I will give a serious answer to his reply. His theory "this is as good as it gets" might have some merit if there was any indication that the program had peaked. Is there? Well, considering that last year was the best yet, there is no particular reason to think so. Yes, this year is off from last year, but injuries are clearly the reason for most of the drop, and the rest is probably related to the loss of key players at receiver and MLB. It isn't like you have a clear pattern - a peak, then a long period of stagnation - instead you have a general uptrend, with a slight interruption. Try taking, say, a three year moving average. The trend is still up.

Next, let's look at the background data - recruiting. If the program has stagnated, that would be reflected in the stagnation. How do the recruiting classes of the last 2-3 years compare with those 5-6 years ago? If they are the same, you'd expect that 5 years from now the teams will be about like the current ones. That is not what you find. If you look at the recruiting classes of 5-6 years ago, they were pretty ordinary for the MAC, so it is remarkable that Ohio has competed for the top with those players. If you look at the current recruiting classes, Ohio is now getting much more highly regarded players than they were 5 years ago. The current classes are still probably not the absolute top of the MAC, but they are comparable.

When you look at recruiting classes, you are looking at the future, 4-5 years out. Solich has always been known as a solid recruiter, but not a snake-oil salesman. Some coaches like a Ron Zook or a Mack Brown always land top recruiting classes, but then the teams disappoint. You can win (some) by recruiting stars. You can win (some) by coaching up players to be better than they were. You build programs by coaching up players to be better than they were, and then by using that as a tool to recruit better and better athletes. Then you are selling the recruits the real deal - a real program, with real coaching, and the result is steady improvement over a long period of time. I have been lucky enough in my life to have seen this done a few times, and that is what I see happening.

Does Solich have a "glass ceiling", where it finally gets "as good as it will get"? That's hard to say. He did get to a National Championship game, but not win it. Is that his ceiling? Would he have ever gotten back to one if he were still at Nebraska? Again, I have no way to know. Given that his ceiling, if it exists, appears to be far higher than where Ohio currently is, I am not concerned about it.

How about a different question? Does Ohio itself have a "glass ceiling"? Is there a cap to just how good Ohio can get, in a state with Ohio State, and in the MAC conference? Yes, I think there is, and I think there is every reason to believe that it is lower than any ceiling Solich may have. On the other hand, Ohio isn't even to this ceiling yet, so I'm not concerned about this one, either.

At this point, I'll just take this year in stride, and look to the future, which continues to look bright. That said, I'm not willing to concede this game to Kant, nor the bowl game.

Go Ohio!

The ceiling directly corresponds to the amount of money we spend on that particular sport. We spend in the upper third of the MAC but we don't spend the most. And we aren't even close to spending what an average upper tier school spends.