On this part of your post, we can agree. It's odd that you point out that these sports are 'affiliated with' an institution of education. From reading some posts I might have concluded that these teams were part of a professional sports franchise, where the only goals are winning and making money. Given that the teams are, however, 'affiliated with' an institution of education, it would seem that their first and foremost goal must be to enhance the educational process.

WRONG.

Do you think that a poll across all of America would find education, instead of winning, would be the first goal of football at the college level?

That must be a misprint or oversight. It says nothing about winning MAC championships, and we're told that that's the only goal, or at least, the primary one.

Truly that they are called student-athletes and that a handbook emphasizes education means that everyone regards college football as first and foremost an educational endeavor.

The Ivy League recruiting advantage is keeping Alabama from having a quality program.


The next time that you see Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy, could you put in a good word for me.

I think folks are confusing the objective and interest of the program with that of the student-athlete. And I know at least one poster appears to be confusing OHIO football with Alabama.

The goal of the OHIO football (and other sports) program is to win games (and yes, a MACC) with student-athletes that proudly represent the university both on and off the field. The goal at an Alabama, Clemson, FSU, etc. absolutely takes a shift to the winning versus the concern for the student-athlete. Let's be clear, anyone that thinks Saban has the same concern for the student-athlete as Frank (or other MAC coaches) is delusional. Saban, et all, only care about eligibility, OHIO cares about the student.

All student-athletes come on campus with, yes, the team goal of winning, but also with the individual athletic goals to 1. compete, 2. start, 3. excel, 4. possibly have the opportunity to play professionally. Outside of the football factories, most appreciate that "4" is a dream. A reality that is often quickly realized.

At Ohio, the student-athlete comes on campus with the first and foremost goal of getting an education.

While there are student-athletes at Alabama, Clemson, etc. that appreciate the academic opportunity afforded them (I personally know the starting TE at Georgia and he falls into this area) most set foot on campus of a factory with the single-minded goal (often delusional) that they will be playing on Sunday. Few do. At OHIO we do not regularly attract such an athlete (both from an athletic ability and delusional perspective). And that is okay.

While on campus, I had the pleasure to get to know most every basketball player my junior and senior year. Because of student housing, I also became friends with a number of football players. While each wanted to win games, there was not one that would trade their diploma for a MACC. Not one. Not even considered. Student first. Athlete second. Champion third.

As an alum, I would not want a player that put a MACC ahead of his diploma (or even his/her grades). I would not want an administration that encouraged such values in the program, or encouraged such values in our student-athletes. And as an administration, I would tell any fan or booster that harbored even an inkling of such an environment to take their allegiance and finances and go elsewhere - for you are not OHIO.

As a University we are not the athletic program of Alabama, OSU, Clemson, nor do I want to be. As an academic institution, we are not a Harvard, nor can we be...nor do I want to be.

We are not going to be Boise in football.
We are not going to be a Gonzaga in basketball.
We are OHIO. Our attitude towards athletics is different. Our ethos as a university are different. If, as an alum, you don't get that (or want that)....then you don't get OHIO. And that is a shame.

Presuming that the one candidate is DJT,I'm O.K. with that. :-)
(O.K.,let the slings and arrows begin)

First of all, you are welcome. And no, you are more than welcome to have a differing view. Everyone knows you are all about a MACC. But now we are getting into a deeper discussion of ethos and attitudes, so I'd be interested in what it is I presented that you find disturbing or off?

Two points I presented: 1. that we should not (and I do not) want the OHIO football program to reflect the same priorities as an Alabama. A university that (having spoken to Alabama alum this week) sees this past season as a disappointment because they did not win the Nat. Championship (the equivalent of Ohio winning a MACC) - "erase it from memory." And a program that in order to reach that annual goal sees its players as athletes-students. A program that over recruits and runs players off to make room for new meat, and whose academic focus regarding the player is on eligibility.

I do not want a program with those priorities. Do you. I don't want to hear, "12 years without a MACC..."

Alabama approach yes....no --- you see the results they get. Approach -- Yes....No

Second point - Student athlete. I do not want OHIO to have athletes that put winning a MACC above attaining their diploma. Frankly, I don't want athletes that even contemplate the question.

Student first. Athlete second. Champion third.

Agree? Yes....No

(I know, the second one is a no-brainer. There is not a member of this board that would want such an athlete (MACC First) representing OHIO....or is there?)

FYI - I am more than happy to turn this into an election regarding the state of the OHIO program on these issues.

"Bless me Robert for I have sinned. My last spell check was two days ago."

(those raised Catholic will get that)

CCcat, LS, et al, you've put it all in black and white and some much needed perspective.

We are not going to be Boise in football. (Nor WMU, Toledo, NIU or CMU) We ARE OHIO. By Gaud, I think I got it!

If we could have gotten ranked (and stayed there) in 2012, I do tend to believe we could have become Boise-esque. Frank would have stayed, recruiting would have improved and we could have maintained success at a level above other MAC programs.

But alas, we lost to Fiami and Tettleton decided to become a diva. The rest, as they say, is history.

It would be hard to become a Boise without a coach that plans to stay and not jump at the first hint of mild success. Usually in the MAC, a coach staying beyond 4 years is a rarity.

Seriously, you blame fans for their opinions?

You think any drop off in his performance was because of opinions expressed here?



Again, the new rules and accepted orthodoxy: All results must be happily accepted. It must be understood that the program is in perfect, unassailable shape.




There has been very little criticism of TT on this board.

Agreed LC, posts generally seem much more caustic on BA than they were 7-8 years ago, and that sad fact is not up for debate unfortunately.