menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Orlando Sentinel on Ohio's schedule
Page: 1 of 2
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: 4/20/2012 12:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note

The lineup is now complete, with PSU in at 35 (click on a team to link to its summary):

OHIO - 56!!!
NIU --64
WMU -- 68
Toledo -- 74
EMU -- 80
BSU -- 86
Kent -- 89
BGSUCKS -- 91
Fiami -- 106
CMU -- 110
Buffalo -- 115
Akron -- 119

OOC:
PSU -- 35
Terd -- 67
NMSU -- 100

Last Edited: 7/9/2012 10:20:59 AM by Pataskala
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,709
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/4/2012 10:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I will have to say that, except for Phil Steele, this listing is the most objective attempt that I'm aware of each year to rank FBS teams.  The Orlando Sentinel reporters who work on this ranking seem to throw out any BCS bias they may have and try very hard to weigh the strength of each team based on personnel, coaching, and some estimate of team chemistry.  As a result you see many non-BCS FBS teams ranked higher than Big Name BCS schools in any given year.  This is something that I don't see in many other publications on a regular basis.  Thanks so much for posting the links and keeping us up-to-date.  I can't wait to see where "the Real OHIO" ranks this year. 

BTW, I wore my "MichiGONE" shirt recently to a pickup basketball game, and it was a real hit.  For those who don't know this shirt commemorates the bballer's NCAA tourney win over the Wolverines with "MichiGONE" on the front, and on the back says "Now you know who the REAL OHIO is."  
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 6/6/2012 7:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Add 68 WMU, leaving NIU and Ohio.  Well, U. Mass isn't mentioned yet, either, but I'm guessing that was an oversight.
Last Edited: 6/6/2012 7:50:49 PM by L.C.
Bobcat110alum
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 470
mail
Bobcat110alum
mail
Posted: 6/6/2012 7:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Add 68 WMU, leaving NIU and Ohio.  Well, U. Mass isn't mentioned yet, either, but I'm guessing that was an oversight.


Does UMASS fall into one of those four teams that are reclassifying?  (Or were they mistakenly included?)
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: 6/6/2012 8:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Add 68 WMU, leaving NIU and Ohio.  Well, U. Mass isn't mentioned yet, either, but I'm guessing that was an oversight.


No Terd yet, either.

I don't they rank teams moving from 1AA to 1A, so that's why there's no UMass; they've ranked 120 teams and UMass will make 121 teams in 1A.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 6/12/2012 6:01 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Vandy @ 60
UConn @ 61
Arizona State @ 62.  This is fun.

Pataskala wrote:expand_more
So far, here's how the MAC and our OOC schedule are looking to the Sentinel (click on a team to link to its summary):

NIU --64 (just one MAC team left!!!)
WMU -- 68
Toledo -- 74
EMU -- 80!!!
BSU -- 86
Kent -- 89
BGSUCKS -- 91
Fiami -- 106
CMU -- 110
Buffalo -- 115
Akron -- 119

OOC:
Terd -- 67
NMSU -- 100
Last Edited: 6/14/2012 6:14:09 PM by Bcat2
catfan28
General User
C28
Member Since: 6/11/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,503
person
mail
catfan28
mail
Posted: 6/13/2012 9:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Not that these countdowns mean anything, but it's pretty neat to see OUr name in the top half of college football teams. A mere 6 years ago, that would have been unfathomable.
OUcats82
General User
Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,912
mail
OUcats82
mail
Posted: 6/14/2012 5:36 PM
settings_applications edit_note
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
Not that these countdowns mean anything, but it's pretty neat to see OUr name in the top half of college football teams. A mere 6 years ago, that would have been unfathomable.


+1

These kind of publications are made to entertain the people who spend time on this board and many others like it-the fans.  Are these scientific? No.  Are the objective?  For the most part but not entirely.  I will read any small blurb I can about the Bobcats because I am a proud fan and an alum.  They are worthless in terms of how they will predict the future but I think it is worth the 3-5 minutes I may spend reading about us and the other teams that interest me.
Cat4ever
General User
C4
Member Since: 12/29/2007
Location: Oakland, FL
Post Count: 447
person
mail
Cat4ever
mail
Posted: 6/14/2012 9:40 PM
settings_applications edit_note
What I've taken from the Sentinel's "count up" to No. 1 in past years is that it generally seems to have some thought given; also that it seems to rank the teams in terms of how equipped they are to succeed.

I've uttered the notion more than a few times that if you set aside what are legitimately the top 15-20 teams and the bottom 20-30, don't bet the farm on any matchup that involves two of the 70 or so teams above the bottom and below the very top. There's a lot of parity thanks, I believe, to the limits on scholarships.

And to add a +1 to another poster's thought: It is indeed pretty nifty to be regarded in the upper half of the 120. Five years ago progress was to be above the bottom 25 or 30!

Go 'Cats!
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 6/15/2012 11:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
Illinois @ 49 (new coach, Toledo's Tim Beckman)
Tulsa @ 50
Cal @ 51
UCF @52 (Oleary 50-51 in 8 seasons)
Pitt @53 (new coach, 6-7 in 2011)
Arizona @ 54  (new coach, 4-8 in 2011)
BYU @ 55 (Mendenhall 66-24, 10-3 in 2011)
Ohio @ 56
Temple @ 57
Purdue @ 58
Arkansas State @ 59 (Defending Sun Belt Champs)
Vandy @ 60
UConn @ 61
Arizona State @ 62.  This is fun.

So far, here's how the MAC and our OOC schedule are looking to the Sentinel (click on a team to link to its summary):

NIU --64 (just one MAC team left!!!)
WMU -- 68
Toledo -- 74
EMU -- 80!!!
BSU -- 86
Kent -- 89
BGSUCKS -- 91
Fiami -- 106
CMU -- 110
Buffalo -- 115
Akron -- 119

OOC:
Terd -- 67
NMSU -- 100
Last Edited: 6/26/2012 8:18:13 AM by Bcat2
LoganElm_grad09
General User
LE09
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: South Bloomingville, OH
Post Count: 934
person
mail
LoganElm_grad09
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 11:06 AM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 12:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
LoganElm_grad09 wrote:expand_more


A couple of errors: saying that it was Ohio's 10th postseason appearance and no mention of it being the first bowl win and also saying that Gerald Moore is one of the team's losses. But I suppose in writing about all 120 teams, it'd be easy to make those mistakes. Glad to see an unbiased opinion think pretty highly of the Bobcats.
sargentfan
General User
S
Member Since: 3/17/2005
Post Count: 917
person
mail
sargentfan
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
#56

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2012/06/c...


A couple of errors: saying that it was Ohio's 10th postseason appearance and no mention of it being the first bowl win and also saying that Gerald Moore is one of the team's losses. But I suppose in writing about all 120 teams, it'd be easy to make those mistakes. Glad to see an unbiased opinion think pretty highly of the Bobcats.


Actually he does make a reference to it being our first bowl win in the Outlook section under Weaknesses.
sargentfan
General User
S
Member Since: 3/17/2005
Post Count: 917
person
mail
sargentfan
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Even if it was only one spot better it was nice to see up placed higher than Temple. 
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I amt confused how they only show 6 returning starters on defense. Here are the starts, not including the Famous Potato bowl:

CB - Carrie (12)
CB - Shaw (2)
Nickle - Carpenter (6)
FS - Moore (13)
SS - Hughes (6) + Kristoff (7)
WLB - Woseley (8)
SLB - Lewis (7)
MLB - no
DE - Scott (13)
DE - no
DT - Jones (11)
DT - Huynh (7) + Hastings (4)

I count 8 starters back.

Lost-
Keller - 13
Meyers - 13
Benjamin - 5
King - 5
Leftwich - 11

Personally I'd call it 8 returning, and 4 lost, if you count Hershey.
Last Edited: 6/18/2012 2:10:39 PM by L.C.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 2:10 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Here's the same thing for the Offense:
Games Started by returning players, not including the Potato Bowl
Tettleton (13)
Boykin (2)
Foster (7)
Bussey (4)
Dovell (1)
Thompson (10)
Roback (5)
Lechner (13)
Allen (12)
Bales (1)
Herman (13)

Games Started by Players lost:
Hardin  (11)
Brazill (10)
Dulop (13)
Bates (1)
Gross (1)
Strum (13)
Flading (13)


Add in Weller, and I'd call that 7 back, 5 lost.  Sentinel mysteriously counts 7 lost, 5 back.

Edit - Fixed by moving Bales to returning
Last Edited: 6/19/2012 4:02:01 PM by L.C.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 3:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
I amt confused how they only show 6 returning starters on defense. Here are the starts, not including the Famous Potato bowl:

CB - Carrie (12)
CB - Shaw (2)
Nickle - Carpenter (6)
FS - Moore (13)
SS - Hughes (6) + Kristoff (7)
WLB - Woseley (8)
SLB - Lewis (7)
MLB - no
DE - Scott (13)
DE - no
DT - Jones (11)
DT - Huynh (7) + Hastings (4)

I count 8 starters back.

Lost-
Keller - 13
Meyers - 13
Benjamin - 5
King - 5
Leftwich - 11

Personally I'd call it 8 returning, and 4 lost, if you count Hershey.


L.C. I know the stats give NK the start vs Miami, however, how many snaps did he take?  K. Moore took Def POW and rolled up great numbers.  I will remember Mr. Moore as very starter-like in that game.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 6/18/2012 4:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
For that matter, Benajmin was the starter a lot, but had issues that kept him from playing too long. As an alternate measure, you could look at tackles made by the LB's.

Keller 116
Lewis 64
Woseley 53
K. Moore 35
Benjamin 28
Grady 6
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 6/19/2012 3:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Here's the same thing for the Offense:
Games Started by returning players, not including the Potato Bowl
Tettleton (13)
Boykin (2)
Foster (7)
Bussey (4)
Dovell (1)
Thompson (10)
Roback (5)
Lechner (13)
Allen (12)
Herman (13)

Games Started by Players lost:
Hardin  (11)
Brazill (10)
Dulop (13)
Bates (1)
Gross (1)
Strum (13)
Flading (13)
Bales (1)

Add in Weller, and I'd call that 7 back, 5 lost.  Sentinel mysteriously counts 7 lost, 5 back.


Would be interested in the total games started (career).  Seems the Sentinal gave no love at all to Herman, Allen, Lechner, Bales, Carlotta, Johnson; IMHO, the heart of the 2012 offense. Four seniors & two juniors. 
Last Edited: 6/19/2012 4:54:37 PM by Bcat2
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 6/19/2012 5:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I never thought I would type these words but...

I'm really disappointed that the Orlando Sentinel only ranked us #56. I was hoping we'd crack the top 40.
oucs 1986
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Mason, OH
Post Count: 251
mail
oucs 1986
mail
Posted: 6/19/2012 8:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
HUBRIS!
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: 6/21/2012 7:24 AM
settings_applications edit_note
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I never thought I would type these words but...

I'm really disappointed that the Orlando Sentinel only ranked us #56. I was hoping we'd crack the top 40.


Too many ???? on offense.  When you lose your two top receivers and your top running back, that's gotta downgrade the program.  Plus, special teams took a real hit with the loss of the punter, holder on place kicks, and the two top returners (Brazill and Harden).  Still, at 56 that's better than some others.  The CFN ranking that came out last month has us at 68.  Huguenen's rankings are coming out 5 at a time and hasn't gotten to us yet.  I was hoping for top 50, but I'll take 56 at the start of the season, given the holes that need to be filled.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:04 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
I never thought I would type these words but...

I'm really disappointed that the Orlando Sentinel only ranked us #56. I was hoping we'd crack the top 40.


Too many ???? on offense.  When you lose your two top receivers and your top running back, that's gotta downgrade the program.  Plus, special teams took a real hit with the loss of the punter, holder on place kicks, and the two top returners (Brazill and Harden).  Still, at 56 that's better than some others.  The CFN ranking that came out last month has us at 68.  Huguenen's rankings are coming out 5 at a time and hasn't gotten to us yet.  I was hoping for top 50, but I'll take 56 at the start of the season, given the holes that need to be filled.


I expext to see the coaches play to the strengths of their personnel, which will be new year to year. New strengths do not have to mean a downgrade.   They will develop through the season.  So much senior leadership is a strength you would like every year. 
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: 6/21/2012 10:59 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
I never thought I would type these words but...

I'm really disappointed that the Orlando Sentinel only ranked us #56. I was hoping we'd crack the top 40.


Too many ???? on offense.  When you lose your two top receivers and your top running back, that's gotta downgrade the program.  Plus, special teams took a real hit with the loss of the punter, holder on place kicks, and the two top returners (Brazill and Harden).  Still, at 56 that's better than some others.  The CFN ranking that came out last month has us at 68.  Huguenen's rankings are coming out 5 at a time and hasn't gotten to us yet.  I was hoping for top 50, but I'll take 56 at the start of the season, given the holes that need to be filled.


I expext to see the coaches play to the strengths of their personnel, which will be new year to year. New strengths do not have to mean a downgrade.   They will develop through the season.  So much senior leadership is a strength you would like every year. 


Sorry.  I didn't mean that the program was downgraded in reality -- just in the eyes of those who rank the teams before the season starts.  I expect that as the season goes along we'll see guys step up and, as you said, the coaches will work the game plan around the players' strengths.
davepi2
General User
D2
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Location: columbus, OH
Post Count: 583
person
mail
davepi2
mail
Posted: 6/23/2012 10:56 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Rivals.com has their countdown going now. They are up to through 71 with three MAC teams remaining. Ohio, Northern Illinois, and Western Michigan.  They have a lower opinion of the MAC this year so I doubt any MAC team will be rated as high as Ohio was in the Sentinel.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 40
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)