We're still a couple months away, probably, from all the preseason predictions for 2017. Phil Steele, who normally is near the top, had a bad year, last year, and the winner was Athlon:
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2016.html

He still has a huge lead over everyone else over the last five years:
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2017-5yr...

But over the last three years, it's pretty much a dead heat between a lot of magazines and online pickers:
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2017-3yr...

(note: these links may load slowly)

Wes--Sorry for being redundant. Really, I am...But you don't think that the following gives redhawk a decided, important advantage over us (and everyone else in the MAC / MAC East)??

redhawk started 0-6 last year. Then they went to Ragland at qb. He didn't throw a ball in their 0-6 start. Then he led them to a 6 game winning streak before their bowl loss. He threw 179 passes for 17 td's and 1 interception. He was a sophomore last year.

I now see that he threw 3 td's with no interceptions in 29 throws in 2015. Yes, a total of 20 td's and 1 INT.


Those are startling numbers. Maybe all that was a one-time, hot streak.

But if he was our qb, how would you feel about our prospects for the coming year?


Miami surely has to be pretty much the favorite in the East for next year unless they have some serious deficits at other positions.

What Monroe does bring up, and is the big difference here, is Miami's QB play after they inserted Ragland into the lineup. I'm assuming Monroe's stats on Ragland are correct. If they are, a 20-1 TD to interception ratio is outstanding! For Monroe, it's Miami's QB position that gives them the edge here and I tend to agree. If we had a QB with those stats we'd probably feel pretty giddy about our chances. So I think its the potential at the QB spot that possibly gives Miami the edge.

Time will tell and we will see how 2017 plays out.

Spot on . . . you've got the dude figured out.

Hey, Man, he only reports facts, nothing but the facts. ;-)

Yeah, the achieved facts are my way.

So, go on, ignore the facts and do your illogical conclusions.

This would be true!

And "your criteria" means exactly what? Nothing. The criteria that is relevant is that of Schaus, McDavis (and new President), Board of Trustees and those who actually carry weight and are decision makers. Not someone who is a broken record and thinks a single criteria defines success. In the corporate world any executive has many criteria he or she is evaluated on ... and not one thing. That is something I would have thought you could comprehend.

And no, you are not right. If you were the real decision makers would have agreed with you and we'd have a new coach. Re-evaluate who is lame and/or weak.

Really horrible post.

Sure, everyone goes to the games and watches...and then turns to McDavis and Schaus and the trustees to see how they feel about the outcome. Then, based on how those folks feel about the game, the fans are satisfied or dissatisfied.

No one looks at the scoreboard or the overall record or standings/achievement in the MAC.


Nice alternative facts, dude.

Sure, football fans at OSU and USC and Alabama don't care about titles. They want to see how the AD, the Pres, and the trustees feel about the games.


That's weird.
Therefore, I like it!

Not a darn thing I posted is 'alternative facts'. It is YOU who needs to deal with FACTS and those that our leadership at Ohio deems pertinent. Your criteria are 100% irrelevant as is mine. A big difference between you and I is I realize a MACC is NOT, and never will be, the only relevant criteria to evaluate our coach. I don't think you understand all the criteria that Frank is evaluated on and how well he's done during his tenure in many of those areas. Instead you obsess with a single facet. Good for you.

And I do agree with you that people look at the scores and records of our teams as well as accomplishments. And the fact is they like what they see. So what's your point?

And I noted you, who supposedly work in the corporate world, chose (once again) to ignore the FACT that any corporate executive who holds any real responsibility is evaluated on MANY criteria, and not just one. I spent years in the corporate world and I got a big laugh out of thinking what it would have been like to be evaluated on just one aspect of my job.

And last, just to help you understand our football program versus those of OSU, USC and Alabama --- we don't contend for national championships and with 99.99% probability never will. So sure, those programs may be concerned about that. And those coaches may have different criteria they are evaluated on than MAC coaches.

There's a difference between saying that he's safe (which is apparently quite true) and that he's anything other than extremely average to mediocre.

In 12 years at OHIO, two seasons with four losses and every other season with more than four is dreadful.


A head coach of a D1 football team is to football coaching at all levels as a publicly listed (stock exchange) company is to all companies...in a rough way.

Anyone who thinks that the stock price is not far and away the first criteria that the board of directors and shareholders consider in evaluating coach...uh, CEO...performance must not live in these United States.


Same re won/loss record and titles for a D1 football coach evaluation.




Thank you for making this easy for me.

Okay, so you're happy with better than Lichty and Cleve. Good for you



A bear market is a tide that sinks almost all companies. What does that have to do with the performance of a given company over 12 years.

When you have to resort to whatareyoutalkingaboutTrumplogic to support your position, it may not be the way you want to go.



Oh, great. Now, we're going to call him 'Bear Solich' and it's going to be for exactly the opposite reasons of the Bryant from Alabama.

I for one will not stand for such mockery of THE OHIO UNIVERSITY.


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?