Quote:Though no formal plans have been discussed, Gaber expressed interest in bringing the UT sports that compete currently at Scott Park to main campus. The Rockets’ softball, soccer, and baseball teams currently play their home games at the South Toledo complex.

O’Brien acknowledged that there are issues — where to put three new fields on campus and how to pay for them, most obviously — but said he welcomed the thought of bringing the sports onto main campus.

Gaber said she likes UT’s two most notable facilities, Savage Arena and the Glass Bowl, and will look to improve residence halls. (The Glass Bowl is due for a privately financed renovation in the spring.)

Money at UT, as well as other MAC schools, is tight. For the 2014 fiscal year, UT spent $23.8 million and generated $9.6 million. Even including direct university support, which comprises state money and student fees, UT posted a $2.7 million deficit.

The vast majority of athletic departments, even those in larger conferences, operate at a deficit.

Gaber said she recognizes that most of UT’s students come from middle-class backgrounds and that money — both for the school and the students attending it — is a factor. As such, she said UT will use athletics as tool, but must do so wisely.

“First of all, we’re a public university. We always want to spend money carefully and be careful to keep cost down,” she said. “We’re not the rich-kid school. We’re very cognizant of it and try to be very frugal with what we do.”

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/561536

Back to my point about the donors. Toledo is a school that wants to make athletics the front door of its university but they admit they aren't the rich kids school that is needed to bring the donors in.

They charge $60 dollars for a ticket on the 40 yard line and $70 for the Iowa State game. Its not like there isn't demand for the product but you need to have deep pockets for athletics.

http://www.utrockets.com/news/2007/8/12/...ckets.aspx

(10-06-2015 07:36 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I was going to say.. Cal is too good academically to fill a full roster... certainly had some major NFL skill position talent though... but Stanford was able to rise up....

I'll say this abut Cal, one of the nicest looking campuses I've ever been on. Either that or Stetson or Flagler.

Google the Stanford Easy A list.

Any "tough" academic institution with a very broad liberal arts offering will have *tons* of places to hide football players. The schools playing FBS football with nowhere to hide players are Georgia Tech, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

First, I would say that a sleeping giant would have to be in a Power 5 conference. Second, they would have to have a good recruiting base. Third, the facilities need to be up to date. And finally they would have to have the proper leadership, from the university head down to the athletic department and then to the coaching staff. Once a school can check off those boxes, then the sleeper will awake.

(10-05-2015 10:37 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  What are the biggest "sleeping giants" in college football? Schools with ability to recruit, attract talent.. just waiting for right coach/players to move into "dynasty mode".

My votes:
1. Arizona
2. Tennessee
3. Texas (fairly obvious choice?)

(Wisconsin and USC don't quite fit but I think both could be back to national top 10 teams soon.)

I really think at some point in my lifetime we'll be talking about Arizona playing in multiple playoffs or title games if they get the right guy in there...

UT Austin and Tennessee are not "sleeping" they are passed out in a pool of their own urine and vomit and perhaps even someone elses urine and vomit......but when they sober up PARTY ON!

Arizona is sitting in a pool of ASU's urine and vomit and pointing at them and making fun of them for being a party school

(10-07-2015 01:38 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 07:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 04:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Teams that use to be really good but the systemic disadvantages are showing. They don't necessarily need an elite coach, but they need a very good one:
- Nebraska (location, opponents)
- Tennessee (location)
- Washington (location)

Nebraska downgraded its football schedule by moving into the B1G and having to deal with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota over K-State, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. That will help to keep them at the 8-10 win level.

Tennessee's problem is the SEC has become too competitive. Tennessee was better in the SEC before the expansions to 12 and 14 teams.

Washington has considerable potential. The ecomony in Washington is booming and Washington is in the state's biggest market Seattle. This is a state that is on track to have 10 million people someday. Also big competitive advantage over Washington State in terms of tradition, fans and location.

Nebraska, Tennessee (eastern and middle), and Washington all get hurt be not having a large pool African-Americans. Recruiting is a different game then in the past, and Florida, Texas, Mississippi etc are keeping more of their athletes.

If that was true then explain the following.

1) Why does FAU and FIU have weak teams in South Florida? There is enough talent in Florida to supply 25 FBS teams but FAU/FIU aren't strong at all.

2) The decline of Southern Miss. The only G5 program in Mississippi.

3) The rise of Boise State and Oregon.

4) The futility of Georgia State despite location in the Atlanta market.

Out West the players are willing to go anywhere there is a good program. I can't see how location hurts Washington.

Tennessee is the biggest FB program in the TN, KY, VA, NC region by 40,000 seats. I can't see them having a problem recruiting Florida when the University of Florida is one of their main rivals.

Nebraska has more of a problem. They could play the K-State game and hit the junior colleges hard in Kansas. Steal K-State's lunch.

It takes more than good recruiting grounds to net a great program: takes money, good coaches, and a committed philosophy. TCU, Baylor, and East Carolina are examples of all three. Oregon and Boise have two of the three, but their recruiting is all of the west. So Miss now has only one and the SEC Miss schools have really stepped up. GA State is simply messed up, local kids back away. Contrast them with Ga Southern, who hasnt missed a beat from FCS days. FIU and FAU miss the mark on support and philosophy.

Midwest work ethic kids can work, but skilled players in key speed positions are also needed.

(10-07-2015 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 07:36 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I was going to say.. Cal is too good academically to fill a full roster... certainly had some major NFL skill position talent though... but Stanford was able to rise up....

I'll say this abut Cal, one of the nicest looking campuses I've ever been on. Either that or Stetson or Flagler.

Google the Stanford Easy A list.

Any "tough" academic institution with a very broad liberal arts offering will have *tons* of places to hide football players. The schools playing FBS football with nowhere to hide players are Georgia Tech, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Hmm. They all have something in common, I wander what it is?

I didn't mean to open this can of worms, and we're essentially agreeing. I was basically saying that not having enough black players around supposedly has nothing to do with Nebraska's success.

(10-07-2015 10:52 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  If you want to know why Nebraska was so good for so long then find out yourself and do the research. Since 1900 Nebraska has had 90 seasons with a winning record (more wins than losses).

The biggest reason has been the style of play. Nebraska is a run first culture and drive the football down your throate and pressure your QB six feet underground.

The reason why they haven't won a conference title since 1999 is simply the loss of the identitity. Nebraska went through this already from the 1940's to the 1960's and the follow decade (70's) they won national titles as they went back to their true identity...

(10-07-2015 02:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:38 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 07:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 04:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Teams that use to be really good but the systemic disadvantages are showing. They don't necessarily need an elite coach, but they need a very good one:
- Nebraska (location, opponents)
- Tennessee (location)
- Washington (location)

Nebraska downgraded its football schedule by moving into the B1G and having to deal with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota over K-State, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. That will help to keep them at the 8-10 win level.

Tennessee's problem is the SEC has become too competitive. Tennessee was better in the SEC before the expansions to 12 and 14 teams.

Washington has considerable potential. The ecomony in Washington is booming and Washington is in the state's biggest market Seattle. This is a state that is on track to have 10 million people someday. Also big competitive advantage over Washington State in terms of tradition, fans and location.

Nebraska, Tennessee (eastern and middle), and Washington all get hurt be not having a large pool African-Americans. Recruiting is a different game then in the past, and Florida, Texas, Mississippi etc are keeping more of their athletes.

If that was true then explain the following.

1) Why does FAU and FIU have weak teams in South Florida? There is enough talent in Florida to supply 25 FBS teams but FAU/FIU aren't strong at all.

2) The decline of Southern Miss. The only G5 program in Mississippi.

3) The rise of Boise State and Oregon.

4) The futility of Georgia State despite location in the Atlanta market.

Out West the players are willing to go anywhere there is a good program. I can't see how location hurts Washington.

Tennessee is the biggest FB program in the TN, KY, VA, NC region by 40,000 seats. I can't see them having a problem recruiting Florida when the University of Florida is one of their main rivals.

Nebraska has more of a problem. They could play the K-State game and hit the junior colleges hard in Kansas. Steal K-State's lunch.

It takes more than good recruiting grounds to net a great program: takes money, good coaches, and a committed philosophy. TCU, Baylor, and East Carolina are examples of all three. Oregon and Boise have two of the three, but their recruiting is all of the west. So Miss now has only one and the SEC Miss schools have really stepped up. GA State is simply messed up, local kids back away. Contrast them with Ga Southern, who hasnt missed a beat from FCS days. FIU and FAU miss the mark on support and philosophy.

Midwest work ethic kids can work, but skilled players in key speed positions are also needed.

You should be careful with your comments here because what you are implying by your statements is only white players have work ethic.

East Carolina has a great atmosphere but they don't have the money coming in the door like Baylor and TCU do. Enough money to compete every year in AAC football unlike MAC schools sure.

(10-07-2015 04:31 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:38 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 07:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 04:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Nebraska downgraded its football schedule by moving into the B1G and having to deal with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota over K-State, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. That will help to keep them at the 8-10 win level.

Tennessee's problem is the SEC has become too competitive. Tennessee was better in the SEC before the expansions to 12 and 14 teams.

Washington has considerable potential. The ecomony in Washington is booming and Washington is in the state's biggest market Seattle. This is a state that is on track to have 10 million people someday. Also big competitive advantage over Washington State in terms of tradition, fans and location.

Nebraska, Tennessee (eastern and middle), and Washington all get hurt be not having a large pool African-Americans. Recruiting is a different game then in the past, and Florida, Texas, Mississippi etc are keeping more of their athletes.

If that was true then explain the following.

1) Why does FAU and FIU have weak teams in South Florida? There is enough talent in Florida to supply 25 FBS teams but FAU/FIU aren't strong at all.

2) The decline of Southern Miss. The only G5 program in Mississippi.

3) The rise of Boise State and Oregon.

4) The futility of Georgia State despite location in the Atlanta market.

Out West the players are willing to go anywhere there is a good program. I can't see how location hurts Washington.

Tennessee is the biggest FB program in the TN, KY, VA, NC region by 40,000 seats. I can't see them having a problem recruiting Florida when the University of Florida is one of their main rivals.

Nebraska has more of a problem. They could play the K-State game and hit the junior colleges hard in Kansas. Steal K-State's lunch.

It takes more than good recruiting grounds to net a great program: takes money, good coaches, and a committed philosophy. TCU, Baylor, and East Carolina are examples of all three. Oregon and Boise have two of the three, but their recruiting is all of the west. So Miss now has only one and the SEC Miss schools have really stepped up. GA State is simply messed up, local kids back away. Contrast them with Ga Southern, who hasnt missed a beat from FCS days. FIU and FAU miss the mark on support and philosophy.

Midwest work ethic kids can work, but skilled players in key speed positions are also needed.

You should be careful with your comments here because what you are implying by your statements is only white players have work ethic.

East Carolina has a great atmosphere but they don't have the money coming in the door like Baylor and TCU do. Enough money to compete every year in AAC football unlike MAC schools sure.

I'very lived in Appalachia country now to know that substantial numbers of white kids don't have much in the way of aspirations. Lived in a near majority African American city on the Gulf Coast, and the kids have aspirations but many have it misdirected. When I go back to NoDak now, the middle class setting and general prosperity, along with the lack of conspicuous consumption is really rather shocking. There is still something very wholesome and innocent about the Midwest, especially the western part, no matter how others construe it.

http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2007/8/11/9336/04270

Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee*, Texas and USC.

Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU*, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.

Stewart Mandel's piece from a decade ago. He's looking at history as much as current dominance.

My take...only these teams can be consider "giants." To be a sleeping giant, you have to be a giant first. So stop talking about "Rutgers" and "Illinois" and "Arizona" and the such.

On that list...who is "sleeping"?
Light sleep--Nebraska, PSU, Tennessee, Miami
Deep sleep--Colorado, Washington, Texas

(10-07-2015 09:56 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2007/8/11/9336/04270

Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee*, Texas and USC.

Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU*, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.

Stewart Mandel's piece from a decade ago. He's looking at history as much as current dominance.

My take...only these teams can be consider "giants." To be a sleeping giant, you have to be a giant first. So stop talking about "Rutgers" and "Illinois" and "Arizona" and the such.

On that list...who is "sleeping"?
Light sleep--Nebraska, PSU, Tennessee, Miami
Deep sleep--Colorado, Washington, Texas

A lot can change in a decade. I don't agree with that list.

Especially Miami. Miami was only really on to some things for a quarter century. Otherwise, they've historically been an afterthought.

It just depends on whose doing well. Virginia Tech has rose exponentially as has Florida State. Houston started playing football at the same time as Florida State (and, to brag, owns a 12-2-2 mark over FSU) and had it kept it's trajectory circa 1990, likely would have been a baron.