In all fairness, Calgarybuck isn't arguing that Barrett is a major problem. He/she is arguing Urban Meyer's coaching/inflexibility is a major problem.
Not to mention last week. As soon as the game ended and it was clear that OSU struggled against an undersized service academy team, the "Don't worry. Navy is a really solid team with a weird system and OSU still won" justifications started rolling in. This, of course, led to almost unanimous predictions that OSU would beat VT.
The Pounceys were part of the 2007 recruiting class. They didn't do any blocking in the national championship game against OSU.
While I'm not saying the Florida '06 O Line was bad, or that your point is invalid, it is interesting that there were no elite players on the line. In fact, Florida didn't have any OL drafted in 2007 or 2008 or 2009. The only OL drafted in 2010 was Maurkice Pouncey and he was a true junior so he certainly didn't play in the OSU-UF championship game. Meyer's team did what it did to OSU's defense without draft quality talent on the OLine.
I'm not guessing. I'm stating a fact. (in retrospect, I did speculate why OSU was held in such low regard and I didn't need to. All I need to do is point to the rankings and say "scoreboard" while grinning.) There was only one poll allowed to rank OSU. The poll is the only evidence available. Everything else is speculation and wishful thinking. The only fact we have is that OSU wasn't ranked in the top 2 at the end of the season, and there is no rule stating that pollsters needed to keep a probation case out of the championship. They could have voted them into the top two. They didn't.
I agree it would have been unprecedented. But, according to the AP Poll (the only poll that could include OSU and the only proxy we have for the BSC rankings) it was going to happen.
Pure speculation. You can guess that. But, in the reality of the AP poll, that never came close to happening. You can hang your best guess on the speculative psychology of pollsters. But, facts are facts. Ohio State was not held in high regard that year due to weak schedule and the poll reflected that. One loss Georgia jumped OSU too the week of Nov. 11th. So no matter who won the SEC championship game (#2 Alabama or #3 Georgia) OSU wasn't going to make the championship over a one loss SEC champ. Your guess that Alabama was somehow elevated over OSU due to the psychology of pollsters "holding them back," is undone by the fact that Georgia was above them too. At that point, it's not voter bias against a probation case. It was a clear, demonstrable belief that both the SEC top tier teams were more deserving than OSU.
The current coaches tend to fuel fan delusion, though. This coaching staff, and Meyer in particular, don't shy away from hyperbole. They constantly heap praise and build hype for individual players. Meyer also uses superlatives to describe units, such as last year's O Line, this year's D Line and Florida's 2010 QB position lead by John Brantley. Meyer is a politicking machine, and he is constantly using the media to fuel fan enthusiasm and to build Ohio State's public image with the CFB powers that be. When he claims the only possible weak link is the right guard position (despite clear evidence that WR, OL, QB, and LB play are not up to par) then he is part of the delusion problem.
Actually, you're right. UCF actually beat BoB. At least Franklin won. Ohio Bobcats also beat BoB's Penn State squad.
Nah, Alabama was always ranked ahead of OSU in 2012. Alabama started the season ranked 2nd. They moved into first place after the first week. They remained 1st until they lost to Texas A&M. After that loss, they dropped to 4th in the week 11 poll. Ohio state was ranked 6th in that poll. Alabama remained ranked ahead of OSU the entire year. At no point did pollsters feel OSU was deserving of playing in the championship game over a one loss Alabama. You can guess how the BCS algorithms would have played out. You can speculate how the polls would have played, but in reality they were never in line for the National Championship game.
The Buckeyes fell into a 21-7 hole at halftime before rallying for 14 unanswered points to tie the game early in the fourth quarter.
I don't really understand the use of "unanswered" in sports writing. I mean, didn't VT answer this minor surge by scoring 14 points of their own? How can we be sure points are unanswered until the game ends? If a basketball player scores, and their opponent inbounds the ball and starts down court, should we say that team X has scored 2 unanswered points?
Perhaps something like "Ohio State scored the game's next 14 points to tie things up in the fourth quarter" would convey the situation better? I mean, the Hokies certainly answered.
Tebow's knack for winning covered some of the warts. Great QBs have a way of making their coaches look great. And, when the coach loses his star QB and goes 8-5 with the next QB, fans usually blame the successor QB, not the coach.
They also didn't mention Boise State, which beat Oregon the same season as Ohio State beat Oregon. ESPN hates Boise State with a passion!
Right...So, I guess Michigan never lost to an FCS opponent because Appalachian State isn't an FCS team now. Don't dig too deep for bragging rights. It's not worth it.
I agree with this perspective. I think a good loss is more telling than a pointless cupcake win. If MSU loses close to Oregon, and you genuinely believe Oregon is the #4 team, then why not keep MSU at 6? I mean, all that would have been proven is that Oregon is slightly better than MSU, so Oregon should remain ranked slightly higher.
Navy as a whole is not a sacrificial lamb. But, Navy's front seven is very weak and possibly the worst in the nation at applying pressure to OLines.
Last year, Navy finished dead last in the nation in tackles for loss. They averaged 3.00 TFL/game, which was also dead last in the nation. They lost their top two players in terms of TFL production. Last year, they never pressured QBs (122nd in the nation in sacks last season), were weak in run defense (84th) and never stopped people behind the line of scrimmage. Yet against OSU, they got 5 TFL and caused all sorts of problems for the OLine.
In retrospect, the ulcers prediction came true. Not a bad prediction overall.
This is what people expected.
In retrospect, this was an excellent prediction.
You know what's crazy is that in the 2015 class alone, Georgia has four (4*) wide receivers (according to 247 composite) and all of them are 6'2" or taller. They also have a 4* 6'6" tight end. Van Jefferson will be one of their shorter pass catchers. Some teams attract the big bodies, some don't.
I guess that's the point. Even when one of the SEC's top teams stumble, other teams are right there to step up and knock off ranked opponents. That's why they are the best conference, because they have 2-3 elite teams, and 2-3 more nipping at those teams' heels. That's why they always finish with so many teams in the top ten. Because they have lots of good teams.
Actually, if you use the actual rankings, the top three SEC teams last season were Auburn, South Carolina and Missouri. (Ranked 2nd, 4th and 5th in the final polls.) The top three teams actually went 2-1 in their bowls, with the only loss being a last second loss to the national champion. South Carolina and Missouri both beat ranked opponents by double digits in their bowl games. The SEC went 7-3 overall in their bowl games.
Appalachian State is an FBS school. This is their first season in FBS.
Philosophical question (for the readership)...is the strongest schedule the one that is cumulatively the strongest (ie the average opponent is rather strong) or the schedule that incorporates elite opponents but more cupcakes (ie, higher hurdles to get over, but fewer hurdles)?
In other words, which is a better accomplishment, going undefeated and beating 6 or 7 bowl eligible, but not elite, teams, or going undefeated and beating the #3 and #4 ranked teams for their only losses and a bunch of .500 or less teams. Is a top 5 skin on the wall (and two cupcakes) better or worse than the #22, #28 and #33rd skins on the wall?