I just watched most of the KSU-Rutgers game from the ESPN3 archive.  I was very impressed with their defense, which turned Rutgers over 7 times -- six interceptions and a fumble.  At least two of the interceptions were what I'd call "team interceptions" where one guy tips the ball and another team member completes the interception.  Another interception was one of the most athletic interceptions I've ever seen.  It was basically a ball that usually would have been simply a ball batted down at the line of scrimmage, except the defender hung on to the ball and ran it about 25 yards into the end zone.  Their offense features a very good QB, Keith, and two RBs Durham (6-0, 250) and Archer (5-8, 175).  Durham is a very good power runner and Archer is more of a finesse guy.  Archer is also the nation's leader in return yardage, according to the BE announcers.  KSU now also leads the nation in turnover margin.  Prior to this game they were tied for #3 with Rutgers.  Ohio is going to have to bring its A+ game to win this difficult road game.   At one point the announcers said the KSU's OL was blowing bigger holes in the Rutgers DL than any team had this year.  I'm very worried about this given what KSU did to us two years ago there. 

Now Can't has the eyepatch.....and we can deliver some payback.....just because a team is better on paper or has a few stars doesn't always equate to a elimination type game win......just look at the Reds vs. Giants.....Cards vs. Nationals......Giants vs. Tigers......etc. etc.

When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was going to be another "beating a dead horse" posting. Darn.

You make a good point about the program DFC. I would probably argue that Kent is just a program that has been waiting to bust out for a while now. No one wants to hear this either, but we don't currently have a game changer like Kent has with Dri Archer.

However, when's the last time Ohio actually had a decent shot at knocking off a Top 25 team? Has the schedule even allowed it?

Yes, the Kent game is going to be a big challenge ... on the heels of three other MAC games that each will offer challenges. Good grief, gang: It is conference play!

As for questioning the coaching, players, system or perhaps OUr colors and nickname, consider this: We have been an underdog on many game days since OUr administration decided it might be cool to find OUr score listed alphabetically by OHIO rather than the opponent's name. Yet how many times have we not had at least a chance of winning when the game was in the fourth quarter? Not many. And unless you have evolved into [insert name of perennial powerhouse here], having a chance down the stretch of a game is what you want to have.

Lordy, what do we want? A weekly walkover? That's not just insulting to everybody involved with OUr program, but also to everybody involved with every team on OUr schedule. It's all that and a whole lot of cluelessness.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

News Flash-if we don't play better the next three games we will be nothing more than a spoiler at Kent.

The one reality I am finally adjusting to is that Ohio has continuity in coaching and a staff that lead to some success and stability but we have a very long way to go.

We still recruit and get mostly the same type players that ALL MAC teams do.  I had hoped we would separate ourselves based on talent by year seven but I guess that will really never happen at any MAC school.  This results in there just not being any room for error and Saturday we made a bunch of 'em.

Let's get better and win out then we can let the chips fall where they may.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yjW9UXoKU2s?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What has been shown countless times in the MAC is that the right coach can come in and take a MAC program, even a horrawful one, and win a MACC in 3 years or less. Look at the teams that have won since Solich came to Athens-

2005- Akron, JD Brookheart, 2nd season.
2006- CMU, Brian Kelly, 3rd season
2007- CMU, Butch Jones, 1st season
2008- Buffalo, Turner Gill, 3rd season
2009- CMU, Butch Jones, 3rd season
2010- Miami, Michael Haywood, 2nd season
2011- NIU, Dave Doeren, 1st season

Does Frank's inability to win after 7 years make him less successful then these coaches? In spite of not winning in Detroit he was able to get us there in just his 2nd season which puts him on par with the other coaches listed. The difference is Kelly, Gill and Haywood split as soon as they turned the program around and Jones (and likely Doeren) left as soon as they won with their own people.

But what have those programs done over the long term? Here's the total number of wins for those programs during Frank's first 7 seasons-

51- NIU
50- Ohio
50- CMU
32- Miami
26- Akron
26- Buffalo

NIU and CMU got lucky in finding 2 good coaches in a row, that's not easy to do. History shows that if Kent State wins the MACC this year in their coach's 2nd season it would not be unusual, but history also shows that he will likely leave and the chance of his replacement continuing that success is not good. 

Sure, I wish Frank wasn't 0-3 in the MACC and 1-3 in bowls, and I wish we hadn't lost our last 4 games, all of which were winnable. But I wouldn't trade places with any of the teams that have won a MACC since 2005, not even NIU, their coach will be gone in a year or two and history shows it is extremely hard to hire 3 good coaches in a row. We've got Frank for at least 5 more years, I'm ok with that. Now lets go win our next 6.

Did I miss something?  I don't believe that this has been approved yet.  Actually, I can't imagine the Council of Presidents of the NCAA ever approving this, because of Title IX and a number of other concerns related to the traditional definitions of amateur athletics.  

Edit:  I just checked and this stipend proposal was approve at some lower level and then stopped by an override vote from the membership.  The NCAA president wants to bring it back up in January, but the commentators I looked at seemed to think that it's unlikely to pass in anything like the form in which it was originally proposed.  Not only are there Title IX concerns, but there are other concerns related to the status of universities that would be paying what would amount to payments to semi-pro athletes.  One writer thought that this would jeopardize some private universities' tax exempt status.  One alternate proposal is to make payments only to athletes with demonstrated financial need, but this wouldn't differ a whole lot from other support programs for such students.  In short, this idea that Emmert has been really pushing seems to be stalled as the devil is in the details.