I had the same thought during the coin toss yesterday. I said to the guy next to me, "Do you think we'll chose to receive if we win the toss, since we've done so poorly on defense at the beginning of games recently." He said, "No." And, he was right. I think, though, that had Frank been listening to me, the initial tone of the game might have been more in OHIO's favor. Now, if Frank would only listen to my suggestions on game psychology and Monroe's deft suggestions about backfield ailment and play calling, OHIO would be 7-0 right now and heading to the first Access Bowl! ;-)

I questioned it too, based on BG's offensive prowess and defensive dysfunctionality. Would've liked to have seen us try to get on the board first for a change. Of course, since we lost a fumble on our opening play, it wouldn't have mattered much.

'cause if you're successful in stopping the other team on that first drive you can get the ball first in the second half. In general I support this approach, and it's worked well for OHIO in previous years. This year, however, with our inability to play defense for the first five minutes of each game, I would think a change in approach might be in order.

I don't really believe the possession part of the process makes any difference until OT, when it's huge.

I'm always interested in the field position part of it myself. Do you take the wind now or later? Want to put the opponent in the sun field?

I think the NCAA should adopt "losers" or "suckers walk" after each score anyway. Then the humiliation factor could be brought into play, too.

Or at least give the visiting team the option to receive or defer.