Let’s look at the numbers and debate on how far we have come.  First, I won’t include FCS games, just FBS.  If you want to count them as serious competition, then drop to FCS.

2006 Ohio Bobcats

vs. FBS (I-A)        8-5

vs. FBS Winning                2-4

vs. FBS Non-Winning      6-1

 

2007 Ohio Bobcats

vs. FBS (I-A)        5-6

vs. FBS Winning                1-1

vs. FBS Non-Winning      4-5

 

2008 Ohio Bobcats

vs. FBS (I-A)        3-8

vs. FBS Winning                0-5

vs. FBS Non-Winning      3-3

 

2009 Ohio Bobcats

vs. FBS (I-A)        8-5

vs. FBS Winning                3-4

vs. FBS Non-Winning      5-1

 

2010 Ohio Bobcats

vs. FBS (I-A)        7-5

vs. FBS Winning                2-3

vs. FBS Non-Winning      5-2

Total record vs FBS winning 2006-2010:

8-17

It's clear the last 4  years we have benefited from scheduling sub .500 teams to make it to the top of the garbage pile a few times only to get a wakeup call against real teams.  Smoke and mirrors.

Ok Zoloft, perhaps you'd like to go back to the Lichtenberg, Bryant, or Knorr years where winning even 1 or 2 games in a season was considered a success?  If you want to have competition, first we need to find teams who win THAT WE CAN BEAT to play us instead of the Ohio States and Oregons of college football.  After recent success you guys think we can suddenly tackle the big boys.  Before we can do that we need to set up a winning tradition by beating anyone we can.  After we get used to that then we can start climbing that ladder.  I'd say we go after some of the lesser Big East teams next and after a few years of that move on up, then we start playing the lesser Big Ten and ACC teams.  The other problem is some of these teams have their schedules set already 5 years down the road.  When I was following Ohio state, I could see games 3 or 4 years ahead.  Now tell me, could you see what we'd be doing 4 years ago when losing was still expected?  If that were the case would you want to schedule hard opponents that would suredly beat us??????  I remember someone saying they'd rather schedule Wisconsin for the next 40 years and get embarrassed each game rather than win against a sun belt team (La Lafayette) each year because it'd be playing a team that wins.  I do not, I prefer baby steps and those are what are needed. 

I've already set my prediction for when we will be a top contender.  We must stay at this level and continue to improve every year.  Some years will be better than others, but as long as we do not backtrack I give this team 20 maybe 25 years before we are the next Boise State and are in the ranking system.  Laugh whoever wants to laugh, but it certainly is feasible, but for you guys who want success NOW know that success is a slow process if you want it done right.

Thanks. I bet even if you look up the Grobe years, which were fun,the past five years blow it away. I can only recall a Grobe team winning three games against 1-A teams with winning records...WMU in '97, Miami in 1999 and Marshall in 2000. Minnesota finished up 2000 at 6-6.

I think it's safe to say 8-17 is the best four-year stretch v. winning 1-A/FBS since at least the 60s if not ever.

Besides, I've read why some statisticians think this stat is overstated. They say if a team wins all its games, then sometimes up to 20% of those games against teams with potential winning or .500 records end up against teams with losing records. Similarly, 0-12 teams always point to a tough schedule, but that schedule is up to 12 games higher on the winning side of the ledger than it could have been.

I can remember days when we lost to losing teams.  I'll take this progress and expect more.  Hope you get that Prior jersey you asked Santa for. 

To me the numbers are irrelevant.  I meet more and more people every day who express some level of interest in Ohio football and athletics in general and that is concrete proof of some success.  The program is no longer the butt of incessant jokes.  We are doing just fine, as the saying goes.

Some of that interest is undoubtedly created by the MAC TV package, which I think all agree is terrible for the students and the live gate, but it works.  Even with that, we have to be in somewhat meaningful games to be included and we have been.  We get noticed.

Finally, bowl appearances, albeit unsuccessful, form impressions on people who would never notice OU.  I believe we're on the upslope of the curve now and we're making progress.

I never want to go back to the days of 4,000 people in the stands and 0 points on the scoreboard.  If this is middlin'. I'll take it.

It's counterproductive IMO for the hoop fans to come over here and blast the football fans when they do the same-wait til next year, wait til late in the year or wait til the MAC tournament, maybe we'll be good then.  I honestly think that there are quite a few fans who want us not to be better in football, because that will hurt BB.  It's a shame, but that's life.

It seems clear that several of us are employing different measures of success.  For me it is pretty fundamental.  To wit, under Bryant, Lichty and Knorr, I expected Ohio to lose virtually every game.  Under Grobe and Solich, I believe we have a chance to win virtually every game.  That belief makes much more enjoyable game-day drives to Athens, time spent tailgating and drives home after victories. 

Frustrating.

Between the team's success and appearances on TV and the publicity efforts (University, Alumni office, Athletics), you can see that we are on the verge.  Look at the number of posts and number of people posting here.  It's a lot busier.

But we can't get those signature wins and that break-out season.