Can't take Jalin Marshall off the field though
This is exactly why I don't see him transferring. I like the idea of a competition to decide who starts--the coaches will decide who is best instead of all of us (but the debate can be fun still). I could also see the competition extending into the season to see how they all perform against real competition, dividing up quarters or halves. Normally I wouldn't be in favor of this but it would be a nice way to reward each player because they have each shown they can perform incredibly as a starter. I expect Braxton to eventually win the starting job because I think he can be as good as the others or close in decision-making and accuracy plus he brings an extra element of speed and elusiveness in the open field. I hope this happens to send him out on a good note. He needs a championship too for all he's done for this program!
Interesting article. I guess it's a good point that the rule allegedly designed to protect players ironically exposes them to injury risk before getting paid. One solution would be to offer insurance that would be worth the player's projected value over the lifetime of a typical career.
Yep, Michigan State was good this year and should be good again. They just knocked off the #5 team in the country and played well early in the year against an Oregon team with their top 2 WRs and TE healthy. They will be a challenge next year and will be hungry to beat us after we prevented them from getting to the playoff. However, I don't see us losing until we play them.
Agreed. But hopefully we will be good enough that variations in luck/circumstances will not be enough to create losses. I expect us to occasionally drop big games to good Big Ten or non-conference games (Michigan State, TTUN (eventually), maybe Penn St. or Wisconsin, and in the playoffs). One of the toughest issues we may face over the next few years is perhaps complacency in working hard enough in the off-season and practice to maintain the level of excellence that we have started to achieve. But, if anyone can guard against this, I trust Urban Meyer to do it. Competition among position groups for playing time may help fuel the fire. For example, it will be a dogfight for playing time among the QBs if 2 or 3 come back as expected.
Remember when many people thought Curtis Samuel was better than EZE? http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2014/09/40551/is-curtis-samuel-ohio-states-best-running-back-maybe-but-hell-never-tell-you-that
That's a great shot! It doesn't even look like the lady got wet.
Great point! I agree that the defense freaking balled out and I didn't see that coming. I think we all thought Zeke would run well but he was the clear MVP--he was the only person I was confident wouldn't fumble and he moved the ball. Everyone else I was yelling at to go down on purpose in the 4th! Without him, it is a really close game--but you can say the same thing about our defensive effort.
Next year: EZE2K, or just ZE2K?
The thread also made me reflect back on the back-to-back national championship game losses in Jan. 2007 and Jan. 2008. It might seem backwards, but some people have almost a sadistic subconscious that makes them hate someone who is getting beaten on - they despise weakness
I think it has more to do with relishing when a team that considers itself great is exposed. This is probably why everyone is enjoying bashing the SEC right now. I don't feel the same thing for Oregon though. They obviously have some issues, but they weren't beating their chests and proclaiming themselves the greatest before the game was played. The team (or maybe just Mariota) seem pretty grounded--more concerned with working hard than talking smack.
I've been confident about this game ever since the Sugar Bowl, but now I'm full of nervous energy. I CAN'T WORK LIKE THIS!!!
I hate those great dreams when you wake up and realize it hasn't happened yet. Soon...
Wow, there are a lot of these icons in a row! Did I miss something? Thanks for the analysis!
I actually think it might be better for us if each team has more drives. The best reason to chew clock is if you don't think your offense can keep pace, but I think ours can. Reducing possessions is a gamble because it increases the impact of big plays that could go either way to affect an outcome. In other words, it makes an upset more likely--like when a basketball team lives or dies by the 3.
But I really think that our team is better and our defense will get more stops than theirs if given more opportunities. We need to dictate the game with our optimum tempo or we might be less effective on offense.
I guess another valid reason to slow the pace of the game is to give our defense a rest, but I still think the benefits of giving our defense more opportunities to make stops and letting our offense run as normal gives us the best chance to win.
I wouldn't say Oregon has many overall strengths on defense, other than generating turnovers -- which is largely a combination of luck and over-aggressive offenses trying to keep pace with Oregon's scoring.
This is a great point I didn't think about before. Just like their pass defense numbers may be skewed because opposing teams are down big, so will their interception numbers be skewed.
However, looking at the numbers, Oregon did not have a ton of INTs. If anything, what stands out is their ability to force fumbles and lack of turnovers (especially INTs). It will be interesting to see if we can force an INT or two by covering their receivers better. You always hear they are just running around wide open.
|Team||f||int||to lost||f||int||to gain||margin||rank|
|Ohio St.||-11||-11||-22||+8||+24||+32||+10 (+0.71/gm.)||17th|
|Oregon (pre-FSU)||-6||-2||-8||+14||+11||+25||+17 (+1.31/gm)||3rd|
Yes, he really exceeding their 6-6 expectations!
Makes sense. The nice thing about 6 is it would give you the best "final four" because teams 3 and 4 would be decided on the field. For this year, TCU would have probably beaten FSU because it was better, but you couldn't just dismiss an undefeated FSU no matter how vulnerable they looked. Then, Oregon vs. TCU would have been a better game, presumably.
One downside (if you want to call it that): a top 6 might lead to less drama about "who's in?" I enjoyed the suspense with OSU this year (in hindsight), but a sure spot would be less stressful. The top 6 would have been clear this year.
Agreed. I like Bishop & Rothman and Buckeye Extra with Bobby Carpenter and Tim Hall, but the latter is never on because of OSU basketball and the Blue Jackets. I stopped listening to Common Man after Torg left--it was nothing but complaining and their stupid opinions.
I still think you have to err on the side of inclusivity. Each conference will usually have at least 1 title contender and the SEC will often have 2. Plus you have the occasional Notre Dame or Boise State that we might want to see thrown in the mix. I think evaluating conferences before bowl games with the current set up is inherently difficult because there are very few marquee non-conference games, and those games are typically played early in the season before some teams come into form. Right now, we would destroy VaTech and Mizzou would destroy Indiana, but Alabama would have destroyed us in week 2.
Perhaps 6 teams is the best balance between including title quality teams and not including too many. There is always a chance the stars will align and you have too many elite teams (up to 12 if all these teams played in the same year: B1G: 2006 OSU/UM, Big 12: 2014 TCU/Baylor, Pac 12: 2010 Oregon/Stanford, SEC: 2011 Alabama/LSU or 2013 Alabama/Auburn, ACC: 2013 FSU/Clemson (maybe), 2012 Notre Dame, and 2006 Boise St.), but the chance there would be more than 6 elite teams in any year is fairly low. But with a 4-team playoff, there seems to be a high likelihood of more than 4 one-loss or undefeated teams that are good enough to win a title.
The problem with the 4-team format is you leave out true championship-caliber teams like TCU this year. There is no reason to think they couldn't beat Bama and Oregon because it is tough to know how the conference elites truly stack up against each other without playing the game. No one thought Ohio State was better than Alabama until they played and now the consensus is the best teams are playing for the title.
There are 5 conferences and there could be championship caliber teams or undefeated teams deserving a shot from each conference. Then you might have Power 5 non-champions who dropped a fluky game or an early game and improved to become an elite team. Then you have the best non-Power 5 team like Boise St. who could be worthy of a shot. This year, probably the top 6 were worthy of a shot, and maybe Boise. In other years it may be as many as 8 or fewer than 4.
I think the best system is one who would include all the true contenders, even if it means occasionally including non-contenders. In an ideal world, we could include every contender and no one else, but the number of contenders is impossible to know before the end of the season.
But a schedule that includes 15 games can be both physically and mentally exhausting, especially when dealing with 18 to 22-year-olds.
I actually think 18- to 22-year-olds should be able to handle an NFL-like schedule better than 22- to 35-year-olds. I'm 31 now and it seems like it has only gotten harder to recover from sports since I was 22.
Caveat: I never played football or another sport at a college level, so I can't speak to how the body responds to these added stresses. I can only extrapolate from my own casual athletic experience.
I REALLY hope so too. I thought he would stay all along but his tweets and the transfer smoke are making me nervous. Plus, he did not look too engaged during the Sugar Bowl, Hopefully he was just upset about not being able to play.
The 2002 season was pretty special. Almost all of the games were nail biters and we knocked off a good Michigan team and Miami--the 2002-03 equivalent of a 2014-15 Alabama/Florida St. hybrid (i.e. a team that was widely believed to be the best and widely disliked)--in 2OT when no one gave us a shot. Plus the Big Ten was more respected at the time.
This one would rank up there though with all the adversity we've had, and the offense is certainly more fun to watch. If we beat Oregon, this might just outshine 2002 because we would finally overcome the 8-year storyline that we can't win the big non-conference game and no one could say it was a fluke because we'd go through the year's 2 best teams to claim the title--barring another "questionable" call like the ubiquitous claims of a bogus PI call to save the 2002 NCG.
160, which is about the lowest number left