I'm telling you, this team can be the MAC Champion this year.

D is there.

As the offense gains experience and opens up, it'll go.

Stay tuned.

Agree, on the East, Mark...but stand by my remark on the whole conference.  It won't be easy, but it's well within possibility.

In the chat room, after Kentucky was up 14-0 after 6 minutes, some said 'here we Louisville again.'  Most did not buy that--and 'most' was proven right.

This has all the marks of being a really exciting year.  This team can play.

This team did show a lot of fight in this game and they never gave up.  The problem is this team has no playmakers and the talent level was not high enough to beat this opponent.  Just thank God UK decided to try to run some kind of QB option after the first two series.  My question is did we force any turnovers?  Did we have any long runs?  This offense is not good enough to win a MACC game.  No way we beat a Ball State or CMU let aqlone an NIU or Toledo.  And the East is up for grabs but it is by no means ours to win easily.  I just hope we get a lot better as the season goes by.  I really think we are somewhere between the 4th and 7th best team in the MAC now.  Lots of teams have caught up and passed us by.

We won't need to wait for the MACC to find out the answer to that. Ohio plays CMU on October 4, and NIU on November 18.

I believe Ohio will be a lot better team by then than they are right now.

Because this year our D is out there dynamic, flying round, hitting people, getting across the line of scrimmage, making things happen.

We all likey.  We all likey very much.

I thought the defensive effort and scheme were very good yesterday. I think we used more run blitzes than we wlll in most MAC games and vs. Marshall, though. Our execution, especially in the first half, was not as good as it needs to be or will be moving forward. I was impressed with Quentin Poling's quote in today's Mark Znidar article in the Columbus Dispatch -- he understood what the problems were against the run and what we need to do to improve. Based on what I've seen on TV twice and read from pre-season camp, I think this group of players and the coaches are dialed into the same channel. I expect that we will continue to improve -- even with some setbacks -- throughout the season.

Offensively, I thought the schemes were good. We were outmanned in terms of lateral quickness which made it difficult to run wide or execute jet sweeps. We attacked vertically in the passing game when the opportunity presented itself, but didn't execute.  We need to do a better job of catching the ball. Quarterback reads looked pretty solid to me for the most part, but we need to get the ball where it needs to go more quickly. We need a runner to step up and clearly be the first guy. I thought the line play was steady.

I think Russ said he gave the receiver a "low five"

Paul--I could see how you could have that view from the two games so far this year.

So, let me state why I see more. First, there's the general cohesiveness and spirit. I know that's an intangible, so difficult to point to specifics. I see it in an offense that goes to the line snappy--no more looking to the sideline all the time even as we're at scrimmage. No more sense of a qb who isn't in sych with the coaches. And, we don't fall apart; we keep playing. (Yes, the play-calling could use a little more pizzazz, a little more motion/action...will we ever see a two-back set or the qb go under center?).

Next, our receivers, qb's,running backs and a good part of our O-line rotation (three true frosh!) are all seeing the field for the very first time or seeing substantial front-line responsibility for the first time. So, the first game, we fumbled four times. None in the second. So, we gained about no yardage for the first quarter or so against Kentucky. But we got some yards after that and our qb generally had more time to throw/was better protected than Kentucky's qb.

I'll bet you The Situation's posting privilege's for a week that about seven games from now (or less!) you will be complimenting our offense and agreeing that we have some ballplayers on the O side.

Indeed, playing 3 or more true Freshman on the offensive line (Lowery, McCray, Pruehs, for sure, but perhaps Langenkamp and Pauley as well) is indeed a recipe for a difficult year, and I agree with you that it is surprising to be in this situation. Let's look at the line recruits that from the last few years.

2010 - M. Smith, Dietz
2011 - Welter, Lucas, Powell, Curtis, McQueen (plus Everhart, Williams)
2012 - Gibbons, Watson (plus Shilke)
2013 - Murdock, Wood (plus Adams, Alcorn, J.Willaims, Noltemeyer)
2014 - Lowery, Langenkamp, Pruehs, McCray, Dudziak (plus Pauley)


A couple players left due to injury (Smith, Dietz), and a couple for other reasons (Welter, Curtis). Wood is out for the season, and Gibbons and Everhart are out temporarily. That leaves Lucas, Powell, McQueen, Watson, and Murdock, and of these, all but Murdock played, but not all played for the entire game, for whatever reason.

How did Ohio end up here? It appears that it is a combination of some injuries, plus they probably should have recruited more offensive linemen in 2012 and/or 2013. They did add a lot of walkons in 2013, but those are young, too, and it hasn't helped much.

Look out for UMASS, they only lost by three to Colorado. lol...

But seriously OHIO and UMASS do not play this year. What if both have the same conference record at the end of the year. Who wins the EAST?

Found this in 2011 thread through a Google search, but it probably still is right:

Divisional Champions

The divisional championship shall be decided on conference winning percentage. If two or more teams are tied for the championship, they shall be considered divisional co-champions. The following tie-breaking formula shall be used to determine which team will represent that division in the MAC Championship game:

1. Head-to-head competition

a. In the event of a multiple-team (two or more teams) tie, the team with the best head-to-head record amongst the tied teams wins the tie-breaker;

b. In a two-team tie, head-to-head competition will be the first criteria;

c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;

2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]

a. The above tie-breaker procedure is used to determine rank order in the division;

b. Team(s) eliminated in the second tie-breaker criterion are not included in further consideration in the tie- breaking formula;

c. Head-to-head competition is again used to break the tie between the remaining tied teams.

3. Comparison of conference winning percentage of cross-over opponents of tied teams;

a. Tie-breaker is awarded to the team whose cross-division opponents had the best cumulative conference winning percentage;

b. Head-to-head competition is used to break the tie between the two tied teams.

4. If multiple teams remain tied, the final tie-breaker is as follows:

a. Record of tied teams versus cross-division opponents in rank order;

b. Head-to-head competition is used to break the tie between the two tied teams.

Monroe, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have no doubt that as the year goes on the team will gel and we'll be more than competitive in MAC play.

My problem (also expressed by SBH and Casper, as well as Paul Graham for the past few years) is that we are dreadfully thin...and that is scandalous for year 10 of the Solich Era.

Our offense looks like an FCS team. Not necessarily the execution, but the athletes themselves. No one would confuse us for a P5 team, I assure you. And in that sense, its not a surprise that we couldn't move the ball against a P5 defense.

The quality of the product on the field is decidedly lower-tier MAC. If Solich can compete for the MAC East with that level of talent, then good for him. But for some of us, just competing for the MAC East at this point in the game is not enough.