menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Which Record would you rather have over the last 10 years?
Page: 3 of 8
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
11/28/2015 7:38 PM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
This is a stupid "poll." If gives a choice between two less than ideal outcomes. If I'm hiring someone for a position in any business and these are my only two candidates I'm re-posting the position.

First off it's not a stupid poll.

It's a defined question that tests Monroes hypothesis that we read about daily in almoat every thread on this board.

Secondly, you gave a stupid response. Because Ohio is one candidate and Miami is an example of how the turnover that's created from you hiring the ideal candidate leaves your program chasing it's tail (hiring principles) for a decade.
The reason my response is not stupid is that I don't accept these as the only two alternatives available. I'm willing to roll the dice as we have in basketball to have 3 MAC titles in the last 15 years.
+1

With these two choices, all of us want what Ohio has accomplished over Miami. Duh.

How about striving for more and not settling for above average.

I think some feel 7-5 every year is totally fine as long as the boys try really hard and give it their best.

Why not a poll comparing us to NIU or BG during Frank's tenure? I'd hope we would rather have their resume?

And for those of us that do want Ohio to strive to be more like them, we get blasted for not being true "fans"

Ridiculous.
So do your own poll. Do you have some special restricted membership we don't know about? Are you on probation?

This thread must be some kind of record for number of people completely missing the point.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
11/28/2015 8:25 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
This thread must be some kind of record for number of people completely missing the point.
Not sure about that, DCF. I can think of several threads this football season that equal the number of people on this thread that are completely missing the point.
mail
person
Alan Swank
11/28/2015 8:48 PM
D.A. wrote:expand_more
This is a stupid "poll." If gives a choice between two less than ideal outcomes. If I'm hiring someone for a position in any business and these are my only two candidates I'm re-posting the position.

First off it's not a stupid poll.

It's a defined question that tests Monroes hypothesis that we read about daily in almoat every thread on this board.

Secondly, you gave a stupid response. Because Ohio is one candidate and Miami is an example of how the turnover that's created from you hiring the ideal candidate leaves your program chasing it's tail (hiring principles) for a decade.
The reason my response is not stupid is that I don't accept these as the only two alternatives available. I'm willing to roll the dice as we have in basketball to have 3 MAC titles in the last 15 years.
Apples and oranges. Basketball has far and away the number one facility in the MAC, PLUS it spends fifty percent more than the nearest conference member in annual budget. Football spends in the fiftieth percentile in budget. Not even close to an equal comparison.
Dave I've looked high and low for the figures that substantiate these claims. Can you provide a link to your source, please?
mail
person
L.C.
11/28/2015 9:18 PM
bshot44 wrote:expand_more
...With these two choices, all of us want what Ohio has accomplished over Miami. Duh.

How about striving for more and not settling for above average.
...

Repeating again, this poll has nothing to do with what people are striving for. It has only to do with "what if it had happened?" Monroe has repeatedly stated that in his opinion the winning of a MACC is the only measure of success. This poll is a test to see if that is true. If Monroe were correct, then everyone would have preferred Miami's record to Ohio's since Miami did win a MACC while Ohio did not, so by Monroe's measure of success, Miami was clearly more successful than Ohio. As of now, however, only 4 people agree with Monroe (well, 3, since one of the four is no doubt Monroe), while 33 others seem to factor in other measures of success in addition to MAC Championships.

As for the question of what they should strive for, I don't think anyone thinks they shouldn't strive to win the MACC, and that is irrespective of whether they want Solich to continue as coach or not. Some people think Ohio is more apt to win a MACC with a different coach, while others of us think they would be less likely to win one with a different coach.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
11/28/2015 9:25 PM
I don't buy it. The comparison is between teams that have MACC'd and those that haven't during Solich's tenure.

But you chose only one of those schools to compare to THE OHIO UNIVERSITY.


Number one goal each year = MACC. 0 in 11 years = basically less than mathematical average. 0 < 1
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
11/28/2015 9:25 PM
And still no answer to my comparison to Webb and Boldon.

And the cupboard must not have been bare from Knorr to go to the title gmae in year 2.
mail
person
L.C.
11/28/2015 9:32 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
And still no answer to my comparison to Webb and Boldon.

And the cupboard must not have been bare from Knorr to go to the title gmae in year 2.

Have I ever said that the cupboard was bare from Knorr? No, I have said exactly the opposite, that Knorr left behind some decent players, but that Solich's strength is getting the most out of players, and he was able to get significantly more out of the same players than Knorr was.

As for Webb and Boldon, I will repeat my question. Who are/were they, and in what way are they relevant?
mail
person
Alan Swank
11/28/2015 9:53 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=Monroe Slavin] And still no answer to my comparison to Webb and Boldon.



As for Webb and Boldon, I will repeat my question. Who are/were they, and in what way are they relevant?
Yikes LC, not the answer that you probably wanted to give. They are the defending MAC tourney champ coaches in volleyball and basketball and they happen to have offices in the Convo.
mail
person
L.C.
11/28/2015 11:05 PM
Thanks Alan. There's obviously no way I would have known that since I freely admit that at least in the last 40 years, I have never watched, in person or on TV, any women's athletic event in any sport, at any level, or at any school. It's not some conscious boycott, I've just never had the slightest interest.
mail
mcbin
11/28/2015 11:51 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=Monroe Slavin] And still no answer to my comparison to Webb and Boldon.



As for Webb and Boldon, I will repeat my question. Who are/were they, and in what way are they relevant?
Yikes LC, not the answer that you probably wanted to give. They are the defending MAC tourney champ coaches in volleyball and basketball and they happen to have offices in the Convo.
This is the football board. Probably OK to not know about a relatively new BB or relatively VB coach.
mail
TWT
11/29/2015 2:25 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
This is a stupid "poll." If gives a choice between two less than ideal outcomes. If I'm hiring someone for a position in any business and these are my only two candidates I'm re-posting the position.
Just to be clear, Alan, this is a poll about past things, not future. There is nothing in the poll that says you would set out to achieve Miami's results of the last ten years. Instead, the question is, suppose that instead of hiring Solich, they had been on the coaching carousel for the last decade, and they had achieved Miami's results instead of their actual achievements. Monroe's theory is that fans only care about one thing, a MACC. If he is correct, fans would prefer Miami's results, since they did win one. Four people do feel that way, so there apparently are some people with that opinion, which surprised me, but I'm certainly not saying that they are wrong; people are entitled to whatever opinions they choose to have.
Why don't you make a poll and compare Ohio vs. Buffalo over the last 10 and the 1 MAC Championship they've one. Then compare Ohio vs. BG. Would you rather have a program who has won the last 3 MAC East titles or one that has not?
mail
TWT
11/29/2015 2:31 AM
Buffalo is 47-75 with 2 bowls and 1 MAC in 10 years. Bowling Green is 67-60 with 3 MAC East titles and 1 MAC championship in 10 years.
mail
TWT
11/29/2015 3:33 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Nebraska isn't a good comparison because they have a completely different situation....

Correct. They have far more money, far better facilties, and far more tradition, making it easier for them to hire a better coach, but it still hasn't worked for them, has it?
Right. Texas has the more money than anybody Charlie Strong coached a losing season this year in Austin. What it says is money is not the factor. The factor for success is having a staff in place that excels in both play calling and recruiting relative to its conference peers. There are 12 schools in the MAC. Northern Illinois has been to 6 straight MACCs. Bowling Green has been to 3 straight MACs. Then is a middle tier with Ohio, Toledo, CMU, WMU where 6, 7, 8 win seasons are common place. Beyond that is the lower half of the MAC where 2, 3, 4 win seasons are typical.

If half of the MAC is middle tier or above the chance of the next Ohio coach being there is 50%. That's if you take the view that Ohio is square in the middle of resources, the East/West divisions are equal and all of the scheduling is equal. Football spending at Ohio last time I checked is near the top of the MAC with NIU. The MAC East has 4 of the 6 bottom tier teams over the past decade. Ohio plays some of the easiest non-conference slates in the country. The chances of remaining in the middle tier of the MAC or better is at around 80% adding the favorable factors. A coach that would be in the middle tier to start with more upside than Solich. Year 10 and Ohio is scoring 19.3 ppg. Solich has never done more than 30 ppg and if we was capable of coaching Ohio to 35 or 40 ppg it would have happened by year 10 but instead the fans enjoyed a paltry 19.3 ppg. Any new Ohio coach has a few year grace period before MAC title games are expected. Solich answered early winning the MAC East in 2006 but is well past any performance grace period.
mail
person
Robert Fox
11/29/2015 7:43 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Thanks Alan. There's obviously no way I would have known that since I freely admit that at least in the last 40 years, I have never watched, in person or on TV, any women's athletic event in any sport, at any level, or at any school. It's not some conscious boycott, I've just never had the slightest interest.
Well... I watch a fair amount of women's collegiate sports--maybe more than most--and I didn't know who he was referring to either. Not sure what that proves.
mail
person
Robert Fox
11/29/2015 7:49 AM
This poll is utterly simple and utterly fair. Monroe says the goal is a MAC Championship. Situation's poll puts that question to the test. If Monroe's right, than nearly everyone would rather have Miami's record--since they do have a MAC Championship.

The very question forces you to recognize that there is more to "success" than merely a MAC Championship. There may be no better example of that than Miami.

Monroe could amend his "doctrine" (as LC perfectly described it) and claim that Solich should have won multiple MAC Championships during his tenure. If he did, than this poll would be invalid.

As it stands, it is perfectly valid.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
11/29/2015 9:51 AM
It's not, Robert, because it limits choice. You don't even bother to state why it's legit, you merely assert that it is.

Here's a better poll. When we hire our next coach, how would hiring a coach with Solich's record at Ohio be greeted here?
mail
The Situation
11/29/2015 9:58 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
It's not, Robert, because it limits choice. You don't even bother to state why it's legit, you merely assert that it is.
Test anything for strength and it breaks at its weakest point. Your theory is broken and it broke at Miami.

How your broken theory works compared to other choices like BG or NIU isn't relevant because it's broken.

I already said this. And you already didn't read and/or comprehend it.
mail
person
L.C.
11/29/2015 10:51 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
... There are 12 schools in the MAC. Northern Illinois has been to 6 straight MACCs. Bowling Green has been to 3 straight MACs. Then is a middle tier with Ohio, Toledo, CMU, WMU where 6, 7, 8 win seasons are common place. Beyond that is the lower half of the MAC where 2, 3, 4 win seasons are typical. ...

Using these numbers, which I think most would agree with:
Tier 1 (2): NIU, BG
Tier 2 (4): Ohio, Toledo, CMU, WMU
Tier 3 (7): Miami, Akron, Kent, Buffalo, Ball State, EMU, U.Mass

IF coaching is the only factor in determining which tier you are in, and I'm not convinced of that, then when Ohio gets a new coach, they have a 7/13 chance of dropping to Tier 3, and a 2/7 chance of rising to Tier 1, and a 4/7 chance of staying in Tier 2.
mail
person
Robert Fox
11/29/2015 10:57 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
It's not, Robert, because it limits choice. You don't even bother to state why it's legit, you merely assert that it is.

Here's a better poll. When we hire our next coach, how would hiring a coach with Solich's record at Ohio be greeted here?
Edit in part to correct my post: It was LC's poll, not Situation's.

Monroe, I did explain it. You are choosing to ignore the explanation. You claimed:
A MAC Championship is the goal.

LC pointed out that Miami has a MAC Championship. Would you rather be them? The vast majority said no, we'd rather have Ohio's record.

In this poll, the difference between Miami and Ohio is limited to the ONE goal that you want: A MAC Championship.

This poll proves that can't possibly be the only factor that matters. If it were, we'd all choose Miami's record.

Could you pick better examples than Miami? Sure. But that wouldn't isolate the MAC Championship as the critical variable.

There. That's all the explanation needed. If you don't get that, there's no more explanation that will help.
mail
person
D.A.
11/29/2015 1:08 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
This is a stupid "poll." If gives a choice between two less than ideal outcomes. If I'm hiring someone for a position in any business and these are my only two candidates I'm re-posting the position.

First off it's not a stupid poll.

It's a defined question that tests Monroes hypothesis that we read about daily in almoat every thread on this board.

Secondly, you gave a stupid response. Because Ohio is one candidate and Miami is an example of how the turnover that's created from you hiring the ideal candidate leaves your program chasing it's tail (hiring principles) for a decade.
The reason my response is not stupid is that I don't accept these as the only two alternatives available. I'm willing to roll the dice as we have in basketball to have 3 MAC titles in the last 15 years.
Apples and oranges. Basketball has far and away the number one facility in the MAC, PLUS it spends fifty percent more than the nearest conference member in annual budget. Football spends in the fiftieth percentile in budget. Not even close to an equal comparison.
Dave I've looked high and low for the figures that substantiate these claims. Can you provide a link to your source, please?

http://bbstate.com/all/budget-mbb

I'd suggest bookmarking this site. I get tired of having to post this every year for the FB naysayers that complain come NCAA tourney time that FB should be dropped or downgraded to the benefit of hoops. It is illogical that anyone should expect the same results in FB that we do in hoops when we are a me too in FB relative to our peers, but a statistical anomaly in hoops. We should expect to win the MAC more frequently than we do in hoops, both regular season and tourney, when we are completely obliterating our competition in spend and facilities. And I'm not saying we should spend less on hoops, but from purely an ROIC perspective, we get far more bang for our buck in Football based on the exposure we get on national/regional TV than we do in hoops, save for when we make the NCAA tourney.

2014 MBB Budgets- 104 out of 351 puts us in the 29th percentile of D1
104 Ohio Bobcats $3,233,899 Athens, OH
156 Toledo Rockets $2,190,051 Toledo, OH
158 Akron Zips $2,168,294 Akron, OH
162 Western Mich $2,138,520 Kalamazoo, MI
188 Buffalo Bulls $1,848,705 Buffalo, NY
193 Ball State $1,801,133 Muncie, IN
196 Eastern Mich $1,749,427 Ypsilanti, MI
197 Miami (Oh.) $1,747,252 Oxford, OH
198 Central Mich $1,727,945 Mount Pleasant, MI
211 Kent State $1,676,302 Kent, OH
213 Northern Ill $1,655,476 Dekalb, IL
219 Bowling Green $1,631,570 Bowling Green, OH
mail
The Optimist
11/29/2015 1:47 PM
D.A. wrote:expand_more
save for when we make the NCAA tourney.

Now you sound like the Frank-bashers who make up their own criteria to fit their needs.

The majority of basketball's positive exposure comes from the NCAA Tournament?

HOT TAKE.
mail
person
Alan Swank
11/29/2015 1:49 PM
Thanks DA for the link. In digging into the actual data on which the list was generated, it appears that the top 5 MAC schools spend pretty much the same money:

OU - $3,211,357
Akron - $2,954,432
Toledo - $2,808,546
Western - $2,678,729
Buffalo - $2,586,326

The difference between 1 and 5 is 19.5% and between 1 and 2 is 8% both a far cry from the 50% figure you threw out there.
mail
person
D.A.
11/29/2015 2:19 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Thanks DA for the link. In digging into the actual data on which the list was generated, it appears that the top 5 MAC schools spend pretty much the same money:

OU - $3,211,357
Akron - $2,954,432
Toledo - $2,808,546
Western - $2,678,729
Buffalo - $2,586,326

The difference between 1 and 5 is 19.5% and between 1 and 2 is 8% both a far cry from the 50% figure you threw out there.
I'm curious what is in the "actual data" that makes OHIO's budget decline, but the others increase, as you note above. OHIO is reporting expense numbers that the others weren't? I don't really care enough to look it up, but that seems odd. Not saying you are wrong, but I have seen these numbers posted on various sites over the years and haven't seen the integrity of the spreadsheet I linked questioned. Would love to know if you care to share and took the time to fact check them.
Last Edited: 11/29/2015 2:25:37 PM by D.A.
mail
person
D.A.
11/29/2015 2:21 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
save for when we make the NCAA tourney.

Now you sound like the Frank-bashers who make up their own criteria to fit their needs.

The majority of basketball's positive exposure comes from the NCAA Tournament?

HOT TAKE.
All I said is that the ROIC of a season with exposure from participating in the NCAA is much higher than one for which there is no NCAA tourney appearance. Where is the rub with that? I'm not certain that could even be debated. You have a tough time finding OHIO on broadcast TV during Hoops season, while we were just on TV four consecutive weeks in Football. I even conceded I wouldn't object for us spending more on Hoops than we already do. What am I missing?
Last Edited: 11/29/2015 2:26:36 PM by D.A.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
11/29/2015 3:23 PM
Robert it's an invidious comparison, one that chooses only one school that has MAC'd and makes that an absolute choice. There are other choices as others have astutely pointed out.

For the record, I've said win a MAC once in a reasonable while AND generally compete at or near the top of the MAC--so L.C. is not respecting all of what I've said.


How about another comparison..somewhat as arbitrary as LC's here: # of losses this year to another MAC school in which the loser gave up 40 or more points and lost by 21 or more?

I did my count quickly but I think it's EMU 4, Ball 2, Beefs 2, Kents 1, Redhawk 2, 'kron 1, UMass 1. Ohio 3.



Party on.
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 188
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)