CSNbbs

We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

(12-21-2010 10:20 AM)WallyB Wrote: [ -> ] We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today. It's good to see that Akron is putting the $ into coaching and facilities.

Smart move.

Good contract + good facilities gives Akron a chance to stay on top.

If anyone doesn't know how competitive the 'revenue sports' are, Maryland's head coach was named 'coach of the year' but got fired because the team did not excite the fans, paying customers, alums, boosters, etc.

(12-21-2010 10:31 AM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:20 AM)WallyB Wrote: [ -> ] We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

Ah yes, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Rutgers.

(12-21-2010 11:40 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move.

Good contract + good facilities gives Akron a chance to stay on top.

If anyone doesn't know how competitive the 'revenue sports' are, Maryland's head coach was named 'coach of the year' but got fired because the team did not excite the fans, paying customers, alums, boosters, etc.

Friedgen had underwhelmed as a coach, his teams fared very poorly after he lost Vanderlinden's recruits*. Word was that he'd have been fired prior to this year, but UMd didn't want to buy out his contract...money's tight all over.

He rallied this year, yes. But the "Coach of the Year" was largely a ploy by his buddy coaches to keep him in place. And why not? UMd is good for 1-2 wins/2 years under Friedgen.

*I predicted UMd and the ACC would suffer after MD separated parochial and public school playoffs. You don't get better by avoiding the good competition, and it shows w/ the talent coming out of this state.

(12-21-2010 12:06 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:31 AM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:20 AM)WallyB Wrote: [ -> ] We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

Ah yes, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Rutgers.

Ah yes, those aren't the schools.

The right guy can make all the difference.

(12-21-2010 12:36 PM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 12:06 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:31 AM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:20 AM)WallyB Wrote: [ -> ] We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

Ah yes, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Rutgers.

Ah yes, those aren't the schools.

The right guy can make all the difference.

OK, Yost, the great UM coach. When was the last time Michigan was a major power? They sure haven't been for a while.

The Ivy league is the place where schools first took football seriously.

(12-21-2010 12:51 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 12:36 PM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 12:06 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:31 AM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 10:20 AM)WallyB Wrote: [ -> ] We're not playing with the big boys, WE ARE the big boys!!

Go Akron, Go MAC!!!

Akrons coach Porter given 59% rasie!

If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

Ah yes, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Rutgers.

Ah yes, those aren't the schools.

The right guy can make all the difference.

OK, Yost, the great UM coach.

" He served as the head football coach at Ohio Wesleyan University (1897), the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (1898), the University of Kansas (1899), Stanford University (1900), San Jose State University (1900), and the University of Michigan"

Looks like the guy couldn't keep a job.

Quote:When was the last time Michigan was a major power?

1997. 2006 they were ranked #2 for several weeks. That's fairly "major".

http://michigan-football.com/ncaa/f/michigan.htm

You'd probably follow this more closely if Kent State had football.

That was the year the Big Ten was exposed to be a fraud. That Michigan team was not good enough to be number 2 it just took them a few weeks to realize that. I do agree that saying Michigan has no recent history of being a major power is a little short sided in history. Its easy to forget how good teams are when they have a bad (very) recent history.

Quote:1997. 2006 they were ranked #2 for several weeks. That's fairly "major".

No, it doesn't make you a major power to have your quality briefly overrated once in a 14 year period. No one is denying Michigan's great history. Nor Yale's. Or Harvard's. Or Army's, for that matter.

That's the point. The earlier statement about the schools in college football's early years who took it more seriously being powers today is just not true. Almost all of them are not powers today, Michigan included.

Who are the top powers of college football over the last decade? (USC, Texas, Ohio St., Alabama, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, and add any other 2-3 you want, but it would not include Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Army, or Michigan.) How many of them were among the early powers of college football?

Certainly not Florida. It took us a long time to become good and Gatorade.

(12-21-2010 03:56 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Who are the top powers of college football over the last decade? (USC, Texas, Ohio St., Alabama, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, and add any other 2-3 you want, but it would not include Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Army, or Michigan.) How many of them were among the early powers of college football?

Everyone goes thru a dry spell. Including every team on your list.

As for investment, Mich still sells out the 110,000 seat Big House.

Your point has some validity, aksme, but I think you're being purposely obtuse.

Harvard, Yale and Princeton took things "seriously" up to a point. They had the early advantage, and made hay while the sun shone.

But, it was Mich, UGa, 'Bama, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame and U$C that took things really seriously. They evaluated the situation, and took it control, investing resources and wresting the dominance of college football away from the Ivy League and other eastern schools.

Several decades later those schools became the powers. Hardly the early years. Facts are not obtuse, though opinions may be. I'll stick with the facts here. Who may or may not be a 'power' is certainly an opinion, but who was one of the early powers is clearly in the realm of fact, not opinion.

Is Stevens Tech still a power?

(12-21-2010 04:54 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Several decades later those schools became the powers. Hardly the early years. Facts are not obtuse,

Go check their early year records. Facts most certainly aren't obtuse.

(12-22-2010 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 04:54 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Several decades later those schools became the powers. Hardly the early years. Facts are not obtuse,

Go check their early year records. Facts most certainly aren't obtuse.

They certainly aren't. Facts are facts. THEIR early year records are not part of the early years of college football. Even if we extend what might be called the "early years" to as much as 30 seasons of national champions, and that's generous, the dominant teams are the east coast ivies. Period. Do your homework.

Again, the point someone earlier made - -

Quote:If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

- -is just completely wrong. Completely. Decades later, I repeat, a few of today's traditional powers and other BCS teams became powers. Some still are, some aren't. Some teams with more recent history are powers today. The idea that you have to get in on the ground floor is false.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make, Scorchy. I'm not expressing opinions here. What do you object to?

(12-21-2010 03:56 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:1997. 2006 they were ranked #2 for several weeks. That's fairly "major".

No, it doesn't make you a major power to have your quality briefly overrated once in a 14 year period. No one is denying Michigan's great history. Nor Yale's. Or Harvard's. Or Army's, for that matter.

That's the point. The earlier statement about the schools in college football's early years who took it more seriously being powers today is just not true. Almost all of them are not powers today, Michigan included.

From wikipedia

"Michigan Stadium was designed with footings to allow the stadium's capacity to be expanded beyond 100,000. According to the University of Michigan Library's and Athletics Department's history of the stadium, Yost envisioned a day where 150,000 seats would be needed. To keep construction costs low at the time, the decision was made to build a smaller stadium than Yost envisioned, but to include the footings for future expansion.[11]"

That was in '27, which apparently is not "early" enough for Axeme.

"The stadium [Ohio stadium] was completed in 1922 by E. H. Latham Company of Columbus, with materials and labor from the Marble Cliff Quarry Co. at a construction cost of $1.34 million and a total cost of $1.49 million. The stadium's original capacity was 66,210. This was astronomical in size at the time. Upon completion, it was the largest poured concrete structure in the world. Many university officials feared that the stadium would never be filled to capacity.[5]"

This was in '21 which still isn't "early" enough for Axeme.

That is taking football seriously.

here's to taking futbol seriously.

(12-22-2010 10:53 AM)BarnardHall211 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 03:56 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:1997. 2006 they were ranked #2 for several weeks. That's fairly "major".

No, it doesn't make you a major power to have your quality briefly overrated once in a 14 year period. No one is denying Michigan's great history. Nor Yale's. Or Harvard's. Or Army's, for that matter.

That's the point. The earlier statement about the schools in college football's early years who took it more seriously being powers today is just not true. Almost all of them are not powers today, Michigan included.

From wikipedia

"Michigan Stadium was designed with footings to allow the stadium's capacity to be expanded beyond 100,000. According to the University of Michigan Library's and Athletics Department's history of the stadium, Yost envisioned a day where 150,000 seats would be needed. To keep construction costs low at the time, the decision was made to build a smaller stadium than Yost envisioned, but to include the footings for future expansion.[11]"

That was in '27, which apparently is not "early" enough for Axeme.

"The stadium [Ohio stadium] was completed in 1922 by E. H. Latham Company of Columbus, with materials and labor from the Marble Cliff Quarry Co. at a construction cost of $1.34 million and a total cost of $1.49 million. The stadium's original capacity was 66,210. This was astronomical in size at the time. Upon completion, it was the largest poured concrete structure in the world. Many university officials feared that the stadium would never be filled to capacity.[5]"

This was in '21 which still isn't "early" enough for Axeme.

That is taking football seriously.

here's to taking futbol seriously.

Uh, 1920 is FIFTY YEARS after the first college football national champion was named. The 1920's are not the early years of football.

Schools who weren't playing football in 1920 are taking it seriously now and having great success. Being in "early" (even 50 years later) is not a prerequisite for success today.

(12-22-2010 11:03 AM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, 1920 is FIFTY YEARS after the first college football national champion was named. The 1920's are not the early years of football.

Schools who weren't playing football in 1920 are taking it seriously now and having great success. Being in "early" (even 50 years later) is not a prerequisite for success today.

Excellent point. It's especially relevant to the topic of the thread.

Since when has anyone here ever been constrained by thread topics?

(12-22-2010 10:28 AM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2010 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2010 04:54 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Several decades later those schools became the powers. Hardly the early years. Facts are not obtuse,

Go check their early year records. Facts most certainly aren't obtuse.

They certainly aren't. Facts are facts. THEIR early year records are not part of the early years of college football.

And that's where you're making the same mistake as the E Coast elites.

Obviously it was a big deal in St. Paul, Lincoln and Ann Arbor. Maybe it wasn't a "National" Championship (whatever that means when you're playing mostly local teams), but it mattered to these locales. They invested and re-invested. Built big stadiums, big followings, and solid recruiting.

And in the end, that's what won out.

Quote:Again, the point someone earlier made - -

Quote:If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.

- -is just completely wrong. Completely. Decades later, I repeat, a few of today's traditional powers and other BCS teams became powers.

On the contrary, it's exactly right. And when any, any of those early schools thought they arrived and could stop building, it cost them. Minnesota is a great example. They were dominant for many early years. Then they stopped investing, now they're a midling team.

Bud Wilkerson wouldn't even return to them when offered the job, b/c they weren't committed enough to winning. That sums it up right there.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn were dominant early. They didn't think they needed to invest, they weren't committed to winning compared to these other schools. Now they're college football footnotes.

Quote: The idea that you have to get in on the ground floor is false.

No one is claiming exactly that. What's being said is that if you don't commit and stay committed early, you'll be passed up. Or you have a lot of climbing to do to reach the upper echelons. Florida St in the 70s and 80s, Boise St now are examples of that.

Quote:I really have no idea what point you are trying to make, Scorchy. I'm not expressing opinions here. What do you object to?

This: You changed the early claim that Akron's early committment didn't mean much b/c Harvard and Yale lost their prestige in football. You ignored the overt committment by Akron, and substituted it simply with "presence" to make your point. Harvard and Yale had a lot of presence in the early days of football. That's not enough. Nebraska, Mich and Notre Dame had committment and it has paid off for them.

Akron is showing an early committment, not just presence. That's what has earned them the legitimate compliment paid by BarnardHall.