Has Ohio as the highest ranked team in the MAC...#58 (out of 130)

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratin...

58. Ohio
71. Toledo
74. Buffalo
78. N. Illinois
84. Miami
86. E. Michigan
94. W. Michigan
108. Akron
112. Ball St.
118. C. Michigan
122. Bowling Green
123. Kent St.

Are you really trying to insinuate that winning the MACC doesn't help you in the ESPN freakin power ratings?

The lengths you go to downplay the significance of winning a MACC is incredible.

Ohio doesn't need a league championship! Hell no! They are highest rated team in MAC in ESPN power ratings! Raise a banner!

Hilarious.

Alabama didn't even play for a conference championship last year--and won a national championship. Winning the conference championship is nice, it just doesn't have the same weight in this era that it once did.

When you've won 18 conference titles in 50 years, it has a little bit less meaning. Sure.

And I'm not arguing the basis of your argument. Agree that winning a league title isn't 100% necessary to compete for a national title when you're in the B1G, SEC or ACC. Hell, even Nebraska played for a title during the BCS era without winning the Big XII.

But for a program that plays in a league that will NEVER compete for a national title ... I think the weight it carries is a little more. Especially when you haven't won one in 50 years (sorry .... REPETITIVE ALERT  🚨🚨🚨)

I have a hard time settling for the consolation of being the highest ranked MAC team in the ESPN power poll rather than winning a league title. Seems like a hollow achievement when in reality it literally means nothing.

It means as much, or as little as you want it to. Still, this year and last year are the first two times that Ohio has been in the top two in the conference in power rankings. To me that indicates that Ohio is not plateaued, and is still improving.

For what it's worth, about half the time the leader in various power indexes ends up also being the conference champion, and about a third of the time the #2 team is the conference champion. This was an odd year in that neither of the top two teams in the power index were in the Championship game.

I don't think we have any misunderstanding. Having the best power rating for the first time ever isn't a bad thing, but neither is it a conference championship. Where we differ is that I take this first ever achievement as a sign that things are still improving.

I wouldn't say never when the day the playoff expands the MAC's chances to play for a national title increase tenfold. Traditionally the conference championships haven't been as important as appearing in the AP Top 25 but that is changing with all of the conferences having a title game and with the chance of achieving the highest post season placement tied to winning the conference.

You are correct that in some ways what I want, continuing improvement, is harder than winning a MACC. You can't very well have continuing improvement without finally winning a MACC, but you certainly could win a MACC without continuing improvement. They simply are different goals, that are complimentary, but not necessarily coincident.

This sums it up for me.

I totally agree with you and LC that thanks to Frank, Ohio football is more nationally "relevant" than ever before. And that is certainly a plus. The facility upgrades come with that. It's all positive.

This isn't pointed at you two ... but a lot of folks on here misconstrue my desire to see a MACC as me not appreciating what Frank has done. Couldn't be less true.

I agree with LC that Ohio could conceivably not necessarily improve as a program but still win a MACC.

I think it's a gaping hole in Frank's resume and one that a lot of passionate, die-hard fans would love to see over being #1 power ranked MAC team or a Camellia Bowl win.

There's something to be said about winning the big one. The Buffalo Bills are not necessarily considered one of the great teams in NFL history. Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing will always be missing something from their resume.

Winning championships are important. Devaluing them because Ohio can't win them doesn't change that. If Ohio had won 5 MACC during Solich era you damn well know people would be falling over themselves to make people aware of that success. But it hasn't happened, so some act like it's just not important. Seems like a cop out.

Oh .... sorry. Forgot. 🚨🚨🚨 REPETITIVE ALERT!!!

So this begs the question, should we up the compensation package of Coach Solich and his staff to represent what they have meant to OHIO Football? His salary has essentially been stagnate, especially when taking his longevity into account. Maybe now is the time to show a commitment! I'd like to see Coach be the first $1 Million MAC Coach, and his staff not being the highest paid is kind of a farce.

I realize this is sarcasm (BTC knows no other tongue!), but there isn't a chance in a windstorm that this administration will up salaries for any athletics position. For better or worse, they've made clear it's not a strategic priority.

There's no reason to continually spout the lack of a MAC title. We all are very clear on your position, bshot44.

The point was made that a MAC title didn't influence the ESPN Power Ratings. And you questioned it.
The facts show otherwise.
The question was not about whether the MACC matters overall.
The point was that a MACC didn't matter when it came to ESPN Power Ratings.
It doesn't.
Accept it and move on.

That was not my point. I think I clearly explained that above ... apparently used a poor choice of wording. Wasn't trying to say a MACC would help you in the power ratings at all!

My point was bcat2 was once again downplaying the significance of a MACC.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I think anybody with a pulse would understand that winning the MACC would have ZERO influence on a power rating. That game carries no more significance than winning a regular season MAC game in terms of power ratings. So why would I suggest otherwise?

Accept that?