BeatMeechigun's picture


MEMBER SINCE   May 17, 2018


  • NFL TEAM: Cleveland Browns
  • NHL TEAM: Detroit Red Wings
  • NBA TEAM: Detroit Pistons
  • MLB TEAM: Detroit Tigers

Recent Activity

Comment 21 hours ago

Replace your side when eating out with the vegetable or fruit. You’d be amazed what just that simple change can make. Diets are the quickest way to lose but are mostly unrealistic (or unhealthy) long term.

The 101 is its like a bank account. Know what you’re putting in (calorie amount) and what you’re spending (calorie amount). Adjust them by either eating fewer calories or working out more until you have a balance that works for the lifestyle you want.

Comment 22 hours ago

A Michigan basketball fan saying the Wolverines got "jobbed" because in an NCAA tournament because an opponent they lost to later forfeited those wins because of a scandal may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

If Michigan doesn't pay players Ohio State is in the 1992 Final Four and likely finals against Duke.  Likewise, if the ref calls the foul when Jent got hacked shooting a three, Ohio State is in that Final Four.  Bitter?  Hell yes.

1993 Kentucky has the same claim as it should have been them playing UNC, not Michigan.

One thing I'll always take solace in is that those scum never won a championship of ANY kind.  They can claim their cultural influence on the game, but when it comes to championships they had none.

Comment 17 May 2019

So if OSU beats Wisconsin in the CCG and Bama beats UGA and these teams qualify as 2 of the additional 3, they should deserve a re-do while OSU and Bama should potentially be penalized with a scenario where they have to beat them twice?

History tells us that it’s pretty tough to beat a decent team twice.

Comment 17 May 2019

I’d love to see the Big XII disband with either OU + Texas or OU + KU in the Big Ten West. Purdue moves to the East. Nebraska - OU played annually the Friday after Thanksgiving with OSU-Michigan on Saturday.

Playoff becomes 4 conference champions.

(get in line or miss out ND)

Weakness of Big Ten West gets fixed.

Comment 16 May 2019

I’ll take 2006, 20016, and 2018 OSU-Michigan over 2008, 2009, and 2010 OSU-Michigan all day.  If that means I can’t root for Michigan to lose every week so be it.

Beating a Michigan team that thinks they are “back” and better than us beats the hell out of beating a 6-loss Michigan team.

None of us would say losing to Michigan in 1999 or 2011 was more miserable than 95 or 96. It’s not even close.

Comment 15 May 2019

 1. I get that LSU, Florida, UNC, even Rice and CS Fullerton are going to have better programs than OSU or any other school outside the nice Spring weather areas, but we should NOT have MAC schools out-pacing our program.

2. The Big Ten programs haven’t won a NC in decades and rarely even make the CWS. Why doesn’t Delaney just break the conference out of NCAA baseball and move the season to summer? All Spring you have March Madness, NBA and NHL playoffs, etc. In summer you have MLB. I know college baseball isn’t a huge TV draw but I have to imagine a move to summer would only help BTN ratings and even actual attendance (students may be on break but I think the community would be more apt to go on a sunny 75-degree Friday night in June than a 42-degree overcast and windy March game). Especially in towns like Iowa City, Bloomington, AA, etc. without a minor league team that could be a decent draw. Sure it would mean Big Ten teams couldn’t compete for the CWS but is that really any different than now??

Comment 15 May 2019

Just to give some more indication on that transition, Ohio State went 3-12 in 2002-03 against teams which were ranked or finished ranked and just 17-15 overall.  In 2003-04 the Bucks went 1-5 vs teams that were ranked and 3 of those losses were by 20+.  OSU finished 14-16 that year.

Comment 15 May 2019

I'm not sure Matta came into a "better" situation.  Yes Ohio State had much more recent success in 1999-2002 when Matta took over in 2004-05 as compared to the lack of success preceding Beilein, but the O'Brien era sanctions put a hit on the program.

Toledo Blade on the Matta hire:

"He replaces Jim O?Brien, who was fired June 8 after violating NCAA rules by giving $6,000 to a recruit who never enrolled at the university. The Buckeyes, coming off a 14-16 season, likely are facing NCAA sanctions."

The transition from O'Brien to Matta wasn't a great time for Ohio State basketball.  We'd just lived through some AWFUL years in the mid 90s (one year only winning a single conference game) and the 1999 Final Four run put a spark back in the program.  Fast forward to 2004 and that Final Four banner, those two shared Big Ten titles and a BTT title are suddenly gone.  It almost felt as if all of the good from 1998-99 through 2001-02 was erased.  That 2005-06 outright Big Ten championship was special because it was our first in 14 years.  The conference may have been down that year (only OSU, Iowa, and Illinois finished ranked and the Bucks only faced the Hawkeyes (L) and Illini (W) once each) but it was still special.  Landing Oden and Conley and the results of the 2006-07 made it feel like 1991-1992 all over again.

So I'd contest that Matta had a climb to make out of a hole for the program despite the recent success.

All that said, as much as I've hated Michigan basketball, I couldn't find reason to dislike Beilein.  I sure didn't root for them, but they just didn't make my blood boil like Steve Fisher and the Fab Five did.  So as much as I'd like to say I'd look forward to a slip, I prefer the schadenfreude version of hating Michigan and am hoping they remain competitive enough for Holtmann and Co. to painfully keep them from outdoing the Buckeyes.

Comment 15 May 2019
No argument with the overall numbers what-so-ever. Program trajectory under the tenure of each would obviously greatly differ: Matta strong start, absolutely outstanding first 9 years, then a collapse. Beilein got Michigan to their highest point these last few years since the early 90s (and to my knowledge did it without paying players) and left on that high note.
Comment 14 May 2019

Every proponent of an expanded playoff is narrowly focused on rewarding the teams that finished 5th, 6th, and 7th with a shot.  The focus should be on the teams that did what they were supposed to, not the teams that got wood-shedded on the road or failed to win a conference.

It doesn't matter whether the cutoff is 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128.  There will NEVER be a clear cut.  Every year we hear how some poor 19-16 team got "robbed" of an NCAA tournament birth.  They didn't get robbed they lost 16 games!  Just like Ohio State didn't get robbed in 2017 or 2018 - we got trampled at Iowa and Purdue. Ohio State didn't get robbed in 2015 - the Bucks sleep-walked through the season and it finally bit them when we lost a must-win game in a light rain because of horrendous play calling.  Baylor and TCU both lost must-win games in 2014.  Adding the top non-P5 team might sound nice in seasons like 2017 or 2018 when UCF is sitting at 12-0, but what about seasons like 2002 where 1) Miami gets cupcake 19th-ranked Marshall but 2) Ohio State is forced to play a rematch against PAC 12 champion Washington State?  That's a huge difference between getting the 1 and 2 seeds!  That's the far more common scenario than an undefeated non P5 team that's a legit top 10 contender.

College football doesn't have a 2-game playoff, it has a 15-game playoff.  Lose any regular season game and you may not be eliminated, but you're potentially in trouble and could be eliminated (2015 OSU, 2018 OSU), lose twice and you are toast (2016 PSU, 2017 OSU, 2016 Mich, 2018 Mich).  It's beautiful.  It's why no one cares that the Patriots lost to the Dolphins some random year or that the Steelers lost a ton of games in 2005 before winning it all, but everyone still cringes when 1998 and MSU are used in the same sentence.  Bumping the playoffs from 4 to 8 essentially nullifies the outcome of CCGs and top 10 matchups throughout the season as both the winner and the loser can still make the playoff.  It takes what is essentially a 15-game nearly single elimination tournament and relegates it to giving the teams that finished 5-8 a "re-do" chance on their season.

Comment 14 May 2019

We are absolutely talking about 2-loss teams.

2016 CFP Final Rankings:

1. Bama (13-0)

2. Clemson (12-1)

3. OSU (11-1)

4. Washington (12-1)

5. PSU (11-2)

6. Michigan (10-2) and lost 2 of last 3 games

7. OU (10-2)

8. Wisconsin (10-3) and went 0-3 vs top 10 teams

2017 CFP Final Rankings:

1. Clemson (12-1)

2. OU (12-1)

3. UGA (12-1)

4. Bama (11-1)

5. OSU (11-2)

6. Wisconsin (12-1)

7. Auburn (10-3)

8. USC (11-2)


12. UCF (12-0)

2018 CFP Final Rankings:

1. Bama (13-0)

2. Clemson (13-0)

3. ND (12-0)

4. OU (12-1)

5. UGA (11-2)

6. OSU (12-1)

7. Michigan (10-2)

8. UCF (12-0)

That's 9 of 24 teams (over 1/3) that would have been 2-loss or 3-loss teams.  Expanding to 8 doesn't magically give UCF a shot in 2017 (the committee ranked them 12th).  Expanding to 8 doesn't magically mean the SEC is going to stop getting the benefit of the doubt (3-loss Auburn would have made it in 2017 over the very UCF team that beat them).

The committee and uneven scheduling between conferences are the problems.  Expanding to 8 doesn't fix either of those - all expansion does is water down the playoff with CCG runner ups and teams that lost their most important games or slipped up multiple times. 

Mandate 9 conference games, no FCS opponents, and only CCG winners are eligible then use a BCS formula to take the top 4 teams.

Comment 14 May 2019

This x1000.  (I have no idea why it got DV'd)

It doesn't matter if the kid is from Philly, Indy, California, Germany, or Toledo.  Talent and fit for the system is what matters, not location of HS.  Sure it's fun to see guys like Jimmy Jackson and Sullinger who grew up in the Buckeye State have so much success personally and team-wise at Ohio State, but do you think UNC, UK, Kansas, and Duke fans give a damn if the kid is from their state?  Heck, no.  You want the top kids.  Period.

Now if there's a top 50 kid from Ohio that OSU and MSU are in a battle for, then an emphatic, "yes, I hope we get him".  But there's no formula that suggests the key to winning in NCs is to focus recruiting efforts exclusively or with exceptional emphasis within one state.

Comment 12 May 2019

But the key is that an undefeated P5 champion has never been left out. 

Our Buckeyes may have had a ridiculously talented roster in 2015 but the players and staff sleep-walked all season until the roof finally collapsed. Instead of lamenting the fact they didn’t make the playoffs we should be lamenting the fact that they waited until the Michigan game to even come close to their potential. Heck, we’ve even referred to the MSU game as a “monsoon” when it was light rain. 

Could 2015 OSU or 2014 TCU have won it all? Sure. But so could some 3-loss teams that get hot at the right time.

What makes college football great is that it isn’t a 2-game playoff - it’s a 15-game playoff. As a P5 team, win and you’re in.

Comment 11 May 2019

No to expansion.

Teams that lose their most meaningful games (Michigan 2016, Wisconsin 2016, etc.) don’t deserve to be in leaving the team that beat them (Ohio State in those examples) with the potential to have to beat them again. 8 punishes the top teams and rewards the teams that slipped up big time during the season.

Teams that sit out CCG weekend don’t deserve to go (this includes 2016 OSU, 2017 Bama and 2018 ND). Win your conference. It’s ridiculous that teams not playing in a CCG get a de facto bye week while teams like Auburn 2017 and Wisconsin 2017 are put in must-win situations in those CCGs.

The problem isn’t 4. The problem is the discrepancy in scheduling across conferences. The SEC is playing 8 games and FCS opponents. ND is perpetually avoiding a CCG. Get all conferences to 9 (or 10) conference games with a P5 OOC opponent as a requirement for all P5 schools and the last game a required FBS opponent (BG, Tulane, whoever).

Comment 07 May 2019

I don't disagree with your statement, but I don't think bowl game results are a good barometer of division strength.  Bowl games outside the CFP and Rose Bowl have all but lost meaning.  Heck, Michigan was essentially playing their second string with players sitting out.

The top of the Big Ten East has lived up to the billing IMO. While Michigan and PSU haven't broken through OSU (both almost did in 2016) to make the playoffs, they've fielded top 10 teams.  The bottom of the Big Ten East however is pure trash with Rutgers, Maryland, and IU.  Every SEC West team has been ranked in recent memory.  I'd say MD and Rutgers haven't fielded a ranked football team in forever, but that would be a disservice to IU's definition of forever... 1993 maybe??

Comment 07 May 2019

This was on my short list as well.  '97 may have been a 3-loss season sandwiched between two near National Title runs where we finished 2nd, but 2nd-ranked PSU came from behind to beat us in Happy Valley and had Stanley Jackson not played a game of "jackpot" flinging the ball into the air for an INT while being sacked, that 1 vs 4 Michigan game gets interesting.

That said, assuming we don't re-write the PSU loss as well, that likely means Ohio State goes on to beat Washington State in the Rose Bowl and Michigan loses to FSU (sounds great so far) but the idea of finishing 2nd three years in a row with only one heart-breaking loss (96 Michigan, 97 PSU, 98 MSU) would have been painful.  I'd still certainly take that 97 win over Michigan over them winning a title, but man those were some talented Buckeye teams 95-98 that never won it all.