menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: 2022 Football Schedule
Page: 1 of 4
OUbobcat9092
General User
OU9092
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post Count: 1,279
person
mail
OUbobcat9092
mail
Posted: 1/18/2022 3:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
9/3 - FAU
9/10 - @ Penn State
9/17 - @ Iowa State
9/24 - Fordham
10/1 - @ ?
10/8 - HOMECOMING
Trevor Stephens
General User
TS
Member Since: 12/13/2017
Post Count: 272
person
mail
Trevor Stephens
mail
Posted: 1/18/2022 4:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 1/18/2022 6:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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?
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: 1/18/2022 9:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
MonroeClassmate
General User
MC
Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 2,323
person
mail
MonroeClassmate
mail
Posted: 1/18/2022 11:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/19/2022 10:20 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,677
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 1/19/2022 10:31 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Early prediction is 7 and 5.
Wow. What have you done with the real Alan Swank?
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/19/2022 11:12 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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?
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 1/19/2022 2:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
OUcats82
General User
Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,912
mail
OUcats82
mail
Posted: 1/19/2022 2:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
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: 1/19/2022 3:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
ytownbobcat
General User
Y
Member Since: 8/7/2006
Post Count: 1,253
person
mail
ytownbobcat
mail
Posted: 1/22/2022 11:15 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
71 BOBCAT
General User
71B
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,954
person
mail
71 BOBCAT
mail
Posted: 1/25/2022 4:40 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Unfortunately I am not real positive on us having a winning season after last years debacle.





GO BOBCATS
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 1/26/2022 7:04 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Urban Bobcat
General User
UB
Member Since: 9/14/2007
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 857
person
mail
Urban Bobcat
mail
Posted: 1/28/2022 11:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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
TWT
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
mail
TWT
mail
Posted: 1/28/2022 4:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,678
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 2/3/2022 5:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 2/4/2022 2:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 2/5/2022 9:11 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 2/5/2022 10:59 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Urban Bobcat
General User
UB
Member Since: 9/14/2007
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 857
person
mail
Urban Bobcat
mail
Posted: 2/6/2022 11:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,647
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 2/7/2022 6:56 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 2/7/2022 8:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 2/15/2022 10:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Endowment - $762.1 million
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,760
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 2/15/2022 2:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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)