Eleven Warriors

I grew up in Cleveland. I have always been a big Buckeye sports fan. I'm known in the Maine theater community as the guy who brought a TV into the dressing room if I had a rehearsal during an important Buckeye game. When our team won that was as it should be. When we lost I felt as if it were my own butt that had been kicked. After an especially depressing loss I have stopped watching sports completely for weeks, until I can remember that it was only a game. I don't take the Scarlett and Grey lightly.

For reasons that made sense at the time I did not go to Ohio State. Since I left for the college I did attend I have never lived closer than 800 miles to Columbus, so I know nothing about the school president other than what I read. Getting endowments does not get press; acting like Homer Simpson does; and so that is what I know. And to know Gordon Gee this way is most definitely not to love him.

The "little sisters of the poor" comment was both mean and ignorant. It was mean because iit insults both those who provide service to the poor; It was ignorant on two levels,. First, I certainly hope that a university president does not devote so much of his time to football that he actually knows anything about who the "good teams" are. Second,  because Ohio State football teams have played notoriously soft out of conference schedules; and in too many years the in-conference competition has arguably been soft as well. And while the Buckeyes have won we have frequently made "bad" opponents look pretty good. Regardless, that  kind of athletic trash talk should be left to the running backs, and the athletic department employees who are paid royally to defend Ohio State athletics' honor. The university president should have more important things to do than weigh in on the SOS. Gee came out of that looking like a mean clown. His defenders can probably rightfully claim no harm no foul; and there are no lasting injuries except to Gee's own reputation.

Not so his comment about Tressell. We will never know but unless someone in the NCAA tells me directly that I'm wrong I will believe till I die that Urban Meyer was doing TV commentary instead of coaching during the 2012-2013 bowl season in part because of the arrogance of a school that, in the words of its president, feels that its football coach is more important than that president. At least in the court of my own opinion Gordon Gee was on probation following that verbal disaster.

In my opinion the comments that have just been made public are violations of that probation. Attacking an entire religion is not "boys being boys" - it is symptomatic of the hatred that leads its victims to commit suicide and retaliate with violence. That Notre Dame and other Catholic universities will not actually attack Gee or Ohio State does not make any less serious his transgression.

His comments about the SEC are  particularly ironic, because had he lived 50 years ago Gee would probably be vocally championing the racism of Adolph Rupp and Bear Bryant. He is intolerant in their mold, and there is nothing innocent about his hatred, he is too well educated, too experienced to believe that he can un-ring a bell.

And a university that is lead by one who on too many occasions has demonstrated both that he is intolerant and is unable to control his anti-social behavior loses the right to be respected. It is no longer an accident when Gee flames; it is the norm for the university.

Gee is being defended as a great fund-raiser. He may be. Though that doesn't pardon unacceptable behavior, anymore than being a great football coach excuses giving a job to your mistress. And though I do not know the details I think it possible that Gee is being given credit he does not deserve. Ohio State was a strong institution before Gee arrived - it was not made great by Gee. Likely anyone committed to fund raising could accomplish for The Ohio State University what Gee has. And if Gee has sources others might not it is likely to be people who find his intolerance attractive. How much blood is Ohio State willing to allow on its money?

Penn State's Board of Trustees did not want to fire Joe Paterno but his behavior finally left them no choice. I think it entirely appropriate to consider whether Gee has proven himself similarly not worth the positives he brings. Tressell was replaced by someone better; O'Brien was replaced by someone better. I think it appropriate for the Ohio State Board of Trustees to consider whether Ohio State can improve itself by now replacing Gordon Gee.

1. I would rather have an appendectomy without anesthetic than root for AACC. Thank you Louisville! Why didn't you do that last year, Kansas?

2. What I take away from the tournament as a whole is the role of three point shooting. There are many reasons why teams win or lose but what struck me this year was the ability to shoot or defend the perimeter. Harvard shot 44% from long; New Mexico 21%. WSU hit five threes in a row against Gonzaga and was blistering in the first half against us. We hit 50% against ISU and AZ and won on threes; and laid bricks in our last game. MI beat KS because of late threes; Lville beat WSU because Henderson and Hancock got hot. The Cardinals won the title because they shot threes better than they shot layups.

I think this is partly true because players are better shooters than they used to be and because three is worth more than two so it is a strategy. But I think it also laziness on the part of offenses and defenses. It is easier to step back than try to break down a defense. And for all the talk of the Buckeyes' great perimeter defense the scarlet and grey were not very good at it, sagging off of guys who were out there to bomb away, not recovering quickly enough. I know that defense takes huge amounts of energy and a team needs to gamble on what to give up but IMHO what the Buckeyes need to work on most for next year is really defending the line.

3.  In looking at next year I'm not understanding why scUM is getting so little love. They are not likely to lose all their team, just Burke and Hardaway. And while those are big losses OSU lost a POY and was better the next year; lost Diebler and Lighty and went to the Final Four; Sullinger and Buford and went to the Elite Eight. MI has a lot more waiting to fill in the holes than OSU did, with Albrecht and LeVerte already ready to take over point; and a cast of  freshmen and sophomores who are going to be murder next year. MI also has 5 seniors and while 2 might be walk-ons that's three spots guaranteed to open plus as many more as leave early. If Beilein recruits for 2014 the way he has the last two years as painful as it is to say it the Wolverines are going to be next year what IN was supposed to be this year (I'd take McGary over Zeller).

4. I grossly underestimated OSU this year. I looked at the returning parts and the single part coming in and saw trouble. Matta got maximum return from this roster, methinks. Unless new recruits prove better as froshes than recent ones have (Craft and Sully excepted) I don't see a #8 team next year. The talk is that Ross will seamlessly replace Tank but though Q's performance statistically was on par with Thomas' this year he was not doing it as the focus of every team's defensive plan and was not doing it for 30+ minutes per game. Unless he can fill Thomas' shoes or unless points come from new players next year's squad is going to be scoring challenged.

We also absolutely need to upgrade at center. We got no offense from that spot; the guys we put there fouled too much and intimidated too little. Williams without Ravenel is going to be that much weaker. Is Williams going to finally become a player? Will McDonald decide that he wants playing time? Will a new guy be the answer? I can't see us as Top 10 or even Top 20 unless and until we get answers.

5. The forgotten art of team basketball. The Buckeyes need to learn the patience and togetherness on offense that they learned on defense. We had four games that literally came down to the final shot. Only against AZ did the ball go to a proven scorer who had been open. Two of those games ended in losses. Too often I watched Buckeyes grab a rebound inside and then try to force shots against traffic, too often with bad results (Louisville did that far too much last night too). Just because you have the ball does not mean you should be shooting. Twice in the closing minutes of the Shockers game Thomas grabbed a rebound and then tried to bring the ball upcourt himself, I assume because he was afraid that if he gave it up he would not get it back, and twice he got stripped. No, Tank, No!!! Get the ball to someone who is open, or to Craft or Scott and reset the offense. I was not troubled as much by the long shots we took early against WSU because most of them were open looks we should have made - what troubled me more was the forces inside against three defenders. The same way Sullinger kept trying without success to break down Withey last year. The team will be stronger  if they support their teammates and work with team strengths, keeping in mind that if something is not working find something else to do. Kenpom liked our offense - I probably saw more of it than he did and I think it needs to be more efficient still.

Recently I posted a blog that ended this way:

This is not about whether Matta was a good hire - he was. This is not about whether Matta is a good coach - he is. This is certainly not a call for his firing (I'm still trying to understand the mindset of Chicago Bears ownership who fired a coach that got them 10 wins. What proven winner is on the market? That to me looks like a team ready to implode completely.) This is about whether he is maximizing potential, whether OSU basketball under Matta is as good as it can be. I think Matta is a good coach, a very good coach. But I don't think he has earned a right to be above criticism. I'd gladly give up a few B1G wins for an NC ring or two. I'd even settle for playing in two NC games in five years. I'd like to see hustling role players learning teamwork. I'd like to see more Turners, who come to Columbus rough and leave as professionals. Those to me are how to measure elite coaches. And wanting such things does not mean I am never and will never be satisfied - they mean that for all Matta's successes I think he is falling short of what an OSU coach can accomplish. And I'd like to see those things accomplished.

I had thought my position was clear - that OSU basketball under Matta was good yet could be better. I also thought this was non-controversial - that every coach, no matter how successful, would feel that the best was still to come. The 11W response, however, was vitriolic. It was as if we were still in the 14th century (or whenever it was) and I had suggested that the earth revolves around the sun. The responses were more religious than scientific. Which is really unfortunate because some legitimate questions I had raised were being almost completely ignored. Andyvance compared Matta's winning percentage with other coaches - thank you Andy! - but otherwise my blog might have served no purpose whatsoever but to get Buckeye fans irate. Since subtlety did not work I will try stating directly some questions I think those who take basketball seriously might care to look at more closely.

Given the pavlovian way too many readers react to my name alone I'd like to offer two reassurances. I just ask questions here, I do not give answers. I do not attack Thad Matta, Ohio State sports or western civilization. And I do not know the answers to these questions - this is not a devious way of attacking Matta, OSU or wc. It may be that the answers suggest that Matta is operating in an idiosyncratic way that may put a firm ceiling on what he can be expected to consistently achieve. It may also be that the answers establish that he is operating according to principles that have proven successful, and that there is no limit to what can be expected. Search if you have a curious mind; refrain if you fear what you might find.

1. I wish I hadn't started my blog with reference to Trey Burke because doing so permitted those so inclined to focus entirely on my error in not remembering that Shannon Scott had been more highly regarded. With that apology now on record let's put Matta's recruiting in the spotlight. We all know the one-and-dones he has brought to Columbus; the less heralded players he has molded into strong starting line-ups. Matta deserves recognition for these achievements. But he has offered spots on the roster to a lot of players who have not become household names even to Buckeye fans; and in at least a couple of instances he may have failed to fill known needs. How has Matta actually recruited top to bottom during his years in Columbus? Narrowing the focus, how should his incoming class of 2012-2013 be evaluated? There is not a single senior on this year's roster that he recruited (Ravanel transferred in) and none from the graduating class of 2013 left early for the pros - what happened to his recruits? More generally, a relatively small number of roster players ever contribute in a meaningful way - are the guys who ride the pine for a year or four just not very good? and if that is the case is Matta recruiting a higher percentage of busts than he should? And to return to Burke should Matta be paying heightened attention to local kids (including Chane Behanan from Cincinnati who is now killing it at Louisville) or are Ohio and Columbus as recruiting bases absolutely no more important than anyplace else?

2. To me the "length" of a bench is not based on the number of players who get some arbitrary amount of playing time; rather, it is based on the number of players who are regularly asked to contribute at times other than when the outcome is already settled or the coach is desperate. The role players. There is a widely held perception that after the dust settles and things get real relatively few players are asked to contribute under Matta. Is this true? Is there a pattern to how deep into the line-up Matta goes or is every year different? How does his approach compare with other Div 1 coaches? with coaches at other "elite" programs?

3.  If Matta's bench is shorter than other coaches' what does that mean? It could be that the end of the bench is not very good, in which case that reflects on his recruiting. Assuming that more players are capable of contributing "now" than are actually being asked to do so why is this? Is it because they could be good enough if Matta gave them the attention that could get them there but Matta does not give them the attention?  If so is that because Matta does not have time, he is too busy with the select? Is it because Matta does not care to make the time, he doesn't care about any but the select?  Are they already pretty good and don't need a lot of extra attention but philosophically Matta is more comfortable with a short bench? And given that Matta is coaching at a college where, in theory, the student athletes have a right to expect to be taught and get experience is that kind of philosophy a fair one? (This last question allows for the possibility that at a college there might be something more important than winning.)

4. If Matta's bench is generally shorter than those of coaches he is competing against what, if anything, does this say about his likelihood of winning an NC? What is the shortest bench of a team that has won one? that has reached the final but lost? What is the average number of players who regularly contribute to an NC winner? What is the optimal number, if that is different?

5. This question can not be answered by data, it is jus a matter of preference, but it would be nice to know what OSU fans think; what fans nationally think.

At the start of each year the coach will have one primary goal. For weaker teams the goal might be nothing more optimistic than improving in some way over the previous year. In this case the focus is much more on teaching than winning.

A different goal might be winning a certain number of games - 10, 15, 20.  If so, a coach can look at the schedule, determine where the wins are likely to come, and design game plans likely to get those wins, without regard for the rest of the schedule. There are plenty of teams that would jump up and down at winning 15.

Or a coach might aim at winning the conference regular season title. In this case games outside the conference don't matter except as they help prepare to win conference games.

A coach might aim at winning a conference end-of-year tournament to get the NCAA automatic bid. In that case out of conference games don't matter, and a large number of in-conference games don't matter either, as long as the team wins enough conference games to make the tourney.

A coach might aim at making the NCAA, no matter how it gets done. That will call for its own strategies, though it will need to be the right number of quality wins and avoiding bad losses.

Finally, a coach might aim at winning the NCAA. The strategy here is counter-intuitive but obvious, if that really is the goal. In this case the objective is taking as long as it takes, within reason, to go into March peaking without worrying too much about record, particular wins, or rivalries. As long as the team has a combination of athletes that can compete (including as long a bench as it really neds) and has all its necessary pieces healthy and on-board and gets into the tournament  playing as well as it ever could be it will be a team with as good a chance as any, no matter hw low its seed. In other words, losing 12 games before March matters less than winning the last game in April.

OSU is playing for more than simply being better than last year, more than simply winning 15 games. But everything else is on the table. Some readers have said that 20 wins is the measuring stick they use. Some have said that winning the B1G is most important. I want rings. All call for different coaching approaches.  A goal can change during the course of a year; it can change many times; but at the start of a year a coach needs to know what he is preparing his team for. What do 11W readers want Matta to set as his goal? and are you willing to accept losses if they are part of the strategy necessary to achieve that goal?

6. I don't know what six is but I certainly have not asked all the questions about coaching at a high level. Think of an assumption you have made about Matta's performance and turn it into a question.

I had some time to kill before the Fiesta Bowl so put on ESPN2 hoping to see the Wildcats make a basketball game of it. All during the early portions of the broadcast - which was as long as I could bear to watch AACC cruising - the announcers were absolutely gushing over the scUM sophomore point guard. And truth to tell Trey Burke deserves it - he is playing at a very high level. At this point there is no question who the best point guard in the B1G is, and it isn't Aaron Craft.

Burke is a really depressing story for a Buckeye fan and not just because he is making our enemy so good. What is really tormenting is that Burke is from Columbus. Columbus Ohio. And the biggest reason he is not playing his college ball in Columbus is that OSU did not recruit him. Not an offer, not even a serious look. Recruiting is an imperfect science: there are five stars who turn out to be frauds; there are no stars to turn out to have game. Burke could have been a high school ugly duckling who turned out to be a swan. Only he wasn't. He was the 2011 Ohio high school Mr. Basketball and a PARADE All-American. He signed with Michigan before that, but also before that he was already a major part of one of the country's best high school teams. In Columbus. He was on national radar. And Matta ignored him. (At least that is how I remember it. If I'm wrong please correct me. But a Columbus kid with connections to Sullinger does not give a verbal to Penn State and end up in Ann Arbor as Burke did if he is being pursued by Ohio State.)

There are only so many spots on a roster and a coach can't get everyone. We already had Aaron Craft and had no need to replace him quickly. But still, how do you let a player like Burke walk away without trying to get him? If Burke doesn't mind playing behind Craft why should Matta mind? You don't think the Buckeyes with Burke would be better than the Buckeyes without him? You don't think that stopping a Columbus to anyplace-but-Columbus pipeline before it gets started isn't a good idea? Matta just flat out blew it.

Matta knew for a 100% certainty that after the 2011 season he was going to need to replace Buford. He knew to a 95% certainty that he would need to replace Sullinger. And he knew that no one he had brought in off the bench in 2011 had been an adequate back-up for Craft. And Matta's response was to bring to Columbus but one player - an Italian kid who could hit threes if no one else was in the gym but had never learned defense, never played the kind of physical ball he would be facing in America, and now appears to be almost a complete bust.

The current roster has but one senior on it, and Evan Ravenel came by transfer. No one Matta recruited for the class of 2013 is still on the roster. Where are they? either they left and we don't miss them, in which case they probably should not have been recruited in the first place; or they left because they were unhappy, and player unhappiness is at least in part due to coaching.

After this year Matta knows 100% that he will need to replace Ravenel and 95% that he will need to replace Thomas. He has questions at center. Next year's team has some serious needs. So far the only good news for 2013 recruiting seems to be a 6'2" shooting guard who will add scoring which is good, and may well be the Burke he is not letting get away, which is good, but in terms of size Williams duplicates the only spot where the team is solid. Matta has a lot of work to do if he wants the 2013-4 team to be competitive.

Matta is touted as a great recruiter but it's not clear that that has ever been true.  Give him credit for attracting Conley, Oden, Kosta, Mullens and Sullinger to Columbus. Yes, these were GREAT recruits. Over the years he has also brought in the  Dieblers and Lightys - guys who were not spectacular but who contributed to strong starting fives. These were really really good recruits. The Buckeyes have had strong starting fives during the Matta years. But what we haven't had is much past the starting five. Few coaches at an elite level have traditionally used as few players as Matta.  Buckeye rosters have too often been filled with players not good enough to play at times when they were needed. Smith became a good starter in 2011 but the year before he was mostly unusable. This year is still quite young but so far no one off the bench except Scott has proven to be more than adequate, and not even whoever Matta starts at center has been better than adequate offensively.

Nor is it clear that Matta's player development has been all that good. Right now only six Buckeyes who played under Matta are in the NBA. Kosta, Conley and Sullinger were going to be pros whoever they played for. Maybe Matta made them better, maybe not. Cook and Mullens saw little playing time while in college, their success has little to do with Matta's coaching. Only Turner was turned into a pro by Matta. Lighty, Buford, Diebler - four years of Matta coaching did not make any of them good enough to stick, and Lighty did not even get drafted.

Matta has unquestionably made the team consistently better than it had been before him. This is not a close call. The question is what kind of success one is looking for. A few weeks ago I suggested that Brad Stevens is doing a better coaching job than Matta. They both have Butler experience and Stevens has a better record there than Matta had. Matta has brought wining basketball to a "football school," but that football school has the second biggest sports budget in college; is part of a premier conference with premier competition; and gets steady television exposure. Getting top talent to Columbus is relatively easy. Stevens was in a league with no exposure, weak competition, a school without great amenities; has never had a one-and-done, has had few players who were heavily recruited coming out of high school - and has molded teams of unknowns into two national championship game participants, one that had the last shot to win.

I also suggested that Florida might have football and basketball coaches at least as good as OSU's and was told that Matta's record is better than Billy Donovan's. True, but Donovan has two rings. One of them obtained in a head-to-head battle against Matta. Is it enough for Buckeye fans that our teams win 77% of our games? Is it enough that we win the B1G? Do those outweigh early exits in the NCAA? It's a matter of taste.

Why we lose early can be a difficult question to answer definitively but one possibility is that Matta simply is not flexible. He has a preferred style of offense and sticks with it - and with the players implementing it - however well prepared for it the opponent is, however poorly a player is doing. Jim Boeheim gives up his beloved zone defense more often than Matta moves away from his beloved offense. Sports Illustrated columnist Seth Davis often lets his ego get in the way of his objectivity but I think his recent assessment of OSU is spot on: "This is as good a perimeter defensive team as you will find, but Ohio State's lack of offensive versatility is putting too much pressure on its D." He thinks the wheels are about to come off.

This is not about whether Matta was a good hire - he was. This is not about whether Matta is a good coach - he is. This is certainly not a call for his firing (I'm still trying to understand the mindset of Chicago Bears ownership who fired a coach that got them 10 wins. What proven winner is on the market? That to me looks like a team ready to implode completely.) This is about whether he is maximizing potential, whether OSU basketball under Matta is as good as it can be. I think Matta is a good coach, a very good coach. But I don't think he has earned a right to be above criticism. I'd gladly give up a few B1G wins for an NC ring or two. I'd even settle for playing in two NC games in five years. I'd like to see hustling role players learning teamwork. I'd like to see more Turners, who come to Columbus rough and leave as professionals. Those to me are how to measure elite coaches. And wanting such things does not mean I am never and will never be satisfied - they mean that for all Matta's successes I think he is falling short of what an OSU coach can accomplish. And I'd like to see those things accomplished.

1. We Won!!! 11-0. Way to go Buckeyes!

2. Since a lot of 11W readers mistake any criticism for total rejection I'll say it again - this was a great win against a very good team that wanted to beat us. Terrific, terrific result!

3. Our pass defense stinks. It wasn't just letting a guy who had hardly played football in about five years and was making just his second start go 5 for 5 (not counting spikes) on the final drive in regulation. This was the second game we won in large part because opposing receivers dropped passes in their hands (MSU was the other). Simply put: our coverage is not good enough against even mediocre receivers if the QB is given time. Phillips was shakey when he was under pressure but Fickel called for pressure far too little. We have only one game left but AACC now has a guy who can throw and if we give Gardner the time we gave Phlilips then next week could get pretty ugly. IMHO we have a week to figure out how to implemement corner blitzes.

3b. Against MSU Ross said we did what we tried to do - stop the running game and count on Spartan receivers dropping passes. If receivers are bad a team can take that gamble. But we Made Phillips look good AND let Ball get nearly 200 yards. It didn't amount to points, but it also didn't amount to defense. I'm looking forward to Ross's take.

4. Our offense is too easy to stop. Purdue drew up the blueprint. WIS carried it out even without their starting stud LB. AACC is going to do the same: spy on Braxton and dare him to win through the air. It is hard to see on TV because we don't get to see the whole screen very often but part of the problem is bad pass play design and bad receiver play. We saw receivers not called as the first option just jogging. We saw receivers running too close to each other, bringing too many defenders close together. And on one 3rd and 10 that the announcers said was great defense the corner was backpeddling and instead of breaking off the route at the first down marker our guy kept going, running into coverage.Stoneburner dropped two.  Take away Miller's legs and we struggle. Whch leads to

5. Miller is a dynamic RB but he is still not good enough as a QB. His decision making is not very good, to put it kindly. At least twice he took big losses when he should have thrown it away. He threw one deep ball that never should have been thrown. He completed passes to receivers just past the line of scrimmage that had no room to run - were those really good passes?  He is guiding the ball, not throwing with command. We can win with him because he is that good as a runner but the wins will come against teams not prepared to stop his running. I think the early excitement over his explosiveness has largely disappeared in the reality of plenty of other players simply doing better, and unless other candidates struggle too he won't even be going to NY. Which is no critcism - very few players get invites. But the team needs to be realistic about the talent it has, and the talent it does not have yet and devote itself to improving where improvement is needed. Meyer can talk about "playmakers" but as well-suited as Miller is to Meyer's preferred offense the QB needs to be better still.

ONE. Illinois is a bad team. We have faced other bad teams and struggled - we beat UAB by only 14 and their second win just came against a team that hasn't won yet. We recently struggled against a Purdue who aren't very good. So in that sense cruising as we did is really nice to see. But IL is much worse than PUR, and we are a different team than we were six weeks ago and beating IL by a ton is what we should be doing. What I'm saying is that we should not take away too much from this game other than the observation that we looked good. Save the gushing over team play for when we face an opponent with a heartbeat.

TWO. Even against a bad team Carlos Hyde deserves praise for a great work ethic and the ability to get the job done. It is impossible to overstate how important it is to our offense that we have that second option, that other defenses genuinely fear that Miller might hand off, meaning that they can not focus on Miller entirely which will make things just that little bit easier for Miller. I grade Hyde as a champion. (This is especially important since Rod Smith has a definite fumble problem. It will be interesting to see how many carries he gets if our remaining games are close.)

THREE. The problems we had going in to IL unfortunately continued. The stupid penalties are an epidemic. If we had anyone to replace him with Bryant should have sat for much of the game - two bonehead penalties in the first quarter and a dropped INT. We were given a gift when Roby's roughing the  kicker was only called running into which didn't change field position. The tripping penalty on the INT near the end of the first half probably cost us points. This stuff is not from trying to hard, it is from not thinking hard enough. Meyer needs to get a handle on it. And our kick return coverage continues to be an issue. Maybe that's from not having the bodies we need. With a week off for injuries to mend we should theoretically have on kick coverage guys who can cover kicks. We need to.

FOUR. Meyer expressed unhappiness in our passing game without saying why exactly. In my view Miller passed a lot better than he had been. It was not his fault that Stoneburner dropped two well-thrown balls. I don't count against Miller that he was asked to throw bombs at the end of the first half, hurting his stats. Maybe our receivers need a lot of work but I thought Miller showed improved poise in the pocket.

FIVE. The one who didn't is Guiton. Even if all he will ever be asked to do is get the ball to a RB we saw that even that needs work. The only reliable way for an inexperienced QB to improve is game experience - practice is a totally different beast for one with limited game play. This game was completely under control by the end of the second quarter. There is no reason I can think of for Miller to have still been in the game into the fourth quarter. This is not about avoiding injury,though I continue to see that as a legitimate concern - this is so that if Guiton for whatever reason has to play any amount of time in our last two games he will have a better feel for what is going on around him. I guess we are to take from Meyer's comments abnout our passing game his feeling that Miller needed more practice but if that's the case leave him in working on it till the final gun. If Miller did not need to finish then Guiton should have been given more time than he was. Because as things are we are looking at a potentially serious drop-off in ability to produce if Miller ever has to come out the rest of this year. And while there will aways be a drop-off when someone as dynamic as Miller is replaced the drop-off need not be because the sub is unprepared.

On paper this is the best in the B1G against the worst. This should be a complete, total mismatch. And yet . . . The 2012 Buckeyes have faced several other teams they were much, much better than, and only played dominant football in the second half of the first game of the year. As much as any other "top" team the Buckeyes have played down to the level of the competition. The first half of Miami, most of the next three games in their entirety, IN, PUR, all of those were closer than the relative skill levels of the players should suggest. The quick excuse has been that the team is not as good as it is going to be, that this is a year of over-achievement. But the offense exploded for 63 against a Nebraska defense that is not that bad. If we could do it against the Cornhuskers what happened against the Boilermakers? We held a decent PSU offense in check till the game was out of reach, and while the Nittany Lions play more of a pro set than some of our other competition that should not fully explain how we gave up 49 to Indiana. I suggested that the team was not as well coached as Meyer was being given credit for - this was roundly rejected, though a team that is still letting defenders come in untouched to block a punt and looks as uncertain as we do on on-sides kicks in the ninth game is not demonstrating total  attention to detail by leadership. We are 9-0 and we are the only ones who are, but if those 9 games have taught us anything it is that putting money on a particular OSU result this year is not a good investment.

I don't think this will be close. Of course I said that about Purdue too. But I really don't think this will be close. However, I do think the score will be closer than some are predicting. On the negative side I'm not ready to give this team the bnenefit of all doubt after one complete game. I expect that IL will do something to make our defense look bad, I expect that the stupid penalties we did not stop even in the Penn State game will crop up, I expect that Miller will force a pass that a defender will hold on to, and I expect that the systemic problems we have been having in almost all phases of special teams have not suddenly been corrected. I don't think these will account for a lot of Illinois points but I think they will account for some.

The big reason I don't expect a blow-out is because I think - I hope, actually - that Meyer no longer values them as much as he did earlier in the year. Were we not on probation and were fighting for bowl position we would want to impress voters and bowl officials and television executives. As is, we can win our last three games by one point each and we will have maximized our potential. AACC without Robinson lost to Nebraska. Wisconsin without Stave lost to MSU. Ohio State without Miller would be no sure thing against either scum or Whiskey. And definitely would be no sure thing if Guiton is not better prepared than he is now. Meyer saw against IN that when we start choking we need EMTs and he's not going to fool around if the lead is under 20. But I think - hope - that if the lead gets to 25 in the second half that Miller will be sat down to save wear and tear on his body and give Guiton the reps. If Miller plays the whole game and we win by just 25 I would consider this another under-performance even if that covers the spread. But if we win by 20 and Guiton gets in more than a full quarter I would think it a game well played.

Of course Meyer might choose to try for that 100 points he mentioned earlier in the year. This is a game where it is theoretically possible.  I think that would be a terrble decision on his part but it could be in character.

So what's the feeling? Keep the peddle to the metal? Pure destruction even with subs? closer margin but better preparation for the future? and though I don't see it as likely it is a possibility: closer margin than we'd like despite our best efforts? 11W asks people to just gives numbers in guessing scores. Here's a chance to do some analysis.

Blog style so I don't have to worry about length.

One. Great job Buckeyes. That was the most complete performance of the year, under possibly the harshest circumstances. There is only one 9-0 FCS team and it resides in Cbus, and #9 was no fluke. Way. To. Go.

Two. What happened yesterday in our game and other B1G games only confirms to me not only that I was right before but that Urban has done some rethinking. Braxton did more sliding and going out of bounds yesterday than he has all year, and my feeling is that very little was his own fear. I suspect strongly that Meyer told Miller both to run when he can, and avoid unnecessary hits. QBs are valuable commodities, injuries occur enough under normal play, there is good reason to avoid unnecessary hits. Guiton did really well in the Purdue game, but I bet AACC's Bellomy had been doing well in practice too and we saw what he did in the game. WIS is probably going to represent the Legends Div in the B1G title game by default but winning that or a bowl game is no sure thing without Stavi. What this means for us - I hope - is that we don't unnecessarily increase the chances of needing Kenny. When we need yards we call on Miller,  but when the odds are against us and it isn't a need, just a want (like being at least 40 yards from FG range with 17 seconds left in the first half in a close low scoring game), we do what PSU did at the end of the first half AND WHAT MEYER DID AT THE END OF THE GAME and take the victory formation to save Miller for when we need him.

Three. Where has this defense been? We had definite problems with the double move wheel route, nothing is perfect, but though McGloin got a lot of yards this was the first time all year that I felt that even with those yards his drives ended because we ended them, not because his own team self-destructed. And what we did to their ground game was nasty. If we can continue to play this way the AP voters may have to give us some thought. (Though as long as AL and/or OR and/or KSU and/or ND continue to play as they are playing we have no realistic chance at a split title)

Four. Lots of good to be said. On the other side: Miller's passing has to improve. Other than the Stoneburner TD which was not a 72 yard pass though that is what it covered Miller's passing was inadequate. Missing an open guy deep early. Throwing Bauserbombs 15 feet over the heads of receivers. Other than the TD he was 6 of 18 for 72 yards. Against a defense that was packing the box and should have been vulnerable to the pass. He was excited? No excuse at this level of ball. I'm frankly shocked that PSU did not do a better job on Miller's zone reads - I really thought that if PUR culd do it PSU could do it - and if they had Miller's pasing would have hurt us. Progress every day but serious progress needs to be made in our air game if we don't want the 2013 NC to end as the 2006 and 2007 did. I think Meyer quoted someone to the effect that if one doesn'tt learn from wins one will learn from losses. Let's learn from this win.

Five. I don't know what the difference was between the halves. If it was Meyer making offensive adjustments than that's the coaching I've been looking for. If not, if it was just things working that had not been - it is OK to make adjustments at half time, Urban. Game plans are really good, changing the plan when it is not working is just as good. So, again, if you did things at halftime on Saturday I give you a standing O Urban.

Now, how about the Buckeyes stop getting hurt?

After the Purdue game I asked if the Buckeyes were really as well coached as Meyer is generally given credit for. Among my criticisms were that Meyer had the team run plays on our last possession of the first half. This was buried in a longer blog but I think it deserves more thought than most 11W readers seemed to give it. Saying that it's just Meyer's style does not address the more fundamental question: was that good coaching?

Football is a contact sport. Teams and players afraid of contact are not going to win. But when to take contact and what kind and how  much are fair questions.The more contact a team or a player take the greater the risk of injury or turnover. Obviously a freak injury can happen to someone not even on the field; a fumble can occur on the first carry. But the more times an offense gets hit by the defense the greater the chance that something bad might happen.

This of course is only half the equation - the more plays an offense runs the better the chance of scoring, and games are almost always won by the offense scoring more than the other team does. You want to win you need to run offense.

What to do in a given situation is matter of risk-versus-reward analysis. By the end of the Purdue regulation we were in desparate straights - we were trailing and the clock was running out. We had no choice but to go for it with 47 seconds left and the ball at our 39.

But at the end of the first half, with the ball at our 36 and only 17 seconds left we did not *need* to score then -  there was still a full 30 minutes left to play and a 13-7 defecit was not so bad that we needed to score every time we touched the ball. That we gained no yardage on that series does not prove that it was wrong to go for it, the question is what were the risks and likely outcomes. At that point we had not moved on offense for most of the game and there was no reason to think, really, that we would get even the 40 yards we would need for a FG in the 17 seconds we had. Yes, had Smith made a real effort for the first pass we might have been in business- in real time it looked to me like he quit but I could not tell for sure, and the reality is that Smith has been unreliable all year. There was nothing we could count  on to get us 40 yards in under 17 seconds. This needed to have been taken into account. And on the next play Miller took a late hit.

There is no question who our best offensive weapon is. But there are reasons why Miller does not run every play - because his body will not survive it and because a one-player offense is much easier to shut down. How much he should be allowed to run is open to debate, but that other "skill" players on offense need to be contributing is universally understood. Miller has had to miss plays in several games due to injury from in-game contact, and what happened in the third quarter put what can happen front and center. Contact can cause injury. That's why even running QBs are urged to slide or go out of bounds rather than repatedly challenging linebackers and safeties with malice in their hearts. Because QBs who don't protect themselves generally are less successful, or have shorter careers. And teams that lose their QBs too often suffer. That late hit at the end of the first half could easily have done to Miller what the tackle in the third quarter did.

I know what Meyer did at the end of the first half; what *should* he have done? If you agree with Sarah's question at the top of this blog I argue that Meyer should have had Miller take a knee and get ready to coach during half time. Even one deep pass attempt with Miller strictly advised to avoid contact does not eliminate the risk of an ofensive lineman going down, though every once in a while the Hail Mary works and it is a standard practice. As might be guessed I am not a big fan of it, but even if this crowd favorite can be justified when it failed and we were 1) too far away to complete a pass into the endzone and 2) had too little time to complete a 40 yard pass AND kick a FG running further plays was not smart.  We were not moving the ball, we had no reason to think we would do it in the last 17 seconds. Meyer should have passively run out the clock because Buckeyes *are* dropping like flies, and the probability of success versus the probability of something bad happening did not favor aggressive play calling at that point.

Meyer will be Meyer - I get that. And Meyer has been a winner everywhere he has coached - I get that too. And we are 8-0, you don't need to remind me. But good coaches can  have bad days. Good coaches can have bad 17 seconds. I think going for it at the end of the first half of the Purdue game  offered more likelihood of a bad result than a good one. You want Buckeyes to stop getting hurt? eliminate the *unnecessary* risks of injury.

What do you think? Telling me that I'm an idiot or that this blog is too long does not answer the question. Let's have some analysis.

First, best hopes for Braxton. Nothing else matters more than avoiding serious injury for anyone.

Second, I know there is wide support for 8-0. I like that more than any other alternative record at this point, but if you just ENJOY THE RIDE as another 11W blogger put it you should stop reading now, because I stop celebrating now. Today's game brings out the cynic in me, no doubt. But I was asking the questions that follow before the Purdue game. And what I saw today does not make me stop thinking them.

From the time that Urban Meyer was hired as the Buckeye coach he has enjoyed a complaint-free welcoming. Everything he has done has been praised but while 8-0 is better than the alternatives to my eyes there is good reason to question just how well this team is coached. Play a schedule of Miami of Ohio, Cal, UCF and UAB and Ohio State had better be 4-0. The win over MSU is not looking quite as good - if Iowa can do it how good can it be? Indiana was a nightmare, today even worse. Which leaves exactly one game on the season that looked like Buckeye football. Last year's team also had one good win (WIS), so what exactly have we accomplished in 2012 other than not getting the PAT blocked in a desperate comeback against a mediocre Purdue? I think the honeymoon is over and it is appropriate to look critically at the Urban Meyer Ohio State Buckeyes.

The defense is every bit as bad as last year's. We certainly played better in the second half today but on the whole this is a team that can not tackle (I stopped counting at 15 missed tackles anbd when tackles were not missed the pile still moved forward, not back) and that from Purdue's very first play from scrimmage did not know where it was supposed to be (anyone have a clue what Klein was thinking?). This is a team that eight weeks in does not know how to play defense. And it's not a learning curve problem.

Special teams are excelling in kick blocks but struggling in almost every other phase. We gave up a 101 yard KO return today and a 60 yarder last week. We allowed a fake punt conversion from inside the Purdue 20. We have had our own punts blocked, and a PAT and short FG missed. And our own kick returning is below average.

Which leaves offense. We are a one-trick pony - zone-read running. Miller's passing has rarely worked on its own, it has generally been as a result of running softening the D. It is a very good trick, but whenever an offense is not overpowering or really sublime a disciplined defense has a chance of shutting it down. Let's be clear - we did not struggle today because Miller got hurt, we struggled today because Purdue played disciplined defense and Miller looked ordinary. Looked less than TerBush. We had the 100th rated passing attack going into the Purdue game and did not help that today. And did not run either. Against a very average defense thqat was prepared for what we would do.  Other than NE and IN this offense has not lived up to what I think was expected.

So what exactly has Meyer implemented? I am not saying that he was a bad hire, I am not saying he is doing a bad job, I am not saying he should be fired. I am saying that our record notwithstanding we do not appear to be significantly better than we were last year when we scored over 30 five times, when we held five opponents to 20 points or less. We feel better about ourselves this year than we did last. Perhaps what is happening is seeds being planted that will blossom next year. But for those who rank teams on more than raw record Ohio State with advantages that only a very few other schools can match is not a Top 15 team, possibly not even in the Top 20 if those are measured by who would win on a neutral field. Urban Meyer as the head coach is responsible for all that happens on the field. How well coached is this team really? Has Meyer maximized our potential? If not are you satisfied anyway?