We have very different definitions of "nice turnout." Michigan getting 35,000 to see a 10+ win team in a 110,000+ seat stadium with a maniac coach from another planet they all think was divinely sent is what I'd call "pathetic."
Better hurry back to Chapel Hill so you don't miss any class!
Let me ask this in seriousness, it's not meant to be snarky - If this isn't a crisis, what would be? What would you consider a crisis for the Ohio State basketball program?
There is a big difference between hate, and justified frustration. Inappropriate personal bashing of players and coaches is hate, and there's no place for it. But there is nothing wrong with criticism of the team's discipline, growth, hustle, intellect, maturity, or effort. Just because I think these were lacking in our team doesn't mean I hate the team. I'm not alone in my disappointment in this season, nor my lack of optimism for significant growth over the offseason.
It sounds like a wake.
Those are not this coaching staff's accomplishments. Dave Dickerson has been associate since 2011; Boals since 2009; Paulus as assistant since 2013; DIebler since 2013; and Dave Richardson in his first season. This coaching staff as a unit together has accomplished very little.
Thanks for a rational, respectful, and valid opinion. It frustrates me that your perspective is not just unpopular, but actively rejected. Criticism! Bad!
He's done it before though
Guy on Jeopardy just guessed that Jesse Owens went to "The University of Ohio."
I don't even get fazed anymore when our opponent inevitably shoots some ridiculous blazing percentage from 3. It's been like that for years.
Switching between this game and Purdue-MSU makes me wonder why it's so hard to find someone for basketball games who's not a terrible announcer.
It boggles my mind that in the year 2016, in the United States, a public health disaster like this is happening.
You're welcome. I get a lot of flak around here for my vehement anti-Purdue views... but there is precedent. Just imagine swapping Purdue for Georgia Tech, for example - we get a footprint in the south, huge Atlanta market (which was the whole rationale of Rutgers and Maryland), a great school with a great engineering program (which is apparently all you need!) and a football team that isn't a laughingstock. Purdue may have made sense in 1896 but today there are better options.
Yes: the Big East "terminated its relationship" with Temple in 2002. Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech left for the ACC within two years because they could do better.
I certainly don't think any school would ever voluntarily leave the Big Ten, but the point is: schools and conferences both know when they can do better.
Is Purdue a good school? Have they had great players and great seasons in the past? Absolutely. But this doesn't change the fact that there are lots of schools - great universities with better athletics programs, football or otherwise - that are reevaluating their positions and realizing their clout. 20 years ago, I wouldn't have been on such an anti-Purdue kick like I definitely have been the last few years, but the conference membership landscape is currently so fluid with so many big opportunities, I just think it's naive to keep the weakest school around. I said weakest and I stand by it - you can talk about the basketball team until you're blue in the face but football is the biggest influence and will continue to be for a long time. There may be good things Purdue brings to the table but why keep them around when the Big Ten can afford to cut the weakest member because there are better options available? This argument comes up a lot around here and frankly I've never heard one good reason to keep Purdue. This doesn't mean Purdue is a bad school that's bad at everything, it just means we can do better.
Virginia Tech isn't AAU, but it's a good school, it makes sense geographically, and it has a strong football program. I'd swap a schedule with Purdue or Rutgers for VT any day.
I get the impression that is the most staggeringly mind blowing play Verne has EVER SEEN.
Virginia Tech traveled to the hellscape of West Lafayette this season, but the Boilermakers won't visit the beautiful mountains of Blacksburg until 2023. I'd be fascinated to hear the reasoning behind that too.
As a Hokie fan, I was initially a little disappointed with their hire of Fuente from Memphis but the more I think about it the more I like it. 1, it will be a good offensive/defensive combination with Fuente and Foster; 2, there are a ton of openings and VT got theirs filled quickly with a proven coach; and 3, if Herman and Les Miles are staying put the Hokies got one of the top available candidates.
It's Thanksgiving break everywhere. I just don't take a fan base seriously if they can't show up for a top ten game.
Stanford, ranked #9, has filled their stadium 75% of the way.
Now they're arguing about how scarlet (or red, as they call it) wouldn't be as easy to see among a maize-out, and how our fan showing can be misleading because red coats are common.
Ordinarily I agree that there is too much apologizing and offense taken over a lot of things, but it's just not good for a team member to criticize an individual unit like that. Clearly the consensus is that what he said was accurate, but remember: how did a team that was capable of losing to Virginia Tech last year manage to surge to the National Championship? Talent surely played a role but I believe the team cohesion was the key. Accurate or not, what he said did not strengthen that cohesion.