Lighteyes's picture


MEMBER SINCE   January 04, 2017

Recent Activity

Comment 21 hours ago

I think it's all because of the perception of the entire room being transfers. There's something about "Ohio State doesn't have a single guy who was recruited by OSU!" and "none of the backups have been here longer than 18 months" that makes it seem much worse than other places even if the reality is (as you said) nobody in college really has a legitimate backup any more.

If Baldwin doesn't transfer, we wouldn't be hearing much about how bad the QB depth is. Even though the reality is the backup QB would be a redshirt freshman with zero collegiate snaps who was committed to a G5 school before OSU swept in late. Baldwin would have had a little more experience in Ohio State's system than Hoak, but I don't think anybody would have been super confident with calling OSU a national title contender if they'd had to throw Baldwin into the fire against Sparty or Penn State or TTUN with conference/national title hopes on the line.

Comment 21 hours ago

I don't think he's specifically pointed out games (though he has mentioned at Nebraska and at Michigan a lot); I think his point is more that Ohio State might have a lot of the close wins go the other way. Ohio State was famously 7-0 in OT under Meyer plus tons of narrows wins the past few years that could easily have swung differently; even if you think Ryan Day is going to be good, it's not unreasonable to think some of those bounces might go the other way.

Not sure he's purposely trying to be controversial as much as he's trying to slow the roll of Buckeye fans assuming that the Meyer era "you will always be in the Playoff mix in late November" situation is not guaranteed.

Comment 22 Aug 2019

I don't know why you're surprised. Ohio State's OOC scheduling strategy has been the same for at least 15 years if not more: Get one big-name opponent, another team from Ohio (if possible), then fill up the remaining slots with whatever FBS teams are willing to come.

I mean, look at the overall schedule here: Notre Dame, Arkansas State, Toledo isn't bad. And it's certainly in line with plenty of past Ohio State OOC schedules - just as a completely random sampling from's archives shows OOC schedules like "Miami (OH), Texas, San Diego State" (2005), "Buffalo, San Diego State, California, Florida A&M" (2013), "Oklahoma, Army, UNLV" (2017) and so forth.

Comment 21 Aug 2019

We all know how this is going to look when you limit it to the Big Ten, but just for kicks:

Pretty much all the ratings make sense - Ohio State at the top, followed by Penn State or Michigan with one giant exception: Illinois is #3 in QB rating in the B1G.

If you'd asked me "guess the 3 teams in the B1G who have done the best at QB recruiting", there's no way I would have pegged that one.

Comment 16 Aug 2019

Because unfortunately, Rutgers can only play one game per week and everybody wants Rutgers as a breather between games.

As long as (1) the B1G is overall really strong and (2) the B1G insists on playing all the OOC games by mid-September, most of the conference is going to end up with at least one miserable back-to-back. 

Comment 14 Aug 2019

Don't forget that Borland was coming off a major Achilles injury last year - when the injury happened in spring of last year, it was widely expected he'd miss the entire year. Even in August of last year, it was still expected he'd miss at least the first month to finish up his recovery.

But he didn't - he was out there playing snaps in week 1 and pushing himself for playing time. Credit to him for his work ethic and drive...but given that his best games were late in the year and he clearly looked slower than in 2017, it's really hard not to wonder if he wasn't fully healthy.

Comment 13 Aug 2019

That's not a bad theory. Makes a lot of sense actually.

However, it's worth noting that Diaz also said yesterday that there's still competition for the backup QB job. Maybe that doesn't mean anything - it could be just coach speak/motivation, it could be that Diaz values game-tested experience a lot for the backup that's one bad snap from being thrown into a game cold...but it could be a worrying sign that Tate wasn't even able to cleanly beat out Perry.

Comment 09 Aug 2019

I would like to see how the trendline changes if you looked at more than a single year. Because a single year's results can be highly variable based on in-game luck, the talent mix, etc.

A team like Syracuse is a perfect example: They look like a monster outlier, going from about 6 wins all the way to 4. Wow! Four extra wins! Except...if you look at their past five years, they've averaged five wins, which suddenly puts them right near the trendline. Has Syracuse really turned the corner to become a perennial Top 25 power? Or did 2018 just happen to hit on a nice mix of luck, veteran returnees, and coaching to suddenly leap from a team that made three bowl games from 2005-2017 to their successful year?

Comment 07 Aug 2019

Never seen it purely for Ohio State, but SBNation did a thorough breakdown of this nationwide a couple years back for signing day and showed pretty conclusively that on average, higher ranked players perform better and teams which load up on blue-chip talent are more successful than the ones who get mostly three stars and coach them up.

Comment 06 Aug 2019

I think it's the precisely because we've been so successful at stopping a lot of diseases. 

Not to get preachy, but the parallel is the anti-vax movement: 

I grew up in the 80s and not a single parent was against vaccination or bathing. You know why? Because all of those parents in the 80's (who themselves grew up in the 50s and 60s) had personal experience with polio, measles, and other diseases. Maybe you were lucky and didn't get it yourself, but you knew Uncle Johnny who could barely walk with a cane because of polio or a childhood friend down the street who almost died from measles or etc.  So the idea of not vaccinating wouldn't even cross their mind because they knew exactly how bad it could be. However, the vaccines were so effective in addressing the issue with my generation and younger that parents nowadays don't have any real understanding of just how dangerous these things can be...and that "fear gap" allows anti-vax or not-bathing or etc to take root.

Comment 06 Aug 2019

I agree he'll get tested all year, but if Okudah plays like he did in the Rose Bowl, he's going to be a first round pick despite not having any interceptions - it's often more valuable to have an elite shutdown corner who doesn't pick off the ball (because his receiver is never open) than a risky boom-or-bust corner who gambles on picks but regularly gets beat for long TD's.

Comment 05 Aug 2019

The problem is that method of counting is completely different from what the statement implies.

If you say "of the QBs from 2006 to 2017, 9 Heisman finalists", sounds like getting the #1 dual-threat guy is a really high chance of success - like a really high chance of success (9 out of 11 were Heisman finalists? really?). But in fact, half of the #1 dual-threat QBs from 2006 to 2017 were complete busts (Taylor, Shepard, Bell, Driskel, Woolard, Guarantano).

The more accurate way to do this math would be to break it down like Droessl did into successes (5), busts (6), and one enigma (Pryor).

Comment 05 Aug 2019

I don't think it's wrong as much as it's very badly worded. The wording certainly implies that if you're #1 overall, you have almost a 50% chance of being an All-American (5/11!) and like a 90% chance of being a Heisman finalist (9/11!)...but the trick is that a bunch of players count multiple times.

  • Heisman wins: 3. This is pretty straightforward:
  • Heisman finalists: They seem to also be counting when you 'win' as a finalist, in addition to counting people several times, so Tim Tebow actually counts three separate times (win in 2007, finalist in 2008 and 2009), Murray counts once (winning in 2018), etc.
  • All-Americans: Again, Tebow actually counts twice here, for both his 2007 and 2008 seasons.

It's also worth noting that they cherry-picked a starting date here. Why did they pick 11 years instead of a round number like "last 10 years"? Because if you do "last 10 years", you miss Tim Tebow. And why didn't they just increase it to last 15 or last 20 years? Because then you pick up a bunch of dual-threat guys who didn't do squat.

Comment 04 Aug 2019

Hope Dobbins has a good year and is featured with. A lot of carries and yards which can be used as a sales pitch.  Not sure the system of the last couple of years helped sell top RBs to come here.  

If Robinson (Texas) and Knighton (FSU) were worried about getting enough carries and yards, they picked the wrong schools. I said this yesterday, but it's perfectly relevant here too. 2018 stats:

  • JK Dobbins: 1053 yards, 230 carries, 10 TD
  • Mike Weber: 954 yards, 172 carries, 5 TD
  • Texas' leading rusher (Tre Watson): 786 yards, 185 carries, 3 TD
  • Florida State's leading rusher (Cam Akers): 706 yards, 161 carries, 6 TD

Even with using two features RBs, Ohio State's backs still put up solid raw numbers. 

And going forward, with Dobbins having sole back responsibilities, he's going to put up a monster line this year. I don't think it's realistic to just add Weber2018+JK2018 and expect JK 2019 to be 400 carries, 2000 yards and 15 TD's (no way they're putting that much mileage on him). But it's entirely reasonable to expect something like "300 carries, 1500 yards, 12 TD" if JK stays healthy.

Comment 02 Aug 2019

Hope they saved space on that new head coaches wall for Matt Cambell. He will be here sooner than I anticipated if Day fails this hard with big name recruits .

Yeah, how dare Ryan Day only bring in 8 Top 100 dudes as part of the #4 recruiting class in the country.

Sarcasm aside, even if they don't get an RB period, this recruiting class is going to land in the Top 5. And that's after last year's recruiting class had the third-highest ranking by star ranking (though it ended up like 11th overall due to a numbers crunch). Day is absolutely recruiting at the level he needs to succeed at the highest levels.

Comment 02 Aug 2019

If that's the impression, it's straight up wrong. Check the 2018 stats:

  • JK Dobbins: 1053 yards, 230 carries, 10 TD
  • Mike Weber: 954 yards, 172 carries, 5 TD
  • Texas' leading rusher (Tre Watson): 786 yards, 185 carries, 3 TD
  • Florida State's leading rusher (Cam Akers): 706 yards, 161 carries, 6 TD

The evidence is clear: Ohio State can have both a nation-leading passing attack AND feature RB's for plenty of work. 

Comment 01 Aug 2019

There's absolutely an opportunity to move up if OSU takes care of business: There's zero chance that all of Clemson, Alabama, Georgia and Oklahoma are going undefeated. Not only is it mathematically impossible (since 12-0 Bama would play 12-0 UGA), it'd be completely defying history for there to be so many undefeateds at the end of the year. 

And while you can talk about how much the SEC is overrated (and you'd be right), a conference champion 13-0 Ohio State team with wins over six ranked teams simply isn't getting left out for a one-loss team. Even look at the history of the CFP and previous to that the BCS: It'd be completely unprecedented for an undefeated major conference champion to finish #5 - if we start by assuming OSU goes 12-0, then they're finishing no lower than third.

Comment 26 Jul 2019

The multi-monitor article is interesting because it tracks 100% with my experiences and previous work in IT. Every single person who got a multi-monitor setup for the first time was exactly the same:

Before the person tries it: “Why would I need a second monitor? That seems kind of unnecessary. One works just fine!”

One month later: “This is awesome! Why the heck didn’t I do this sooner? A single screen just seems awful now!”