BeatMeechigun's picture

BeatMeechigun


MEMBER SINCE   May 17, 2018

Favorites

  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Michael Doss
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: Jim Jackson
  • NFL TEAM: Cleveland Browns
  • NHL TEAM: Detroit Red Wings
  • NBA TEAM: Detroit Pistons
  • MLB TEAM: Detroit Tigers

Recent Activity

Comment 17 hours ago

Ha!

Honestly, I think my age at that time was what made those 1995-1998 seasons so (nearly) really special.   Guys like Eddie George and Joe Germaine seemed more like heroes than 18-22 year olds.  Today as an adult, I recognize I'm rooting for 18-year old kids/young adults.  That's probably my biggest bias in rating anything in the 90s too high.

The other big factor was the quality wins.  Playing ND in the mid 90s and sweeping them was huge.  PSU was stacked as well.  Instead of New Mexico State and Eastern Michigan the schedule would get filled with P5 teams like Pitt, BC, and Washington.

And finally, fair or not, expectations have changed.  By the mid 2000's Tressel had made winning the Big Ten an expectation rather than an aspiration.  Upon Meyer's arrival, National Championships blurred the line between expectation and aspiration.  Beating TTUN became a hard expectation under these last 3 coaches... under Coop it felt like a nervous hope that our talent would prevail.  I respect Coop for the turnaround he gave our program, but I think it's no small coincidence that his biggest bowl win (1997 Rose) and his big win over TTUN (1998) both came after expectations had already been capsized and the pressure was partially back down to earth.

Comment 17 hours ago

Bama's return is the safer pick, but that's boring so:

1. undefeated Ohio State (takes care of business at Oregon and at PSU)

2. undefeated Clemson (short of major injury, no one on their schedule is handing this team a loss)

3. 1-loss Florida (beats Bama after navigating an otherwise 2-game season vs LSU at home and UGA neutral)

4. 1-loss PSU

A traditional Rose Bowl of Ohio State and Oregon shapes up but gets ruined when the Ducks flounder in the Pac 12 championship game.

Bama suffers a second straight 2-loss season as 1-loss SEC West winners and SEC CCG losers.

The Big XII gets mucky with a 2-loss champion.

ND loses 3 games.

Comment 21 hours ago

Really fair call-out.  If going strictly by final result, 2012 could be as high as 3.  

I think for me, a big factor was how much I enjoyed the season as it was happening as compared to just the final overall result.

For example, 1995 and 1996 were absolute blasts until the TTUN games with such a ridiculous number of top 25 wins.

The 2012 OOC slate was tremendously weak with 3-win Cal as the only P5 OOC opponent, compared to a 1995, where we not only beat 15) ND, but 18) Washington, 22) BC and unranked Pitt.  Another factor for me was the way we were playing against weaker competition (only a 35-28 W over Cal, 29-15 over UAB, and thrilling as it was, the 29-22 OT win over Purdue) were all signs that the talent wasn't where it needed to be.  Ultimately, this team deserves a ton of respect for running the table 1 year after the 2011 fallout, but on paper they also only defeated two teams that would ultimately finish ranked, Nebraska at 25 and Michigan at 24.  Just a hard one to assess with no opponent finishing top 20, a weak P5 team OOC, no Big Ten title, and no bowl game.

Comment 22 hours ago

I had 1993 as the final on that list at 15) with "...and protecting that tie at Wisconsin with the blocked kick almost felt good" after the struggles in the late 80s and early 90s, but it just felt so wrong to think that in today's context, winning Big Ten titles left and right.  Undoubtedly the start of the return of OSU football though.

Comment 16 Jan 2020

I don't disagree with your assessment, but my question is why the hell is there a cop in the locker room any way?

Based on what's going on at PSU, maybe there should be, but those weirdos aside I can think of a hell of a lot more places in New Orleans where a cop could be needed than to police enforcement of the no smoking rule in a championship locker room.

Comment 16 Jan 2020

1.  HS Sports.  Then: Friday night football and Friday night boys basketball was BIG TIME.  I looked up to those guys as athletes and it seemed the whole town cared who won.  Today:  I still go to occassional games, but it has WAY less importance to me and the athletes seem like small children rather than the "adults" I thought they were when I was little.

2. College sports.

Following college football and basketball remains one of my greatest enjoyments in life.  As a kid it meant everything and that still rings true today.  The difference is then: I thought the game was pure.  I knew there were dirtier programs like Miami and Auburn, but the recruiting and especially the TV Network aspect seemed far more pure than today.  I guess I knew there was profit, but hearing Keith Jackson say "the old Horseshoe, nestled along the banks of the Olentangy" as the aerial shot looked down just made me smile ear to ear.  Today:  the greed is such a shame.  ESPN especially.  It's a shame that a TV Network shapes the post-season in both sports (expanding the bball field of 64 to 68 for more games), blowing up the number of bowls to have live sports available on tv, being such an influence on the college football playoff, and even driving which conferences contain which schools.

3. Government. 

Then: I thought government officials were people who loved this country and wanted to "serve".  Today: "Serve" is laughable.  These are individuals who are almost entirely self-serving, dedicated to party and ultimately their re-election and career FAR beyond any dedication to country or those that elected them.  How naive I was!

4. Travel.

Then:  going to another state seemed like a voyage.  Two hours in a car was an eternity and a flight was something we did once every 5 or 6 years.  Today, I could have friends say let's go to Vegas for the weekend or a work trip to Kansas City or the East Coast and it seems like nothing at all.  Travel for both work and fun is super common for me.

5. Adult softball / Adult sports activities

Then:  I remember going to watch my dad play as a kid.  The diamonds were always full with multiple games.  Today:  I play every now and then with some beer-drinking buddies.  Our game is one of two on the night we play and there doesn't seem to be much action the other nights.  Amazing how less active (and I loose that loosely with softball) people are today.  Then it seemed my parents would have racketball nights and my dad would play basketball once a week as well.  Today I'd be lucky to find 3 friends in their 30s willing to pick up a basketball - and that includes those I played HS with.

6. Youth sports.

Then:  Little League baseball was something everyone did - even the unathletic kids.  It was summer, so you played baseball.  Pretty simple.  Today: Local towns that used to each field 4-8 5th/6th grade teams now each have one and are forced to play across towns - even for non travelling teams.  Kind of sad.  Maybe soccer is the new baseball?  But I kind of doubt it, suspecting that kids are simply less active.  Also I despise soccer.

7.  History

Then: my grandpas both served in WWII and one loved sharing his memories with me.  Knowing he lived that made it so real and seem not that long ago.  Today: the idea that the world was at war, that Japan was bombing Pearl Harbor, that Nazi Germany and the holocaust were happening, that industry turned focus to the war, and that young men were dying in places like Africa, Guam, and France seems like a concept that occurred hundreds of years ago.  Real as it was and despite knowing more about WWII today than I ever did as a child, it seems more like a fantasy today (for any who served in wars since then, don't take the wrong way - I fully appreciate the gravity of how real that and events like Korea, Vietnam, and the conflicts in the Middle East were.  It's just mind-blowing to step back and think that the entire world was at war and that it was 1st world countries fighting one another).

8.  MLB and the NBA

Today, the NFL and NHL don't seem all that different than they did then.  MLB though: seems like then everyone was collecting baseball cards, we could rattle of the standings, and that interest was high.  Today: it seems like attention spans don't allow appreciation for the sport.  Going to or watching a baseball game should be relaxing and entertaining (and it still is), but with phones at our fingertips and no time for boredom to ever occur, it seems though MLB is still popular it isn't appreciated like it was in the 80s and 90s.  The NBA back then was amazing!  Celtics-Lakers, Bulls-Pistons, Bulls-Knicks - the teams hated one another and players gave their all.  Today though - woof.  I don't even watch.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

The media doesn’t hate us.

The media (as in a specific, predominating one when it comes to CFB) simply doesn’t own our network rights or rely on our program and conference being competitive.

That’s not conspiracy. That’s factual. ESPN isn’t in the CFB business for the good of the sport. Whether good or bad, we make an attention-grabbing story and can be played either way and whether good or bad, SEC schools are going to be aired on SECN and must draw eyeballs. OSU is replaceable to ESPN. USC, ND, another SEC team, ...take your pick...any would bring eyeballs to the CFP. SECN teams are locked in and are not replaceable.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

Um yeah... horrendously appalling sex scandals definitely fall in both the “more than just sports” and “not good...” categories. Pretty clearly.

Boot their weirdo Appalachian and East Coast asses.  

Comment 15 Jan 2020

*2016 Clemson

*2017 Iowa

*2018 Purdue

That's why.  That stuff doesn't happen to Alabama, and this past Monday was the first time it's happened to Clemson (in the playoff era).

2016 Clemson 31 - OSU 0; 2018 Clemson 44 - Alabama 16  (margins of victory: 31 and 28).  That stuff does happen to Alabama.

2017 - Ohio State played 9 conference opponents and 5 conference road games compared to Bama's 8 conference opponents and 4 conference road games.  Adding in the CCG, OSU defeated 9 conference teams compared to Bama's 7.  OSU had 11 FBS wins to Bama's 10.  I think it's safe to say 2017 could have gone 11-1 against Bama's schedule that year - if not 12-0.  7-6 FSU instead of playoff-bound OU and Mercer instead of Iowa would have been real tests.

2018.  Our defense stunk.  I'm ok with OSU's Rose Bowl invite last year.

But as far as "that stuff doesn't happen to Bama", I'm sorry but that's because Mercer and Western Carolina aren't road trips to a 9th conference game and Bama has absolutely been wheel-housed in the CFP like we have.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

Perfect example citing the losses.

How many times have you heard ESPN mention the fact that the SEC only plays 8 games?  I've sure as hell heard ESPN mention an "SEC grind" of a schedule before, but when I look at most of Bama's schedules, it typically consists of 3 games and a bye followed by 2 or 3 games and an FCS opponent, then repeat.  Ohio State OTOH frequently plays 5 straight FBS opponents within a schedule.  If the Big Ten only played 8 games, we wouldn't have made those trips to Iowa and Purdue.

How many times have you heard FCS Saturday brought up as a playoff factor by ESPN when discussing Bama?  Ohio State's prequel to Michigan was 9th-ranked Penn State.  In 2015 it was MSU a week before TTUN who beat us by 3 with the clock at 0:00 in a slugfest.  On that exact same day, Bama was playing Charlston Southern.  That fact wasn't mentioned when comparing CFB's top teams in 2015.  Nor was it emphasized this year that #1 committee-ranked OSU played 3-straight top 10 teams to close out the season.  After 8 straight quarters of physical play against top 10 PSU and top 10 TTUN, OSU got off to a slow start vs Wisconsin - only to win the last 2 quarters 27-0!!  That ABSOLUTELY could have been a talking point had ESPN wanted it to be that OSU entered a 3 game grinder and won every one by double digits.

The simple fact is this:  had Alabama beaten every team they played by double digits and finished the season beating top 10 LSU, top 10 Auburn, and top 10 UGA in succession by double digits, do you believe ESPN would advocate a team like Ohio State jumping Alabama because UGA took a 21-7 lead before Bama outscored them 27-0 in the second half?  Hell no.  Bama would have been heralded as the team of the decade.  Had 2015 Bama only lost 1 game on a last second FG to a top 10 LSU do you think Bama would not even be discussed as one of the most talented teams in the country...NOT even discussed?!  Even if they didn't ultimately make it in...simply not hearing them discussed as talented would be ufathomable - especially once a 2-loss Stanford was ranked ahead of them by the committee.

The Big Ten could move to 8 games and perhaps Iowa and Purdue aren't on the 2017 and 2018 schedules.  The Big Ten could have Ohio State playing Youngstown State the week prior to TTUN instead of top 10 MSU in 2015 and top 10 PSU in 2019.  Ohio State could schedule Kansas or Wake Forest instead of OU, Texas, ND, and Oregon and not suffer losses like they did in 2017.  Ohio State could not lose 31-0 to Clemson (in a strikingly similar magnitude of defeat as Bama's 44-16 loss to Clemson last year).  BUT ultimately that doesn't change anything.  Ohio State played a Cincinnati team that had double-digit wins this year and personalities are suggesting it was a weak opponent compared to LSU playing Texas.  ESPN moves the bar with each discussion to suit their teams.  And I literally mean "their" teams.  They own the SEC Network and own the games those teams are playing in.  It is not critical to ESPN that OSU make the playoff - if OSU doesn't then USC, ND, OU, Texas, a second SEC school, or any other team that has a fan base larger than UCFs and Baylor's will.  It IS critical to ESPN that the SEC be an interesting conference to watch and that the SEC be represented each year.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

Can we re-do the 1993 Big Ten expansion?  The PSU addition has brought the conference as many horrendous sexual crime scandals (2012 and 2019) as it has outright conference championships (1994 and 2016).  They also necessitated the additions of Rutgers and Maryland.

At the time we added PSU, Texas wanted in.  We should have scooped the Longhorns, Huskers, Sooners, and KU to get to 14 instead of these weirdos and their deadbeat football neighbors in MD and NJ.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

Clemson was the 3rd-best team this year.

OSU with Fields in what appeared to be very limiting running threat mode these last 3 games is 2nd best IMHO.  With a healthy Fields I think OSU has a slight edge on LSU, but neither LSU nor OSU is winning more than 6 out of 10 vs the other.

That said, the gap between Clemson and UGA, Oregon, and OU is still huge.  "No business" may be a stretch.  They were not the better team than OSU or LSU, but they weren't a cliff-fall away from that top tier like OU, UGA, Oregon and the rest of CFB.

Comment 15 Jan 2020

I agree.

ESPN's ONLY goal when it comes to OSU is to maximize profits.  That means airing games they can which feature us and that also means setting up camp and driving the story and investigation when things like Tat-Gate happen.

That said, ESPN does not "need" Ohio State.  If the Buckeyes falter, USC, ND, PSU, FSU, Florida, or whatever team takes our place in the top 5 will get the same attention from ESPN.  ESPN does need their SEC programs, however.  It does them no good what-so-ever for Bama, LSU, UGA, Auburn, or FLA to have a major program drop-off.

ESPN's sole objective is profit.  If OSU is profitable, they will make us a story whether good or bad.  When it comes to the SEC (where they do have long-term contractual ties), the stories and hype (marketing) have to be positive to drive viewership.

Comment 14 Jan 2020

This.

Ohio State's 59-0 beating of Wisconsin in 2014 was borderline unfathomable.  That was a top 15 team.

The 2019 Buckeyes replicated one complete half of that game this year.  Unfortunately, it was the 2nd half.

It's damn hard to beat a decent team twice.  What irked me most though was Rece Davis lauding LSU for falling behind to Clemson by double digits, then "absolutely exploding".  I don't recall him showering OSU with those words after the Big Ten CCG.

Comment 14 Jan 2020

Agree.

Someone nailed it earlier.  Clemson has replaced USC as the OOC bowl game thorn in our side.

Hatred order for me:

1. TTUN (too many reasons to list)

2. ND (over-inflated sense of worth)

3. Clempson (Charlie Bauman, dirty team, injury fakers, thorn in our side)

4. Bama (Saban, their luck with NCs, ESPN, SEC, and their fans)

5. USC (historic Rose Bowl losses, Pete Carroll, LA culture vs Midwest)

6. Penn State (still not our rivals)

7. Florida (the fans are awful and Spurrier seems sleezy)

(Big drop-off)

8. The U (scummy)

9. Auburn (also scummy but with an $)

Oklahoma and Texas have great fans and I respect their programs, despite some painful losses to them and Baker's antics.  LSU is almost on this level as well.  Good fans... the SEC part is just annoying.  Oregon may fit here too depending on the trip next fall.

UGA and Tennessee don't make my list because they simply aren't relevant in NC discussions, despite their over-inflated sense of value.

Comment 14 Jan 2020

Three major changes I'd like to see:

1.  Only teams with 8 FBS wins are bowl eligible.  There are too many bowls and too many garbage teams playing.  

2. One entity may not own more than one bowl.  Cough ESPN cough.  ESPN has purchased about 30 or so bowls simply to have live sporting events to air.  That's too much control from one entity.

3. Minor, but each bowl should have an official, lasting name (Rose, Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Peach, Sun, etc.) and sponsorship rights should be for "sponsored by _ _ _" recognition.  The sponsor logo can appear on the field but must be separated spatially from the bowl logo and may not be larger in size than the bowl logo.  It's ridiculous that a city has a bowl, but that the name changes every 3 years as sponsors change.  There should be some lasting branding associated with the city-bowl relationship.

Comment 14 Jan 2020

Yes and No.

The areas where the game has improved on removing subjective calls: fumbles and completions

I remember in the 90s when CLEAR fumbles were not always being called or a player didn't come down in bounds but it was called a catch - these subjective calls were huge!  PI was always subjective as was holding, but that was (mostly) acceptable as a fan and (mostly) still is acceptable as a fan.  The biggest difference was that aside from the immediate effects of the play, the pace of the game continued.  No pauses, no drawn out reviews, no ref blowing the next play dead.  

Replay has made fumble calls as close to crystal clear as we can get - a tremendous improvement over the system without.  Yes, it stops the game and momentum, but given a potential change of possession, it's worth it.

Replay has also made completions very clear - another great improvement as it can result in major swings of yardage.

So in those two regards, replay has taken away human error and subjectivity and it has been mostly good.  The exception:  when a team is driving with tempo and a catch is called an incomplete pass, sometimes it's better to just move onto the next play and keep the D on their heels.  Catch / non-catch needs to be coach-initiated, not booth-initiated.  A great example was the OSU incomplete pass that went to review, resulting in a whistle on the subsequent play as Dobbins was about to score.  The review cost us momentum.

The area where the game has become too subjective: Targetting.  Targetting.  Targetting.

No one knows what it is or how to call it.  Honestly if I didn't know the sport and was asked to watch and try to interpret how the rule is called, I would say that Targetting = a play where a QB is hit hard enough to not get up and the defender is ejected.

There are violent hits where the offensive players springs back up and nothing is called - and there are seemingly normal hits where the QB winces in pain, the play is then reviewed, and the player is ejected.  It's the most inconsistent and least understood rule in the game and it unfortunately not only provides the great possible penalty yardage, but tremendously changes momentum and results in ejection.

Targetting is just an awful rule.  The rule needs to be changed to the "cheap shot rule" (call it something else), but should be inclusive of A) blind side blocks, B) high-low combination blocks between two players, C) excessive intent to injure including: intentional helmet-to-helmet contact, intentional helmet-to-chest contact, and driving an opposing player into the ground with excessive force.  The rule should be the equivalent of a technical foul in basketball...two fouls result in a one-game ejection.  The rule also needs to be called in real-time and should not be reviewable. 

The final aspect is that the purpose of replay was to eliminate the really bad calls....NOT to dissect every inch of grass between a foot and the sideline.  IMO, the call on the field should be assumed to be correct and a booth should consist of 5 refs who watch the game live.  If replay is called, they are immediately on it and a 4-1 decision or better is needed to overturn a call.  It's bologna that ONE individual in the OSU-Clemson game had the power to say that a call on the field was "indisputably wrong" when so many disagree.  That's too much power for one person.