Game Five (CMU) Thoughts - 2026

[kreed5120]

16 minutes ago, Lee Adams said:

The AD really needs to look if the program is actually capable of competing at the current.

 

I feel Guthrie and Goodrich already have looked at it and arrived at the same conclusion. They just haven't publicly came out and admitted it. Akron doesn't have the money to compete at the top of the MAC. Top G5 programs in the MAC, SunBelt, C-USA are spending about ~$15 million on football and an additional $3-$5 million or so on players. That's like $18-$20 million combined between the two. Akron is spending maybe $10 million between the two. 

 

Basketball meanwhile requires ~$3 million operational spend and an additional ~$1 million to field a competitive roster. Much of which is funded by a booster. It makes sense Akron has prioritized basketball at a time that football costs have exploded to a point that we're incapable of keeping up.

Edited yesterday at 03:53 PM by kreed5120

[exit322]

10 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

I feel Guthrie and Goodrich already have looked at it and arrived at the same conclusion. They just haven't publicly came out and admitted it. Akron doesn't have the money to compete at the top of the MAC. Top G5 programs in the MAC, SunBelt, C-USA are spending about ~$15 million on football and an additional $3-$5 million or so on players. That's like $18-$20 million combined between the two. Akron is spending maybe $10 million between the two. 

 

Basketball meanwhile requires ~$3 million operational spend and an additional ~$1 million to field a competitive roster. Much of which is funded by a booster. It makes sense Akron has prioritized basketball at a time that football costs have exploded to a point that we're incapable of keeping up.

 

Then the question becomes...is there a path to the dollars making sense in FCS?  You do lose some revenues (though less than a couple years ago as the P4 teams are scheduling fewer and fewer buy games), though you open up a little bit more revenue by removing the empty stadium games.  Can't be done alone, but there's possibly an angle here.

[kreed5120]

12 minutes ago, exit322 said:

 

Then the question becomes...is there a path to the dollars making sense in FCS?  You do lose some revenues (though less than a couple years ago as the P4 teams are scheduling fewer and fewer buy games), though you open up a little bit more revenue by removing the empty stadium games.  Can't be done alone, but there's possibly an angle here.

 

Akron is already operating it's program at an FCS budget, but are getting FBS revenue doing it. What costs would actually be saved by dropping? 22 scholarships? Those are mainly just intercompany transfer dollars anyway. The marginal cost of educating and housing 22 additional students is much less than what the University charges the athletic department.

 

Dropping down to FCS isn't going to magically fill the stands. YSU isn't filling their stadium and their stadium is smaller than Infocision.

[GP1]

1 hour ago, MangoZip said:

I disagree, it obviously would not be a highly coveted job but it is still a D1 coaching job in a conference that has a pretty good reputation for sending successful coaches onto bigger and better programs. You would have coaches wanting this job - despite all of its insufficiencies. Look at Toledo’s recent hire. He was very successful at FCS Mercer. Would he have applied for an open Akron job? Not sure, but I think he might have, and I think others would as well. 

I'm not 100% sure either, but I'm pretty sure Toledo's guy wouldn't. Toledo is set up for success and they typically do. If it isn't the top program in the MAC, it's top 2-3. 

[exit322]

4 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

Akron is already operating it's program at an FCS budget, but are getting FBS revenue doing it. What costs would actually be saved by dropping? 22 scholarships? Those are mainly just intercompany transfer dollars anyway. The marginal cost of educating and housing 22 additional students is much less than what the University charges the athletic department.

 

Dropping down to FCS isn't going to magically fill the stands. YSU isn't filling their stadium and their stadium is smaller than Infocision.

 

That's what makes it a tough decision.  They are getting some extra revenue being in FBS, and the expenses saved likely aren't wildly significant.

 

There's no change that can be made that will fill the stands.  Akron likely has (at least) 10,000 too many of those.  This is solely relative levels of increasing attendance (which, getting rid of the empty stadium games would help accomplish year-long).

 

Adding a close game with YSU would help both sides for that one (as Kent on a Saturday helps both sides when it's not an empty stadium game).

[GP1]

2 hours ago, exit322 said:

 

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment.  We have the premier basketball program in the MAC...our coach leaves for a better job, and we have a top assistant from said premier program to try and keep things moving in the same direction.  I'm not sure they seriously looked outside the program, and I don't think that's a bad thing.  I don't think this correlates to the football program struggles.

I'm pretty certain they didn't look externally. The ink wasn't dry on the resignation letter and they hired him. I don't know if he is a good coach or not. I do know it is good for organizations to look outside of the organization for talent even if the hire ends up being internal. 

[kreed5120]

2 minutes ago, exit322 said:

 

That's what makes it a tough decision.  They are getting some extra revenue being in FBS, and the expenses saved likely aren't wildly significant.

 

There's no change that can be made that will fill the stands.  Akron likely has (at least) 10,000 too many of those.  This is solely relative levels of increasing attendance (which, getting rid of the empty stadium games would help accomplish year-long).

 

Adding a close game with YSU would help both sides for that one (as Kent on a Saturday helps both sides when it's not an empty stadium game).

 

The point I was making is I don't see it helping attendance. At least not materially. We would add a YSU game at the expense of losing Kent. At best that would be a wash, but considering Kent has significantly a larger alumni base and more history with Akron, that's a downgrade as a rival.

[exit322]

4 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

The point I was making is I don't see it helping attendance. At least not materially. We would add a YSU game at the expense of losing Kent. At best that would be a wash, but considering Kent has significantly a larger alumni base and more history with Akron, that's a downgrade as a rival.

 

If it were feasible to do the FCS move, I am operating under the assumption that Kent would make the same decision.  As we're probably seeing that it's really not, I'm mostly just wasting keystrokes here.

[GP1]

19 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

Akron is already operating it's program at an FCS budget, but are getting FBS revenue doing it. What costs would actually be saved by dropping? 22 scholarships? Those are mainly just intercompany transfer dollars anyway. The marginal cost of educating and housing 22 additional students is much less than what the University charges the athletic department.

 

Dropping down to FCS isn't going to magically fill the stands. YSU isn't filling their stadium and their stadium is smaller than Infocision.

Good points. The most important point is they are still paying 4-5 million dollars a year for the stadium. 

[UAZipster0305]

1 hour ago, exit322 said:

 

That's what makes it a tough decision.  They are getting some extra revenue being in FBS, and the expenses saved likely aren't wildly significant.

 

There's no change that can be made that will fill the stands.  Akron likely has (at least) 10,000 too many of those.  This is solely relative levels of increasing attendance (which, getting rid of the empty stadium games would help accomplish year-long).

 

Adding a close game with YSU would help both sides for that one (as Kent on a Saturday helps both sides when it's not an empty stadium game).

 

I remember when it was proposed that comments were being made about us becoming a Boise State as a result of the top of the MAC facilities. It was expected by some that attendance could soar, and as a result, the stadium was designed with it being expandable in all four corners, making it ~50k seats. Oh the irony!

[kreed5120]

10 minutes ago, UAZipster0305 said:

 

I remember when it was proposed that comments were being made about us becoming a Boise State as a result of the top of the MAC facilities. It was expected by some that attendance could soar, and as a result, the stadium was designed with it being expandable in all four corners, making it ~50k seats. Oh the irony!

 

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but the landscape of college football has changed a lot in 20 years. Facilities used to matter much more than they do now. Money used to help, but you could still win without it. There is just no getting around schools offering players $50k-$200k+ when you're in no position to match in today's game.

[UAZipster0305]

Just now, kreed5120 said:

 

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but the landscape of college football has changed a lot in 20 years. Facilities used to matter much more than they do now. Money used to help, but you could still win without it. There is just no getting around schools offering players $50k-$200k+ when you're in no position to match in today's game.

I entirely agree!

 

I was sharing a common historical perspective from 20+ years ago, not trying to project my dream or preference for the future.

[Zippy87]

There are two trains of thought when it comes to the football program. 

 

#1 is that we don't have much NIL, we don't have other resources, we're a historically bad program, and there's not much anyone can do to change that.

 

#2 acknowledges we don't have much NIL or other resources, that we're a historically bad program, and that it's going to be really freaking hard to change that...but that with the right coach, it can be done. 

 

In everything I've seen and heard from Andrew Goodrich, I'd bet he falls in group #2. What that means for Moorhead, I do not know. But I don't think Goodrich thinks this is hopeless. Just not how ge seems to be built, and I love that about him as our AD. 

[Captain Kangaroo]

37 minutes ago, UAZipster0305 said:

 

I remember when it was proposed that comments were being made about us becoming a Boise State as a result of the top of the MAC facilities. It was expected by some that attendance could soar, and as a result, the stadium was designed with it being expandable in all four corners, making it ~50k seats. Oh the irony!

I remember at a Zips golf outing Mack Roades addressed the crowd by stating -“We’re not thinking about the MAC…we’re thinking BEYOND the MAC.”

 

Then, he and Hunter left UA for jobs beyond the MAC. 

 

UA’s biggest whiff on the AD carousel was not hiring Hunter Yurachek. He liked the University and loved living in Hudson. He had a young family at the time and would have stayed a while. 
 

He’s getting some heat at Arkansas right now. If Goodrich departs and Hunter’s looking for a job, he’d be worth an interview.

[blueandgold]

Something else that is drastically missing with the player's is the lack of intensity, enthusiasm, determination, grit, intestinal fortitude and whatever other words you can think of. I attribute most, if not, all of that to JoeMo's lack of it. 

[exit322]

54 minutes ago, blueandgold said:

Something else that is drastically missing with the player's is the lack of intensity, enthusiasm, determination, grit, intestinal fortitude and whatever other words you can think of. I attribute most, if not, all of that to JoeMo's lack of it. 

 

Tone at the Top

[ZipForNow]

2 hours ago, Zippy87 said:

There are two trains of thought when it comes to the football program. 

 

#1 is that we don't have much NIL, we don't have other resources, we're a historically bad program, and there's not much anyone can do to change that.

 

#2 acknowledges we don't have much NIL or other resources, that we're a historically bad program, and that it's going to be really freaking hard to change that...but that with the right coach, it can be done. 

 

In everything I've seen and heard from Andrew Goodrich, I'd bet he falls in group #2. What that means for Moorhead, I do not know. But I don't think Goodrich thinks this is hopeless. Just not how ge seems to be built, and I love that about him as our AD. 

I completely agree that Dr. Goodrich falls in Category #2. I think he thinks that the Zips can be the best under-resourced FBS program in the country. Has anyone seen the statistics overall for Akron athletics? We are something like #7 or #9 in the country in terms of athletic success per dollar spent. Goodrich wants us to be number one. He believes there are plenty of football programs resourced similarly to Akron, but through a culture shift and a genuine commitment to both academics and athletics, we can be better than those other schools. And we need to be in order to be included in the upcoming TV deal. 

[ZipForNow]

1 minute ago, ZipForNow said:

I completely agree that Dr. Goodrich falls in Category #2. I think he thinks that the Zips can be the best under-resourced FBS program in the country. Has anyone seen the statistics overall for Akron athletics? We are something like #7 or #9 in the country in terms of athletic success per dollar spent. Goodrich wants us to be number one. He believes there are plenty of football programs resourced similarly to Akron, but through a culture shift and a genuine commitment to both academics and athletics, we can be better than those other schools. And we need to be in order to be included in the upcoming TV deal. 

I can't get past the firewall, but it was discussed here: https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/ccl-akron-budgets-20260730/

[exit322]

2 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

I remember at a Zips golf outing Mack Roades addressed the crowd by stating -“We’re not thinking about the MAC…we’re thinking BEYOND the MAC.”

 

Well, the "we're" here was probably him and his wife.

[GP1]

2 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

I remember at a Zips golf outing Mack Roades addressed the crowd by stating -“We’re not thinking about the MAC…we’re thinking BEYOND the MAC.

Was he talking in the Royal We or something else?

[GP1]

3 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but the landscape of college football has changed a lot in 20 years. Facilities used to matter much more than they do now. Money used to help, but you could still win without it. There is just no getting around schools offering players $50k-$200k+ when you're in no position to match in today's game.

The assumption is good facilities now. Now schools need money to keep up the facilities and a bunch of other things. 

 

Most professional facilities organizations like BOMA and IFMA estimate that the cost of building a building is only 20% of the total cost of the building over it's lifetime. It's a lot of money.