menu
Logo
person
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
person
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Rare Company...
Page: 1 of 2
catfan28
General User
C28
Member Since: 6/11/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,503
person
mail
catfan28
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 11:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If you haven't checked out this story, it's worth a read: http://www.ohiobobcats.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/040413aaa.html

The only schools that have competed in 4 straight postseasons (both football and hoops)?
- BYU
- Florida State
- Pittsburgh
- Wisconsin
- Michigan State
- OHIO

Sure it's a pretty liberal use of "postseason" (CIT is hardly something worth celebrating)...but still, that's some select company. All things considered, we've had it pretty good lately.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 3:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Not only that, but Ohio is also one of a handful of teams that have separate .600 winning percentages in both football and in basketball over the past five years.
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 5:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The fact that Student and Total attendance for FB is 3x that of hoops should stand out to those that continue to gripe that we don't de-emphasize FB for the benefit of BB.  It's only one data point, but it is somewhat conspicuous.
bobcat72
General User
B72
Member Since: 7/2/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 540
person
mail
bobcat72
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 5:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
The fact that Student and Total attendance for FB is 3x that of hoops should stand out to those that continue to gripe that we don't de-emphasize FB for the benefit of BB.  It's only one data point, but it is somewhat conspicuous.


You've got to keep in mind for BB that the student attendance # includes a lot of December games with students gone. There's definitely less students at BB games, but I think it is skewed a little bit.
Columbus_Bobcat
General User
CB
Member Since: 11/23/2012
Post Count: 413
person
mail
Columbus_Bobcat
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 6:01 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bobcat72 wrote:expand_more
The fact that Student and Total attendance for FB is 3x that of hoops should stand out to those that continue to gripe that we don't de-emphasize FB for the benefit of BB.  It's only one data point, but it is somewhat conspicuous.


You've got to keep in mind for BB that the student attendance # includes a lot of December games with students gone. There's definitely less students at BB games, but I think it is skewed a little bit.


Least the students don't leave at half time at basketball games....
catfan28
General User
C28
Member Since: 6/11/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,503
person
mail
catfan28
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 9:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
The fact that Student and Total attendance for FB is 3x that of hoops should stand out to those that continue to gripe that we don't de-emphasize FB for the benefit of BB.  It's only one data point, but it is somewhat conspicuous.


What are you suggesting here? That would should de-emphasize football? Not sure I'm following you...
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:51 AM
settings_applications edit_note
The student attendance being way less for basketball always shocked me because I thought students in general are more into Ohio Basketball.  This is based off the fact that in hoops we can "hang" with the big dogs more than in football, as well as having the NCAA tournament when anything could happen.  In football it is much harder to be "relevant".
Business_Cat
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2011
Post Count: 251
mail
Business_Cat
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:16 AM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
The student attendance being way less for basketball always shocked me because I thought students in general are more into Ohio Basketball. This is based off the fact that in hoops we can "hang" with the big dogs more than in football, as well as having the NCAA tournament when anything could happen. In football it is much harder to be "relevant".
It's the timing of the Wednesday games that are the problem. A large percentage of the student population are involved in a student organization, most of which are in meetings during the Wednesday game. I found this to be rather annoying when trying to make the games.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Football is the most popular sport in America. Even the biggest "basketball schools" have more fans attend football than basketball.  A la Kentucky...
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:46 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Valid point optimist.  I'd be interested to see student attendance at UK if they had unlimited student tickets.  I'm not sure if those student tickets sell out for hoops.  You are correct though that UK football makes way more money than UK hoops.
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 11:18 AM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
The student attendance being way less for basketball always shocked me because I thought students in general are more into Ohio Basketball.  This is based off the fact that in hoops we can "hang" with the big dogs more than in football, as well as having the NCAA tournament when anything could happen.  In football it is much harder to be "relevant".


Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.
catfan28
General User
C28
Member Since: 6/11/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,503
person
mail
catfan28
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 11:36 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.


There are 340ish MBB teams in Division 1...and 124 FB teams. That's the difference. Top 100 means a lot more in basketball. Almost everybody save the TERRIBLE teams (most residing in the MAC!) is top 100 in football.
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 11:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I guess my argument is that making the NCAA tournament and being able to compete with those teams in a first or second rounds games is typically more realistic than going to a BCS or big time bowl.
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 11:49 AM
settings_applications edit_note
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.


There are 340ish MBB teams in Division 1...and 124 FB teams. That's the difference. Top 100 means a lot more in basketball. Almost everybody save the TERRIBLE teams (most residing in the MAC!) is top 100 in football.


There was 246 schools in Division 1 football last year. Some of those teams are part of FCS and there are some non-scholarship leagues thrown in but that is no different than men's basketball which also has some non-scholarship leagues included. Its just not as different for the MAC between men's basketball and football as you make it out to be. The MAC made an elite 8 with Kent State in 2002 and a Orange Bowl in 2012 with Northern Illinois as its high water mark.  Both sports regularly place 4-5 in schools into the post season.
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 11:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
I guess my argument is that making the NCAA tournament and being able to compete with those teams in a first or second rounds games is typically more realistic than going to a BCS or big time bowl.


There is only 4 BCS bowls so making a BCS bowl is the same as going to going to the elite 8. Winning a BCS bowl is the same as making a final four. Its not the same as winning a 1st round game in the NCAA's. Winning a non-BCS bowl is the same as winning a 1st round game in the NCAAs since only 32 schools make the second round and there are 35 bowls. Attending a non-BCS bowl without winning has with it NIT or CIT level significance because every school with a 7-5 record makes a bowl which is no different than every 20 win team from the MAC making a post season basketball tournament. 
Last Edited: 4/6/2013 11:59:24 AM by Athens
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 12:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Wes... I see your logic but I am going to have to disagree.  You can't count the FCS in this, that is totally different.  Making the NCAA tournament is a much bigger deal than winning a minor bowl game.  The way making the tournament is celebrated is the best example of this.  
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 5:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
Wes... I see your logic but I am going to have to disagree.  You can't count the FCS in this, that is totally different.  Making the NCAA tournament is a much bigger deal than winning a minor bowl game.  The way making the tournament is celebrated is the best example of this.  


With Wes on this.
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 7:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
The fact that Student and Total attendance for FB is 3x that of hoops should stand out to those that continue to gripe that we don't de-emphasize FB for the benefit of BB.  It's only one data point, but it is somewhat conspicuous.


What are you suggesting here? That would should de-emphasize football? Not sure I'm following you...


I'm only suggesting to the Hoops purists that there is a compelling reason NOT to cut FB spending in lieu of more hoops spending.  If anything, leave FB alone and simply increase the hoops spend.

And for the comments regarding weeknight and winter break impacting hoops attendance: Two home FB games a year are played on weeknights, plus every other year the opener being played the weekend prior to students having reported and/or a Black Friday game.  That is a full 50% of FB attendance being impacted by the "problems" being stated for hoops attendance.  Apples and apples, if not actually worse for FB.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 8:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
The student attendance being way less for basketball always shocked me because I thought students in general are more into Ohio Basketball. This is based off the fact that in hoops we can "hang" with the big dogs more than in football, as well as having the NCAA tournament when anything could happen. In football it is much harder to be "relevant".


Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.
Whoa There big fella, Apples to Apples. There are 300+ DI Basketball schools and around 120 FBS football schools. So a top 100 basketball team would be a rough equivalent of a top 30 football school.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 8:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.


There are 340ish MBB teams in Division 1...and 124 FB teams. That's the difference. Top 100 means a lot more in basketball. Almost everybody save the TERRIBLE teams (most residing in the MAC!) is top 100 in football.
Sorry there C28, failed to read you already had this!
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:01 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.


There are 340ish MBB teams in Division 1...and 124 FB teams. That's the difference. Top 100 means a lot more in basketball. Almost everybody save the TERRIBLE teams (most residing in the MAC!) is top 100 in football.


There was 246 schools in Division 1 football last year. Some of those teams are part of FCS and there are some non-scholarship leagues thrown in but that is no different than men's basketball which also has some non-scholarship leagues included. Its just not as different for the MAC between men's basketball and football as you make it out to be. The MAC made an elite 8 with Kent State in 2002 and a Orange Bowl in 2012 with Northern Illinois as its high water mark. Both sports regularly place 4-5 in schools into the post season.

There are 120 real DI teams, FCS is partially funded hence there FCS status, all of the Basketball schools that carry the DI label are fully funded. And FYI, DI does not exist anymore as a classification for football.
Brufus
General User
B
Member Since: 12/13/2011
Location: Wherever Miami and Michigan suck
Post Count: 439
person
mail
Brufus
mail
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Ohio 0-8 against the top 100 competition in basketball this past season? Ohio had victories against #30 Penn State, #77 Louisiana-Monroe while losing to #60 Kent State, #67 Ball State, #74 Bowling Green. 2-3 vs. Top 100 competition is better than 0-8. Ohio in football was 6-1 against opponents rated below 100, Ohio in basketball was 7-1 against sub 100 competition. Living off of 2011-12 Ohio was 10-6 (.625) against the top 100 in basketball while football was 5-2 (.714) against the top 100. I'm not seeing the huge difference here.


What was Ohio's rank in this? It would be interesting to see how they fared against competition that was above or below their actual status...

Still impressive that Ohio is in this unique company. You've probably heard this on other threads, but now is a great time to be a Bobcat!
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 4/7/2013 7:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
Valid point optimist.  I'd be interested to see student attendance at UK if they had unlimited student tickets.  I'm not sure if those student tickets sell out for hoops.  You are correct though that UK football makes way more money than UK hoops.


If UK Hoops only had 6 or 7 home games, always on a saturday in the Fall, and they put it in a huge stadium, they'd probably get 65000 people.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 4/9/2013 10:48 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm confused about the direction this thread has taken. Who is saying we should de-emphasize FB?
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 4/9/2013 10:51 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
I'm confused about the direction this thread has taken. Who is saying we should de-emphasize FB?

A significant volume of posters on the BB board.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 28
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



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