Wow...I have always thought Hackenberg wrote some very strong columns. This is not one of them:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...08/5030363
Counterpoints:
1) Non one is seriously talking about Toledo joining the Big 10. Ok he got a couple of emails about it. I am sure he gets a couple of emails of the Walleye joining the NHL too.
2) Everyone is anticipating the trickle down effect of whatever the Big 10 does. And this will most certainly effect the MAC if any significant expansion occurs.
3) CUSA membership being offered five years ago made no sense. That conference is a budget killer. It has the largest geographical footprint of any conference and revenues of lower tier Div 1. Look at any power ranking of conferences and they are almost always the next one above the MAC.
4) If CUSA is raided by the Big East, they will certainly be interested in Toledo. That is unless, they decide they want to be a southern/western confernce and "raid" the Sun Belt. CUSA has a very limited number of choices.
5) He cites MAC attendance Woes. This point screams why Toledo will be interest if their is a realignment. We have been woeful the last 5 years in football and basketball yet are near the top in attendance. When/if we get better we have the best attendance in the league.
6) He states you shouldn't/can't move unless you are dominating your league. Like Central Florida? Or Marshall in basketball? Or South Florida? Or Cincy in football?(Mac whipping boy in the early CUSA days) The point is programs rise and fall based on coaching and financial commitment. Clearly Toledo is ready to and has spent. I think we are righted the ship in coaches but that has to play out.
I am not sure we should leave unless it is the right opportunity. I would rather see a reconstituted MAC. Either way, Toledo will have a part to play in the CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt shake up if the Big Ten starts the dominos.
Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Agree- I could have written that one in my sleep. Toledo will be a player if only because of the $ potential of being in a good size metro area. Love the Walleye comment, RD-so true, I remember thinking my HS team could beat a lot of college teams back when i was in grade school. Some people never get over that.
(05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Yeah, the article blew (as usual IMHO), but citing the direction of men's football and basketball???? In case you had not noticed, the football team did not really improve much last year (see thrashing at home versus WMU, providing Miami their only win of the year, and another loss to BG) and the basketball team has lost so many players they are likely years away from any meaningful contention.
(05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
I think it is ridiculous that Hack just takes the last 4 years to gage the Toledo Football program, specifically. I still think that most in the "college football know," believe that Toledo is one of the top programs in the MAC and will get back to where they belong very soon. Hack also failed to mention facilities and academic programs, which are major factors, and UT's are near the top in the MAC. Not to compare UT to Michigan, but would anybody say Michigan is not a good Athletic program because their basketball team has not won over a period of years and their Football team has been terrible the last couple?? Of course not! Overall, anybody looking at adding another school to its conference, recent performance history "on the field" and "on the court" is probably the last thing they will look at. The decision will be based on a much broader criteria set and looked at with a much longer term perspective. As an example, didn't Central Florida finish last in the MAC the year before they bolted to CUSA? Hack's article does not consider anything more than recent years "wins" and "losses" which make his assessment nothing more than the typical "Hack job"!
(05-03-2010 08:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Yeah, the article blew (as usual IMHO), but citing the direction of men's football and basketball???? In case you had not noticed, the football team did not really improve much last year (see thrashing at home versus WMU, providing Miami their only win of the year, and another loss to BG) and the basketball team has lost so many players they are likely years away from any meaningful contention.
The Rockets won 2 more games in football than the year before and probably would have won 2 more and been Bowl eligible had Opelt not torn his rotator about midway during the season(Opelt was #2 in Total Offense nationally prior to that). You only have to look at the last depth chart from the Spring and the recruiting class to know UT will be greatly improved this season. In basketball UT is two seasons from being competitive in the MAC West and should be fundamently better next season than this horrific one.
Did we forget football wins over Michigan, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas? Even during bad years.Believe me Rockets would be competitive in CUSA.
After researching Arizona for a couple of days, I think UT has a
decent chance in the opener because of the inexperience and size of the Wildcat defense. 4 new UA coordinators, new schemes, and new personnal early in the season gives UT a definite window of opportunity.
(05-03-2010 09:10 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 08:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Yeah, the article blew (as usual IMHO), but citing the direction of men's football and basketball???? In case you had not noticed, the football team did not really improve much last year (see thrashing at home versus WMU, providing Miami their only win of the year, and another loss to BG) and the basketball team has lost so many players they are likely years away from any meaningful contention.
The Rockets won 2 more games in football than the year before and probably would have won 2 more and been Bowl eligible had Opelt not torn his rotator about midway during the season(Opelt was #2 in Total Offense nationally prior to that). You only have to look at the last depth chart from the Spring and the recruiting class to know UT will be greatly improved this season. In basketball UT is two seasons from being competitive in the MAC West and should be fundamently better next season than this horrific one.
That's all well and good, but depth charts and recruiting class rankings don't win football games.
I gather what he is saying is that UT will have no interest from any other conference.
How "the rest" of the MAC is doing is irrelevant. W/L records have been down the past few seasons, along with attendance, but we've had some very significant OOC wins which proves we can compete with them. Facilities have had some significant upgrades. If we moved to the Big East recruiting would improve even more.
We've had some great crowds in the GB (granted, by MAC standards). Permanent expansion of seating might not be in the offing in the short term, but I think modifications must be made so that at least temporary bleachers can be put in without the fire marshall (whose concerns are legitimate) closing the gates. Demonstrating that we can accommodate 37k looks a lot better than 26k.
Sometimes Hackenberg is just an old stick in the mud. As I recall, he didn't give us much chance of competing with the Gophers in '01 either.
(05-03-2010 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 09:10 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 08:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Yeah, the article blew (as usual IMHO), but citing the direction of men's football and basketball???? In case you had not noticed, the football team did not really improve much last year (see thrashing at home versus WMU, providing Miami their only win of the year, and another loss to BG) and the basketball team has lost so many players they are likely years away from any meaningful contention.
the truth hurts.
The Rockets won 2 more games in football than the year before and probably would have won 2 more and been Bowl eligible had Opelt not torn his rotator about midway during the season(Opelt was #2 in Total Offense nationally prior to that). You only have to look at the last depth chart from the Spring and the recruiting class to know UT will be greatly improved this season. In basketball UT is two seasons from being competitive in the MAC West and should be fundamently better next season than this horrific one.
That's all well and good, but depth charts and recruiting class rankings don't win football games.
I'm still not sure what the fascination is about moving to another conference, especially Conference USA? Do you really think crowds will increase if we move to another conference? Will those feared rivals the Rice Owls and East Carolina Pirates pack the Glass Bowl and Savage Arena? Please.
No, crowds will increase when we start putting an improved product on the turf and the floor, and to Hack's credit, we haven't done that in at least three years now. And, appearently, with this new 'fan plan' in line for football this year (god know why they aren't doing it for basketball), it appears the powers that be are concerned with attendance again this year.
It's just amusing to me that when we are drawing (announced crowd) of 15,000 for football and (announced crowd) 4,000 for basketball that we are even thinking about moving to another conference or that other conferences are even interested. Facilities and academics are all good and wonderful, but a winning product is needed as well.
(05-03-2010 07:26 AM)rockytop Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry job by Hack. I am not disputing what he said, but the way he said it. He could have mentioned UT's improving academic reputation, the direction men's football and basketball are headed, and the potential to draw large crowds if scheduling were to improve. The Blade just loves to bash Toledo. Stupid!!
Agreed! Just another negative editorial by Hackenberg dwelling on the negative aspects of UT athletics this past few years... Also, the condescening tone against the MAC in general, is what I've come to expect out of him...
(05-03-2010 10:05 AM)Buzz Fledderjohn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still not sure what the fascination is about moving to another conference, especially Conference USA? Do you really think crowds will increase if we move to another conference? Will those feared rivals the Rice Owls and East Carolina Pirates pack the Glass Bowl and Savage Arena? Please.
No, crowds will increase when we start putting an improved product on the turf and the floor, and to Hack's credit, we haven't done that in at least three years now. And, appearently, with this new 'fan plan' in line for football this year (god know why they aren't doing it for basketball), it appears the powers that be are concerned with attendance again this year.
It's just amusing to me that when we are drawing (announced crowd) of 15,000 for football and (announced crowd) 4,000 for basketball that we are even thinking about moving to another conference or that other conferences are even interested. Facilities and academics are all good and wonderful, but a winning product is needed as well.
Teams have their "ups" and "downs". Toledo is on a "down". But there have been far more "ups" over the years.
I don't think the recent slump is determinative of anything.
The City of Toledo's shrinking population and drop from a top 30-40 media market to somewhere in the 65-70 range is possibly more a factor.
The great facilities are more a positive factor.
The commitment to grow is a factor.
I'm not sure how many here think that CUSA is more attractive from a matchups perspective. Not me. Not without Louisville and Cincinnati.
But I honestly don't see why Toledo couldn't or wouldn't be a match for an expanded Big East with a new (renewed) concentration on football and a championship game format that requires addition of several teams.
(05-03-2010 10:05 AM)Buzz Fledderjohn Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think crowds will increase if we move to another conference?
Big East, yes. (Big Ten obviously out of the question.)
Quote:Will those feared rivals the Rice Owls and East Carolina Pirates pack the Glass Bowl and Savage Arena?
Nah. Locals have little more interest in them than in MAC teams
Quote:crowds will increase when we start putting an improved product on the turf and the floor
Very true. But, there would be a larger draw for BE opponents just out of the entertainment value--even if we struggled at first.
I give Hack no credit for negatively editorializing the obvious (W/L records).
(05-03-2010 11:22 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ]But, there would be a larger draw for BE opponents just out of the entertainment value--even if we struggled at first.
Not if the athletic department jacks up the ticket prices into the $30-$40 range.
And do you really expect huge crowds for the likes of Rutgers, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville and Syracuse anyway?
Also, after the Big Ten gets done and encompasses 16 teams, don't expect to see the likes of Cincinnati, West Virginia and Pittsburgh in the BE. You'd likely end up with teams like Marshall, Central Florida and East Carolina to name a few.
(05-03-2010 10:59 AM)owen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 10:05 AM)Buzz Fledderjohn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still not sure what the fascination is about moving to another conference, especially Conference USA? Do you really think crowds will increase if we move to another conference? Will those feared rivals the Rice Owls and East Carolina Pirates pack the Glass Bowl and Savage Arena? Please.
No, crowds will increase when we start putting an improved product on the turf and the floor, and to Hack's credit, we haven't done that in at least three years now. And, appearently, with this new 'fan plan' in line for football this year (god know why they aren't doing it for basketball), it appears the powers that be are concerned with attendance again this year.
It's just amusing to me that when we are drawing (announced crowd) of 15,000 for football and (announced crowd) 4,000 for basketball that we are even thinking about moving to another conference or that other conferences are even interested. Facilities and academics are all good and wonderful, but a winning product is needed as well.
Teams have their "ups" and "downs". Toledo is on a "down". But there have been far more "ups" over the years.
I don't think the recent slump is determinative of anything.
The City of Toledo's shrinking population and drop from a top 30-40 media market to somewhere in the 65-70 range is possibly more a factor.
Toledo has never been a top 40 media market ever. Toledo has always been in the 60's and 70's. And right now Toledo is market 72 in terms of media.
(05-03-2010 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 11:22 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ]But, there would be a larger draw for BE opponents just out of the entertainment value--even if we struggled at first.
Not if the athletic department jacks up the ticket prices into the $30-$40 range.
And do you really expect huge crowds for the likes of Rutgers, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville and Syracuse anyway?
Also, after the Big Ten gets done and encompasses 16 teams, don't expect to see the likes of Cincinnati, West Virginia and Pittsburgh in the BE. You'd likely end up with teams like Marshall, Central Florida and East Carolina to name a few.
We already pay 36 dollars for certain games. I would definately see big crowds for Louisville and U CONN the others not so much unless they were ranked.
Plus West Virginia will never leave the Big East or whatever is left of it. Their academic standards could never put them in the Big Ten or the ACC. Their standards are on par with some schools in the MAC and that includes Toledo.
(05-03-2010 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]And do you really expect huge crowds for the likes of Rutgers, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville and Syracuse anyway?
We'd certainly draw more for any of those teams than we do for Ball State or Buffalo.
(05-03-2010 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 11:22 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ]But, there would be a larger draw for BE opponents just out of the entertainment value--even if we struggled at first.
Not if the athletic department jacks up the ticket prices into the $30-$40 range.
And do you really expect huge crowds for the likes of Rutgers, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville and Syracuse anyway?
Also, after the Big Ten gets done and encompasses 16 teams, don't expect to see the likes of Cincinnati, West Virginia and Pittsburgh in the BE. You'd likely end up with teams like Marshall, Central Florida and East Carolina to name a few.
Central Florida has 55,000 students and is the 3rd largest university in the country. The campus has boomed and they have a brand new basketball arena and football stadium on campus. They will be moving up.
(05-03-2010 12:34 PM)utpotts Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 10:59 AM)owen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2010 10:05 AM)Buzz Fledderjohn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still not sure what the fascination is about moving to another conference, especially Conference USA? Do you really think crowds will increase if we move to another conference? Will those feared rivals the Rice Owls and East Carolina Pirates pack the Glass Bowl and Savage Arena? Please.
No, crowds will increase when we start putting an improved product on the turf and the floor, and to Hack's credit, we haven't done that in at least three years now. And, appearently, with this new 'fan plan' in line for football this year (god know why they aren't doing it for basketball), it appears the powers that be are concerned with attendance again this year.
It's just amusing to me that when we are drawing (announced crowd) of 15,000 for football and (announced crowd) 4,000 for basketball that we are even thinking about moving to another conference or that other conferences are even interested. Facilities and academics are all good and wonderful, but a winning product is needed as well.
Teams have their "ups" and "downs". Toledo is on a "down". But there have been far more "ups" over the years.
I don't think the recent slump is determinative of anything.
The City of Toledo's shrinking population and drop from a top 30-40 media market to somewhere in the 65-70 range is possibly more a factor.
Toledo has never been a top 40 media market ever. Toledo has always been in the 60's and 70's. And right now Toledo is market 72 in terms of media.
That isn't true.
Except the part about where we are now.
Many southern & southwestern cities (formerly behind us in market size) have long since passed us between 1980 to today beyond the small markets where they were back in the 70's and 80's. While we shrunk.