See ya, MACtion

By Kyle Rowland on September 27, 2012 at 12:11p
Ohio State's non-conference football schedules might become a whole lot harder. (
Source: @rustymillerap

Comments Show All Comments

Kyle Rowland's picture

AP: Gene Smith says, "We'll still play a MAC school on occasion, but not nearly as much as we have in the past." 


Notre Dame, Gene Smith is on line one....
Although with the canceling of the Michigan series, I don't think its as likely now 

OurHonorDefend09's picture

THANK GOD. Can we please play at least a Kansas State or something every year? A top 10 team would be preferred, but anything is better than a bunch of MAC schools.

Don't give up... Don't ever give up.

Bj Mullens over Sully's picture

I fully support this, tired of us playing MAC teams and playing down to their level.  I think we need 1 big ooc game each year and anoher one against a top 20-25 range team.

Favorite Buckeye: Obviously BJ Mullens

cplunk's picture

Thank goodness. 
No offense to the MAC, who is having a good year, but I want to see more games against marquee and mid level programs in the big four conferences.

hail2victors9's picture

UC is your answer...and you could still play a big power, as well.

Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!

~Bo Schembechler

William's picture

Seriously. Ohio State should play Cincinnati every year. There is no excuse not to. 

BED's picture

Except we would legitimize Bearcat fans who think we care about them.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

Denny's picture

In the words of the great Apollo Creed: "ding, ding."


SouthBayBuckeye's picture

Agreed, fuck UC.
The day the Buckeyes play @Cincinatti again will be a cold day in hell. 

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

the game is at Ohio Stadium, not where ever UC palys. No long jhns needed. 

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

marvorama's picture

ah...i missed the "@" part of your comment.  carry on.

William's picture

What do I care what a Bearcat fan thinks? It would be a BCS matchup and OSU would more often than not curbstomp Cincy. Plus playing a game in Cincy couldn't hurt our recruiting there, which has been less than satisfactory the past few years. It's far better than playing Miami/Ohio/Toledo/Akron/Kent State on a yearly basis. 

onetwentyeight's picture

If anything it would hurt our recruiting because starting an in-state series (inevitably a "rivalry") with them will give off the impression that we view them as equals. The best thing we have going for us in Ohio is that we're the unquestioned top option. By tacitly suggesting the assumption that we're equal to UC we risk the chance of starting an Alabama/Auburn situation. Or put it another way, think about how much better TSUN would be right now if they had 90% of MSU's top players and MSU was just a directional michigan level type player as opposed to a real B1G school. 
[EDIT: also, their "stadium" is a pit that seats like 30k people who all came b/c the tickets were free. THE Ohio State Buckeyes don't play in venues like that; we aren't some desperate non-AQ underdog striving to make our name] 

BED's picture

^ This.

Also, the game in Cincy was scheduled at PBS, which holds a measley 65,535.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

btalbert25's picture

Neither is Oklahoma or Wisconsin

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Well, it could end up being like a PSU/Temple type of annual series.  That's what it would end up being.  Make them play any game in Cincy at Paul Brown. 

Class of 2010.

onetwentyeight's picture

Why even go down to Cincy while staying in-state to play them? Do we ever play road games at BGSU or Akron or Toledo? Cincy should be treated the same... 

BED's picture

We did *technically* play at Toledo 2 years ago when the game was at the Browns stadium in Cleveland.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

btalbert25's picture

A UC game every year would be a good idea.  It'd be a BCS non conference oponent every year.  With the 4 game play off, we'll need one elite type game, then one game against a solid oponent like UC, then the conference slate.  Still room for cupcakes, but beating UC by 2 or 3 or more TD's every year while they go on to be at the top of the the Big East wouldn't be a bad thing.
As far as UC fans thinking their equal, well I think on field performance will prove otherwise pretty quickly.  5 years in their fans probably won't want to play Ohio State anymore lol.  Recruiting wise I don't think it'd be much different than Georgia and Ga Tech.  I mean, Ga Tech is the 2nd favorite team in their own city, and the best players still want to go to the Dawgs. 
I don't get the perception, though that recruiting the Cincinnati Area hasn't been kind to the Buckeyes.  They pulled the best player from Cincinnati last year, and have got guys like Norwell and Posey out of Cincinnati.

tennbuckeye19's picture

An added bonus to playing UC is that Urban is a former player and graduate.

Buckeye Chuck's picture

Yeah, but here's the problem: how do you toughen your schedule while also adding teams that aren't necessarily going to want a home-and-home? The Ohio State athletic budget relies on a certain number of home games. I don't see us playing a road nonconference game any more than once every other year, which is the case currently.

The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.

hodge's picture

I honestly don't mind the annual MAC-rificial lamb.  Don't get me wrong, the league sucks; but at least there's a geographical reason that we play them.  Now, would I like to see more quality teams added to our out-of-conference slate?  Absolutely.  But, for the "weak" team that we play every season, I'd love for it to continue being from the MAC.  The problem is the scheduling of teams like UAB and UCF (especially at the time when they were scheduled), these are C-USA schools (on par with the MAC) that we have no geographical relationship to--they should be playing Alabama/Auburn and UF/FSU/Miami, respectively.  
My ideal lineup is one MAC school, two lower-rung/decent BCS schools (Washington State, anyone?), and one marquee matchup.  In all fairness, when the 2012 schedule was designed, Cal was supposed to serve that purpose.

BED's picture

To add to it, UAB was a last minute replacement for UC, who backed out.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

hodge's picture

Right you are, sir.  Completely forgot about that.

NoVA Buckeye's picture

I thought UCF was?

The offseason begins when your season ends. Even then there are no days off.

Alhan's picture

I think you're right.  My neighbor's schedule still shows Cincy and I thought someone screwed up thinking UC instead of UCF.

"Nom nom nom" - Brady Hoke

BED's picture

Ahh.  You are correct!  My memory failed me there.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

Why did UC back out? They're always saying that tOSU is ducking them.

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

BED's picture

Big LEast losing WVU & TCU made them redo the conference schedule, I believe.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

Bucksfan's picture

Nice.  With the 9th conference game, only 3 spots available...gotta make them count!
Edit:  I guess 9-game conf. schedules hasn't been finalized, but I think it's likely.

buckeyestu's picture

maybe a 10 year contract to play bama, and lsu. back to back games with both. this is an idea that may be worth 10 of those stickers?

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

What about Boise State Derrp replying to tweet to say that OSU is scared of BSU. YOUR TIME IN THE SPOTLIGHT IS OVER BRONCO FAN. BSU is not a powerhouse, and never will be. SOrry for your loss. Enjoy the Mountain West or whatever you're in now. 

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

LouGroza's picture

With Urban at the helm the bigger the games the better we get IMO. 

OSUBias's picture

Maybe we should stop playing conference games if we're looking to improve our strength of schedule.
Joking aside, we started this trend a few years ago with the Texas/USC series. Now it looks like it'll be more than just one marquee OOC game per season. I'm not expecting 4 games against top-10 competition, but I wouldn't mind seeing 2 big time games, one middle of the road game (UCF, the Big East, whatever) and one lamb from the MAC or somewhere else. It's a good thing for the fans, our team, our coverage in the national media, etc. Unless we embarrass ourselves to the conference du jour. THen...not so much.

7 yards and a cloud of dust is a beautiful thing

buckeyestu's picture

i agree lougroza. myself if i was a football player, i would get more hyped playing alabama and lsu,  than i would miami redhawks and uab. but as a fan i might not like that idea, especially if the two games were losses.

TMac's picture

Scheduling One game a year against another Ohio school is fine, they happen to be mostly in the MAC, I don't have an issue with that and there are reasons to keep those Ohio games.

We have scheduled one bigger OOC game for the past decade or more, Cal was supposed to be that team this year but fell off from the Top 20 team they were when scheduled.

It's the other two spots that are really in question for me.  Pitt, Louisville, UK, Mizzu all seem like ideal candidates to take on another regional team from a major conference.

So if we have 4 OOC games, one in state school, one perennial top 20 school, one regional team, and then one team we never play, like a Tulsa or ?

ONE Not Done!

OldColumbusTown's picture

Agreed.  It is those two "in between" games where the question lies.
I like the idea of getting that power team and cupcake team scheduled quite a way in advance, and then waiting until closer to that season to finalize those final two games.  (I realize the way schedules are made currently, that may be unrealistic.  However, it would be great if college AD's as a whole go to a more "near-term" scheduling philosophy so they have a better idea what type of opponent they are actually putting on the schedule.) 
I'd personally go with two perennial mid-level BCS conference schools, like an Arizona State, Arkansas, Ok State, Virginia, UCLA, Tennessee, Rutgers, etc.  There's a good chance at least one will be a conference/division title contender to boost that OOC strength of schedule, but they shouldn't be world beaters that could potentially knock OSU off the perch of national-title contender.

southbymidwest's picture

Way back when, part of the reason OSU started scheduling the in-state MAC schools was to "share the wealth". Made the Ohio Board of Regents and state politicians happy. The dollars that Toledo/BG/Akron get from an OSU game has a significant impact on their athletic departments' bottom lines. It's also far more economical for a MAC team to travel to Columbus as opposed to, say, Blacksburg, VA.

741's picture

Wait, what about keeping all that money in state...

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

I'd love another year or two against Texas. Beating them is as satisfying as beating the Domers.

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

tennbuckeye19's picture

I would like to get an SEC team on the schedule each year. I know Tennessee and Georgia were in the works and fell through, but I think setting something up with the SEC with home and homes would be good. 

Grayskullsession's picture

RIP MACtion. While I will miss beating on MAC schools I agree that we need to start scheduling the big boys for OOC games.

"if irony were made of strawberries, we' d all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now."

kr66osu's picture

about effing time, especially if we're moving towards 3 non-conference games a year

buckeyestu's picture

army, then a mac team, alabama and lsu? bye week and then big10 schedule?

yrro's picture

I like playing MAC teams. I think we should have one MAC team on our schedule every year.
In fact, I think they ought to do like the Big10/ACC challenge, opening week, but with the MAC, and just line up according to conference finish. Gives at least interesting games, with teams that don't want a home and home, and a good warmup. There are good teams in the MAC that can give you a solid tune-up, maybe even win one over the worse teams in the conference.
It's the "two MAC schools and an FCS school/FBS school I've never heard of" that I think is crap.
I want to play one MAC school, one consistent powerhouse school from a major conference, and one middle of the road team from a different major conference. Probably in that order. That to me sounds like an excellent out of conference schedule. One assured home game, and two home-and-homes that are offset which is home and away.

Nappy's picture

The problem with scheduling lower tier BCS competition is you never know how good that team will be when you're scheduling these games years in advance.  I wish we could go back to the agreement with the Pac-10.  I thought it would be a great idea. You could schedule home and home games every other year based on the end of the year conference standings.  That way the competiton is a fairly equal level.  For instance, in 2014 say Iowa and Arizona both finish 6th respectively in their conferences.  Then in 2015 Arizona plays @ Iowa and 2016 Iowa plays @ Arizona.  Then start all over.  This would prevent scheduling a 2018 game against Va. Tech expecting to play a top 10 team only to get them in the midst of an unexpected downturn.

I never saw a football player make a tackle with a smile on his face

cplunk's picture

If the Pac doesn't want to play ball, I'd love to make that agreement with the B12 or the SEC.
The ACC seems like it could also be a possibility, since we already do it with basketball.

setman's picture

I was in favor of the agreement with the Pac and still am.  I don't think that football allows the same flexibility with scheduling that college basketball does (ACC/B1G challenge).
When originally announced the plan was for the games to be spread out over the first four weeks of the season.  The problem I see with that is you need to have flexibility to match the #1 Pac team with the number 1 B1G team.  What if OSU and USC finish atop their respective conferences, but by that time the only open week for OSU the next season is week 2, for USC it is week 3?  Trying to find holes in the schedule for those games would be difficult.  Basketball has it much easier to schedule those evenly ranked matchups.  In order to make it work, the entire football challenge , all twelve games, would have to be on one predetermined weekend.  Or have pods, where a predetermined three teams from a conference would be scheduled for each weekend.  And then you match up the teams as closely as possible with their opposite numbers from that weekend.  So you would be more likely to have a 1 vs. 3 or 4 matchup rather than a 1 vs. 1 matchup. 

onetwentyeight's picture

Well the problem here is that (I assume) Ga Tech students have other things to do with their lives/ time (nerdy sKool stuff probably) and don't base their entire existence as a football fanbase on measuring up against UGA (somebody correct me if I'm wrong...) 
Modern UC football "fandom" was literally BIRTHED when they played us "surprisingly" close in 2002. They derive SO much of who they are based on us. If we even acknowledge their existence it would validate them to such a degree that we'd all immediately regret it, trust me. Remember those bUCkeye state shirts last year? God forbid we drop a flukely loss to them once in the next few decades, I can't imagine how much mileage and traction they'd get out of that. 

builderofcoalitions's picture

YES! With the B1G on a downward trajectory, this will be important in order to just make the final four (or whatever they're calling it). Even three games versus major conference basement-dwellers plus one marquee OOC opponent will help out OSU's SOS immensely. 

Because we couldn't go for three.

FROMTHE18's picture

This is a very good move. Would love to see an SEC team scheduled every year. Pac 12 team as well would be nice. 

GABuckeye's picture

I'm all for a decent team in week 1 - a team that will pose somewhat of a challenge but should still beat soundly.  Then I want a marquee game in week 2 - for instance the Texas, Miami (at least when it was scheduled it was considered that), USC games that we've played recently.  Then 2 more good, but not great teams (maybe a mid-level big 12, pac 10 (12?), sec school).  I'd also like to see more geographically friendly games - instead of UAB how about Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, West Virginia, etc.

chromedomebuck's picture

Damn...see if you're PSU and you struggle to beat MAC teams on a consistent basis you can justify keeping them scheduled.
When you're OSU and continually serve up annual beatdowns to the MAC, you gotta change your schedule.
Wouldn't mind seeing some home and home's with Florida State, Oklahoma (or Okie St.), etc. in addition to the desire to play an SEC team. 

Champions Bleed Scarlet & Gray

Buck_Michigan's picture

I think this is great!  We need to be tested.  I was doing a little research and let's just take a stab at the 90's era and look and who we played during the first 4 weeks (non conf) of college football.  In those 10 years only twice year did we not play a top 25 team during non conf pay and one of those times (97) Mizzou ended up 23rd.  Man Coop wasn't skeered...too bad he just couldn't beat UM otherwise there would have been at least 1 NC in his 13 year tenure.  At any rate, look at how we used to schedule prior to the current MAC/keep beating up poor Akron/Miami OH/Toledo etc.  Keep in  mind also, that many of these games were away...not in the happy confines of the Shoe.
1990:  USC #15  1991:  No ranked teams  1992:  Syracuse #8 (not a typo it is Syracuse)
1993: Wash #12 1994:  Wash #25  1995:  Boston Coll #22, Wash #18, Notre Dame #15
1996:  Notre Dame #5 1997:  Mizzou was unranked when we played but ended up #23
1998:  W. Virgina #11, Mizzou #21  1999:  Miami (FL) #12, UCLA #14
This was life before we started playing supposed "tune up" games.  I'm not opposed to playing 1 of those but I truly believe you need to struggle to be the best. I know we had some decent games in the 200's like Texas and USC but we need more of that.  I'd love to redeem ourselves and get some SEC on the schedule...I know Urbz ain't skeered!

2012 Beat Michigan Tail gate:  UFM:  "Let’s beat the sh*t out of Michigan, have a good night."

cplunk's picture

Are those rankings the team's ranking at the time of the game or the team's ranking at the end of the year?

BED's picture

It appears from his note about Mizzou that they were rankings at game time.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

xFactor11's picture

I believe they are at the time of the game unless stated.. such as Mizzou ending up ranked.

Buck_Michigan's picture

Yes those were rankings at the time of each game, not at the end of the year...probably should have looked into that but time is not always on my side. I just wanted to point out that in the 90's OSU didn't seem to shy away from scheduling some decent opponents that were ranked and sometime more than one. We need to get back to this and I'm sure Urbz won't shy away.

2012 Beat Michigan Tail gate:  UFM:  "Let’s beat the sh*t out of Michigan, have a good night."

Sean N's picture

I think the main problem with scheduling a mid-to-low-level BCS conference teams is that those teams have absolutley no interest in scheduling a game vs a team like Ohio State.  Those teams like Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Iowa State and the like use their non-conference slots to play FCS/mac/sun belt teams.  That way they can go 4-0 vs nobodies and then go 2-6 in conference play and still be bowl eligible.  Until the NCAA grows a pair and rules that 6-6 teams can't go to bowls (or even going back to the old rule that wins vs IAA schools don't count toward bowl eligibility), that won't change.  It doesn't look like the NCAA is willing to stand up to ESPN and do that, so this is what we're stuck with.

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Good!  I'm tired of MAC games.  Either we win huge and get little or no credit, or they end up closer than expected and we look bad.  Not every opponent has to be top 10, but some mid to upper-mid BCS conference teams would be nice.  And a top 10 game.

Class of 2010.

Et_Tu_OSU's picture

Playing one Ohio MAC team is plenty (playing Marshall sucked).  Final three should be AQ with one being marquee.  It was kinda cool seeing Colorado and Cal in the 'Shoe -- if the Pac12 can't line their ducks up (no pun intended), maybe our AD could do it for them and find someone willing to travel each year.  The only thing l like to see less than MACtion in the 'Shoe is the FCS teams; there's no excuse for it.

"The revolution will be televised."

DetroitBuckeye's picture

I agree that they should stop scheduling the mac teams, still though if I learned one thing from michigan's scheduling this year it's that scheduling cupcakes is just as bad as trying to play the marquee game when you are not any good.  If we had to play one Mac team I would like it to be Ohio University since they seem to be on there way up.  Scheduling tough games is great as long as you win them.

buckeyedude's picture

Traditionally, Ohio is not a good team in the MAC. It is more like the "Illinois" or "Minnesota" of the MAC. Toledo is more often than not playing for a MAC title most years, like OSU or TTUN.
Not that anybody here gives a shit, obviously.



cajunbuckeye's picture

Hate to see the MAC games go away, I think the cash made a big difference for their programs. I say share the wealth to someone close to home, but only one game.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches