes ago, ZipCat said:

Dude, we have to stop defending this BS.

I'm not defending the BS. I'd like to eliminate the BS and make MAC athletic departments benefit the athletes students alumni fans and general communities around their schools. 

[clarkwgriswold]

I have to ask.  What's so special about the MAC?

 

I'm not advocating leaving the MAC and spending money to do it, but there's no reason to not to start exploring conferences and alliances with similarly situated and like minded schools.

Edited 6 hours ago by clarkwgriswold

[Blue & Gold]

Just now, clarkwgriswold said:

I have to ask.  What's so special about the MAC?

 

I'm not advocating leaving the MAC and spending money to do it, but there's no reason to start exploring conferences and alliances with similarly situated and like minded schools.

Did you mean to say 'there's no reason NOT to start exploring conferences and alliances with similarly situated and like minded schools'?

[Blue & Gold]

Idk. What about YSU? Or any of the Missouri Valley schools? How do they make ends meet?

[LZIp]

2 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

I have to ask.  What's so special about the MAC?

 

I'm not advocating leaving the MAC and spending money to do it, but there's no reason to start exploring conferences and alliances with similarly situated and like minded schools.

Wouldn’t those “similarly situated schools” be most or all MAC schools as well? What needs to happen is the G6 in general needs to figure out how and where they want to be in this new college athletics  landscape.

[clarkwgriswold]

4 minutes ago, Blue & Gold said:

Did you mean to say 'there's no reason NOT to start exploring conferences and alliances with similarly situated and like minded schools'?

Yes, fixed.  

[clarkwgriswold]

4 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Wouldn’t those “similarly situated schools” be most or all MAC schools as well? What needs to happen is the G6 in general needs to figure out how and where they want to be in this new college athletics  landscape.

Yes, could very well be.

[GP1]

4 minutes ago, Blue & Gold said:

Idk. What about YSU? Or any of the Missouri Valley schools? How do they make ends meet?

That's a great question. I don't know what their financials are. Maybe someone at the MAC could look at it. 

 

Our basketball program is a great MAC program. Does everyone realize moving to the MVC would greatly increase the competition?

[GP1]

6 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Wouldn’t those “similarly situated schools” be most or all MAC schools as well? What needs to happen is the G6 in general needs to figure out how and where they want to be in this new college athletics  landscape.

I've been saying this for years. There's a path forward. I just don't think anyone at the G4 schools is interested in looking into it. 

[ZipCat]

47 minutes ago, GP1 said:

I'm not defending the BS. I'd like to eliminate the BS and make MAC athletic departments benefit the athletes students alumni fans and general communities around their schools. 

 

You are defending BS. Playing D-1 football serves nobody but 6, 7-figure administrators who use these universities as stepping stones to other more lucrative endeavors; ala Matthew Wilson.

 

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, ZipCat said:

 

Then there should be no MAC sports should there? It's time to stop mortgaging the future, so the greediest generation in history can sit in the stands of empty stadiums.

 

But more specifically: you don't have to eliminate all sports that don't make a profit, just the ones that cost you the most with no potential to ever be competitive...like football.

Collegiate athletics is just a marketing arm for the University. Them turning a profit isn't a necessity, but with all marketing plans you have to evaluate whether the reach it provides is worth the dollars that you're spending.  

 

Little to no good has come from football in the past 15-20 years. In fact, the negatives have only tarnished perceptions of the university. Something likely needs to done. Ideally, it would be great if the MAC as a whole decided they can no longer keep up and decided to drop down to FCS, preferably non-scholaship FCS. Trying to keep up with the Jones's, even at the G5 level, has grown prohibitively expensive.

[ZipCat]

25 minutes ago, GP1 said:

I've been saying this for years. There's a path forward. I just don't think anyone at the G4 schools is interested in looking into it. 

 

Of course they're not. They have every reason to let students go into debt to support these programs that will never be competitive, while administrators pad their resumes, collecting 6, 7-figure salaries on the backs of student debt.

[GP1]

2 minutes ago, ZipCat said:

 

Of course they're not. They have every reason to let students go into debt to support these programs that will never be competitive, while administrators pad their resumes, collecting 6, 7-figure salaries on the backs of student debt.

I've been saying this for years also. You should go back and read all of my posts and get back to me in a couple of years. 

[GP1]

16 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Collegiate athletics is just a marketing arm for the University. Them turning a profit isn't a necessity, but with all marketing plans you have to evaluate whether the reach it provides is worth the dollars that you're spending.  

You have identified a key problem. 

 

What if instead of a marketing problem, it was a public service problem? The public has historically stomached funding public services that don't make money because the benefits outweigh the costs. For example, the only public transportation system that makes money in the USA is the NYC subway system, at least it used to. The rest are basically welfare programs for people who can't afford transportation but need to get places such as work. 

 

So again, what if at a modest cost, the football program benefited the athletes students alumni fans and general community around Akron? What if it's as simple as playing football games on days of the week and times that allow people to attend a fun day at the University their tax dollars support? 

Edited 5 hours ago by GP1

[Spin]

20 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Collegiate athletics is just a marketing arm for the University. Them turning a profit isn't a necessity, but with all marketing plans you have to evaluate whether the reach it provides is worth the dollars that you're spending.  

 

Little to no good has come from football in the past 15-20 years. In fact, the negatives have only tarnished perceptions of the university. Something likely needs to done. Ideally, it would be great if the MAC as a whole decided they can no longer keep up and decided to drop down to FCS, preferably non-scholaship FCS. Trying to keep up with the Jones's, even at the G5 level, has grown prohibitively expensive.

You better watch. I brought this up maybe 10 years ago and found a burning cross in my front yard.

[Lee Adams]

19 hours ago, GP1 said:

OU had a chance to win the game and only lost by three. OU is what a competent MAC program looks like. There is no reason a top third of the MAC shouldn't be able to complete against a bottom third Big Ten school. 

 

College football is broken in that almost everyone is just playing games and trying to make money to support a bloated athletic department. There are only 5 to 7 programs tops who have a shot at winning a championship. 

 

Akron can compete, but it has to be at a level where money is less important. I don't know that exists right now nationally, but I would bet a lot of universities would breathe a sigh of relief if it did. 

I watched the offensive debacle, offensive in both senses of the word. I have no idea what was wrong with Finley. He wasn't that bad last season. Something more than a sore arm going on there. With that said, that was a bad Wyomong team and should have been beaten.

My comment again and again has been that if football is to continue being played at Akron it has to be at a level where the program can consistently compete. That is NOT at any DI level. Hasn't been. I watched this program in the '60's and '70s when it was ALWAYS competitive. Look it up. I would be all for dropping back to DII. I don't think this program would be real competitive even at I-AA. And at that level you are still getting players poached by bigger schools. I'd rather watch them play competitive games against the IUP's,the Ashlands, Sag States, Grand Valley States etc. etc. as opposed to the crap we see now. Maybe something is brewing with a new sheriff in town. 

As for the rest of this season, go to most of the games,hope they beat KSU and see what happens.

[GP1]

9 minutes ago, Lee Adams said:

I have no idea what was wrong with Finley. He wasn't that bad last season. 

There is a 30 for 30 about the Patriots. Bledsoe had been beaten up pretty bad in his career before his injury. He became a very nervous QB after he came back and that was one factor in his benching. He just wasn't aggressive anymore. At some point, when a QB gets beat up, they sort of cross a line and never go back to being an aggressive player again. 

 

I didn't see the game, but the QB has been beaten up and maybe he isn't the same aggressive player he was before.