F a c t s.

Can't wait to examine our 2015 record.


Are those 2013 and 2014 top 15%?

How many coaches can put up two years like our 2013 and 2014 and keep their jobs?

The only defense is 'better than it used to be.' If our academics performed so would you be so 'no problem' about it.

Then you do the same to all the teams on the list and things will work out about the same. Bob Stoops, 180-47, 9 B12CC has a losing record in bowls. Tom Osborne, 255-49, 12 B12CC had a losing record in bowls. Given that for thirty years before Solich Ohio won .342 vs MAC scheduling, Ohio has come a long way. Among the top half, you lose to BG, you beat NIU, you take that. You lose to Western Michigan, you beat Marshall, you take that. You lose to Minn, You beat Akron, you take that. Represent well, play a fine game vs a very good team in the bowl, you take that. Welcome to the top half.

Well, here is the break down of this, so the question is are we really #7 on this list, after all this list is taking overall winning % into account, and we know several of these schools play more P5's than we do that we "rank" ahead.

Against this peer group we are a combined total of 16-25 over the past 11 seasons, this is a winning % of .390% and in only 4 of the past 11 seasons have we had winning records against this group of teams.

05 - 1-3
06 - 1-2
07 - 2-1
08 - 0-2
09 - 3-2
10 - 1-3
11 - 3-2
12 - 1-2
13 - 1-3
14 - 0-4
15 - 3-1

Well since you brought up if we were in a conference, there are 5 teams from the MAC on this list, we are 11-20 versus those teams in this time period for a .354%, which is lower than our record against the rest of these teams. We also have more games in this demographic than any other MAC school.

Paul, what basic truths would you suggest that I accept? I don't think that the program has been perfect, and I've said as much. In particular, I think I have been clear that I haven't been impressed, overall, with the new defense. The old defense was consistent, gave up quite a few yards, but rarely gave up huge amounts of points. The new defense hits both extremes, sometimes giving up huge amounts, as it did against Texas State, (or BG, WMU, or Marshall), and other times producing stunningly good performances, as against Kansas. Is that a good tradeoff? I don't think so. Certainly the good performances are quickly forgotten, and the bad ones are remembered. If they can't get rid of the bad results, they need to go back to the old defense.

Next, I would agree that no one was happy with the problems of 2013, but I think those problems were unique to that year, and have been addressed. Third, I expected an off year in 2014, and that's what we had. 2014 was not as good as I had hoped, but not worse than I feared, either. Then 2015 got the program back on track. No, they didn't win all their games, or the MACC, but they did solve most of their problems, save for the extreme results produced by the defense, which were at their worst in the second half against WMU, and against BG.

Now we are to 2016, and I expect a very good team, with another team at least as good in 2017. Despite the first game, I still expect Ohio to be good this year, and I think we saw evidence against Kansas that they can be very good. I will be very disappointed if Ohio doesn't win the East this year. Can they win the MACC? First they have to get there, but if they do, they may not be favored, but they have a shot. The key question to me is this - if this new defense is ever going to work, they need to be able to never have games like they had against Texas State, or BG and WMU last year. Can they prevent more of those games? If not, the defense may be their downfall. People on here like to grumble about the offense on here, for whatever reason, but the defense is what scares me.

Anyway, Paul, I know that Monroe likes to pretend that everyone thinks that Solich is perfect, and that the coaching staff is the best in the country, and that everyone thinks everything is perfect, but honestly, do you ever see anyone making those claims? Everyone sees flaws, and that certainly includes me. If you have other flaws you think I'm missing, please feel free to point them out.

Let's summarized the normalized...cupcakes removed... record over the last 3 years

2013: 2-5 with 3 losses by 27 or more
2014: 2-6 with 4 losses by 18 or more
2015: 3-5 with 3 losses by 24 or more


Summary: 7-16 with 9 losses by 18 or more.


FACTS. Still thinking we're not in the realm of mediocrity here?

HA!



CLIFFS: Gotta compete for championships to win 'em. Gotta be relevant in November. Tweaks to obtain desired performance.

I realize there are many improvements to Peden that need to be made but if the sound system is not improved I will not be a season ticket holder next season. I have been to a H.S. game every Friday this season and they are all better than Peden (which is to say they have one that is half way audible).

Is there now a qb controversy?

IMO, Maxwell is the guy moving forward. He showed promise today, despite the INT (and other near INT). Windham...what happened?!?!

Appalachian State was not a very good team, they had a cupcake schedule. We outplayed them and should have won and we played an average game besides two big plays from Poling and Johnson.

What did we have about 200 total yards of offense in that game? I hope that's not what we would consider out playing anyone

My quick observation is that our best running back (healthy or injured) is Hardy (speed, power, drive) and our best qb is Maxwell (arm strength, poise in the pocket, field vision).

These judgments are on somewhat limited data (plays). But what I've seen points that way.


What disappoints is that it seems that our coaches don't play the best players.

How did we have Hardy not even on the running back depth chart and slated to play Defensive back?

Windham has been okay. He's been most effective as a runner. He has a ton of carries. Good teams are going to take to account for him and not let him beat them by running--pretty much what EMU did.

Let's see what Maxwell can do. We haven't been putting points on the board.