Rivals is missing some players. Their official signing class on signing day was 16 players. Maybe they have a few transfers coming in also?

Thank you

When you are trying to rebuild, it's always a choice - go for a fast fix, with JUCOs, or try the longer term approach with Freshmen. The advantage of the JUCO/Xfer route is that you can get an instant fix. Since you are bringing in upperclassmen, they contribute right away, so in only a couple years there is a dramatic improvement. The downside is that, after only 2-3 years, they are gone again, and you stop seeing progress, and even regress when you start losing them faster than you are bringing in new ones.

Akron is a good example of that - in just two years under Bowden they had remarkable improvement, and went from being one of the worst teams in America, to being middle of the MAC, but then in his third year, the record didn't get any better. Worse, Akron now has massive graduation losses, and so most likely year 4 will be worse than years 2 and 3.

The alternate approach is to try to bring in talented Freshmen, redshirt most of them, and then patiently wait for them to develop into players. Since teams built around Freshmen and Sophomores are rarely very good, the biggest improvement usually comes in years 4-5 when you take this approach. The risk is that you might get fired before you ever get to year 4-5.

As a perfect example of a coach that did it the slow way, look at Dave Clawson. At Fordham he went 0-11, 3-8, 7-4, 10-3, 9-3. Then, at Richmond he again improved the slow way, going 3-8, 9-4, 6-5, and 11-3. At BG it was the same: 7-6, 2-10, 5-7, 8-5, 10-4. In all three situations, year 4 and 5 were always good.

Solich did bring in a few JUCOs in the early years, but not many. Mostly he went the slow road. He had a good year early, anyway, in 2006, but it was an exception. The real, sustainable improvement came 5 years out, in 2009 and beyond, and Ohio has been bowl eligible ever since. To improve from the current down year, he's again taking the slow fix method, focusing mostly on bringing in talented Freshmen.

As a contrast to Bowden, a MAC coach currently taking the other approach is Chuck Martin at Miami. Like Bowden, he started with one of the worst teams in the MAC. Unlike Bowden, he is building it primarily via recruiting Freshmen. He was only 2-10 his first year, and may not be any better this year. Yet, by 2017-18 (if he is still there), Miami will probably be much improved from where they are now.

Another look at their roster.

If everyone listed returns they will have; 2 RSr. and 28 Sr.. Seven of the seniors are JUCOs or transfers.

Those numbers would usually drive high expectations.

I guess that depends on how much longer Bowden stays in Akron.

Yes but they have won a MAC championship.

Akron did win the MAC Championship game in 2005 with their 7-6 team, the only bowl eligible team they have had in the last ten years. Winning the MAC Championship was not a panacea, however; their coach, J.D. Broookhart was fired a few years later.

They have also done major facilities upgrades, with a very nice IPF and a brand new stadium, but attendance remains low, and recruiting remains questionable.

What are the Zips Faithful saying about Coach Bowden after 3 seasons? How are they viewing progress - as to recruiting, as to wins>

Also, how do Zips fans view the IPF as a recruiting tool?

And how do they view prospects for appreciably increasing home attendance?

As you might recall, last year ABJ columnist Marla Ridenour wrote a piece on why Akron football attendance has been so disappointing. She cited as core reasons an absence of effective marketing and lack of wins.

I emailed her, citing campus culture as perhaps the biggest culprit. To wit, as a largely commuter school, I posited that students don't form the same strong bonds with alma mater as do students at more residential schools. Absent those bonds, fewer alumni become ardent supporters. Marla's reply: she agreed.

I see the same phenomenon at Kent. The campus largely empties on weekends.

We are talking football attendance, but I believe the prevailing campus culture also undercuts attendance for basketball at both Akron and Kent. Their consistent success notwithstanding, seldom do they sell out their smallish, 6,500-seat arenas.

Absent a significant change in campus culture, it's difficult to foresee appreciable attendance increases at Akron and Kent.

I know that EMU has this problem as well. How many other MAC schools would this also apply to?

I can only use UC as an example of a COMMUTER school that has built a football program that is now light years ahead of where it was when you start talking about winning. And, guess what happened? Attendance is now regularly double what it was. My point: YOU WIN AND THE CAMPUS CULTURE WILL CHANGE. approach You really think if you change the Campus Culture the wins will come? I don't think so.

After all, why has OHIO's attendance risen lately, some change in Campus Culture or just more consistent Winning? Winning changes attitudes on any Campus!

Someone post that picture of the completely full Bobcat Blackout student section for Zips-Balsy....


As for for the faculty/staff relationship with students.... I'm not sure I fully understand the question. But, I believe there is a great, supportive relationship between faculty/staff and students.


A great deal of faculty and staff attend football and basketball games (with their family) as well. As do many local citizens. Winning certainly helps.