I love this thread. Very cordial and interesting thread with learned opinions. All the comments are thought out and informative. Good stuff!

Horrible stuff here because it's the usual abstract analysis and excuse making.

So many of our players are having great years--okay...if you haven't watched us play. About none of our guys except Bonstetter and Jovon are solid game after game after game. And you'll see that in the lack of All-MAC recognition.

Then, look at who we've beaten. Teams that are lousy.

Then, look at who who we've lost to and how we've lost. Against the good teams, game over after the first 6-10 minutes...and same against some of the lower or mid-level MAC teams.

That doesn't preclude next year being a log better...though I doubt that a LOT of guys will go from non-descript to stellar..and we'll have problems at d-line and d-back, at least.

But just a bit of ability to acknowledge the truth, a bit of ability to grasp what we really are would be nice.

I have nothing against being positive...Read my pre-season posts and my posts for volleyball and last year's hoops. It's the utter failure by some to leaven that hope with reality that irks. I'm a businessperson. If I ran a business with 'it's all sunshine' in spite of results that proved otherwise...


I watched a bit of CMU/EMU today. EMU--improving, didn't quit, dropped lots of passes. CMU--used pistol and went under center, with 1, 2, and 3 back sets under center. (Apparently, using more than one back is legal.)






i apologize to all for watching some of cmu/emu.

cc cat/borna. Fringe Membership Application

Permission to join the OCF fringe?

Approved__________ Denied___________

I await your determination of this pending application.

Bcat2

It is official. We have now morphed to the level of the avid Ohio State fan. As John Cooper, who was only 111-43 while at Ohio State, was no longer good enough for OSU and their fans, the same is true of Solich. Apparently a 6-6 record is no longer good enough at Ohio University. Not sure when that happened, but OK.

I wholeheartedly agree with JSF as to football now. I seriously do. It's only a matter of time before the P5s up the scholarship limit to 105, at which point Ohio and the MAC are screwed anyway. And football's popularity will eventually wane given the potential harm of concussions, fewer youth playing youth football (a phenomenon which actually is now occurring), etc.

Sorry to be so morose. Having my first Great Lakes Christmas Ale of the season (delicious as always!) and the lubrication is in full force and effect!

I just don't want to be "that guy" who demands to see a coach fired after a .500 season, that's all.

And Monroe, I only called you the Mr. Gloom & Doom when it comes to football. I know how positive you are as to Women's Volleyball, Men's B-Ball, etc. I wish all Ohio alumni had the same love and passion for all things Ohio that you do!

That leads to an interesting question. Should football be run like a business, or like something else? If like a business, like what sort of business?

Obviously management methods that work in one type of business don't necessarily apply to other types of business. For example, some businesses are sales oriented, while others are marketing oriented. Some are R&D oriented, while others are craft/quality driven. Still others are service oriented. Yet others are driven based on cost control and efficiency. Applying the wrong management style to any of these would be a sure disaster.

As an example, compare a venture capital startup to a business that focuses on quality and service. In a startup, things move fast, and you have to act fast. There is no time to wait. If something is wrong, you have to change it fast. By contrast, in the service/quality driven business, the driving engine is the craftsmen, and those can not be changed quickly, so you have to move slowly.

As another example, compare a sales oriented business to a cost driven business. In the sales oriented business, you need to pay top dollar, and provide exciting incentives to encourage and motivate your sales force. In a cost driven business, you cant afford that, and sales aren't going to change much anyway.

Turning to football, should college football be run like a business, and if so, what kind? On the one extreme, the NFL is a business, while at the other extreme, high school football is not. College is in between. There is a lot of money involved, and a lot of people, meaning that management skill is important, since the head coach is as much a manager as he is an actual coach. On the other hand, its not profitable, which makes it unlike a business. Also, it has limited retention of players - they come and go quite quickly, another thing that makes it less like a business. Finally, the main function is teaching and training, yet another difference from a business.

So, if it is a business, what type? The recruiting end of it is like a sales organization. That seems clear. What about the rest of the job? To me, it is like a craft, more than the other types of business. In football there really isn't anything new under the sun. The game changes over time, but changes slowly. Yes, there are different offensive schemes, like the pistol, or the "Air Raid", but in the end, you could still run a Single Wing, Wishbone, or Power I, and win games. The same is true of defenses. There are new ideas in defenses, but really, they are always variations of older ideas.

In the end, football comes down to the little things, the blocking, tackling, and playing fundamentally sound football. Thus, the most important thing is the craft, having the basics correct. You start with high school players who have a variety of backgrounds, and you educate them as to the proper techniques to use, and get them all playing together. You also teach them the proper ways to exercise, and the proper diet, and over time make them into better football players.

What does that tell me? That while it has some aspects of a business to it, the managing of people and expenses, it is more like a craft, or even and educational system than it is like a business.

Obviously, coaching at the NFL and College level are very different, which is why coaches that are good at one level are more often than not, not good at the other. College coaching is all about taking players from diverse high school programs and teaching them the techniques, practice methods, diet and work ethic they need to succeed. They also select appropriate systems, and teach them what keys to look at, and how to run the system, but the systems can't be overly complex because players are only there for 4 years, and usually only play regularly for 1-2 of those. On top of that, they have other responsibilities, too, such as recruiting on the one hand, and making sure their student athletes are attending and doing well in classes, plus they are very limited in when and how often the players can practice.

By contrast, in the NFL you have players that have already learned the techniques and work habits, and have proven what they can do. Also, they may be in the same system for many years. They also don't have the distractions that are related to dealing with student athletes. The coaches can focus on much more complex systems, since they don't have to work on the basics, and don't have some of the other distractions.

August 30, 2014:

http://www.bobcatattack.com/messageboard/topic.asp?FromPa...

Is it just me, or do you hedge your bets to such an extreme that you can't actually turn a profit. It's like you're gambling to break even.

Hey I'm all about re-evaluating personal positions on contentious topics.

So long as we respect the record.

The record shows, as recently as August 30, 2014 YOU felt we had all the pieces and parts in place to make the MACC.

Any claim in your future rants that you've seen this "program collapse" coming since before August 30, 2014 is invalid.

Ironically, a group in my office is about 45 minutes away from returning to another one of my theoretical rating systems that has been in place for over a year now.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertai...

Just to be clear, I don't think this staff is perfect. I think there are areas where they can improve. I just think that you pick the wrong things to criticize them for. For example, you'll note that I never really argue with Casper or Paul when they wonder why recruiting improved so slowly. That's because I agree with them that, with the exception of the 2008 class, most of the early classes were unremarkable up until the 2013 class.

Nevertheless, the coaches have done a lot with what they had. Now, with back to back good classes in 2013 and 2014, they have some pretty solid (but still young) talent, and I look forward to seeing what they can do with it. So, yes, I agree with them that Solich isn't the recruiter than PJ Fleck is, but I think he makes up for it with solid coaching, plus loyalty to the school.

BTW, I apologize for the fact that I haven't had time to complete my recruiting analysis yet. I still plan on doing it, but am tremendously busy IRL lately.