DefenceWinsChampionships's picture

DefenceWinsChampionships


from NE Ohio

Member since 12 February 2014 | Blog

Favorites

  • SPORTS MOMENT: 2002 National Championship Game... nuff said
  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Bo Jackson... I know he's not a Buckeye, but Bo Jackson... Favorite Buckeye is Chris Speilmen
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: Michael Redd
  • NFL TEAM: Broncos/Packers/Raiders
  • NHL TEAM: Penguins
  • NBA TEAM: Cavs
  • MLB TEAM: Indians
  • SOCCER TEAM: This is still a sport in America?

Recent Activity

Comment 01 Feb 2016

I thought about making a thread for this question, but we'll see how the discussion goes placing it in here.

Does anyone else think today might have a 2017 flavor to it? Haskins hinted at a possible monday triple boom, and most people on the initial thread seemed to immediately jump to some combination of Fuller, Hamlin, King, and/or Hardman Jr. However, while I feel Fuller is in, I think Hamlin and King are coin flips at best and Hardman Jr has always been a pipe dream. With that being said, could one or two of the hinted booms actually be for 2017? Coming off our first major junior recruiting weekend of the year I see this as a distinct possibility.

If a 2017'er were to pop tonight, my money is on Jaylen Kelly-Powell. Looking even further into the future at 2018, I would not be shocked at a Jaelen Gill boom either.

What do you think? Are we looking at three 2016 players today, or will future classes get to share in the boom-age? If you think 2017 could get a boost, who do you think is most likely to declare? 

Comment 20 Jan 2016

You don't? Everyone knows that expressing a difference of opinion here is frowned upon...

Comment 18 Jan 2016

Question for Birm: With Victor now in the fold and Jones likely to make the flip, I am assuming we are done at linebacker and only have room for one more at WR. What do you think happens with Sam Bruce/Malik Harrison? 

I was confident that Harrison would be a buckeye, but is the staff even really considering him at WR? If they are, do they wait to see what happens with Bruce first? If he wants in, do we take him, or is he just a back-up-plan at this point?

Comment 06 Dec 2015
"he argument could easily be made that our record is just as good if not better than 2 of the 4 that are in (looking at you Bama and OU). That's why this is a problem. Frankly, our record is probably even better than MSU" Yea, only none of that is true... we were 1 and 1 against top 25 teams and played only 1 other power 5 team with 7+ wins. We all need to take off our scarlet colored glasses and realize our resume is not comparable in the slightest. Bama, while they played no one of real relevance, beat something like 7 teams with 8+ wins. So while our Michigan win is better than any of theirs, there 7th best win is better than our 2nd. OU is going to wind up 3-0 against top 20 competition. It doesn't matter the rest of the big 12 is hot garbage, that's a better resume than us. And MSU. You have to be delusional. They have 4 top 15 wins! That's insane. Not to mention the freaking beat us. They have the best resume in the country.
Comment 30 Nov 2015
Yes, OkSt has one good win - against a beat up TCU team. Meanwhile, they got blown the hell out against Oklahoma. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind who the better team is between OkSt and Oklahoma. The same can't be said about Notre Dame. An argument can be made that they not only could have, but should have beat both Clemson and stanford. Put a gun to my head and force me to pick the best team of the three and I say Clemson because of their record. But in reality, I think Notre Dame wins that game at least 5 out of 10 times.
Comment 30 Nov 2015
People keep saying ALL these things need to happen for us to get in. That's simply not true. We need stanford and Bama to lose. That's it. If that happens, we're in. The UNC/Clemson game DOES NOT MATTER. The winner is in, the loser is out, it's that simple. UNC will jump us with a win, our resumes are too similar to say we're unequivocally better. This would eliminate Clemson though. The committee may take two teams from a conference, but that conference will not be the weak ass ACC. There is also no chance a 1 loss Iowa gets in the playoff when an undefeated Iowa can't get respect, and a 2 loss, non-conference-champ sparty is out as well. We would literally be the only option if Bama and stanford both lose... that being said, this scenario has a snowballs chance in hell of happening, so why worry about it.
Comment 30 Nov 2015
Disclaimer: my assertions are based off what I presume the next college football playoff rankings will look like. 1) Clemson - 2 top 10 victories and no losses has to count for something. 2) MSU - 3 top 20 wins 3) Oklahoma - 3 top 20 wins. Not quite as good as MSU. Similar loss. 4) Bama - 2 top 25 wins. Most wins against bowl eligible teams. 1 top 15 loss. 5) Iowa - 1 top 15 win. No losses. 6) OSU - 1 top 20 win. 1 top 5 loss 7) Stanford - 1 top 10 win. Numerous other solid wins. 2 top 20 losses 8) ND - kind of unlucky in both losses against top 10 teams. Could have and maybe should have beat both. 9) NW - 1 top 10 win. 2 top 20 losses 10) FSU - 1 top 20 win. Meh to the rest of there schedule. 11) UNC - because does anyone really think they're better than FSU.
Comment 29 Nov 2015
The only way we get in is if USC and Florida both win. In my mind, there's no reasonable way to keep us ahead of UNC if they beat Clemson. We're too similar (6 wins against bowl eligible teams, 1 loss, 1 quality win) for the "conference champion" title not to count. The only way is if the committee wants to make a statement about scheduling. They could, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed.