Ohio Football Topic
Topic: A new record!
Page: 1 of 1
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 11:06 AM
Most points allowed in a win: 50.

The media guide doesn't have a category for this but it shows that we gave up 48 points to Cincy in a win in 1968 in the category most points scored by both teams combined. The only game with more points by both teams was last year's loss to TxSt. So the UMass game also ties the 1968 Cincy game for second most points by both teams combined in a game (108).
oubobcat70
General User
O70
Member Since: 10/11/2012
Location: Marana, AZ
Post Count: 32
person
mail
oubobcat70
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 12:33 PM
'68 Cincy game was a ping pong game!
PhiTau74
General User
PT74
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Columbia, SC
Post Count: 458
person
mail
PhiTau74
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 1:13 PM
Gave up 49 points to the Richmand Spiders at the 1968 Tangerine Bowl but that was a loss. With overtime games now there are some crazy scores every year.
Last Edited: 10/2/2017 1:14:27 PM by PhiTau74
OUs LONG Driver
General User
OLD
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Copley, OH
Post Count: 707
person
mail
OUs LONG Driver
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 1:27 PM
PhiTau74 wrote:expand_more
Gave up 49 points to the Richmand Spiders at the 1968 Tangerine Bowl but that was a loss. With overtime games now there are some crazy scores every year.
A story from this past weekend.....stopped in Richmond while traveling home from vacation on Saturday. While at a fast food stop a man walked up to me with his phone held out. Once he's close enough that I can read it I see he has it pulled up to the Wikipedia page of the 1968 Tangerine bowl. Took me a second to realize I had an Ohio shirt (safe bet in general). We made some small talk and that was it. Later he came over to our table to apologize for rubbing it in. I told him I was born 14 years after this game took place so I had no hard feelings.

I tweeted about this later that night and the Citrus Bowl responded to me even though I didn't @ them and jokingly said it was part of their early season PR strategy.

Bizarre.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 2:30 PM
I think the fact that we were playing some third string players at defensive line in this game may have had something to do with it. Hope we get some of them back for the future MAC games. The targeting call sort of hurt too.
bshot44
General User
Member Since: 2/12/2012
Post Count: 2,211
mail
bshot44
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 3:39 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I think the fact that we were playing some third string players at defensive line in this game may have had something to do with it. Hope we get some of them back for the future MAC games. The targeting call sort of hurt too.
DL weren't playing in secondary. Safeties and DBs were getting torched ... that's not all on pass rush. Similar problems vs. Purdue (and previous seasons)
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 6:23 PM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
I think the fact that we were playing some third string players at defensive line in this game may have had something to do with it. Hope we get some of them back for the future MAC games. The targeting call sort of hurt too.
DL weren't playing in secondary. Safeties and DBs were getting torched ... that's not all on pass rush. Similar problems vs. Purdue (and previous seasons)
Oh, okay it doesn't make any difference who plays line for us. Good to know.
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,558
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 10/2/2017 6:56 PM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
I think the fact that we were playing some third string players at defensive line in this game may have had something to do with it. Hope we get some of them back for the future MAC games. The targeting call sort of hurt too.
DL weren't playing in secondary. Safeties and DBs were getting torched ... that's not all on pass rush. Similar problems vs. Purdue (and previous seasons)
While watching us get torched in the secondary was disheartening, the most frustrating thing was how many times we were one play from really putting the game away and just never came up with the stop. Settling for a field goal after 1st and goal after the interception (although a blatant uncalled PI/hold should have set us up at the 1). giving up what seemed like 25 4th down conversions. Yeah, the two times we got stops were both big, but if we had just stopped half of them, this isn't even a game in the 4th quarter. Kansas was one thing... we controlled that game wire to wire despite giving up some points.

Also, we were a fairly clean team this season. But this game looked a little too much like 2015-16 with all the drive-extending penalties. Even when we did something right, we would shoot ourselves in the foot.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 10/5/2017 12:47 AM
Self foot shooting MUST be put on coaches from here on out...Most all of it is a Controllable - Control (AKA "Manage", or "Coach") it!
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 10/5/2017 10:54 AM
Seems like the defensive intensity drops way off when we have a lead.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/5/2017 11:06 AM
My thought was that the offense is scoring so quickly this year that the defense spends a lot of time on the field, and it is wearing down. Hopefully, based on Solich's comments, they are going to increase the amount of rotation on defense.
Showing Messages: 1 - 11 of 11
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)