Ohio Football Topic
Topic: #77
Page: 1 of 2
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 12:20 PM
KyleWvr13
General User
Member Since: 11/10/2010
Location: Pottstown, PA
Post Count: 503
mail
KyleWvr13
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 12:58 PM
I'd say our ranking is spot on with our performance to end the season: Bellow average.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 1:09 PM
No problem with the ranking. Above our average recruiting ranking must mean great coaching-right?
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 1:35 PM
At least we're not #124.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 1:41 PM
4 spots above Florida and 6 above Tennessee .
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 1:44 PM
These rankings are nearly useless on a comparative basis. Would Ohio beat Tennessee or Florida? No.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 2:31 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
These rankings are nearly useless on a comparative basis. Would Ohio beat Tennessee or Florida? No.

Florida lost at home to Georgia Southern and Tennessee barely topped South Alabama in a home game, so I'd certainly give Ohio a chance.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,823
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 2:40 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
These rankings are nearly useless on a comparative basis. Would Ohio beat Tennessee or Florida? No.

Florida lost at home to Georgia Southern and Tennessee barely topped South Alabama in a home game, so I'd certainly give Ohio a chance.


With the way the offense played, I wouldn't.

Then again, Florida's offense wasn't much better.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 3:28 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
These rankings are nearly useless on a comparative basis. Would Ohio beat Tennessee or Florida? No.

Florida lost at home to Georgia Southern and Tennessee barely topped South Alabama in a home game, so I'd certainly give Ohio a chance.


In a single game, yes I'd give Ohio a chance too. But overall, is Ohio better than either of those teams? No.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 3:40 PM
77 is difficult to argue with.

My question is:  how do all feel about that?  how do all feel about where we are?
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 5:26 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
77 is difficult to argue with.

My question is:  how do all feel about that?  how do all feel about where we are?

I'm not happy with it. I'd realistically like to be closer to the Top 40.
 
Disappointing? Yes. But let's take a look at some other teams around us in these useless rankings:

#75 Utah -- That Utah school that beat Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl and finished #2 in the country? Ute betcha.

#79 TCU -- The program that also busted the BCS by playing in all four BCS Bowl Games and finishing #6 in 2009 and #2 in 2010? Great Horny Toads!

#81 Florida -- National champs in 2006 and 2008? Sugar Bowl and a Top Ten rating in 2012? My, my, Meyer.

#88 WVU -- The school that put up 70 points on Clemson in the 2011 Orange Bowl? Had Top 25 finishes consecutively from 2005-2011 (and a Top 5 appearance during the 2012 season)? Great googly moogly. WWCLT? (What Would Chuck Landon Think)

After tastes of recent sustained success, ask these fans if they are happy with this year's rankings and they're likely even more disappointed than we are.

 
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 8:24 PM
Someone on this board pointed out that we've won 10 games only once in the recent renaissance. Given that the out of conf sched and the MAC sched bring about 4-6 easy wins a year....


Stunter, you note that all of those teams are back in the pack after great success.  We're only back in the pack.
Last Edited: 1/8/2014 8:25:38 PM by Monroe Slavin
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,823
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 8:52 PM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
77 is difficult to argue with.

My question is:  how do all feel about that?  how do all feel about where we are?

I'm not happy with it. I'd realistically like to be closer to the Top 40.
 
Disappointing? Yes. But let's take a look at some other teams around us in these useless rankings:

#75 Utah -- That Utah school that beat Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl and finished #2 in the country? Ute betcha.

#79 TCU -- The program that also busted the BCS by playing in all four BCS Bowl Games and finishing #6 in 2009 and #2 in 2010? Great Horny Toads!

#81 Florida -- National champs in 2006 and 2008? Sugar Bowl and a Top Ten rating in 2012? My, my, Meyer.

#88 WVU -- The school that put up 70 points on Clemson in the 2011 Orange Bowl? Had Top 25 finishes consecutively from 2005-2011 (and a Top 5 appearance during the 2012 season)? Great googly moogly. WWCLT? (What Would Chuck Landon Think)

After tastes of recent sustained success, ask these fans if they are happy with this year's rankings and they're likely even more disappointed than we are.

 

All four of those teams you mentioned had completely dreadful seasons and there are reasons for their demise. That doesn't make Ohio any better than them just because Ohio is ranked higher by USA Today. 

Utah - They haven't been right since they moved to the PAC 12. The win over Stanford at home was a huge program boost and they'll probably bounce back once the money from the league starts flowing in. Lets not forget that the PAC 12 was arguably the second best conference in the country before the bowl season started. Would Ohio beat them this year? It would be a good game. They beat three bowl teams (Stanford, Utah State, and BYU) and played another, Arizona State, close and lost by one. They finished 5-7, one win from bowl eligibility.  

TCU - Like Utah, struggling a little bit to find their footing in a bigger conference and for the second straight season, had complete turmoil at the QB position when Casey Paschall went down with a season ending injury. Before this season, they had eight straight winning seasons, six of them being double digit win seasons. Even with the inexperience at QB, they were virtually competitive in every game they played. They only lost two games by more than 10 points (Texas and Oklahoma State). Would Ohio beat them? I want to say yes because of their QB situation, but I think it would be closer than you might think. TCU is still the better program and has better players.

Florida - Florida was basically Georgia without Aaron Murray this year. They were completely decimated by injuries. Once again, an example of a team that really needed a QB. Even when Jeff Driskell played, he was downright awful at times, but they probably would have made it to bowl eligibility with a somewhat competent QB under center. They started 4-1, then lost seven straight games, right after he got hurt. Correllation? I think so. This was their first losing season since 1979. Would Ohio beat them? No. Don't give me the Georgia Southern line. Florida had already given up on the season and played a team that ran the triple option. That was Georgia Southern's Super Bowl. It would be closer than the Toledo win (24-6), but we would not beat them. 

WVU - WVU hasn't been anything since their winning streak ended in 2012 and Holgerson isn't the coach to get them out of it. They were ranked 100th in points allowed. Their offense was probably just as inconsistent as Ohio's. One week they wouldn't score at all and another they would score 30+ on someone. This was their first season missing a bowl game since 2001. I'm beginning to think the travel in the Big 12 is taking its toll on this program. Would Ohio beat them? Depends on which Ohio and West Virginia offenses showed up. If Ohio's offense played to it's full potential then yeah, they could beat them. Ohio's defense is better than WVU's for sure, but that's not saying much.

Of course these fans aren't happy with where they are. But I doubt they're looking at Ohio as a team that's better than them.

 
Last Edited: 1/8/2014 8:55:12 PM by GoCats105
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 9:41 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
No problem with the ranking. Above our average recruiting ranking must mean great coaching-right?
I'd be very happy with a #77, actually. As you point out, the recruiting classes were ranked in the 90's (and 2010 was more like 120) so that's 20 places above that, about what you would realistically hope for. The problem is that I don't think Ohio really belongs that high.



 
Last Edited: 1/8/2014 9:43:21 PM by L.C.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 10:23 PM
I agree that the actual rankings mean little because they're ONE person's view of how things are; they're subject to the person's own biases and expectations.  I'm more concerned about two straight seasons of 1-3 Novembers. 
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/8/2014 10:36 PM
Agree LC, Sagarin has us at 122 below a lot of FCS schools. But all this stuff is rather meaningless anyway because every person has their own version of reality.
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,763
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 9:37 AM
To get anything better we have to schedule some better teams and beat one once in a while, while winning most of our MAC games. It's that simple.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 9:47 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Agree LC, Sagarin has us at 122 below a lot of FCS schools. But all this stuff is rather meaningless anyway because every person has their own version of reality.


To be clear, the Myerberg/USAT ratings that the thread is named in reference to are strictly FBS rankings.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 10:41 AM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
To get anything better we have to schedule some better teams and beat one once in a while, while winning most of our MAC games. It's that simple.

Agree 100% on the MAC wins -- 4-4 won't cut it. Disagree on the scheduling better teams. Three out of four non-conf. opponents (not counting ECU) were bowl teams and Ohio went 2-1 against them. The problem is conference play, especially in November.

 
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,763
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 12:39 PM
Louisville and Marshall are quality opponents. Even though North Texas had a good year, I'd like to see us play Northwestern , NC State, WVU or Purdue. Throw in one more team above our heads. I agree with your MAC comment.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 1:13 PM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
77 is difficult to argue with.

My question is: how do all feel about that? how do all feel about where we are?


I'm not happy with it. I'd realistically like to be closer to the Top 40.

Disappointing? Yes. But let's take a look at some other teams around us in these useless rankings:

#75 Utah -- That Utah school that beat Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl and finished #2 in the country? Ute betcha.

#79 TCU -- The program that also busted the BCS by playing in all four BCS Bowl Games and finishing #6 in 2009 and #2 in 2010? Great Horny Toads!

#81 Florida -- National champs in 2006 and 2008? Sugar Bowl and a Top Ten rating in 2012? My, my, Meyer.

#88 WVU -- The school that put up 70 points on Clemson in the 2011 Orange Bowl? Had Top 25 finishes consecutively from 2005-2011 (and a Top 5 appearance during the 2012 season)? Great googly moogly. WWCLT? (What Would Chuck Landon Think)

After tastes of recent sustained success, ask these fans if they are happy with this year's rankings and they're likely even more disappointed than we are.
The realist in me knows there will be highs and lows. All I ask is for a trend of higher highs and higher lows also. So recent highs have been wins in bowls, over Marshall repeatedly, over Penn State and it seems this recent low has Ohio in the company of Utah, TCU, Florida and WVA. This is not Ohio's usual company in down years so let us see where we go from here. Thanks Stunter.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 1:24 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
Louisville and Marshall are quality opponents. Even though North Texas had a good year, I'd like to see us play Northwestern , NC State, WVU or Purdue. Throw in one more team above our heads. I agree with your MAC comment.


How are those teams better opponents than what we had this year?

Northwestern #84
WVU #88
NC State #102
Purdue #115

Louisville #15
Marshall #33
North Texas #55
Austin Peay not ranked

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to play those teams. But if your argument is scheduling higher quality opponents, the teams you listed don't cut the mustard.
Last Edited: 1/9/2014 1:25:28 PM by OhioStunter
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 1:46 PM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
Louisville and Marshall are quality opponents. Even though North Texas had a good year, I'd like to see us play Northwestern , NC State, WVU or Purdue. Throw in one more team above our heads. I agree with your MAC comment.


How are those teams better opponents than what we had this year?

Northwestern #84
WVU #88
NC State #102
Purdue #115

Louisville #15
Marshall #33
North Texas #55
Austin Peay not ranked

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to play those teams. But if your argument is scheduling higher quality opponents, the teams you listed don't cut the mustard.


Depends on how you define quality.  The four teams listed would generally be viewed as better schools to play than the four we played by the general population.  By die hard sports fans or board posters, maybe not, but by the general public yes and we have more of the general public attending our games than die hard sports fans or board posters.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 1:58 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Louisville and Marshall are quality opponents. Even though North Texas had a good year, I'd like to see us play Northwestern , NC State, WVU or Purdue. Throw in one more team above our heads. I agree with your MAC comment.


How are those teams better opponents than what we had this year?

Northwestern #84
WVU #88
NC State #102
Purdue #115

Louisville #15
Marshall #33
North Texas #55
Austin Peay not ranked

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to play those teams. But if your argument is scheduling higher quality opponents, the teams you listed don't cut the mustard.


Depends on how you define quality.  The four teams listed would generally be viewed as better schools to play than the four we played by the general population.  By die hard sports fans or board posters, maybe not, but by the general public yes and we have more of the general public attending our games than die hard sports fans or board posters.

Of course it depends on how you define quality. But in the context of this case, we're talking about how Ohio can improve in these rankings.

giacomo said to schedule higher quality opponents.

My counterpoint is that scheduling opponents that are actually ranked lower than Ohio will not improve in the rankings.

If we were talking about attendance, marketing, alumni events, then yes, we would need to consider the perceived quality of these other opponents; but for rankings, no.

 
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 1/9/2014 2:09 PM
I would think Ohio would be happy to schedule any of those teams, so long as they would be willing to agree to a 1:1, but I am equally certian that Ohio can't afford to agree to the 2:1 deals they might demand.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 40
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)