L.C., you make my point. The staff gets a lot out of the talent we get. I just wish they would get more talent! I still can't figure out why a guy that coached at Neb and in a National Championship game cannot get more talent to Athens.

Let's not blame it on the location. BG and toledo don't get most of their recruits from Toledo. We have came up short. We gave up 20-0 lead, let's move on and try to get a championship this year.

My point is that there are historical reasons why some schools do better than others, and it isn't always easy to know what those reasons are. Proximity to recruits is certainly one. Teams in areas that produce a lot of recruits, like Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and USC are near the top of the country year after year, and it's not just random luck. You can see the effect clearly when you take an example like Earle Bruce, who was 36-32 at Iowa State, with no conference championships, and who then went 81-26-1 at Ohio State, and won 2 championships outright in 9 years, and tied for 2 others.

In a conference like the MAC the reasons may be less apparent, but they are there nevertheless. Why are EMU and Kent historically bad, for example? Why was Ohio historically bad? Wes has argued that it is facilities, and I'm sure that is part of it. BTC argued that it was because of low funding, for example, not paying for players to stay over the summer, and I'm sure that was also part of it.

Solich has worked, not only to coach the team, but to build the foundation. Facilities have improved. Funding for the things necessary to win have been increased. The net result is that the program continues to improve. No, it hasn't been as fast as any of us would like, but the progress is there to observe, if you look, and contrary to what some believe, the progress continues even today. By all my measures, this was the best recruiting class yet, but I presume that when the new Academic Center is done, and there is a new scoreboard, those will help recruiting to reach even better levels.

To me the question is how lasting the changes wrought by Solich will be. If Solich has done enough to build the foundations, then when he's gone the program will continue to thrive. If not, it will return to where it was. As comparison points, on the one extreme, after Hess, it didn't take long for Ohio to fall into a very bad time, while at the other extreme, after Joe Novak at NIU, the foundation was lad for years of success.

"Last year, we started off slow, turned over the ball and we lost." Still waiting for you to acknowledge that there was even another team on the field. Western had everything to do with a slow start, did they create turnovers, as Ohio 'lost", Western "won" the game the old fashioned way. It was a very good game. Hang your head in shame if you like, I will not go there.

LC and others- I would encourage you to ignore the constant negative posts from one certain poster. Every Bobcat fan knows that the football program has not won a MAC title since the late 60's. If you ask this staff, I am certain, the lack of a MAC championship is one goal that haunts them. However not winning a MAC championship isn't the only thing that should define Coach Solich and his staff. Football is not like basketball in that if the basketball team gets hot for three games in March, they win the conference tourney and head to the NCAA. Only Coach Hunter's team in the past 30 years has finished as the number one seed and won the MAC regular season basketball championship outright.
One day, Coach Solich will step down and retire and I for one will be very thankful for what he has done for our program. Maybe the negative posters who want to get rid of Coach Solich for not winning a league title would prefer the university go back to 1-10, 1-10, 2-9, 1-9-1, 2-8-1, 0-11 and 2-10 seasons that were not that long ago? I could be one of the few fans that would prefer a 10 or 11 win season and a bowl win as opposed to a league title. Having said that, it would be great to get both. However if the the Bobcats ended up 5-3 in the east and ended up playing in Detroit and beat the MAC west winner, but only earned one non league win, would that season be considered a great year if they lost in the bowl game? In that scenario the final record would be 7-7. On the other hand, consider this scenario. Bobcats win three non-league games beating a Big 10 or Big 12 school in September, but ended up 6-2 in the league, but lost a tiebreaker and didn't go to the MAC title game. They go on to win a bowl game and end up 10-3. I'd prefer the 10-3 season as opposed to the 7-7 record.

Addressing current needs is a double edged sword...it improves your team but you don't always pick the BPA which lowers your recruiting scores by the so-called experts.

If you would have asked me before signing day I would have wished for current needs and playmakers.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

His posts are being ignored more and more frequently and as soon as a few more wise up to the tactic, he will be effectively banished to his own deserted island. Only then will BA be able to return to what it once was and although it is possible that other trolls could join BA, I highly doubt any would be as hell-bent to force feed us a particular agenda in such a grossly narcissistic way (i.e., be a total d-bag).

My man!

You go on classlessly, meaninglessly trashing me instead of responding to the facts and logic!

I'm actually shocked that you would admit to believing that. I couldn't disagree more. I think the school has as much or more to do with the results than the coach. To depersonalize the issue, I'll limit discussion to the second question. I think Saban is far too smart to have ever taken a position at Vanderbilt because he knows he'd have struggled to win half his games. He managed to win 59% of his games at Michigan State, a bit over their average of 55%. He won 75% at LSU, also over their 67% win rate since 1960. At Alabama he has won 86%, again, over their 75% school win rate. If he had performed comparably at Vandy, he'd have most likely won about half of the time, well over their longer term win rate of 32%, but no threat to win a SECC, much less a national championship.

There is no doubt that Saban is a good coach. He's won more at every school than that school's traditional win rate, yet there is no doubt that his win rate has been affected by the school's tradition. Is that a coincidence? Hardly, because each school has it's own traits that make it more or less attractive to players. That is why the smart coaches are careful what jobs they take. Many jobs are dead-end jobs because you have no chance of long term success.

Getting back to Vandy, Derek Mason has won 37% of his games, slightly above their long term rate, yet he is trending upwards. He was 3-9, 4-8, then last year 6-7. If he has another good year, and perhaps goes 8-5, he may get some offers to coach at another school where he can hope to have better success. I would urge him to take advantage of the opportunity, if he gets it.

Wes, I agree that things change, but they change for reasons. Coaches can change them somewhat, doing a bit better, or a bit worse, but Bill Snyder is the only one that I can think of that took a bottom team and made them a top team.

In the examples you cite, SMU was changed because of a single event. Conference realignment is another change that can occur. Building new facilities, or new TV contracts are less dramatic, but can cause incremental change. That's why I have said that Frank's real contribution, in the long term, comes in the realm of program-building. His efforts to change fundamentals not only make it easier for him to win, they will help those that follow him as well. The IPF, the Academic center, and funding for more programs are things that will help Ohio in the years ahead.

Still, it is sometimes remarkable just how stable things can be. As an example, isn't it odd that if you look back at Ohio Basketball history, virtually every coach dating back to 1922 has won about 60% of their games? The only real exceptions were Dale Bandy (1974-80) Billy Hahn (1986-89). Saul is running a little below that at the moment, but he'll probably end up about 60%, too.

Solich has been here 12 years. How long does it take to build a foundation?

Starting with the last six games of 2012 (when it turned after a 7-0 start), we're 31-27 with the full seasons having 6, 6, 5, and 6 losses.

(Again, OCF, those are facts. You might notice not a single full season with less than five losses and 75% of those full seasons with six losses, though undergirded with play in the weak MAC East.)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? THAT'S BUILDING? Please adjust meds.



And, by the way, Saban at Vandy--he'd assuredly have them considered a national title threat after 3-4 years and have conference titles.

The conclusions of the SFB are wonderously detached from reality.

Saban 56-7 during that same period.

Which is better?: 31-27 or 56-7

(Hint: Solich would have to go 25 and negative 20 to match)


I realize that there are institutional advantages at Alabama vs. Ohio.


But Saban plays a much tougher schedule. (Will I have to argue with you about that?)


But it's a good argument; Saban would is only marginally better than usual at Alabama and would be same at Vandy or Toledo, etc.




All that statistical and stars study and projections/predictions and you can't see the achieved relative merit of Saban and of Solich?!