I'm curious to what extent people agree with Monroe's mantra. Ohio has been Bowl Eligible 9 of the last 10 years, and has gone to 7 bowls (including this year), but has not won the MACC. Miami does have a MACC, but that was their only year with a winning record. If these were the only two alternatives, which would people prefer?

+1

Let's just be mediocre for ever. I don't care if we ever win the MAC as long as we can go 7-5 and beat 6 teams that are ranked at 80 or worst every season, I am good. These are great times. No other fans in the MAC get to experience what we experience. Go Cats

Hey Man, were grooving. We don't have to win anything. It's not even close. This is the Golden Era, were right in the middle of the pack, you can't ask for more than that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you voted for 34-89, which ironically is much WORSE than a mediocre record.

This poll is an Obama strawman argument. Give an alternative that doesn't exist and make people believe those are the choices when they aren't. How about listing the last 10 years record with 1-2 championships as an alternative universe.

To be fair, I realize that it's probably easier to MACC in women hoop and volleyball than football.

See, I admit these things, that there's some shading to things as opposed to those who deify a coaching staff which is proving... 0 < 1 ...to be less than average.


Of course, it's still fair to say that Solich and staff inherited horrors from Brian Knorr....even though that inheritance was good enough to make the MAC title game in Solich's second year.

+1

The question is clearly defined.

P.S.

One fun caveat to this question is that OU actually beat Miami during their MAC Championship season.

No, it's not a straw man argument. It's a real choice between two specific and very real alternatives. Ohio's record over the last ten years is real. Miami's record is real. Over the last ten years you could have been a fan of Ohio, and endured what we have endured. You could also have been a fan of Miami, in which case you would suck, but you would also have endured what they have endured. Which would have been more pleasant?

Monroe's argument is, and has been, that a MACC is the only thing that matters, and that Ohio's accomplishments under Solich have been "worse than average" since they include no MACC. By that argument, Miami's accomplishments have been "better than average" since they do include a MACC. This poll was designed to test Monroe's theory about what people want, and the poll answers clearly indicate that Monroe is wrong. Sure, if you give people the choice of having their cake and eating it too, that's what they will choose, but that tells you nothing. If C>A, and C>B, that tells you nothing about whether A>B or B>A.

Ohio is currently in a stable and rising situation. They had their rebuilding year, and now are on the rise, poised for at least two more good years. Let's say that 2018 is another rebuilding year, which is quite possible. We know what to expect, perhaps another 6-6 season, perhaps better given that the 2014 rebuilding year was better than the 2008 rebuilding year. Based on prior results it seems likely that Ohio will not have another losing season under Solich. Will they win the MACC in the next two years? I personally think so, but I can't guarantee it.

At this point, Ohio has two very real alternatives. On the one hand they can enjoy the stability of having a winning record every year, and hope that there will come a year without crazy numbers of injuries, and that they win a MAC along the way. Or, they can fire/retire Solich, and get on the coaching carousel. They can, like Miami, (or Akron, or Kent..) hire a new coach every few years, and hope that along with the bad ones, they occasionally get a really good one, and the good one wins a MACC before they move up and out. Sadly, however, it's more likely that none of the replacements will be better than Solich. Nebraska has a lot more money, and yet they haven't been able to find a better one in three tries, and two of them have been significantly worse. Ohio has has a lot of coaches since Don Peden, and none of them have been better than Solich. Therefore my personal opinion is that the odds that any of the next three or four Ohio coaches will be better than Solich is low, but the time will come when we will find out because he's not going to coach forever.

Nebraska isn't a good comparison because they have a completely different situation. A better comparison is Bowling Green with Urban Meyer leading them to glory, a few good years with Greg Brandon but fired for no MAC and then a resurgence under Dave Clawson and Dino Babers. BG had three out of four coaches do a good job at that school. They've had about 10 P5 wins in that time at an above average MAC football school.

This true, but exactly how long that time will be is anyone's guess, because it's well within the realm of possibilities that Solich will be an Amos Alonzo Stagg or at least a Joe Paterno in terms of longevity. Now that's a thought sure to warm the hearts of Monroe, allen, bshot44 and others of like persuasion. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I am saying you can't rule out the possibility at this juncture.

L.C. You frame a question with purposeful limits. Why don't you add NIU's or BG's record over the past years to this?

Or EMU's if you really want to continue to make Solich such a deity.

And answer the question about Boldon and Webb.

I'm of the opinion 10 years is too short. Why not go back 20 or 30 years? What was Monroe doing then? Renegade boosters only maintain credibility through so many regimes.