For years the coaches have been explaining that Ohio's play calling, both from the sideline and at the line of scrimmage is based upon reading the defense and creating match-ups to Ohio's advantage. Certainly when coach Solich gains a three TD advantage and the game is well in hand, like Idaho, the play calling will become conservative, as much to not embarrass as anything. However, vs Marshall, IMHO, Ohio needed to play keep away from the Herd. Marshall is a dangerous team. What you call "playing not to lose" was a plan to own the ball and keep Marshall's offense off the field. NIU actually beat Marshall in time of possession by about a minute and still got thumped. "Playing not to lose" as you call it allowed Ohio to finish +9:52 on the clock or time of possession. The "playing not to lose" paid off too.

That's a great plan when you are getting first downs and gaining yards. With Sprague in the game, in the second half, the drives were: 5 plays, 5 plays, 3 plays, 3 plays, 3 plays, 3 plays. That led up to the 19-play 85 yard drive that sealed it. Six consecutive short drives with an inability to move the ball left us barely ahead in a game that it felt like we dominated on the defensive side. Of those six consecutive short drives, I don't have the info in front of me, but I'd love to know how many 1st down throws were in there. Off the top of my head, maybe 1? That's what I meant by predictability in the second half. Run, run, incompletion, punt. Repeat. Throwing on early downs on the sealing TD drive seemed to back Marshall off a bit, and I'm not sure why we didn't try it earlier in the second half.

I hope some of you realize that 3 and out is part of football? The key is the entire offense beared down come crunch time with a 3rd strin QB at the helm. That is what winners do. If it was easy everyone would score 50 every week. Solid game plan and execution.

Yes, of course. I also realize that we have to give some credit to Marshall as well. They fought hard to the end. None of the yardage was gained easily.

I was just showing that the 3 and outs weren't caused by the first down plays. Those generally worked fairly well. The drives were almost always stopped by penalties or incompletions.

Interestingly, Ohio had 13 first down plays in the second half. On six of those series Ohio ran nothing but running plays, while on seven series they attempted at least one pass. On the six series where they did nothing but run the ball, they either got the first down or a touchdown 83% of the time (5/6). On the series where they attempted at least one pass, they got the first down 43% of the time (3/7).

Another way to look at it is that Ohio attempted 10 passes in the second half. After you factor in sacks and penalties, they netted a total of 19 yards on those 10 plays. There were 4 incompletions (0 ea), a completion for -2, a sack for -9, a completion for 9 that ended up a -5 after a penalty, and three completions for positive yardage, 10, 11, and 14. [I know this doesn't match how stats are officially computed - the holding penalty isn't officially counted against passing, and the sack is charged to rushing, but it reflects the reality of what was going on.]

Meanwhile, in the second half they ran 24 running plays, and gained only 90 yards. That's a not-very-good average of 3.75 yards a carry, but better than the 1.9 yards/pass attempt. More significantly they were only stopped for less than 2 yards 4 of the 24 times, so the yardage wasn't coming in chucks, but they were grinding it out effectively and consistently.

I would say that the data does not support the idea that passing more would have worked better. In fact, I would say that the data shows that Ohio only scored when they finally stopped passing altogether. I wouldn't suggest doing that every game, but it did work here.

Riiight. Wait for it.

Tell us more.

As a FWIW, we can evaluate the effectiveness by looking at history. Since 2009 Ohio is:
When leading at the half: 42-1
When tied at the half: 3-3
When behind at the half: 6-26

The cases where Solich's strategy don't work seem to be very few, as in, only once since 2009. Of course, we all remember which game it was, the one time that Ohio had a team come from behind against them, and we wish it were some other game. Note that even during the "down period", between the loss to Miami in 2012 and the win over Buffalo in 2014 Ohio never lost a game where they led at the half.

As a side note, Ohio's ability to come from behind did change dramatically over time, and was noticeably worse during the "down time". I think that's what bothered people the most about that period; when they fell behind, they never were able to come back:
2009 up until Miami Loss: 5-11 when behind at the half
Miami 2012 until Buffalo 2014: 0-15
Since Buffalo: 1-0

What is the norm for these numbers in the coaching industry? Honestly I have no idea. If I had to guess I'd say teams probably win about 80% of the time when they are ahead at the half. Thus for Solich to win 98% of the time when ahead has to be extremely unusual. His 6-26 at coming from behind, which is 19% is probably pretty typical. His record when behind in between the Miami and Buffalo games was horrible, but the rest of the time was very good, and taken together, they are probably about average.

I would add that if you'd like to give me some names of coaches where you like their style of play better when ahead, I'll be happy to look up their records and see how it compares.

I am confident that you just saw a win against a team that will have a winning record. It was also against a team that will no doubt score a lot of points before the year is up. Marshall has a decent offense. They also have a good defense. They just ran into a buzz saw in Athens.


I would say EVERY team comes in knowing that they better score a lot of points. They definitely want MACtion, not a defensive struggle. You see, another tidbit that I found in the game notes is that since 2009 Ohio is an incredible 26-0 in games where they hold the other team under 20 points. Apparently, Solich and company are very good at coming out on top in defensive battles. Other teams do NOT want that kind of game.

What about moderate scoring games, in the 20's? Since Ohio went to the pistol, Ohio is 10-7 when giving up 20-29 points, so really, if the other team wants to win, they better plan on more points than 29. How about 30-39? Since going to the pistol, Ohio is 4-5 when the other team scores 30-39 points. Thus, scoring that much is nice, but won't necessarily secure a win for the opponent. Now, if the other team scores 40, that's a different story. Ohio is 0-8 since 2009 when giving up 40 or more.

So, in the end the data does support part of your modified position. Yes, Solich and company have not won many games by MACtion. In 2007 they did beat EMU by the score of 48-42 and in 2009 they beat Akron by 49-92, but those are the only times.

As it happens, I don't care for MACtion, and I love defensive struggles, so that's why the strategy doesn't bother me. Solich and company are very good at it. Now, I sense that you are more fond of MACtion than I am, and that's why it bothers you.

Teams having to score over 20 to beat us is about beating our defense, not really about what our offense does.

Look, if you've seen us play a lot then you know that we get conservative a lot. It works at times--again, against lesser opponents. But when we need to put up points given time and/or score pressure, I'm afraid that we're too often at a disadvantage.

BUTM as an acronym is a hallmark of conservative play. No heavy jumbo/two-back sets at the goal line, no under center at the goal line, few throws to TE's, mostly throwing slants, etc. We do what we do and we don't do much different, including being better under time/score pressure.

Monroe, perhaps you have heard this, "Defense Wins Championships"

Look, if you have been observing this 2015 team, when push came to shove at the end of both games they used a conservative approach which put up points without any appearance of being disadvantaged.

Now Monroe, let me introduce you to Mr. Heitzman, TE/HB and Mr. Lowery OT. This season you will see them "Jumbo" the set near the goal. Unbalanced with Heitzman at H back in front of Ouellette is about as heavy as it gets. Worked for a TD vs Marshall. Heitzman from TE already has a Red Zone TD from Sprague.

Monroe, if you will catch up to what this team has been giving us since Buffalo last season you might just let go of your misinformation.

No, it will just allow them to forget that they lost these games, and they will go back to thinking they are superior, without having any recent facts to the contrary providing cognitive dissonance.


No, it's about both. You have to beat an opposing TEAM, not just their offense, or just their defense. As you know, Solich usually wins with defense.


Like Marshall (multiple times) and Penn State, or if you go back further, perhaps Temple, Pitt, Illinois, and others?


Offensive play calling is more than just calling random plays, it's a strategy. As I showed you a couple years ago in that video series by Vince Lombardi, every offense has to have a key play, one that the defense has to commit to stop. You have a play you are going to run, and the defense knows it, and they try to stop it. When they over-commit to try to stop it, you take advantage of the weaknesses they create elsewhere.

Sometimes the defense over-commits at the start because they are determined not to let you even get started, which was what La-Monroe did. When they do that, you take advantage early. Sometimes they don't, and they line up in a straight defense, and force you to prove that you can run your core offense. If you are able to run your core offense against their base defense, that forces them to change their defense, and then you hit them somewhere else.

That's how football has been played since it's inception.

I think it's just a difference in taste. If I play chess, I like a slow, tactical game. I suspect Monroe is more partial to speed chess.

When it comes to football, I like games that are battles, like the Marshall game. Monroe, I think, has preferences that run more to MACtion, and he'd prefer the BG style, losing 59-30 to Tennessee and winning 48-27 over Maryland. Neither approach is clearly right, or clearly wrong. In the end you have to win, whether you go with a wide-open attack, or a ball-control attack, and if the Bobcats keep winning, and I think they will, I think most fans will be happy.

I agree that a very good passing game is a good to have, but I also feel that there are times you want to deploy your running game. A perfect example was that clock consuming 15 play drive at the end of the Marshall game that ate 6 minutes off the clock. It not only ended in a score, it ate so much clock that it doomed Marshall before they ever got the ball back.

Suppose that instead of a long drive, Ohio had hit a long bomb in the first series and scored. The points would have been the same, but Marshall would have gotten the ball back with something like 8 minutes left instead of 1:40. A lot of things could have happened in 8 minutes, but the chances of Marshall scoring twice in 1:40 were almost non-existent.

Where Monroe and I differ in this, I think, is that I love to see the strategic use of time management, and I'm looking at the overall strategy, while he likes to see big plays and TDs, and he actually views strategic time management as a negative rather than a positive, regardless of whether it is effective or not.