This was semi-related and brought up in another thread by a Buffalo fan. Apparently they are following a similar model with their new(ish) AD by scheduling light, winnable games.

The problem is, Ohio won those games. Buffalo hasn't. Well, enough, according to Danny White.

I think that it was a great way to build the program at Ohio, considering the history (or unhistory) of the program as a whole. But at some point the schedule has to get better doesn't it? Players want to play in big games and Ohio plays in 1-3 a year depending on the MAC strength, if Marshall is any good, what power conference school it plays and lately, bowl games.

But then that begs another question: Do players care more about winning football games or playing in big football games?

I have heard this was the approach that Bill Snyder took (along with other tactics) in trying to build up Kansas State. The difference is, however, that they have in large part gone away from this now that the program is firmly established and has been a strong competitor if the Big 12/10, winning a few championships. They have traded Austin Peay for Auburn.

I personally think that a school in our situation (conference affiliation, talent etc.) should not play more than one big name opponent a year. I am also OK with not going to play the Oklahomas/Alabamas of the world regularly to have our heads bashed in. I know to be the best you have to beat them but realistically there is little to gain from these games other than a paycheck.

Going up against middle of pack Big 5 teams out of conference is not a bad thing and my preferred approach. At some point you need wins for the sake of winning as it builds confidence and satisfaction.

I would rather play Iowa than Michigan State, Kansas rather than Baylor, Syracuse rather than Florida State because I see a strong potential for victory and notoriety. I don't think there is a perfect formula for scheduling and our current approach is down the list on my concerns/frustrations with the program as it sits now.

What is my bigger frustration is that, with a coaching staff 10 years in, we should be making more steps instead of what I view as a plateau. We are light years better than we were with Knorr etc. but are we better than say year 5 with Frank? I don't think I have seen us strongly build on the initial success and improvement. I also know how difficult it can be to sustain success so I am grateful that we are not a punchline anymore. Forgive me though if I am still hungry for us to create headlines from success.

We are a solid mid-major team with a decent record and could beat any team in the conference on a given Saturday. On the flip side we have had a lackluster record against winning teams in our conference recently and lose often to teams we should beat. Count me in as someone who is still winded from the gut punch that was the end of the 2012 season after an amazing start that is haunted by what-ifs. While there have been some bright spots (Independence Bowl win, beating Marshall and Miami again) it's been frustrating too because we seemed so close to break out over the hump and currently it seems to be fading further into the distance.

With the regime in place we should not lost to Marshall by 30+ points, even if they are having a banner year and we are rebuilding. Rebuilding should still be competitive. A team that is progressing strongly probably could have beat Kentucky earlier this year. There have been some significant recruiting shortcomings over the past few years.

I love Ohio and want us to want more than a 6-6. 7-5 record. I want a team that is as dominant as our fan base is at putting butts in seats at home and on the road. All of us on here represent what is the gold standard for fan support in our conference (in good times and bad) and for that I want a championship team to reflect it.