Alright, so I'm confused. Are you saying wins and losses are enough to conclude that Meyer is a good coach, or are you saying that wins and losses aren't enough?

Because I thought you were saying the former, and then you said you meant the latter, and now seemingly you're saying the former again.

Anyhoo, yeah, I can dispute his coaching ability. He's got a gimmick offense and lucked into a national title with osu.

ESPN or Fox would lock him down fairly quickly. Urban has already had a broadcasting stint (the gap between Florida and OSU) and, if memory serves, he was really, really good in both the booth and in the studio.

I tend to doubt that. He was almost universally condemned by individuals on those networks for the Zach Smith situation (unfairly, I might add). Just don't feel any major network would go for it in today's overly-PC, "safe space" culture.

Or the B10 network, which is run by Fox.

Ok, let's break this down...
(A) I didn't bring up osu's talent. I said wins and losses aren't the sole measures of coaching success. You brought up their talent, claiming it is so good it actually hurts them because those awesomely talented athletes leave for the NFL.
(B) Are you really going to compare the resources and situations at Ohio vs. osu?
(C) It is possible to win a lot and also fail to exceed expectations.
(D) It is possible to understand Xs and Os and not be able to translate that knowledge into maximum team performance.
(E) I'm not going to give you a measurable standard because none exists. If all you care about is winning percentage, total wins, etc., then we are evaluating success in totally different terms.
(F) And that's fine if we are. My original point, which I think you agreed with but I can't read apparently so maybe not, is that wins and losses--"measurable criteria"--are not sufficient to judge a coach's ability.
(G) What I see with Urban Meyer, separate and apart from your "measurable criteria," is a coach who gives lip service to "Core Values" (see https://twitter.com/michiganinsider/status/10246663393514... /) but in reality makes excuses, passes blame, and can't handle the least bit of failure.
(H) But that's OK, I guess, because he's won a lot of football games, and that's a "measurable criteria."

And this is why I can't figure out what you are trying to say. You literally contradict yourself from sentence to sentence, but that's my failing for being unable to read.

Ok, so Meyer won't be fired because of on-field performance, because he is the winningest coach in osu history, but wins and losses aren't the only measure of on-field success, and anyone who thinks osu has enough talent should see all the players they lose to the NFL year after year, and Meyer has done an amazing job over-performing expectations given all that NFL talent on his roster.

Got it.

(Meanwhile, nah, Pat Fitzgerald is the best B1G coach.)

#1, Welcome to Bobcat Attack.

#2, I follow this part of Billy's logic. I disagree with it somewhat. A probable 10-2 season would be good enough at most schools, but ending the season with an ugly loss at Purdue, an ugly win over Nebraska, an ugly win over Michigan State, an ugly win over Maryland, and (potentially) an ugly loss to Michigan is going to make the CowTownU faithful start to question whether the off-field drama is resulting in on-field trouble....and I think there is some merit to that thought process.

#3, where Billy and I disagree further is whether Meyer is a "good" coach. Billy appears to more heavily weigh the importance of wins and losses in that calculation, and I think performance relative to reasonable expectations, talent, and resources is more important. To me, you cannot consider the drama separate from the wins and losses because that is part of the job. I conceded in my earlier post that he and I will probably never agree on that point, and that's OK, because it's an opinion about sports that doesn't really matter.

#4, https://youtu.be/VqomZQMZQCQ?t=7

That is NOT what you said. You said he would not be fired for "on-field performance." You may have meant win/loss record, and that may very well be where this entire thread went off the rails...because my comment was that wins and losses are not the only criteria used in evaluating success, which you said is exactly what you said. And I then admitted in response--bottom post on the first page of this thread--that maybe I misinterpreted your post.

So, how about this: I agree that Meyer's win/loss record will not be the basis of any firing decision. However, I also say that win/loss record is not a perfect measure of "on-field performance," and that a coach with a perfectly reasonable win/loss record--even a great win/loss record--can still be let go for disappointing "on-field performance" because (a) perception is reality, and (b) college sports is irrational.

And for an osu-specific reference, see: John Cooper.

I 100% agree with this conclusion. At the end of the day, economics will win--and nobody cares enough about "on-field performance" (yet) to write a $38 million check.

Sorry 55 points

Oops 62

Not bad for a gimmick v #1 defense

Win is a win, always! However, any coach or athlete will tell you some wins give more satisfaction than others. But I’m still struggling to see how you call the spread a gimmick when it’s the most used offense in college football. Your ability to do mental gymnastics is hilarious