Too funny.

Yes. This argument--like so many things--is a matter of degree. At this point, we have not reached the "fire Frank" point. That's my opinion. Add another 10 years of the same basic results and I would reach that point.

However, even if that were to happen. I wouldn't spout about it on a public message board.

I recognize that I'm different than other people here, but I'll give my views. To me the MACC is a minor distraction, nothing more. Outside of Ohio few people really care about it, or know who won it, much less who played in it. The only real national attention in College Football comes from being in the National Championship, and short of that, from being on TV, and from being in bowl games, precisely because the bowl games are on TV, and on better nights than Tuesdays in November.

Where do I get my enjoyment? I enjoy each game for itself. I like watching the action. I enjoy watching Freshmen develop from raw players into polished players as Seniors. For example, I look forward to watching Maleek Irons develop from the raw Freshman with flashes of pure talent into a polished, dominating running back as a Senior who is ready for the next level. I go into it knowing I will take the good with the bad. With the many wins will come the few losses. With the players that develop into NFL caliber talent will come the players who get hurt, or who fail because of off the field issues.

I enjoy watching the battle up front, and watching how the rest of the game revolves around that, even as everyone else focuses on the ball. When the linemen are winning their battles, the running game works, and the passing game, too. I enjoy watching the strategy, as the defenses adjust to try to stop the offense, and then the offense does something to take advantage of the the adjustments the defense made. I enjoy the moments of greatness, too, like the one handed catches of Foster or Brazill, or the leaps of AJ or Papi, or tipped passes by Wells, or the punishing block Futrell made on the EMU linebacker (especially since the EMU linebacker wasn't actually hurt on the play).

And what of the MAC Championship? Would winning it be nice? Sure, I'd like to see them win it, but not for me, for the players. They are the ones working hard, and if they win it, they are the ones that earned it, and who should celebrate it. To me the MACC means little to nothing, personally. Honestly, until Monroe started harping on it every day I never even thought about it because it means so little to me.

Now, I do admit, that if the MACC was like in other sports, such as basketball, and the MACC was a gateway to an automatic qualifying position in a playoff to the National Championship, then I'd care more, a lot more. Since all it gets you is a banner and a mention on page 10 of ESPN, I don't see it as a big deal at all.

The other thing I enjoy seeing is the continual cycle of improvement. Sure, there is always the cyclicality, from the best teams which result from the best recruiting classes, to the rebuilding cycle, and back. But, year in, year out, the lows get higher, and the highs get higher, and the facilities get better. It's been amazing to watch. I expect the highs of 2016-17 to be better than the highs of 2009-11, and I expect the next rebuilding cycle, probably 2018-9 to be better than 2013-2014, which in turn means, I don't expect to ever see a .500 season again.

And, what of the TV exposure. Now, it seems to me that Ohio has been on TV as much or more than any other MAC team, and they regularly have a market share among the best in the MAC (which is why they are on TV more). I don't have hard numbers, but it also feels to me as if Ohio has won far more often on TV than they have lost, I'd guess 2/3 wins, 1/3 losses. That is also helping to grow their prestige nationwide.

Now, I suppose I should have expected the same forces that destroyed the football program at Nebraska to appear at Ohio, but honestly, the people here were so nice that I didn't see it coming. Nevertheless, it's here, and while it's still a small faction, no doubt it will continue to grow in power until it leads to the same result, but hopefully not for a good long while.

Now, while I don't feel like it, I'm an old timer, I guess, not too far behind OCF. I used to follow a lot of sports, and played a lot more of them. I've had to give up most of the ones I played, and I guess I could have turned more to watching them, but the fans appalled me, and I have stopped following most sports. I'm down to just watching Ohio football, and I've already accepted that it will go soon, too. I'm tired of the pointless arguments, day after day, the growing sense of entitlement, the "grass is always greener on the other side" mentality, particularly when it comes from people who demonstrably have never played the game, and whose knowledge comes solely from either playing video games or watching it on TV.

When the discussion turns into insanely stupid commentary like "what the running back does is irrelevant of what the line is doing" or "a good play call is solely based on surprise, and has nothing to do with what the defense is doing", and then when the person responsible for such idiocy professes to know that is best for the program, I wonder why I even bother posting here.

Once upon a time there were some interesting discussions here, but now they no longer seem to occur, just one thread after another hijacked to talk about the same things. Once upon a time you used to see former players posting here, and parents posting here, and people from the athletic department posting here. Now you see virtually none of the above. The reason why is obvious, if you think about it.

I don't disagree with this. The irony is that when I posted that very comment a year ago, I was mocked for weeks or months by Monroe for making a distinction between close losses and losses by over 25, which was the number I chose for a "large" loss.

I will say, though, that as the rules changes have evolved the game into more "basketball on grass", the margins of victory are no doubt larger nationwide, not just in the MAC. I don't think that makes it a better game, just different. I also think that one of the downsides to Ohio's switch to a Cover-4 is that when they lose, they tend to lose bigger. It's funny, though, how some teams get shut down by that defense, while others have a field day. There is much I have to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of Cover 4.

Margin of victory isn't telling like it was. A Top 25 school that doesn't show up can lose by 40 points. Penalty yardage. Reliability of big plays. Few receivers were athletic enough to make 20 yard catches over the middle in traffic years ago. Athleticism has turned low probability plays into high ones. I get annoyed with the announcers who yammer on the MOV of games. Ohio dominated Marshall the week after Marshall dominated Purdue. I know Purdue is in the Big Ten but its common knowledge they aren't good. It didn't say much of anything about Marshall. Is anyone going to be surprised if Ohio beats Kansas next year?

Well said, LC. Much of what you describe prevented me from posting for a time. Maybe the change in BA.com is an inevitable evolution of a fan site that is attached to an improving program. So many of our fans despise OSU, but the more competitive we get, ironically, the more we resemble that type of fan base.

I don't know where all this "I'm above winning and losing...and I just enjoy the game for what it is...the results don't matter...blah, blah, blah" began...

I love football....I LOVE college football. I attended Ohio University from 1994-1998 and saw us rise from a pile of garbage program that went winless in '94 to an 8-3 season in '97.

I tailgated for pretty much every game -- home and away -- in '97 because I wanted to have the experience that most students/fans get when supporting their college football team. I didn't want to just show up and watch the first half...check out the band...and then leave.

Half the enjoyment of college football (to me at least) is the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it. The tailgating, the atmosphere, the play on the field....and yes (dare I say!) the results!

It was so much more fun supporting Ohio football in '97 when they were winning and the energy around the team was great......then it was in '94 when they were a total and complete afterthought.

As the years went on...we drifted slowly back into an afterthought under Brian Knorr.....then came Frank.

Frank changed everything. There was suddenly a new energy around the program.....and then the results started to come. Not only were we winning a few more games....but we were competing for championships.

Football at Ohio was actually relevant! If you'd told me that in '94 I would have laughed at you.

Ohio was in the Top 25....in Sports Illustrated....being at least discussed in the same sentence as BCS Buster....

This was an all-time high for Ohio's football program.

For someone who grew up in the shadows of those damn Buckeyes and their insufferable fans....and someone who bounced around a lot of different cities across the US post-college.....it was nice to finally have a relevant football program! MY PROGRAM! One that was no longer an afterthought....

So now that I live back closer to Athens....what's wrong if I want to see us remain at that level?

What's wrong if I hate the weeknight games on TV because I want to experience the Saturday afternoon atmosphere of college football for MY TEAM.

And what's wrong if I want MY TEAM to be relevant!? If I want them to compete for championships?!

I love Ohio football....and for me it's much, much more enjoyable when they're playing relevant football on a Saturday afternoon in November than it is playing meaningless games on Tuesday nights in November.

I don't know how that makes me "a greedy fan" or "just like those Buckeye fans"?

If you guys just love watching the plays, etc......so be it. I totally respect that.

But don't preach to me that I'm in the wrong for wanting our program to return to the level it was from 2009-11 and stay there.

And if that means questioning things like coaching, play-calling, effort, etc......so be it.

In 2009 when Ohio finally made that leap to national relevance...I think we all thought "Wow...this program can be more...we CAN be legit"

So what's wrong with wanting that more consistently? Why should I settle for regressing back to a 6-6, 7-5 football program? Because you guys like to watch the plays and players try really hard?

The last three games this year (and hopefully the bowl) are big strides in the right direction and give me hope that -- as LC has stated many, many times -- that 2016 is the year Ohio returns to the top of the MAC...or at least competes for it.

I won't temper my excitement for Ohio football....nor will I temper my expectations of being a competitive football program whose goal is to win championships. I know they have the ability to do so...we've seen it. In 1994, that was totally an unrealistic dream. Not so much anymore.

So for those who don't get caught up in winning and losing and just want to support the boys and watch them play really hard......go for it. As I said, I totally respect that.

But don't bash the other half that wants to see us strive to be more. It doesn't make us greedy and unappreciative of what we have and how far we've come. We just want to see Ohio succeed to the best of their ability...and I think this program has fallen short of that in recent years. (And I'm guessing Frank & Co would admit as much too)

Just to be clear, I think both are very important. You can coach guys up, but only so far. You can find gems in the rough, but only so many. As a result, you do need to keep recruiting better and better athletes each year if you want the program to continue to improve. Indeed the recruiting has improved, and continues to improve, but the pace has been slower than many would like. Maybe that's the reason why a MACC takes on importance? The biggest jump in the quality of Osborne's recruits came AFTER he won a championship.

As for the walkon program, that's critically important for some different reasons. The first reason is that walkons are hard workers because they come in with a chip on their shoulders. As a result they imbue the culture with an ethic of hard work, and a competition to get better. The walkons push to get better to catch the scholarship athletes, while the scholarship athletes push to get better to stay ahead of the walkons. If they are treated fairly, a few of the walkons will turn out to be gems in the rough, as, for example, Devin Jones.

The second reason that walkons are important is that with only 85 scholarship athletes, you never have enough depth, and when the injury stick hits a position particularly hard, then what? Walkons provide extra depth. As an example, consider the linebacker position this year. Linebacker play did decline when Poling, Brown, and Johnson were all hurt, but how much more would it have declined without Moore and Daugherty?

As for our argument that "if only Ohio had a different offense, recruits would be better", I don't buy it, or at least, I think it's a minor effect. That argument was used at Nebraska, but when the offense changed (several times), nothing much happened differently in the recruiting area. I do buy the argument that recruiting is affected by facilities, and I do buy the argument that recruiting is affected by winning and going to bowl games.

I also buy the argument that recruiting is affected by coaching stability, which in turn is the biggest problem with having an older coach. At Ohio 5 years ago a player could come to Ohio with a reasonable assurance that the coaching staff would be more or less the same during his entire playing career, but today, I think a recruit has to consider that Solich will retire at some point. I'm not sure how you get around that. Perhaps the AD makes it clear that if and when Solich retires, the assistant Head Coach will become the head coach. In that case, that would be Burrow, and then he would become a key part of the recruiting as well as Solich.


Note that my comments began "I recognize that I'm different than other people here, but I'll give my views." He asked for views, so I gave mine. I don't expect anyone to have the same views I do, and I certainly would never tell anyone they have to enjoy football the same way I do, so please don't take my giving my perspective as a criticism of your perspective.

Wasn't your comments I was referring to my friend. Appreciate the clarification tho....

I've never understood the insistence on 85 scholarships. That would be like having 28 volleyball players on scholarship when only 7 play at one time. The NFL gets it done with 53.

Thanks for the nice post.

Just for the record, under Solich OHIO has been to the MACC three times, not one. However, we had not won it. We lost the last time to NIU, 23-20, after leading at halftime 20-0.

Agree with Alan here. At one time the scholarship limit was 105, and you should have heard the coaches yell when it was reduced to 95, before being reduced to 85. When it was 105, the MAC had a self-imposed limited of 95, which, among other things, kept UC from rejoining the MAC along with Louisville in circa 1969. The whole history of the MAC would have been so much different if the MAC Daddies had agreed to move the limit to 105 to accommodate UC and UL.

When comparing to the NFL keep in mind that the limit is the "active roster". If a player gets hurt, they can acquire a different one by the next week. Also keep in mind that all 53 are "ready to play", whereas in college many of the kids are still in the developmental stage, and some are not "ready to play" until their Junior year. At least 1/3 of the players of the 85 players would fit the mold of "not ready to play". By the time you include both factors, the 53 player NFL limit is probably less limiting than the 85 at the college level.

As compared to other sports, I can't comment on that. The limits are presumably set in a reasonable way such that there are about enough players to do the job, but not enough than one team can stockpile all the talent. In a sport where it's easier to come straight out of high school and play I would expect a lower limit, and in a sport where a player needs time to lift and build size, I'd expect a higher one.