menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: 2022 Football Schedule
Page: 1 of 4
mail
person
OUbobcat9092
1/18/2022 3:15 PM
9/3 - FAU
9/10 - @ Penn State
9/17 - @ Iowa State
9/24 - Fordham
10/1 - @ ?
10/8 - HOMECOMING
mail
person
Trevor Stephens
1/18/2022 4:30 PM
The Ohio football program announced their 2022 home and away opponents.

Homecoming is set for Saturday, October 8; the opponent is to be determined.

HOME: Florida Atlantic (Sept. 3), Fordham (Sept. 24), Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo and Northern Illinois

Away: Penn State (Sept. 10), Iowa State (Sept. 17), Kent State, Miami, Ball State and Western Michigan
mail
person
Victory
1/18/2022 6:22 PM
So we already know that Oct. 8 is a home game and it is homecoming when we don't know the opponents. Is this a new thing where the MAC is giving out a known home date so homecoming plans can be made early?
mail
person
Pataskala
1/18/2022 9:06 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
So we already know that Oct. 8 is a home game and it is homecoming when we don't know the opponents. Is this a new thing where the MAC is giving out a known home date so homecoming plans can be made early?
The MAC might already know the October schedule but is finalizing the midweek MACtion games in November with ESPN and CBSSN, so they're not yet ready to release the whole thing.
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
1/18/2022 11:16 PM
Athens area hotels phones now ringing.

At least nice to NOT see Central coming on October 8th!
Last Edited: 1/19/2022 8:13:06 AM by MonroeClassmate
mail
person
Alan Swank
1/19/2022 10:20 AM
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
mail
person
SBH
1/19/2022 10:31 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
Wow. What have you done with the real Alan Swank?
mail
person
Alan Swank
1/19/2022 11:12 AM
SBH wrote:expand_more
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
Wow. What have you done with the real Alan Swank?
I think that's a REAListic prediction. 2 and 2 in the non-conference part, 3 and 1 at home and 2 and 2 on the road based on the opponents that we'll have. What's your prediction?
mail
person
mf279801
1/19/2022 2:03 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
Wow. What have you done with the real Alan Swank?
I think that's a REAListic prediction. 2 and 2 in the non-conference part, 3 and 1 at home and 2 and 2 on the road based on the opponents that we'll have. What's your prediction?
1-3 non-con seems ENTIRELY possible, with 2-2 being the best imaginable OCC record from my (admittedly pessimistic) viewpoint. 2-6 in conference play seems as likely (if not much more likely) than the 5-3 you’re predicting. Don’t get me wrong: i HOPE we do better than that, but I’m not holding my breath
mail
OUcats82
1/19/2022 2:13 PM
Just. beat. Fordham.

That would be a great start for this staff.

Given the state of the program, a win over FAU would be a great start to the season.

Don't see much promise with Penn State nor Iowa State-albeit the Cyclones will be in a bit of a rebuild.
Last Edited: 1/19/2022 2:15:50 PM by OUcats82
mail
person
Pataskala
1/19/2022 3:09 PM
Ordinarily, I'd look at the previous year's records of our four OOC opponents and think what a great opportunity to start 4-0. PSU and ISU were both a mediocre 7-6, Fordham was 6-5, and FAU was 5-7. Nobody there that's ordinarily a no-winner. But given our season last year and the talent we've lost to graduation and transfers, I'm thinking 1-3 is maybe the best we can do. Hope I'm wrong.
mail
person
ytownbobcat
1/22/2022 11:15 AM
I think 6 wins or more in 2022 gets Albin a third year as HC. Seems like a very big task for this staff and players. Maybe the new DC feels it is worth taking a chance in Athens.
Worst case is willingness of Ohio University AD and other decision makers to let the program fall into mediocrity due to indecision. If there is continued improvement in the university's finances it probably is economically feasable to bring in a new staff.
mail
person
71 BOBCAT
1/25/2022 4:40 PM
Unfortunately I am not real positive on us having a winning season after last years debacle.





GO BOBCATS
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/26/2022 7:04 AM
ytownbobcat wrote:expand_more
If there is continued improvement in the university's finances it probably is economically feasable to bring in a new staff.
According to an article in the 11/14/22 The Post, at the January Board of Trustees meeting the "Resources, Facilities and Affordability " said that
O.U. is expected to have a $36 M "Positive Operating Budget".

If that's true, there's enough money there now to bring in a new staff.
mail
person
Urban Bobcat
1/28/2022 11:25 AM
If we have four wins it will be a monumental accomplishment for this staff.
Being a beacon of optimism my assessment is a three win season.

Until we have somebody new running the ship (a bonafide real president) Coach A. is here to stay another three seasons.
Last Edited: 1/28/2022 2:42:59 PM by Urban Bobcat
mail
TWT
1/28/2022 4:39 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
If there is continued improvement in the university's finances it probably is economically feasable to bring in a new staff.
According to an article in the 11/14/22 The Post, at the January Board of Trustees meeting the "Resources, Facilities and Affordability " said that
O.U. is expected to have a $36 M "Positive Operating Budget".

If that's true, there's enough money there now to bring in a new staff.
That is coming off the heels of a $22.8 million operating deficit in FY20 though and the university having to tap into reserves.

https://www.ohio.edu/budget

The best move the AD could make is getting that basketball coach (Jeff Boals) under extension prior to Cleveland. A higher level basketball coach is a better show of strength than anything we could do with a football staff at the foreseeable moment.
mail
OhioCatFan
2/3/2022 5:29 PM
Urban Bobcat wrote:expand_more
If we have four wins it will be a monumental accomplishment for this staff.
Being a beacon of optimism my assessment is a three win season.

Until we have somebody new running the ship (a bonafide real president) Coach A. is here to stay another three seasons.
Hugh Sherman is a documented real president. He's not an interim. He's the type of person who will make a decisive move if it's warranted. You have misjudged both the man and his status.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/4/2022 2:45 PM
Club Hyatt wrote:expand_more
If there is continued improvement in the university's finances it probably is economically feasable to bring in a new staff.
According to an article in the 11/14/22 The Post, at the January Board of Trustees meeting the "Resources, Facilities and Affordability " said that
O.U. is expected to have a $36 M "Positive Operating Budget".

If that's true, there's enough money there now to bring in a new staff.
That is coming off the heels of a $22.8 million operating deficit in FY20 though and the university having to tap into reserves.

https://www.ohio.edu/budget
According to an article by Abby Miller in today's The Post, in December, O.U. projected ending 2021 with a $42.6 Million budget surplus.

If that's accurate, and if the Board of Trustees $36 Million "Positive
Operating Budget" for 2022 is also accurate, that's $78.6 million that could be used for things like, hiring a new football staff.

There's also more then enough in the surplus to address your recommendation on Coach Boals.

Which would also be a great idea.
Last Edited: 2/4/2022 2:45:46 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Victory
2/5/2022 9:11 AM
This doesn't mean they have money to burn for the sake of burning it. They will use the money for whatever gives them the highest return on investment. That could be attracting better students by revamping the dorms, getting better research equipment, keeping their best professors, not raising tuition.....

Athletics add value through marketing (exposure of the university much like a billboard advertisement), bettering campus life with entertainment options, and keeping some alumni more engaged. That's why nearly all universities are willing to operate athetics at a loss. It isn't a business by itself but part of the University's overall academic plan. Just because they were operating at a loss in 2020 didn't mean huge cuts were coming to Athletics and a surplus doesn't mean there is money to spend on them. For the most part if there is a clear and obvious positive return on investment you'll find the money even if you have to borrow it and if it isn't you won't spend it even if you have money on hand.

Reading this is mind-boggling. It is just like the people who think dropping football would suddenly free up millions to spend on men's basketball. There is obviously some return on investment of football (millions in the Universities eyes) that the university would lose if they dropped football. They are not spending this money on football just because they have it to spend. Spending the sum of it on basketball only would only work if the marketing exposure and campus life value of 30 basketball games could exceed to value of 30 basketball games and 12 football games combined. Is this that hard to understand? How much money is on hand is not nearly as relavant as how spending it gives a return on investment. Return on investment does not change no matter how much money you have on hand.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/5/2022 10:59 AM
Victory wrote:expand_more
This doesn't mean they have money to burn for the sake of burning it. They will use the money for whatever gives them the highest return on investment. That could be attracting better students by revamping the dorms, getting better research equipment, keeping their best professors, not raising tuition.....

Athletics add value through marketing (exposure of the university much like a billboard advertisement), bettering campus life with entertainment options, and keeping some alumni more engaged. That's why nearly all universities are willing to operate athetics at a loss. It isn't a business by itself but part of the University's overall academic plan. Just because they were operating at a loss in 2020 didn't mean huge cuts were coming to Athletics and a surplus doesn't mean there is money to spend on them. For the most part if there is a clear and obvious positive return on investment you'll find the money even if you have to borrow it and if it isn't you won't spend it even if you have money on hand.

Reading this is mind-boggling. It is just like the people who think dropping football would suddenly free up millions to spend on men's basketball. There is obviously some return on investment of football (millions in the Universities eyes) that the university would lose if they dropped football. They are not spending this money on football just because they have it to spend. Spending the sum of it on basketball only would only work if the marketing exposure and campus life value of 30 basketball games could exceed to value of 30 basketball games and 12 football games combined. Is this that hard to understand? How much money is on hand is not nearly as relavant as how spending it gives a return on investment. Return on investment does not change no matter how much money you have on hand.

When the topic of stopping the bleeding,and getting rid of Albin first came
up,there were questions whether O.U. had the money to buy out his contract.

Given the 2021 surplus and anticipated 2022 "Positive Operating Budget" ,O.U. has the money in surplus.

If my math is correct,Albin's $500K buyout is around 0.6% of the surplus.

That doesn't even register as a "drop in the bucket" .

So the money is there.
Its just a question of whether O.U. decides to use it.
mail
person
Urban Bobcat
2/6/2022 11:17 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If we have four wins it will be a monumental accomplishment for this staff.
Being a beacon of optimism my assessment is a three win season.

Until we have somebody new running the ship (a bonafide real president) Coach A. is here to stay another three seasons.
Hugh Sherman is a documented real president. He's not an interim. He's the type of person who will make a decisive move if it's warranted. You have misjudged both the man and his status.
Two year contract sounds interim to me, just like Pinocchio is a real boy.
Last Edited: 2/6/2022 11:20:44 AM by Urban Bobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/7/2022 6:56 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
When the topic of stopping the bleeding,and getting rid of Albin first came
up,there were questions whether O.U. had the money to buy out his contract.

Given the 2021 surplus and anticipated 2022 "Positive Operating Budget" ,O.U. has the money in surplus.

If my math is correct,Albin's $500K buyout is around 0.6% of the surplus.

That doesn't even register as a "drop in the bucket" .

So the money is there.
Its just a question of whether O.U. decides to use it.
This is a misframing of the discussion at the time.

OU has an operating budget approaching a billion dollars a year. The question was never could the University afford a buyout. The University can afford a buy out.

The question was, and continues to be, whether that's a good use of money. As of yet, nobody has made a compelling case as to why it makes sense to spend $500k to get out of Albin's contract one year earlier. That many of same people advocating for that were lined up outside Cutler Hall with torches and pitchforks when the University's CFO was paid a 33k bonus 2 years ago just makes the insistence that "we have the money" all the more hypocritical.

Just because the money's technically in the bank doesn't make spending it on an Albin buyout any less stupid.
Last Edited: 2/7/2022 7:51:08 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Victory
2/7/2022 8:40 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
When the topic of stopping the bleeding,and getting rid of Albin first came
up,there were questions whether O.U. had the money to buy out his contract.

Given the 2021 surplus and anticipated 2022 "Positive Operating Budget" ,O.U. has the money in surplus.

If my math is correct,Albin's $500K buyout is around 0.6% of the surplus.

That doesn't even register as a "drop in the bucket" .

So the money is there.
Its just a question of whether O.U. decides to use it.
This is a misframing of the discussion at the time.

OU has an operating budget approaching a billion dollars a year. The question was never could the University afford a buyout. The University can afford a buy out.

The question was, and continues to be, whether that's a good use of money. As of yet, nobody has made a compelling case as to why it makes sense to spend $500k to get out of Albin's contract one year earlier. That many of same people advocating for that were lined up outside Cutler Hall with torches and pitchforks when the University's CFO was paid a 33k bonus 2 years ago just makes the insistence that "we have the money" all the more hypocritical.

Just because the money's technically in the bank doesn't make spending it on an Albin buyout any less stupid.
Yes, exactly. Last I saw the endowment is around a billion dollars. It was never about the money being there.

https://images.app.goo.gl/S68ZUBfAxbrwwwzW7
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/15/2022 10:47 AM
Endowment - $762.1 million
mail
person
giacomo
2/15/2022 2:27 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
When the topic of stopping the bleeding,and getting rid of Albin first came
up,there were questions whether O.U. had the money to buy out his contract.

Given the 2021 surplus and anticipated 2022 "Positive Operating Budget" ,O.U. has the money in surplus.

If my math is correct,Albin's $500K buyout is around 0.6% of the surplus.

That doesn't even register as a "drop in the bucket" .

So the money is there.
Its just a question of whether O.U. decides to use it.
This is a misframing of the discussion at the time.

OU has an operating budget approaching a billion dollars a year. The question was never could the University afford a buyout. The University can afford a buy out.

The question was, and continues to be, whether that's a good use of money. As of yet, nobody has made a compelling case as to why it makes sense to spend $500k to get out of Albin's contract one year earlier. That many of same people advocating for that were lined up outside Cutler Hall with torches and pitchforks when the University's CFO was paid a 33k bonus 2 years ago just makes the insistence that "we have the money" all the more hypocritical.

Just because the money's technically in the bank doesn't make spending it on an Albin buyout any less stupid.

As Elmer Fudd might say, “twue”. I would never support a buyout under any circumstances. We don’t make money on athletics.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 77
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)