menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Frank now third-longest tenured coach in FBS
Page: 2 of 2
mail
bshot44
6/14/2017 3:53 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
It's ironic to complain about Texas State and U.Mass, and wish for WKy or ODU. Go back a few years and all of those were FCS schools. It's entirely possible that WKy and ODU could have turned out to be garbage today, and Texas State and U.Mass could have been the ones that improved. I actually tought Whipple was going to turn U.Mass around, but so far it hasn't worked out that way. [/QUOTE]Wouldn't call it ironic.

WKU, since turning FBS, after scuffling thru the first four years ... has been a program that has won at least 7 games and been to four bowl games in the last 6 years.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/western-kentucky /

ODU, since turning FBS, has been 8-4, 5-7, 6-6, 10-3 and won a bowl game already. Now maybe ... just maybe ... they fall on tough times. But being in a legit league (CUSA) and being a playoff caliber team in FCS for years under Bobby Wilder....I'm guessing they'll be okay. Not to mention, they are a helluva lot closer to Athens than San Marcos, TX ... making it a much more appealing game.

Texas State....one winning season (7-5) in the five years in FBS. They play in a subpar league ... arguably as bad as the MAC some years (Sun Belt)...have a somewhat weak FCS history with only two playoff appearances and again ....ARE LOCATED IN SAN MARCOS, TX, a mere 1300+ miles from Athens.

UMass ... when are we just going to admit their jump to FBS is a just a full-blow failure. They had a pretty good thing going in FCS...won a couple titles...were a pretty regular playoff contender. But since jumping to FBS, they've won 10 games in five years. 10 GAMES. You have to go back to 1904 to find the last time they had a winning record in Division I. There is a reason (other than basketball wouldn't join) the MAC wasn't pained to see them go.

[QUOTE=L.C.]
As far as the comment above that obviously recent recruiting classes are not better because Ohio is still 8-6, remember that last year's team was made up primarily of the 2012 and 2013 recruiting classes, while this fall's team will be mostly 2013 and 2014 recruits. Are the most recent classes dramatically better? Ask me in a few years. They look good now, but they have a lot of work to do to prove it on the field.
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying about recruiting forever. I don't give two s**ts about ranking, ratings, stars, etc. Show me results on the field!

Ask me in a few years, but they have a lot of work to do to prove it on the field. I literally agree with every word in that sentence.
mail
person
L.C.
6/14/2017 5:47 PM
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
Last Edited: 6/14/2017 6:12:59 PM by L.C.
mail
bshot44
6/15/2017 9:34 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
yep and yep.

I would just love to be a fly on the wall when the scheduling discussion takes place. Are we actively seeking out UMass or Texas State? Are they seeking us out? Or have we blown thru the rolodex of teams within a reasonable distance and they all said no ... so they're forced to look at teams a billion miles away (Idaho, NM State, TxSt, UNT). Just seems there are a lot of teams closer that make more sense. Wasn't that long ago we did have ECU, NC State, VT, UNC on the schedule. It's good to see VT, NW and Pitt coming back to the schedule. I do kind of like the BC game (just because it's a winnable P5 game .... much like the Purdue and Kansas games).

Again, this is just me soapboxing about how I'd like to see this program ascend past what they've been the past decade – an above average MAC school.

Believe me, I'm ecstatic to even be discussing Ohio football .... because most of us remember the 90's and before that when they were 10000% irrelevant.

I'm just not one to settle for the status quo just because it was better than what we had before.

I'd like to see us continue to strive to be better and it just appears that they're content with their place on the CFB landscape.

Which is odd, considering they've invested all this money into the indoor facility and the student center that will begin construction this fall. Those are great investments into the program.

Would just like to see the same to the on-the-field product (i.e. the schedule and results)
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
6/15/2017 10:27 AM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
yep and yep.

I would just love to be a fly on the wall when the scheduling discussion takes place. Are we actively seeking out UMass or Texas State? Are they seeking us out? Or have we blown thru the rolodex of teams within a reasonable distance and they all said no ... so they're forced to look at teams a billion miles away (Idaho, NM State, TxSt, UNT). Just seems there are a lot of teams closer that make more sense. Wasn't that long ago we did have ECU, NC State, VT, UNC on the schedule. It's good to see VT, NW and Pitt coming back to the schedule. I do kind of like the BC game (just because it's a winnable P5 game .... much like the Purdue and Kansas games).

Again, this is just me soapboxing about how I'd like to see this program ascend past what they've been the past decade – an above average MAC school.

Believe me, I'm ecstatic to even be discussing Ohio football .... because most of us remember the 90's and before that when they were 10000% irrelevant.

I'm just not one to settle for the status quo just because it was better than what we had before.

I'd like to see us continue to strive to be better and it just appears that they're content with their place on the CFB landscape.

Which is odd, considering they've invested all this money into the indoor facility and the student center that will begin construction this fall. Those are great investments into the program.

Would just like to see the same to the on-the-field product (i.e. the schedule and results)
I just don't think investing is an apt description here. That would imply that there's money to invest, and we are prioritizing and choosing which projects to "invest" in. Both of those recent projects began with huge special designation gifts and the balance was covered with additional smaller donations. It's not like we're sitting on a bunch of other money and choosing not to invest in more facilities or upgrading the schedule. Money has to come in before it can go out.
mail
bshot44
6/15/2017 11:10 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
yep and yep.

I would just love to be a fly on the wall when the scheduling discussion takes place. Are we actively seeking out UMass or Texas State? Are they seeking us out? Or have we blown thru the rolodex of teams within a reasonable distance and they all said no ... so they're forced to look at teams a billion miles away (Idaho, NM State, TxSt, UNT). Just seems there are a lot of teams closer that make more sense. Wasn't that long ago we did have ECU, NC State, VT, UNC on the schedule. It's good to see VT, NW and Pitt coming back to the schedule. I do kind of like the BC game (just because it's a winnable P5 game .... much like the Purdue and Kansas games).

Again, this is just me soapboxing about how I'd like to see this program ascend past what they've been the past decade – an above average MAC school.

Believe me, I'm ecstatic to even be discussing Ohio football .... because most of us remember the 90's and before that when they were 10000% irrelevant.

I'm just not one to settle for the status quo just because it was better than what we had before.

I'd like to see us continue to strive to be better and it just appears that they're content with their place on the CFB landscape.

Which is odd, considering they've invested all this money into the indoor facility and the student center that will begin construction this fall. Those are great investments into the program.

Would just like to see the same to the on-the-field product (i.e. the schedule and results)
I just don't think investing is an apt description here. That would imply that there's money to invest, and we are prioritizing and choosing which projects to "invest" in. Both of those recent projects began with huge special designation gifts and the balance was covered with additional smaller donations. It's not like we're sitting on a bunch of other money and choosing not to invest in more facilities or upgrading the schedule. Money has to come in before it can go out.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that we "invest" in the schedule by throwing a ton of money around to buy home games with quality opponents.

What I meant was theoretically investing in the program by scheduling better. No literally investing with money.

It doesn't cost any more money to play Texas State as it would to play Western Kentucky.

Invest by taking the steps to take the program to the next level.

I'm not saying make the jump to the AAC.

I'm saying make Ohio the ELITE program in the MAC. Schedule like a team that is willing to go toe-to-toe with the best year in and year out. Don't schedule like a team content with ensuring 7-8 wins and getting bowl eligible.

Ohio football will rarely, if ever, dent the national scene by beating Hampton, Texas State and UMass. But they will when they beat Penn State, Tennessee, etc.

If Ohio is content with where they are on the CFB landscape .... so be it.

If they want to continue to elevate the program, playing the schedules they have played recently won't get it done.

Take a peek at Toledo the last few years .... WMU ... or even BG. Their schedules are far more competitive than what Ohio has played.
mail
person
GoCats105
6/15/2017 11:33 AM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
yep and yep.

I would just love to be a fly on the wall when the scheduling discussion takes place. Are we actively seeking out UMass or Texas State? Are they seeking us out? Or have we blown thru the rolodex of teams within a reasonable distance and they all said no ... so they're forced to look at teams a billion miles away (Idaho, NM State, TxSt, UNT). Just seems there are a lot of teams closer that make more sense. Wasn't that long ago we did have ECU, NC State, VT, UNC on the schedule. It's good to see VT, NW and Pitt coming back to the schedule. I do kind of like the BC game (just because it's a winnable P5 game .... much like the Purdue and Kansas games).

Again, this is just me soapboxing about how I'd like to see this program ascend past what they've been the past decade – an above average MAC school.

Believe me, I'm ecstatic to even be discussing Ohio football .... because most of us remember the 90's and before that when they were 10000% irrelevant.

I'm just not one to settle for the status quo just because it was better than what we had before.

I'd like to see us continue to strive to be better and it just appears that they're content with their place on the CFB landscape.

Which is odd, considering they've invested all this money into the indoor facility and the student center that will begin construction this fall. Those are great investments into the program.

Would just like to see the same to the on-the-field product (i.e. the schedule and results)
I just don't think investing is an apt description here. That would imply that there's money to invest, and we are prioritizing and choosing which projects to "invest" in. Both of those recent projects began with huge special designation gifts and the balance was covered with additional smaller donations. It's not like we're sitting on a bunch of other money and choosing not to invest in more facilities or upgrading the schedule. Money has to come in before it can go out.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that we "invest" in the schedule by throwing a ton of money around to buy home games with quality opponents.

What I meant was theoretically investing in the program by scheduling better. No literally investing with money.

It doesn't cost any more money to play Texas State as it would to play Western Kentucky.

Invest by taking the steps to take the program to the next level.

I'm not saying make the jump to the AAC.

I'm saying make Ohio the ELITE program in the MAC. Schedule like a team that is willing to go toe-to-toe with the best year in and year out. Don't schedule like a team content with ensuring 7-8 wins and getting bowl eligible.

Ohio football will rarely, if ever, dent the national scene by beating Hampton, Texas State and UMass. But they will when they beat Penn State, Tennessee, etc.

If Ohio is content with where they are on the CFB landscape .... so be it.

If they want to continue to elevate the program, playing the schedules they have played recently won't get it done.

Take a peek at Toledo the last few years .... WMU ... or even BG. Their schedules are far more competitive than what Ohio has played.
Another side of this is how it impacts recruiting. Are recruits looking at Ohio's future schedules and saying "man we're gonna win some ball games but against who?" or are they saying "nah, I want to play somewhere that's going to go head-to-head with anyone, anywhere, any time." It's a tough middle ground to find. You want to win games, but you also want to schedule well enough to keep the kids interested, right?
mail
bshot44
6/15/2017 11:57 AM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Oh, I totally agree that ODU and WKy have both been very successful. If you had asked me six years ago I'd have guessed that they would be likely just be two more teams in already over-satutated recruiting areas, and that they would struggle. Meanwhile I would have guessed that Texas State, in a recruiting hotbed would do pretty well, and that UMass, now that they had a real coach, would thrive.

I do agree that I'd have rather seen ECU and Temple on the schedule. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that WKy and ODU were sure to succeed, nor that Texas State or even UMass was sure to struggle. I do agree that the closeness would have been an advantage,though.

As far as recruiting, I do do look at videos of all the recruits, and it's my personal opinion that the classes are getting notably better. That is why I expect the future to be better than the past. I also agree that for those who don't, the fact that the recruiting services rate the classes well doesn't mean a lot as they have a poor track record.
yep and yep.

I would just love to be a fly on the wall when the scheduling discussion takes place. Are we actively seeking out UMass or Texas State? Are they seeking us out? Or have we blown thru the rolodex of teams within a reasonable distance and they all said no ... so they're forced to look at teams a billion miles away (Idaho, NM State, TxSt, UNT). Just seems there are a lot of teams closer that make more sense. Wasn't that long ago we did have ECU, NC State, VT, UNC on the schedule. It's good to see VT, NW and Pitt coming back to the schedule. I do kind of like the BC game (just because it's a winnable P5 game .... much like the Purdue and Kansas games).

Again, this is just me soapboxing about how I'd like to see this program ascend past what they've been the past decade – an above average MAC school.

Believe me, I'm ecstatic to even be discussing Ohio football .... because most of us remember the 90's and before that when they were 10000% irrelevant.

I'm just not one to settle for the status quo just because it was better than what we had before.

I'd like to see us continue to strive to be better and it just appears that they're content with their place on the CFB landscape.

Which is odd, considering they've invested all this money into the indoor facility and the student center that will begin construction this fall. Those are great investments into the program.

Would just like to see the same to the on-the-field product (i.e. the schedule and results)
I just don't think investing is an apt description here. That would imply that there's money to invest, and we are prioritizing and choosing which projects to "invest" in. Both of those recent projects began with huge special designation gifts and the balance was covered with additional smaller donations. It's not like we're sitting on a bunch of other money and choosing not to invest in more facilities or upgrading the schedule. Money has to come in before it can go out.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that we "invest" in the schedule by throwing a ton of money around to buy home games with quality opponents.

What I meant was theoretically investing in the program by scheduling better. No literally investing with money.

It doesn't cost any more money to play Texas State as it would to play Western Kentucky.

Invest by taking the steps to take the program to the next level.

I'm not saying make the jump to the AAC.

I'm saying make Ohio the ELITE program in the MAC. Schedule like a team that is willing to go toe-to-toe with the best year in and year out. Don't schedule like a team content with ensuring 7-8 wins and getting bowl eligible.

Ohio football will rarely, if ever, dent the national scene by beating Hampton, Texas State and UMass. But they will when they beat Penn State, Tennessee, etc.

If Ohio is content with where they are on the CFB landscape .... so be it.

If they want to continue to elevate the program, playing the schedules they have played recently won't get it done.

Take a peek at Toledo the last few years .... WMU ... or even BG. Their schedules are far more competitive than what Ohio has played.
Another side of this is how it impacts recruiting. Are recruits looking at Ohio's future schedules and saying "man we're gonna win some ball games but against who?" or are they saying "nah, I want to play somewhere that's going to go head-to-head with anyone, anywhere, any time." It's a tough middle ground to find. You want to win games, but you also want to schedule well enough to keep the kids interested, right?
BINGO!

Similar to what it used to be before the "everyone-is-on-TV" era. Kids used to love when they could go to a school that played on TV.

I would say now, it's a better marketing tool for recruiting to show them a schedule where they play some top-notch schools rather than loaded up with the lower-level FBS teams we currently play.

Exposure comes with playing those better teams too. That can only help. You don't get much exposure playing Idaho on ESPN3 on a Thursday night in Moscow.
mail
person
Bobcat1996
6/15/2017 12:24 PM
The Bobcats play in 2018 away at Virginia and Cincy and host Howard and UMASS. In 2019 at Pitt and at Marshall. In 2020 and 2021 they play at Boston College and Northwestern. Those road games will be tough games. It isn't easy to schedule who the public thinks the Bobcats should play. The AD wants six home games and it would be great to get seven home games, but that isn't going to happen in Athens every year. Take a look at Ohio's home basketball schedule this past season with Urbana, Sam Houston, Alcorn State, Bryant, Tenn. Tech and Milwaukee to name a few. Those teams aren't exactly Xavier or Dayton. Scheduling isn't as easy as everyone thinks.
mail
bshot44
6/15/2017 12:32 PM
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
The Bobcats play in 2018 away at Virginia and Cincy and host Howard and UMASS. In 2019 at Pitt and at Marshall. In 2020 and 2021 they play at Boston College and Northwestern. Those road games will be tough games. It isn't easy to schedule who the public thinks the Bobcats should play. The AD wants six home games and it would be great to get seven home games, but that isn't going to happen in Athens every year. Take a look at Ohio's home basketball schedule this past season with Urbana, Sam Houston, Alcorn State, Bryant, Tenn. Tech and Milwaukee to name a few. Those teams aren't exactly Xavier or Dayton. Scheduling isn't as easy as everyone thinks.
Please re-read some of these comments. I don't think anyone is implying that it's easy.

I'm not saying Ohio should get Texas, Notre Dame and Ohio State to come to Peden Stadium. I know that will NEVER happen.

But it isn't a far stretch to say they would benefit from getting rid of the ULL, UNT, TxSt, UMass, Idaho & NM State's that have littered their schedules the last 8 years. Those teams COMBINED for 26 wins in 8 years....and 9 of those came from UNT in 2013. Those teams averaged 3-9 ... and throw out the 9-4 UNT team in '13 ... it drops to almost 2-10.

The competition level is dreadful for some of the OOC opponents we play. And when we play a FCS program every year on top of it, it's pretty uninspiring.

Replace Idaho with MTSU. Replace NM State with WKU. Replace UNT with ODU. Replace TxSt with Arkansas St. Replace UMass with Temple.

I know not everyone of these is possible...but it would be nice if there was an effort to improve the schedule. I don't think it was an accident that for 8 years running Ohio has had a bottom-of-the-barrel FBS team on it's schedule.

And each one of those is a home-and-home....and as I said earlier, if you can negotiate a home-and-home with UConn, Cincy, Iowa State ... I don't see how it can't be done with a CUSA, AAC or Sun Belt team that doesn't traditionally finish 2-10 or 3-9.
Last Edited: 6/15/2017 12:32:56 PM by bshot44
mail
person
GoCats105
6/15/2017 2:21 PM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
The Bobcats play in 2018 away at Virginia and Cincy and host Howard and UMASS. In 2019 at Pitt and at Marshall. In 2020 and 2021 they play at Boston College and Northwestern. Those road games will be tough games. It isn't easy to schedule who the public thinks the Bobcats should play. The AD wants six home games and it would be great to get seven home games, but that isn't going to happen in Athens every year. Take a look at Ohio's home basketball schedule this past season with Urbana, Sam Houston, Alcorn State, Bryant, Tenn. Tech and Milwaukee to name a few. Those teams aren't exactly Xavier or Dayton. Scheduling isn't as easy as everyone thinks.
Please re-read some of these comments. I don't think anyone is implying that it's easy.

I'm not saying Ohio should get Texas, Notre Dame and Ohio State to come to Peden Stadium. I know that will NEVER happen.

But it isn't a far stretch to say they would benefit from getting rid of the ULL, UNT, TxSt, UMass, Idaho & NM State's that have littered their schedules the last 8 years. Those teams COMBINED for 26 wins in 8 years....and 9 of those came from UNT in 2013. Those teams averaged 3-9 ... and throw out the 9-4 UNT team in '13 ... it drops to almost 2-10.

The competition level is dreadful for some of the OOC opponents we play. And when we play a FCS program every year on top of it, it's pretty uninspiring.

Replace Idaho with MTSU. Replace NM State with WKU. Replace UNT with ODU. Replace TxSt with Arkansas St. Replace UMass with Temple.

I know not everyone of these is possible...but it would be nice if there was an effort to improve the schedule. I don't think it was an accident that for 8 years running Ohio has had a bottom-of-the-barrel FBS team on it's schedule.

And each one of those is a home-and-home....and as I said earlier, if you can negotiate a home-and-home with UConn, Cincy, Iowa State ... I don't see how it can't be done with a CUSA, AAC or Sun Belt team that doesn't traditionally finish 2-10 or 3-9.
Really the best indicator of this is just to go back and look at strength of schedules. I remember a couple years where Ohio was dead last or close to dead last in strength of schedule. That shouldn't be happening anymore. I was fine with that when the Frank regime started. Build the program through wins. It's time to step up a notch.
Last Edited: 6/15/2017 2:22:09 PM by GoCats105
mail
person
L.C.
6/15/2017 3:10 PM
My impression is that this argument is beating a dead horse. It's my impression that they are trying to upgrade the schedule, and have been for awhile. That's why we got the Kansas, Purdue, and UC added as home-home series. Since they are home-home, they replace a ULL, Idaho, or Texas State.
mail
bshot44
6/15/2017 4:15 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
My impression is that this argument is beating a dead horse. It's my impression that they are trying to upgrade the schedule, and have been for awhile. That's why we got the Kansas, Purdue, and UC added as home-home series. Since they are home-home, they replace a ULL, Idaho, or Texas State.
Nope. That isn't true. Purdue is not home-and-home. It was part of the deal for their basketball team to come to the Convo for a game.

UC home-and-home and Iowa State home-and-home help...but they don't replace ULL, Idaho or Texas State.

Look at the future schedules again.

We have FAU, UMass, Texas State and ULL on future schedules.

So our commitment to upgrading the schedule still needs some help.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/mid-amer/ohio-bobcats.php

I like playing two P5 teams on the non-conference schedule ... but as I said earlier that is only because Marshall fell thru. They're back for 2020-21...and once again, it's

P5
FCS
Garbage FBS
Marshall

That's Ohio's schedule template every year if they can keep Marshall.

All I'm asking is that they get rid of the garbage FBS and add either a quality FBS or another P5 game to go with P5, FCS and Marshall
mail
person
Bobcat1996
6/15/2017 10:14 PM
Take a look at BG's home schedule for 2017. Five home games with South Dakota the lone non MAC home contest. Western Michigan plays Wagner and Idaho at home in 2017 and in 2019 plays Monmouth and Ga. State. If you were fans of those schools, would you be thrilled about those home non league games? I am wondering what Bobcat fans say about the non desirable home schedule the basketball team plays as they hosted 18 home games with Urbana, Tenn Tech, Milwaukee, Alcorn, Bryant and Cleveland State to mention a few. This scheduling is not as easy as fans would think it is. If five home games are scheduled in football that is a recipe for disaster. I am guessing that if only 12-13 home games are on the schedule for basketball then the basketball team would probably struggle to win half of the games.
mail
bshot44
6/16/2017 12:12 AM
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
Take a look at BG's home schedule for 2017. Five home games with South Dakota the lone non MAC home contest. Western Michigan plays Wagner and Idaho at home in 2017 and in 2019 plays Monmouth and Ga. State. If you were fans of those schools, would you be thrilled about those home non league games? I am wondering what Bobcat fans say about the non desirable home schedule the basketball team plays as they hosted 18 home games with Urbana, Tenn Tech, Milwaukee, Alcorn, Bryant and Cleveland State to mention a few. This scheduling is not as easy as fans would think it is. If five home games are scheduled in football that is a recipe for disaster. I am guessing that if only 12-13 home games are on the schedule for basketball then the basketball team would probably struggle to win half of the games.
Yeah. I have little problem with BG actually challenging themselves with games at MTSU, Michigan State & Northwestern. Take a peek at what else they have coming up and tell me Ohio comes even close to these schedules

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/mid-amer/bowling-green-fa...

Western Michigan also plays at USC & Michigan State this upcoming year. A slight step up from Kansas & Purdue.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/mid-amer/western-michigan...

Quit being an Ohio apologist. Bobcat schedule is awful. Period. Consistently ranked towards bottom of MAC & nation.

When Ohio schedules multiple Top 25 teams in season, maybe we can have honest conversation and compare them to BG or WMU.
Showing Messages: 26 - 39 of 39
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



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