menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: GOOGLE THIS
Page: 3 of 3
mail
person
El Gato Roberto
1/3/2025 7:16 PM
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
mail
person
Alan Swank
1/4/2025 2:05 PM
El Gato Roberto wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/4/2025 5:03 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
Last Edited: 1/4/2025 5:20:05 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
Alan Swank
1/4/2025 6:55 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.
mail
person
El Gato Roberto
1/5/2025 12:05 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.

Yes, Mr Swank, that is exactly what I meant.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/5/2025 10:19 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.
Got it!
mail
M.D.W.S.T
1/6/2025 10:05 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.
And only getting bigger.

And now the CFP has everyone up in arms about doing away with conference championships.

I feel like we're not far from non-con games being a thing of the past. Quite unfortunate.

Just a runaway train of nil dollars, tv dollars, and whiners.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/6/2025 10:33 AM
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.
And only getting bigger.

And now the CFP has everyone up in arms about doing away with conference championships.

I feel like we're not far from non-con games being a thing of the past. Quite unfortunate.

Just a runaway train of nil dollars, tv dollars, and whiners.
To me the writing on the wall seems pretty clear. We're headed to a 'Premier League' for college football. Basically the top tier (roughly the P4), breaking away from the rest.

This will allow them to negotiate one, single TV deal as opposed to several TV deals (i.e. per conference and for the playoffs) and also bring some geographic sanity to conferences again.
mail
person
El Gato Roberto
1/6/2025 12:01 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I think the problem is that the conferences are too large to produce a legitimate champion.
Bingo! Check out the to$u and Oregon schedules next year. The only tough game Oregon has in Penn State and the combined Big 10 record of to$u is 38 and 43.
What’s our combined record in the MAC with Miami, both in the MAC Championships this year?

I mean, our MAC schedule was 38-50, so not sure what you are saying? Counting UMASS, Miami was 48-51.

Seems OSU league schedule was tougher than ours based W-L’s and %
I'm saying what El Gato said. The bigger the league the more difficult it is to produce a legitimate league champion. In any given year, when you only play 53% of your possible opponents, that makes for an interesting "league" schedule.
And only getting bigger.

And now the CFP has everyone up in arms about doing away with conference championships.

I feel like we're not far from non-con games being a thing of the past. Quite unfortunate.

Just a runaway train of nil dollars, tv dollars, and whiners.
To me the writing on the wall seems pretty clear. We're headed to a 'Premier League' for college football. Basically the top tier (roughly the P4), breaking away from the rest.

This will allow them to negotiate one, single TV deal as opposed to several TV deals (i.e. per conference and for the playoffs) and also bring some geographic sanity to conferences again.
Sadly, I believe you are correct. By not counting Jr college time towards eligibility, it allows the pro leagues to keep the players developing longer. I think we will see more Rookies going into the league as starters. I wonder if they will go "all-in" and allow promotions and demotions? Purdue could be a nice fit in the MAC West, just sayin' 😂
Showing Messages: 51 - 59 of 59
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)