Ohio State Football 2015 [Defending National Champions] [Archive] - Page 5 - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 06:35 PM

I'm looking to cut it with the only knife that matters, the one the committee is using. They have ALA at 0-0 against top 10 teams, tOSU at 0-1, and later today we can see what they have for a T25.

What you show above may be 100% accurate, however, it is not what the committee appears to care about. Given that, I don't think it's any more relevant than the coaches poll, the EPSN poll, etc.

If you'll humor me a bit, re-read what I posted above using only the rankings the committee itself has put out as a baseline.

GL

I assume you're talking about this?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?107604-Ohio-State-Football-2015-Defending-National-Champions&p=3387878&viewfull=1#post3387878

I read every word of it

Assembly Hall

12-01-2015, 06:43 PM

The SOS is a joke in CFB. There is nobody out there that can tell me there are 50 some teams that are better than Sparty. Geez, wins over Oregon, at tOSU, at Michigan...I just dont get it. Greenie questioned it again this morning on "Mike and Mike".

gonelong

12-01-2015, 06:59 PM

I assume you're talking about this?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?107604-Ohio-State-Football-2015-Defending-National-Champions&p=3387878&viewfull=1#post3387878

I read every word of it

Is it your position that Sagarin and the college football playoff committee have the exact same opinion about the strength of schedule for Alabama in Ohio State?

GL

Brutus

12-01-2015, 07:07 PM

A #5 schedule vs a #61. The difference doesn't get much more vast than that. It really doesn't. And this is before Bama plays FL. This isn't about point spreads

Again, the SOS difference between the two schools right now (using a simple rating system... points-based MOV adjusted for competition) is 0.8 points. Alabama's opponents are, on average, 4.5 points above average. Ohio State's are 3.7 above average.

That means you're only talking about Alabama's opponents being about a point better than Ohio State's.

Spin the rankings all you want, but in reality, there's not a big difference between them.

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 07:18 PM

Is it your position that Sagarin and the college football playoff committee have the exact same opinion about the strength of schedule for Alabama in Ohio State?

GL

I don't know if they use Sagrin or not. I see Sagrin mentioned more than any other so that's why I use it as a reference here. I haven't seen any other that paints a different picture

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 07:19 PM

Again, the SOS difference between the two schools right now (using a simple rating system... points-based MOV adjusted for competition) is 0.8 points. Alabama's opponents are, on average, 4.5 points above average. Ohio State's are 3.7 above average.

That means you're only talking about Alabama's opponents being about a point better than Ohio State's.

Spin the rankings all you want, but in reality, there's not a big difference between them.

I don't know where those numbers come from but if that's the case then going by that system there's very little difference in schedule for any of the power 5 conferences.

gonelong

12-01-2015, 07:33 PM

I don't know if they use Sagrin or not. I see Sagrin mentioned more than any other so that's why I use it as a reference here. I haven't seen any other that paints a different picture

My point is that the committee has the *only* relevant ranking for SOS and the *only* relevant weighting of SOS. What Sagarin claims is as a gap between any two teams is nteresting, yet irrelevant to comparing SOS.

To my eye, the committee paints a much different picture with their rankings. Using the committee's lens (as opposed to either ours or Sagarins) I don't see the gap expressed in the same magnitude.

/assuming the committee doesn't use Sagarin or place much weight on it.

GL

Assembly Hall

12-01-2015, 07:38 PM

I don't know where those numbers come from but if that's the case then going by that system there's very little difference in schedule for any of the power 5 conferences.

I dont know about that. In the Big 12 they play each other. The Pac 12 has 9 conference games. The SEC, B1G, and ACC play "unbalanced" conference schedules as well as only playing 8 conference games.

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 07:39 PM

My point is that the committee has the *only* relevant ranking for SOS and the *only* relevant weighting of SOS. What Sagarin claims is as a gap between any two teams is nteresting, yet irrelevant to comparing SOS.

To my eye, the committee paints a much different picture with their rankings. Using the committee's lens (as opposed to either ours or Sagarins) I don't see the gap expressed in the same magnitude.

/assuming the committee doesn't use Sagarin or place much weight on it.

GL

We don't know that the committee paints a different picture until we know what SOS service they're using. I can't imagine that Sagrin isn't a service they look at but I don't know for sure. My guess is this is all for naught because I doubt Alabama will lose on Saturday

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 07:41 PM

I dont know about that. In the Big 12 they play each other. The Pac 12 has 9 conference games. The SEC, B1G, and ACC play "unbalanced" conference schedules as well as only playing 8 conference games.

My point is that the power 5 likely play schedules that fall somewhere between OSU's and Alabama's...and if that difference is only 3 pts (still don't know where that number came from) then there's really no sense in even considering SOS.

Assembly Hall

12-01-2015, 08:06 PM

My point is that the power 5 likely play schedules that fall somewhere between OSU's and Alabama's...and if that difference is only 3 pts (still don't know where that number came from) then there's really no sense in even considering SOS.

I think the SOS is misleading....it doesnt tell the whole story.

gonelong

12-01-2015, 09:49 PM

We don't know that the committee paints a different picture until we know what SOS service they're using. I can't imagine that Sagrin isn't a service they look at but I don't know for sure. My guess is this is all for naught because I doubt Alabama will lose on Saturday

Sure we do. Sagarin has ALA playing a Top 10 team and tOSU playing none. By their own rankings the committee has the exact opposite.

GL

Brutus

12-01-2015, 10:02 PM

I don't know where those numbers come from but if that's the case then going by that system there's very little difference in schedule for any of the power 5 conferences.

I'm using college football reference's numbers. They're just raw at the first level adjusted for home/away, then adjusted for opponents and run on hundreds of iterations until there's virtually no change.

But yeah, that's kind of my point that strength of schedule, largely, is a minimal difference among power conference teams. The reason is that 2/3 of the schedule is played against your conference, and there's really not, in most years and most conferences, a huge disparity in qualitative strength. That said, there are some definite exceptions in SOS strength, but they're rare.

Here are the teams from the Big Ten & SEC

LSU (6.1)
Arkansas (5.4)
Alabama (4.5)
Auburn (4.1)
Vanderbilt (3.8)
S. Car. (3.6)
Miss. St. (3.5)
Ole Miss (3.4)
TAMU (3.1)
Tennessee (2.8)
Mizzou (2.8)
Florida (2.2)
Georgia (1.0)
Kentucky (0.0)

Maryland (7.8) (Maryland drew OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, Iowa and Wisconsin which is why this is so high)
Minnesota (5.9)
Purdue (5.4)
Michigan St. (5.4)
Penn St. (5.0)
Michigan (4.7)
Nebraska (4.4)
Illinois (4.1)
Ohio State (3.8)
Northwestern (3.7)
Indiana (3.6)
Rutgers (3.4)
Wisconsin (0.8)
Iowa (-0.3)

Some notable others in the title race:

North Carolina (-0.5)
Clemson (2.9)
Oklahoma (4.5)
Notre Dame (5.7)
Stanford (4.5)

Roy Tucker

12-01-2015, 10:28 PM

OSU had a chance to walk right into the playoffs but blew it to Mich. St. So now they have to rely upon others to get them in. Always a tenuous and dicey proposition. They only have to look in the mirror to see the reason why they wouldn't be in.

And even then, their offense is too one-dimensional. I have yet to figure out why they can't throw downfield. Rollout slants seem to be their only pass play.

villain612

12-01-2015, 10:57 PM

UNC is 10th in the latest CFP ranking. Hard to see them jumping that many spots even if they beat Clemson. Thats what you get for scheduling two FCS teams.

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 11:11 PM

I'm using college football reference's numbers. They're just raw at the first level adjusted for home/away, then adjusted for opponents and run on hundreds of iterations until there's virtually no change.

But yeah, that's kind of my point that strength of schedule, largely, is a minimal difference among power conference teams. The reason is that 2/3 of the schedule is played against your conference, and there's really not, in most years and most conferences, a huge disparity in qualitative strength. That said, there are some definite exceptions in SOS strength, but they're rare.

Here are the teams from the Big Ten & SEC

What do the numbers in () mean? What do they refer to?

Sea Ray

12-01-2015, 11:19 PM

Sure we do. Sagarin has ALA playing a Top 10 team and tOSU playing none. By their own rankings the committee has the exact opposite.

GL

"Sure we do", what? We still don't know what SoS they're using. Of course their rankings are different. Everyone's rankings are different.

Brutus

12-02-2015, 12:18 AM

What do the numbers in () mean? What do they refer to?

Those numbers are the average points above or below average of that team's opponents. So if you see a 5.0, it means that team's opponents are 5 points above average. Of all the teams I listed, only Iowa and North Carolina's opponents were below average. Kentucky's opponents were exactly average.

villain612

12-02-2015, 02:08 AM

GAC

12-02-2015, 06:16 AM

"If things play out"...must mean if North Carolina beats Clemson. Do you think OSU should "be there" over North Carolina? That'd be a close call. Right now their strength of schedule is nearly equal. Beating Clemson would help NC's strength of schedule but more importantly it'd give them a conference championship. I don't know what else OSU can claim to say that they deserve the nod over NC. I think it's clear that the committee values conference championships and SoS over the quality of a loss.

It's a valid question, and all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not a member of that selection committee. I'm sure there are members nervously sitting with fingers crossed that both Alabama and Clemson win so that they're not forced into that scenario (having to make that call) (LOL).

I've watched UNC this year. They're a solid team/program, and yes, they have a greater possibility (IMO) of wining then Florida beating 'Bama. Let me quote what this ESPN article states (and which I concur)...

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/88908/will-a-win-over-clemson-be-enough-for-no-10-north-carolina-to-finish-in-top-4

Based on the evidence so far, the committee has not given North Carolina any respect because of its season-opening loss to South Carolina and overall schedule strength. Two FCS victories have done nothing to help North Carolina's cause. That Florida State is ranked ahead of North Carolina speaks to how the committee views the Tar Heels. The Seminoles have two losses, including one to Georgia Tech, which like South Carolina is 3-9. But the committee clearly views Florida State as the stronger team. The Seminoles do have a win over No. 18 Florida; North Carolina has no wins over a top-25 team.

And besides FSU, there are two other two-loss teams ranked higher then UNC in Notre Dame and Stanford. That tells me this committee doesn't have much respect for UNC.

But again - if the selection committee has said it would strongly favor conference champions then that could create a problem, one would think. I guess one could read between the lines and say that the term "strongly favors" is not a guarantee, and could give the committee an out (so to speak).

Should #10 UNC leapfrog over #7 Stanford if they beat USC and win their conference championship? Stanford's SoS is #18 vs UNC's at #62. A win over Clemson will give it a significant boost, but will it be enough in that committee's eyes? I guess we'll have to wait and see; but I think Stanford's overall profile, mixing some dominant performances and signature wins, would give them the edge of UNC IMO.

I'll be honest.... I'm not that impressed with Clemson this year. Their SoS is 47, and they played some pretty tight games vs mediocre/poor teams. They just played a squeaker last week against a really bad South Carolina team (37-32). So it's possible that UNC can beat them.

But I think UNC would really have to put a whoppin' on Clemson to possibly get in. Just my take.

As for Ohio State... that destruction of Michigan last week did open the eyes of the committee. But IMO - they are still a very lonnng shot. I think Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford would all have to lose for them to possibly get in.

GAC

12-02-2015, 06:21 AM

If a team struggles to beat an inferior team then it should be held against them.

Hasn't hurt Clemson this year. ;)

Assembly Hall

12-02-2015, 08:33 AM

As for Ohio State... that destruction of Michigan last week did open the eyes of the committee. But IMO - they are still a very lonnng shot. I think Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford would all have to lose for them to possibly get in.

Given the scenario where Clemson, 'Bama, and Stanford all get beat and the Bucks get in. Who's the 4th team?

Slyder

12-02-2015, 10:16 AM

Given the scenario where Clemson, 'Bama, and Stanford all get beat and the Bucks get in. Who's the 4th team?
In that case. I think it comes down to how the Big 10 champ game goes. If MSU just ROFL stomps Iowa then OSU has a chance, If Iowa wins close UNC and Michigan State have a strong case.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 10:45 AM

I see a lot of people online using Sagarin's SoS rankings to down Ohio State's chances to make the playoff.

But Sagarin currently ranks the Buckeyes as the #3 team in the nation. lol

So, argument on its head?

You raise a great point. Why is Clemson behind OSU, seeing as Sagrin rates Clemson's SoS as better and they're undefeated? Obviously there are other things going into his rankings

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 10:50 AM

Those numbers are the average points above or below average of that team's opponents. So if you see a 5.0, it means that team's opponents are 5 points above average. Of all the teams I listed, only Iowa and North Carolina's opponents were below average. Kentucky's opponents were exactly average.

It's just another way of stating SoS then. They're saying the same thing that Sagrin is. Sagrin rates UK's schedule at 60, which would be about avg

Assembly Hall

12-02-2015, 10:55 AM

You raise a great point. Why is Clemson behind OSU, seeing as Sagrin rates Clemson's SoS as better and they're undefeated? Obviously there are other things going into his rankings

Yes there are. Check this out....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 10:58 AM

It's a valid question, and all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not a member of that selection committee. I'm sure there are members nervously sitting with fingers crossed that both Alabama and Clemson win so that they're not forced into that scenario (having to make that call) (LOL).

I've watched UNC this year. They're a solid team/program, and yes, they have a greater possibility (IMO) of wining then Florida beating 'Bama. Let me quote what this ESPN article states (and which I concur)...

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/88908/will-a-win-over-clemson-be-enough-for-no-10-north-carolina-to-finish-in-top-4

And besides FSU, there are two other two-loss teams ranked higher then UNC in Notre Dame and Stanford. That tells me this committee doesn't have much respect for UNC.

But again - if the selection committee has said it would strongly favor conference champions then that could create a problem, one would think. I guess one could read between the lines and say that the term "strongly favors" is not a guarantee, and could give the committee an out (so to speak).

Should #10 UNC leapfrog over #7 Stanford if they beat USC and win their conference championship? Stanford's SoS is #18 vs UNC's at #62. A win over Clemson will give it a significant boost, but will it be enough in that committee's eyes? I guess we'll have to wait and see; but I think Stanford's overall profile, mixing some dominant performances and signature wins, would give them the edge of UNC IMO.

I'll be honest.... I'm not that impressed with Clemson this year. Their SoS is 47, and they played some pretty tight games vs mediocre/poor teams. They just played a squeaker last week against a really bad South Carolina team (37-32). So it's possible that UNC can beat them.

But I think UNC would really have to put a whoppin' on Clemson to possibly get in. Just my take.

As for Ohio State... that destruction of Michigan last week did open the eyes of the committee. But IMO - they are still a very lonnng shot. I think Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford would all have to lose for them to possibly get in.

You wouldn't want to be on that committee? I'd LOVE to be in that room. It'd be a blast.

Now that we have their most recent rankings to consider, I agree with your take. If Clemson loses, the first beneficiary will be Stanford if they beat USC and win their conference championship. I'm not so certain that UNC could sneak in 'cause they've got so far to go but if you're an OSU fan, you ought to root for the teams you mentioned.

I've discussed SoS and wondered aloud which source this committee uses. Well, I don't know for sure but on the ESPN selection show last night they listed OSU's SoS as 58. This goes to show, there's not much variation from source to source on this. Just about every source lists OSU's schedule as being middle of the pack and Alabama's as being top notch

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 11:02 AM

Yes there are. Check this out....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

Yeah, that's the page I've been going to but it still doesn't explain why Clemson is rated below OSU. Can you figure that one out?

Actually I'd bet on OSU were they to play Clemson this weekend but that's an eye test. I don't think Sagrin's ratings have an eye test as part of them

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 11:06 AM

In that case. I think it comes down to how the Big 10 champ game goes. If MSU just ROFL stomps Iowa then OSU has a chance, If Iowa wins close UNC and Michigan State have a strong case.

I can't see them picking 3 Big Ten teams over a one loss conference champion. Under that scenario for sure NC gets in. The question is whether they'd get in ahead of OSU...but they'd most assuredly get in above a third Big Ten team

traderumor

12-02-2015, 11:28 AM

If there is any logic in the playoff determination at this point, a Clemson or Alabama loss should give the Buckeyes the #4 spot. Oklahoma is a lock because they are out of games to lose, the winner of the B10 Championship game is a lock, and Clemson or Alabama would be in with a win. I have no idea where Stanford has any better argument than any other two loss team. I would say North Carolina would take the flying leap if Alabama loses also.

Slyder

12-02-2015, 11:29 AM

I can't see them picking 3 Big Ten teams over a one loss conference champion. Under that scenario for sure NC gets in. The question is whether they'd get in ahead of OSU...but they'd most assuredly get in above a third Big Ten team

No if MSU just Rofl stomps Iowa it could be:
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Michigan State
--------

That fourth team would come down to Ohio State, ACC Champ UNC, 1 loss Clemson, and a slew of 2/3 loss teams.

They might sneak 2 B1G in if Iowa "survives" against Michigan State but Michigan State's H2H win pretty much eliminates OSU.

Cause you'd have Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Iowa, and the same field plus Mich State in that 2nd scenario.

Assembly Hall

12-02-2015, 11:40 AM

Yeah, that's the page I've been going to but it still doesn't explain why Clemson is rated below OSU. Can you figure that one out?

Actually I'd bet on OSU were they to play Clemson this weekend but that's an eye test. I don't think Sagrin's ratings have an eye test as part of them

I cant SR. I get puzzled myself. But something tells me that the way tOSU spanked the Wolves is the difference, for whatever metrics he uses.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 12:09 PM

Assembly Hall

12-02-2015, 12:20 PM

Stanford has a better argument due to its out of conference schedule. No one can match Northwestern and Notre Dame.

I agree, to put that into perspective NW is 10-2 as is ND.

gonelong

12-02-2015, 12:23 PM

"Sure we do", what? We still don't know what SoS they're using.

You said ...
We don't know that the committee paints a different picture until we know what SOS service they're using.

I know. They are inherently creating a SOS with their completed rankings. What they rely on with SOS to create those rankings is immaterial. I don't care if they refer or weight Sagarin, etc. At the end of the day, they come out with a ranking so we have some idea of how strong they view each team.

We know that the committee paints a different picture as they don't rate the top teams that ALA plays as high as Sagarin. At the minimum they are stating that they don't agree with Sagarin that ALA played as fierce of top-level competition. Even if they are rating some of the 26-40 teams that ALA has played higher, it still shows they think ALA has been less "tested" at the top level than Sagarin would opine. (Though, their opinion of Alabama as a team overall isn't much different than Sagarin.)

Of course their rankings are different. Everyone's rankings are different.

Yet they don't paint a different picture? The rankings of each team inherently drive the SOS for their opponents.

GL

traderumor

12-02-2015, 12:35 PM

Stanford has a better argument due to its out of conference schedule. No one can match Northwestern and Notre Dame.
I guess that fits the logic of this week's ranking, but then they have to win also. They better be convincing or I could see NC getting moved up with "they must be for real to beat #1" with this week's ranking based on skepticism due to strength of schedule.

Brutus

12-02-2015, 12:47 PM

It's just another way of stating SoS then. They're saying the same thing that Sagrin is. Sagrin rates UK's schedule at 60, which would be about avg

Right, but my point is that the difference between 5-60 is not actually that much. You see 55 spots separating the two. I'm pointing out that it amounts to less than 2-3 points per game in actual qualitative strength.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 12:57 PM

Right, but my point is that the difference between 5-60 is not actually that much. You see 55 spots separating the two. I'm pointing out that it amounts to less than 2-3 points per game in actual qualitative strength.

I think it's a silly way to look at it. First of all there's the validity of the stat, but assuming that's true, over 12 games you're looking at about 35 points. That could mean that the schedule's are equal but for 2 games. One being a 21 pt difference and another 14. That could be the difference between 11-1 and 9-3. . That's significant. It's all in how one manipulates the numbers

villain612

12-02-2015, 01:33 PM

From the interviews yesterday with Jeff Long, they don't even look at conference titles won until they hit a deadlock on two teams on which is better.

Brutus

12-02-2015, 01:39 PM

I think it's a silly way to look at it. First of all there's the validity of the stat, but assuming that's true, over 12 games you're looking at about 35 points. That could mean that the schedule's are equal but for 2 games. One being a 21 pt difference and another 14. That could be the difference between 11-1 and 9-3. . That's significant. It's all in how one manipulates the numbers

It's significant for teams hovering around .500. For teams that are going to be favored by double digits in most games (as Alabama and Ohio State are), it's not a significant difference.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 02:16 PM

It's significant for teams hovering around .500. For teams that are going to be favored by double digits in most games (as Alabama and Ohio State are), it's not a significant difference.

That's just it.

It's not about "most games". It's about that one or two games that are close calls. Definitely with Ohio State's schedule they were supposed to win big every week up until MSU. That wasn't the case for Alabama. Let's go back to Oct 3rd. Care to guess what the odds were on Bama vs Ga?

http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaaf/alabama-georgia-odds-october-3-2015

They were anywhere from even to one pt.

Double digit point spreads? Alabama was favored by single digits often this year, namely Wisconsin, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St

jojo

12-02-2015, 02:44 PM

That's just it.

It's not about "most games". It's about that one or two games that are close calls. Definitely with Ohio State's schedule they were supposed to win big every week up until MSU. That wasn't the case for Alabama. Let's go back to Oct 3rd. Care to guess what the odds were on Bama vs Ga?

http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaaf/alabama-georgia-odds-october-3-2015

They were anywhere from even to one pt.

Double digit point spreads? Alabama was favored by single digits often this year, namely Wisconsin, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St

Yep, it's a bunk argument.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 03:34 PM

Yep, it's a bunk argument.

This dovetails back to the compelling game argument that was raised earlier in the year. Alabama, due to its much tougher schedule, was faced with far fewer double digit spreads than Ohio State. I sensed that due to all the mismatches OSU had this year that our fellow member here, Brutus, assumed that Alabama's season went along in a similar fashion. Well it didn't. In fact to the best of my knowledge, OSU had one game the entire year where they were favored by less than double digits. One! That was their last game a few days ago. In fact they were favored by nearly two TDs (13 pts) over MSU. They were favored by 31 over Northern Illinois, 17.5 pts over PSU, 2 TDs over Indiana and Va Tech.

So let's wrap our head around this. OSU went from Labor Day till Thanksgiving before they faced an opponent that they were NOT supposed to beat by 2 TDs. Is that amazing or what? How does that even happen in a Power 5 conference in 2015?

*BaseClogger*

12-02-2015, 03:53 PM

Part of the reason OSU had larger spreads against their opponents is that Vegas believed them to be a better team than Alabama. Had OSU and Alabama matched up in the first week of the season on a neutral field I believe OSU would have been favored by ~5 points...

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 03:58 PM

MWM

12-02-2015, 04:00 PM

I’m an Ohio State fan and I don’t think they deserve to get in this year. If Alabama somehow loses (I’d bet everything I own on that not happening), they may get in simply because they have only 1 loss while the alternatives have 2, and at the end of the day, number of losses trumps the other factors. I think UNC deserves it over Ohio State if they beat Clemson, and I think Ohio State would beat UNC handily if they played.

I believe the Buckeyes have the talent to beat any team in the country on any given day. And given Urban Meyer’s track record in games where he has a long time to prepare, I’d put the odds of them winning as equal to or higher than any of the other teams.

However, that’s based purely on potential and what they can do if they play well. They didn’t actually show that potential on the field this year with any level of consistency. They were not impressive at all most of this year as a team. We can analyze why all day long, but their performance on the field throughout the season was not deserving of a playoff spot, IMO.

This year’s Buckeye team is the biggest mystery of any team that I follow my whole life. How a team that steamrolled their way through the playoff last year, and returned most of their starters, could look as pedestrian as they did all year doesn’t make sense to me. Was Devin Smith THAT impactful? Was Tom Herman really THAT important to last year’s success? I don’t know, but I know the team I watched this year was nothing special, even if they only lost one game.

*BaseClogger*

12-02-2015, 04:05 PM

Absolutely. But OSU would not have been favored by two TDs every week if they played Bama's schedule

Well, sure, but as we've all pointed out most of the teams on Alabama's schedule were grossly overrated before the season even began. I agree with Brutus, there was probably a couple points difference between OSU's schedule and Alabama's schedule.

It comes down to how you think the teams should be selected. If the decision is made based on perceived quality I don't know how you don't include the Buckeyes. If its based on merit, then I agree with MWM--they don't deserve to be there...

jimbo

12-02-2015, 04:10 PM

This dovetails back to the compelling game argument that was raised earlier in the year. Alabama, due to its much tougher schedule, was faced with far fewer double digit spreads than Ohio State.

If we knew then, what we know now, that many of the SEC teams that Alabama played were horribly overrated, they should have had more double digit spreads. Those spreads were based on preseason SEC hype that ended up being false.

jimbo

12-02-2015, 04:15 PM

From the interviews yesterday with Jeff Long, they don't even look at conference titles won until they hit a deadlock on two teams on which is better.

I heard him say exactly that. Too many, once again this year, are assuming the committee is solely basing their selections on black and white numbers, rankings, conference championships, strength of schedules, etc. In the end they will select who they feel are the best four teams in the country. They showed that last season with their decision on tOSU. From what Long said last night, if it comes to two teams who they feel are equal, then they may use a conference championship as the deal breaker. In some scenarios, a championship may not even come into play. If they feel that Team A is better than Team B, even though Team B won a conference championship and Team A didn't, they will select Team A.

jojo

12-02-2015, 04:16 PM

If we knew then, what we know now, that many of the SEC teams that Alabama played were horribly overrated, they should have had more double digit spreads. Those spreads were based on preseason SEC hype that ended up being false.

Not really. But it's a great story. But unfortunately, the SEC was once again ranked the toughest conference, especially the SEC west. So, it's not actually much of a great story being more like just a story.

villain612

12-02-2015, 04:16 PM

If UNC or Florida pulls off upsets, it's gonna be really interesting to see what the committee does. As a Bucks fan, I can admit that I want them in, but I can concede that UNC and Stanford have merits to their arguments too. Does the committee pick the four best teams....or the four most deserving?

If it's the former, and you were a head coach, which team out of UNC, Stanford, or Ohio State would you not want to play the most?

jimbo

12-02-2015, 04:29 PM

If it's the former, and you were a head coach, which team out of UNC, Stanford, or Ohio State would you not want to play the most?

I know I would prefer to play UNC over Standford or Ohio State. That's not even debatable.

One thing is for sure, if it works out that tOSU gets in, the amount of whining and moaning that will most assuredly come from the talking heads and haters, will be pure comedic gold.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 04:32 PM

Well, sure, but as we've all pointed out most of the teams on Alabama's schedule were grossly overrated before the season even began. I agree with Brutus, there was probably a couple points difference between OSU's schedule and Alabama's schedule.

It comes down to how you think the teams should be selected. If the decision is made based on perceived quality I don't know how you don't include the Buckeyes. If its based on merit, then I agree with MWM--they don't deserve to be there...

No matter how it's done, OSU doesn't deserve to get in unless there's an upset or two this weekend. Assuming Clemson and Alabama win, OSU doesn't even have an argument

BuckeyeRed27

12-02-2015, 04:34 PM

No matter how it's done, OSU doesn't deserve to get in unless there's an upset or two this weekend. Assuming Clemson and Alabama win, OSU doesn't even have an argument

Well yeah. I don't think a single person in the last 15 pages of this thread has stated otherwise.

villain612

12-02-2015, 04:35 PM

androosh

12-02-2015, 04:36 PM

I know I would prefer to play UNC over Standford or Ohio State. That's not even debatable.

One thing is for sure, if it works out that tOSU gets in, the amount of whining and moaning that will most assuredly come from the talking heads and haters, will be pure comedic gold.Three things are going for the Buckeyes:
1) #4 or #5 will lose
2) Ohio State's only loss was as time ran out against the team that could very well beat the #4 team in the country this weekend
3) The committee seems to like Ohio State, and will probably recognize the loss was solely on play-calling and not because a lack of talent (which they most certainly corrected the next week)

Who knows if that's enough to bump them up. I'm really hoping at least one of #1-3 loses, and USC beats Stanford. If that happens, without a doubt the Buckeyes will make it in.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the internet would explode and it would be glorious.

I am salivating over an Alabama/Ohio State rematch. I can't lie.If there's a chance for an Ohio State/Alabama rematch, or even an Ohio State/Michigan State rematch, I think the committee will go for it if there's an open spot.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 04:48 PM

If we knew then, what we know now, that many of the SEC teams that Alabama played were horribly overrated, they should have had more double digit spreads. Those spreads were based on preseason SEC hype that ended up being false.

That would be a lot of preseason hype and I don't see it. In fact the only school (on Alabama's schedule) that I see that was overhyped is Georgia. In the preseason AP poll, LSU was 14th. In the playoff rankings they're now 21. Ole Miss was 17th and they've jumped up to 13th now. Tennessee has stayed the same at 25. Miss St has stayed about the same. They were 26th in the preseason and they just fell out of yesterday's poll as well. Interesting that you mention SEC schools being hyped. Wisconsin was 21st in the preseason poll. Alabama was at #3 to open the year. Florida wasn't even ranked.

I don't see much evidence of preseason hype. Seems to me most SEC schools are right about where they started except Ga dropped and FL took their place

kaldaniels

12-02-2015, 04:52 PM

That would be a lot of preseason hype and I don't see it. In fact the only school (on Alabama's schedule) that I see that was overhyped is Georgia. In the preseason AP poll, LSU was 14th. In the playoff rankings they're now 21. Ole Miss was 17th and they've jumped up to 13th now. Tennessee has stayed the same at 25. Miss St has stayed about the same. They were 26th in the preseason and they just fell out of yesterday's poll as well. Interesting that you mention SEC schools being hyped. Wisconsin was 21st in the preseason poll. Alabama was at #3 to open the year. Florida wasn't even ranked.

I don't see much evidence of preseason hype. Seems to me most SEC schools are right about where they started except Ga dropped and FL took their place

How do you miss Auburn?

*BaseClogger*

12-02-2015, 04:53 PM

How do you miss Auburn?

And Arkansas... And Missouri...

kaldaniels

12-02-2015, 04:55 PM

And Arkansas... And Missouri...

Factchecking is a good thing.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:00 PM

How do you miss Auburn?

Good point. They were definitely overhyped although they are playing better now

kaldaniels

12-02-2015, 05:07 PM

Good point. They were definitely overhyped although they are playing better now

I'm glad you acknowledge it but I still don't know how you missed that being an SEC guy. Preseason dark horse NC pick coupled with a Top 10 ranking ends up 6-6 and you leave that out attempting to school everyone? Huge miss.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:11 PM

And Arkansas... And Missouri...

How does Missouri affect Alabama's strength of schedule?

I didn't mention schools like Auburn or Arkansas because the conversation was about compelling games. Overhyped or not, both of those schools were 2 TD dogs going into their game with the Tide. That hardly makes my point about single digit games, huh? Alabama was favored by single digits vs Txas AM, Ole Miss, Miss St and LSU.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:17 PM

I'm glad you acknowledge it but I still don't know how you missed that being an SEC guy. Preseason dark horse NC pick coupled with a Top 10 ranking ends up 6-6 and you leave that out attempting to school everyone? Huge miss.

Maybe you didn't cover this whole conversation but it was about the fact that OSU was a two TD favorite in every game this season except for UM. So I used examples of teams that Alabama had to face where they were NOT prohibitive favorites. At that point someone opined that the reason AL was not a prohibitive favorite in more games was because of preseason SEC hype. Well Auburn and Arkansas were not examples of compelling games on Bama's schedule. They were supposed to be easy, hype or not. And Missouri wasn't even on Alabama's schedule.

Show me where preseason hype led to single digit point spreads for TX AM, Ole Miss, Miss St and LSU? You can't do it by pointing to Missouri and Auburn, that's for sure!

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:19 PM

Factchecking is a good thing.

Those are meaningless facts if one is trying to show that preseason hype led to LSU, Miss ST and others were less than 10 pt dogs to Alabama

androosh

12-02-2015, 05:21 PM

I think every FCS opponent should nullify two ranked FBS opponents on ones Strength of Schedule argument. The SEC always argues that their conference is so strong, but if any other conference played games against a completely different division (especially in November), they'd have more wins too, but they'd be absolutely berated for it at the same time.

kaldaniels

12-02-2015, 05:24 PM

Those are meaningless facts if one is trying to show that preseason hype led to LSU, Miss ST and others were less than 10 pt dogs to Alabama

In fact the only school (on Alabama's schedule) that I see that was overhyped is Georgia.

Seems to me most SEC schools are right about where they started except Ga dropped and FL took their place

Gotta qualify those kinds of things, sorry but that's just the way it is. Note the 2 bolded qualifiers you did use are completely different.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:27 PM

Gotta qualify those kinds of things, sorry but that's just the way it is. Note the 2 bolded qualifiers you did use are completely different.

I said "most". It was never supposed to be an inclusive list.

How 'bout if we agree that Missouri and Auburn were overhyped but we also agree that by the time Auburn played AL it was supposed to be a blowout not unlike OSU Indiana? That's all I'm saying

kaldaniels

12-02-2015, 05:33 PM

I said "most". It was never supposed to be an inclusive list.

How 'bout if we agree that Missouri and Auburn were overhyped but we also agree that by the time Auburn played AL it was supposed to be a blowout not unlike OSU Indiana? That's all I'm saying

most SEC schools are right about where they started except Ga dropped and FL took their place

You have a way with words my friend.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:40 PM

You have a way with words my friend.

Notice "most" was included both times. That's taught in RZ 101. The gotcha crowd will always dig out an exception when they can't fight the main point

androosh

12-02-2015, 05:43 PM

I said "most". It was never supposed to be an inclusive list.

How 'bout if we agree that Missouri and Auburn were overhyped but we also agree that by the time Auburn played AL it was supposed to be a blowout not unlike OSU Indiana? That's all I'm sayingIndiana is a lot better team than their record reflects. I'm going to be afraid of them in a year or two. They took it down to the wire in one possession games against OSU (#1 at the time, #6 now), Iowa (#9 at the time, #4 now), and Michigan in 2OT (#14 at the time, #15 now), and just barely beat the Conference USA champion, Western Kentucky (I know they aren't a Power Five team, but 8-0 in conference and 10-2 overall is pretty good regardless of the conference you're in).

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been a blowout, I still think it should have been, but then again, I still think the Buckeyes should have blown out MSU, and would have, had they called a better game.

Brutus

12-02-2015, 05:45 PM

This dovetails back to the compelling game argument that was raised earlier in the year. Alabama, due to its much tougher schedule, was faced with far fewer double digit spreads than Ohio State. I sensed that due to all the mismatches OSU had this year that our fellow member here, Brutus, assumed that Alabama's season went along in a similar fashion. Well it didn't. In fact to the best of my knowledge, OSU had one game the entire year where they were favored by less than double digits. One! That was their last game a few days ago. In fact they were favored by nearly two TDs (13 pts) over MSU. They were favored by 31 over Northern Illinois, 17.5 pts over PSU, 2 TDs over Indiana and Va Tech.

So let's wrap our head around this. OSU went from Labor Day till Thanksgiving before they faced an opponent that they were NOT supposed to beat by 2 TDs. Is that amazing or what? How does that even happen in a Power 5 conference in 2015?

So perhaps that it tells us Ohio State is viewed as clearly one of the four best teams. Most of the power ratings, even Sagarin which you use so often, thinks they are. So shouldn't that mean they SHOULD be in the playoffs? Isn't the objective to put in the four best teams? Jeff Long seems to think so. That's what he just said last night.

BTW, Alabama has been double digit favorites in OVER half their games this season and a touchdown favorite (or more) in all but two.

-37.0
-34.5
-15.5
-15.0
-14.5
-12.0
-8.5
-7.5
-7.5
-5.0
+1.0

The win probability, by the way, of a 7.5 to 8.5 point favorite is between 75-80 percent. An extra 2-3 points only moves it a few percent. So if you think the difference between Alabama and Ohio State's 1 point (or even 2 points if we are being generous) SOS is large, you're very mistaken. The data suggests otherwise.

I give you credit for having a good discussion on the topic. Others who have nothing to add except "it's bunk" are clearly incapable of contributing to the conversation.

gonelong

12-02-2015, 05:46 PM

Yeah, the internet would explode and it would be glorious.

I am salivating over an Alabama/Ohio State rematch. I can't lie.

Everybody wants to see that rematch. Unfortunately, tOSU didn't make it easy for the committee to make that happen. I think tOSU is one of the four best teams in the country, but I don't think (as of today) they are one of the four most deserving.

GL

jojo

12-02-2015, 05:49 PM

Others who have nothing to add except "it's bunk" are clearly incapable of contributing to the conversation.

Except even a cursory read demonstrates such comments as bunk.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:50 PM

So perhaps that it tells us Ohio State is viewed as clearly one of the four best teams. Most of the power ratings, even Sagarin which you use so often, thinks they are. So shouldn't that mean they SHOULD be in the playoffs? Isn't the objective to put in the four best teams? Jeff Long seems to think so. That's what he just said last night.

BTW, Alabama has been double digit favorites in OVER half their games this season and a touchdown favorite (or more) in all but two.

-37.0
-34.5
-15.5
-15.0
-14.5
-12.0
-8.5
-7.5
-7.5
-5.0
+1.0

The win probability, by the way, of a 7.5 to 8.5 point favorite is between 75-80 percent. An extra 2-3 points only moves it a few percent. So if you think the difference between Alabama and Ohio State's 1 point (or even 2 points if we are being generous) SOS is large, you're very mistaken. The data suggests otherwise.

I give you credit for having a good discussion on the topic. Others who have nothing to add except "it's bunk" are clearly incapable of contributing to the conversation.

Let's drink to your bottomline. I appreciate that

:beerme:

jojo

12-02-2015, 05:55 PM

If osu had to play Bama's schedule this year, no one could convincingly argue that they would've equaled or bettered Bama's performance. Bama played a harder schedule and in fact has to play an extra game. Most reasonable people could assume Bama would at least be 11-1 or even undefeated if getting to play osu's schedule. That's just as 20/20 as the eye test can get.

Sea Ray

12-02-2015, 05:55 PM

The win probability, by the way, of a 7.5 to 8.5 point favorite is between 75-80 percent. An extra 2-3 points only moves it a few percent. So if you think the difference between Alabama and Ohio State's 1 point (or even 2 points if we are being generous) SOS is large, you're very mistaken. The data suggests otherwise..

The comparison of OSU and Alabama doesn't involve another 2-3 pts. It involves at least another TD. If you look up OSU's pt spreads they're far, far greater than 2-3 pts greater than Bama's

As a college football fan looking for a game to watch on a given Sat, wouldn't you much rather watch Bama vs Ga, Miss St, Ole Miss or Auburn rather than OSU vs a team that they're supposed to beat by 14 pts or more? I understand this is a completely different pt than what we've been discussing. Watching OSU football in 2015 reminds me of watching UK basketball. You know you're going to win. It's just a matter of by how much

dabvu2498

12-02-2015, 06:01 PM

And Arkansas... And Missouri...

Arkansas was preseason #18. They're currently 8-4 and 29th in the AP poll. It's not like that was a huge swing and miss by the preseason prognosticators.

jojo

12-02-2015, 06:05 PM

Arkansas was preseason #18. They're currently 8-4 and 29th in the AP poll. It's not like that was a huge swing and miss by the preseason prognosticators.

Auburn was the big miss and let's be honest, the whole world missed on that one and it took a perfect storm of bad things happening for it to actually happen.

redrum

12-02-2015, 06:05 PM

First of all, being from the northeast I admit my sympathies lean more toward the B1G than the SEC. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that from top to bottom the SEC west is stronger than either of the B1G divisions. Almost all of the SEC west teams are at least dangerous, and you have to show up every week. I believe if the Ohio State team we saw for most of the year played Alabama's schedule there is a good chance they would have lost more than once.

I've gone on record saying that I don't think Ohio State belongs in the playoffs due to their lackluster performances this year. I do, however, think they are one of the 4 most interesting teams (mainly due to star-power), and probably have a better chance of winning the whole thing than many of the other teams in the discussion.

What will the committee do? Only time will tell.

Assembly Hall

12-02-2015, 07:23 PM

Indiana is a lot better team than their record reflects. I'm going to be afraid of them in a year or two. They took it down to the wire in one possession games against OSU (#1 at the time, #6 now), Iowa (#9 at the time, #4 now), and Michigan in 2OT (#14 at the time, #15 now), and just barely beat the Conference USA champion, Western Kentucky (I know they aren't a Power Five team, but 8-0 in conference and 10-2 overall is pretty good regardless of the conference you're in).

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been a blowout, I still think it should have been, but then again, I still think the Buckeyes should have blown out MSU, and would have, had they called a better game.

Yeah, IU just doesnt get any love. Nor does the B1G East period. For that matter the B1G as a whole has as well. I look at the rankings and see 3 of the top 6 from the B1G. Then I sit and look at a 10-2 Northwestern team that beat Stanford and Duke on the road. I follow Tennessee pretty closely.......this year the B1G is THE conference.

traderumor

12-02-2015, 08:04 PM

Point spreads are really not a reliable measure for strength of schedule by any stretch. That is worse than "ranking when played."

Brutus

12-03-2015, 12:21 AM

The comparison of OSU and Alabama doesn't involve another 2-3 pts. It involves at least another TD. If you look up OSU's pt spreads they're far, far greater than 2-3 pts greater than Bama's

As a college football fan looking for a game to watch on a given Sat, wouldn't you much rather watch Bama vs Ga, Miss St, Ole Miss or Auburn rather than OSU vs a team that they're supposed to beat by 14 pts or more? I understand this is a completely different pt than what we've been discussing. Watching OSU football in 2015 reminds me of watching UK basketball. You know you're going to win. It's just a matter of by how much

It involves another touchdown with about 3-4 of the games. But I'm saying the difference between OSU's opponents and Alabama's opponents are, on average, only 2-3 points. Location and differences in betting trends are the reasons for most of the other variance.

Sea Ray

12-03-2015, 09:22 AM

It involves another touchdown with about 3-4 of the games. But I'm saying the difference between OSU's opponents and Alabama's opponents are, on average, only 2-3 points. Location and differences in betting trends are the reasons for most of the other variance.

It depends on what metric you're using. Vegas point spreads aren't just a difference of 2-3 pts.

jojo

12-03-2015, 10:00 AM

It depends on what metric you're using. Vegas point spreads aren't just a difference of 2-3 pts.

Vegas point spreads are a measure of who Vegas thinks it can take money from... they are not a metric of quality.

Assembly Hall

12-03-2015, 11:00 AM

Vegas point spreads are a measure of who Vegas thinks it can take money from... they are not a metric of quality.

And that is a metric in of itself!!!!!!!!!

Sea Ray

12-03-2015, 11:10 AM

Vegas point spreads are a measure of who Vegas thinks it can take money from... they are not a metric of quality.

It's a measure of how they think the game will go. If they pick Ohio State to win by 20 pts, that means they're not expecting a close game.

gonelong

12-03-2015, 01:02 PM

It's a measure of how they think the game will go. If they pick Ohio State to win by 20 pts, that means they're not expecting a close game.

Technically, they pick the line that they think they can get 50% of the money on each side of the bet. They are much more interested in public perception and betting habits of the two team fan base than they are in the relative strength of either team. This is why the line moves (assuming no new information like injuries) ... not necessarily because Vegas thinks something has changed with either team, but because too much money has come into one side of the bet.

That is sort of splitting hairs thought. In general, I agree that Vegas is weighing in on how they expect the game to go and then are likely tweaking it based on the betting public. I can't image they move lines too much based on the public, but then again, I don't really nkow. However, once you get a spread of anything over 10 pts I think they are inherently weighing in on the relative strength of the teams.

GL

Sea Ray

12-03-2015, 01:09 PM

Technically, they pick the line that they think they can get 50% of the money on each side of the bet. They are much more interested in public perception and betting habits of the two team fan base than they are in the relative strength of either team. This is why the line moves (assuming no new information like injuries) ... not necessarily because Vegas thinks something has changed with either team, but because too much money has come into one side of the bet.

That is sort of splitting hairs thought. In general, I agree that Vegas is weighing in on how they expect the game to go and then are likely tweaking it based on the betting public. I can't image they move lines too much based on the public, but then again, I don't really nkow. However, once you get a spread of anything over 10 pts I think they are inherently weighing in on the relative strength of the teams.

GL

The line basically is along the lines of where the public thinks the game will go. First of all the line doesn't usually move much, rarely more than a FG...but it settles where the people think the game end up.

traderumor

12-03-2015, 01:24 PM

The line basically is along the lines of where the public thinks the game will go. First of all the line doesn't usually move much, rarely more than a FG...but it settles where the people think the game end up.It's not "the public," it is a small segment of all the people who follow college football who bet on college football. I also think they are not reliable for the mere fact that these are people dumb enough to waste their hard earned money betting on a football game's outcome.

jojo

12-03-2015, 01:51 PM

It's not "the public," it is a small segment of all the people who follow college football who bet on college football. I also think they are not reliable for the mere fact that these are people dumb enough to waste their hard earned money betting on a football game's outcome.

Yep.

Sea Ray

12-03-2015, 01:52 PM

gonelong

12-03-2015, 02:03 PM

I've never bet a buck on sports but I'm amazed how accurate those lines are.

I used to think this and then took a bit of time to compare the outcomes from week to week with the lines. They nail some games and that sticks out. They miss quite a bunch of them too. More so early in the season than later. If I recall correctly, tOSU was about a 7 point dog to WISC, ALA, and ORE last season. Vegas missed by 66, 14, and 29 pts in those games. Their lines in conference are pretty close, but they struggle with bowl games lines. (Part of the reason I say *nobody* can accurately compare the conferences from year to year.)

NFL football, they are scary on target. NCAA football, not nearly so accurate.

GL

Brutus

12-03-2015, 02:39 PM

Brutus

12-03-2015, 02:44 PM

I used to think this and then took a bit of time to compare the outcomes from week to week with the lines. They nail some games and that sticks out. They miss quite a bunch of them too. More so early in the season than later. If I recall correctly, tOSU was about a 7 point dog to WISC, ALA, and ORE last season. Vegas missed by 66, 14, and 29 pts in those games. Their lines in conference are pretty close, but they struggle with bowl games lines. (Part of the reason I say *nobody* can accurately compare the conferences from year to year.)

NFL football, they are scary on target. NCAA football, not nearly so accurate.

GL

The NFL lines are slightly more accurate because there's more parity among the 30 teams and you very rarely are going to have two teams separated by much more than a touchdown. That said, even with NCAA football and basketball, Vegas gets 79-80 percent of the winners correct and with basketball, there's a standard deviation on the line of around 7 points. For football, it's around 5 points if memory serves me correctly. Now, most power ratings and systems will get about 75-79 percent correct, so it's not like Vegas is heads and shoulders above everyone else, but they do get it right a lot more than they get it wrong.

gonelong

12-03-2015, 04:34 PM

I promise you Vegas lines may be meant to make money off people, but they won't make money off people if they're not accurate. If you think Vegas can afford to set inaccurate lines, you're sorely mistaken. They'd get taken to the cleaners if they set a line that isn't based on qualitative analysis.

First off, I don't complete disagree with you, but I find this an interesting topic to weigh in on. In aggregate, I'd agree. If someone can find a trend of inaccuracy for a certain team or conference, they could exploit it. That said ...

When the betting window is open they need to be mirror the bettor's opinion in order to get a decent split on the money. That accuracy is important. Once the betting window closes, the accuracy of the final margin of victory doesn't matter a lick (at least for that game). Vegas can be wrong by 30, 60, or 90 points and they still get their cut.

The main focus of the line is to make money, not to be accurate. If they cared more about accuracy then they wouldn't move the lines when a bunch of money hit one side of the bet. Accuracy is a means to an end, but not the goal.

The lines start out as a highly educated (quantitative analysis) guess. My understanding is that Vegas then offers their early odds to a select few bettors and if they bet big they know the line will be out of whack with what the public and they adjust it. (Accuracy be damned.) Then the release it to the public who then further validate the number. If the public deems it out of whack, it may move again (Accuracy be damned.)

Once the betting window closes then all accuracy for that game (but maybe not the aggregate/future games) is completely irrelevant.

There is so much analysis and so much information in play now among bettors that Vegas cannot afford to set lines that stray from reality.

Reality is not known when the betting window is open, only when it is closed and the event has ended. They can only target believability (say WISC -7), rather than reality (OSU wins by 59) ... leaving accuracy irrelevant.

GL

Brutus

12-03-2015, 05:03 PM

First off, I don't complete disagree with you, but I find this an interesting topic to weigh in on. In aggregate, I'd agree. If someone can find a trend of inaccuracy for a certain team or conference, they could exploit it. That said ...

When the betting window is open they need to be mirror the bettor's opinion in order to get a decent split on the money. That accuracy is important. Once the betting window closes, the accuracy of the final margin of victory doesn't matter a lick (at least for that game). Vegas can be wrong by 30, 60, or 90 points and they still get their cut.

The main focus of the line is to make money, not to be accurate. If they cared more about accuracy then they wouldn't move the lines when a bunch of money hit one side of the bet. Accuracy is a means to an end, but not the goal.

The lines start out as a highly educated (quantitative analysis) guess. My understanding is that Vegas then offers their early odds to a select few bettors and if they bet big they know the line will be out of whack with what the public and they adjust it. (Accuracy be damned.) Then the release it to the public who then further validate the number. If the public deems it out of whack, it may move again (Accuracy be damned.)

Once the betting window closes then all accuracy for that game (but maybe not the aggregate/future games) is completely irrelevant.

Reality is not known when the betting window is open, only when it is closed and the event has ended. They can only target believability (say WISC -7), rather than reality (OSU wins by 59) ... leaving accuracy irrelevant.

GL

As I said earlier, I agree the main focus is to make money, but they won't make money if they're not accurate. The hard core bettors are loaded with information and analysis. Vegas will never wind up too far from their target line unless it's the hardcore bettors that move them that direction, and that's only because they know those folks probably have better information at their disposal.

The other thing is that Vegas isn't always about getting 50/50 action. If it's a 70/30 split with the 70 being the general public but the 30 being a lot of the sharks they trust, they'll stay on the side of the 30 because they know that side is more likely to be right.

My main point is that when an opening line comes out, it's almost always based on what they think will happen. You'll never see an opening line more than 1-2 points away from what their analysis and algorithms are telling them. They'll quickly adjust as the betting comes in, certainly, but the opening line is set based on what they think will happen. The more accurate a line they can set at the beginning the more likely they'll entice 50/50 action anyhow because, again, the information even with the general public is pretty strong this day and age.

gonelong

12-03-2015, 06:32 PM

As I said earlier, I agree the main focus is to make money, but they won't make money if they're not accurate. The hard core bettors are loaded with information and analysis. Vegas will never wind up too far from their target line unless it's the hardcore bettors that move them that direction, and that's only because they know those folks probably have better information at their disposal.

I think we are saying relatively the same thing, and I agree wholeheartedly in the long-run.

I got a bee in my bonnet this week and have been splitting hairs just to be ornery. Feel free to ignore the following ...

In the short-run the distinction is that the lines have to be realistic, they don't have to be accurate. I am not sure how you reconcile that Vegas made money on WISC -7 over OSU in the 2014 B1G championship game when the line was off by 66 points. The -7 opening line might have been accurate from the sense that it only moved to -5.5 (realistic), but is was not accurate from a predictive standpoint. If they were accurate they would have opened with tOSU -59 but I don't think that would have elicited a balance of action from the gamblers. Vegas made money and was horribly inaccurate.

The other thing is that Vegas isn't always about getting 50/50 action. If it's a 70/30 split with the 70 being the general public but the 30 being a lot of the sharks they trust, they'll stay on the side of the 30 because they know that side is more likely to be right.

They will gamble like the rest of us, but I would think that they would tend to work closer to 50/50 for the majority of their games. I'd be interested in how often they go out on a limb if anybody has that info.

My main point is that when an opening line comes out, it's almost always based on what they think will happen. You'll never see an opening line more than 1-2 points away from what their analysis and algorithms are telling them. They'll quickly adjust as the betting comes in, certainly, but the opening line is set based on what they think will happen.

I have no disagreement with this in the least.

The more accurate a line they can set at the beginning the more likely they'll entice 50/50 action anyhow because, again, the information even with the general public is pretty strong this day and age.

If you replace accurate with realistic I am on board, if not, then we will have to agree to disagree . Vegas lines are off by a touchdown or more quite often and they keep building really big building out there. The need to entice action (realistic), not nail the final margin of victory (accuracy).

GL

Sea Ray

12-03-2015, 06:46 PM

In tying this into my original point, in reality they have been very accurate with Ohio State football this year. My point is that Ohio State has been at least a 2 TD favorite in every one of their first 11 games. Of those 11 games, they won 9 by more than 2 TDs.

Bottomline: None of those 11 games were supposed to be competitive and 9 out of the 11 weren't.

villain612

12-03-2015, 07:04 PM

Ohio State averages:

Offense PPG: 35
Defense PPG: 14

They had a couple close calls against NIU and Indiana, but they won by an average of 3 TD's per game. That was 3rd best in the nation by the way.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-scoring-margin

BuckeyeRed27

12-03-2015, 07:11 PM

Assembly Hall

12-03-2015, 07:25 PM

And yet this season was a massive disappointment to most of our fan base.

Well, when the fan base expects a repeat...you will have that.

GAC

12-04-2015, 05:21 AM

And yet this season was a massive disappointment to most of our fan base.

I don't consider this season as a massive disappointment. Again, during the regular season last year they played many very tight conference games. I can remember many games last year where I was yelling at the TV "What the **** are you doing?" (LOL). Besides losing to a very mediocre VT team, there were a few games where they could have came up on the losing end, yet pulled them out. There were times when they just weren't hitting on all cylinders (just like this year).

Heck, I thought they could lose to Wisconsin in the B10 championship because I was so unsure due to this team's erratic play (and a new, unproven QB). But even after that blow-out, and when they made the play-offs ... at least from my perspective ... I didn't think they'd get by Alabama.

I think everyone was in a jaw-dropping, state of awe at the phenomenal way OSU played after the regular season last year. Many, including myself, never expected it. After what we did to Alabama and then Oregon, everyone expected us to just steamroll over the competition this year. I think expectation were at an unreal level IMO.

Our only loss this year was to a good MSU team on a FG as time expired. One problem was the TIMING of the loss. Alabama lost to Ole Miss early in the season, and Ole Miss went on to suffer three losses. Oklahoma lost to a really bad Texas team. But they were early enough that the teams were able to regroup, recover, and prove themselves. OSU did so the following week vs Michigan, definitely made a statement.

I still say what hurt this team more then anything, presented the biggest hurdle, was the loss of Tom Herman as offensive coordinator/QB coach. And I definitely was not impressed this year with their offensive coordinator tandem of Warinner and Beck. IMO, somebody's head should roll after the terrible, predictable, un-inventive, play-calling game vs MSU.

Chip R

12-07-2015, 05:27 PM

Not directly tOSU related but Urban Meyer related.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/12/7/9864396/will-muschamp-urban-meyer-florida-cleaned-up

membengal

12-07-2015, 05:45 PM

I still cannot believe the gawdawful game plan for the MSU game. So bad.

Brutus

12-07-2015, 06:43 PM

I still cannot believe the gawdawful game plan for the MSU game. So bad.

How so? What specifically would you have done differently?

Everyone probably has their opinions on that, I myself included, but at the end of the day when you aren't protecting your QB, the wind prevents downfield passing, and you are incapable of creating any running lanes, the gameplan wouldn't matter too much.

BuckeyeRed27

12-07-2015, 07:18 PM

How so? What specifically would you have done differently?

Everyone probably has their opinions on that, I myself included, but at the end of the day when you aren't protecting your QB, the wind prevents downfield passing, and you are incapable of creating any running lanes, the gameplan wouldn't matter too much.

I don't have an answer to your question directly. I don't know how Zeke only got 11 or 12 carries and I think there was a lack of adjustments which I found concerning.

That said I find the play calling complaint a little disrespectful to the MSU. That is a lights out defense that was very prepared for the run and the option and shut it down. They have a very good chance of being national champions this year.

villain612

12-07-2015, 08:14 PM

I still cannot believe the gawdawful game plan for the MSU game. So bad.

Like the '98 loss to Michigan State, I will never get over this one.

BuckeyeRed27

12-07-2015, 08:41 PM

Like the '98 loss to Michigan State, I will never get over this one.

It's interesting that the three of the four most painful losses since 98 (98, 13 Big 10 Championship, this year) have occurred against Michigan State, yet most fans still have a high level or respect for the program and it never gets near the level of hatred that Michigan generates.

Brutus

12-07-2015, 09:25 PM

I don't have an answer to your question directly. I don't know how Zeke only got 11 or 12 carries and I think there was a lack of adjustments which I found concerning.

That said I find the play calling complaint a little disrespectful to the MSU. That is a lights out defense that was very prepared for the run and the option and shut it down. They have a very good chance of being national champions this year.

Personally I agree with you that I felt they gave up on north-south running a little too quickly in favor of east-west with the read option. But I honestly felt with the inability to throw down field either due to Michigan State's pass rush or the wind (or both) and Sparty's speed on the edge, it didn't feel to me like that day Ohio State was going to get anything going consistently. I actually thought the game plan made sense in trying to get Barrett out of the pocket, but I did think they gave up on the power running game too quickly. But like I said, really not sure it would have made much a difference. Michigan State, on that day, dominated the line of scrimmage.

Redsfaithful

12-08-2015, 01:07 AM

Elliott being in the hospital that week has made me less critical - I assume part of that game plan was created with the assumption he wouldn't be available, or would be limited.

Brutus

12-08-2015, 02:58 AM

Elliott being in the hospital that week has made me less critical - I assume part of that game plan was created with the assumption he wouldn't be available, or would be limited.

Good point. He said himself after the game that as of Wednesday and Thursday, he still wasn't sure if he'd be able to go.

bucksfan2

12-08-2015, 09:50 AM

Good point. He said himself after the game that as of Wednesday and Thursday, he still wasn't sure if he'd be able to go.

The put Curtis Samuel in that spot.

I have watch a ton of football and that was right up there with one of the worst called games I have ever seen. Look if the wind was so bad they had two quarters to capitalize on being down wind, no? They also did nothing in regards to the slant or quick out game. They did nothing except for try to more the ball laterally around the line of scrimmage. I can understand using Barrett as the runner and Zeke as a glorified lead blocker, it gives you a quality RB with a great lead blocker with the ball. But you can't go to that well over and over and over and over and over again.

They played right into MSU's strength, they allowed them to bring everybody closer to the line of scrimmage. They never threatened even 10 yards down the field. MSU had two backups who the ball more often and effectively than the reigning B1G offensive player of the year. It was the worst called game I have ever seen in a quality match up.

villain612

12-08-2015, 09:59 AM

Sea Ray

12-08-2015, 10:03 AM

Notre Dame passed for over 300 yards in a monsoon against Clemson.

I understand the uncertainty about Elliot, but still no excuse for the lack of quick slants or anything in the intermediate passing range. QB sprint left and right weren't working all day.

ND's QB has a much stronger arm than Barrett's. If Barrett couldn't throw in that weather then OSU fans should have been clamoring for Jones. The big problem for Meyer was the pace of the game. It didn't give him many chances for adjustments. Generally college games give each team about 70 plays. OSU only had 46. Hard to make adjustments with only 46 plays to work with

RedTeamGo!

12-08-2015, 10:13 AM

Can we have a separate thread titled "Sea Ray's Expert Negative Opinions On Ohio State Football?"

:evil:

The reason Kizer had over 300 yards passing in the Clemson game is because of multiple reasons and it is not just simply "he has a much better arm than Barrett."

1.) Notre Dame went down two touchdowns early and had to pass often to get back in it. OSU never trailed in regulation against MSU so mistakingly felt like they could run the ball and shorten the game. Barrett has proven he can pass the ball well, he had 34 passing touchdowns in his redshirt freshman season. Kizer is excellent, but so is Barrett.

2.) At that point ND was on 3rd string running back

3.) WR corps has multiple NFL caliber deep threats and perhaps the best deep threat WR in the country with Fuller. OSU's WR corps is a MASH unit.

jojo

12-08-2015, 10:15 AM

Notre Dame passed for over 300 yards in a monsoon against Clemson.

I understand the uncertainty about Elliot, but still no excuse for the lack of quick slants or anything in the intermediate passing range. QB sprint left and right weren't working all day.

MSU got the ball near their goal line and punched osu in the face repeatedly to drive the ball and flip field position. Then osu got the ball back near their goal line and were incapable of exerting their will on MSU and failed to flip the field. MSU got the ball back in excellent field position, moved the ball again this time into field goal range, burned the clock and kicked the FG. The better team won.

Sea Ray

12-08-2015, 11:09 AM

RedTeamGo!

12-08-2015, 11:18 AM

Sea Ray hasn't been nearly as critical of the OSU-MSU game as the OSU fans. I said that the flow of the game made it difficult to make adjustments. If anything I was giving OSU a pass. You certainly are into sniffing my jock, though

Sniffing your jock? I have no idea what that means.

I was making a joke of how often you post in the OSU thread. Settle down, Francis.

Sea Ray

12-08-2015, 11:25 AM

Sniffing your jock? I have no idea what that means.

I was making a joke of how often you post in the OSU thread. Settle down, Francis.

Don't you have a diaper to change or something?

RedTeamGo!

12-08-2015, 11:38 AM

Don't you have a diaper to change or something?

I'm already back to work, my compant does not offer paid paternity leave. Was at a customer for a few hours and jumped on redszone in the parking lot before heading to the office.

RiverRat13

12-08-2015, 11:55 AM

Personally I agree with you that I felt they gave up on north-south running a little too quickly in favor of east-west with the read option. But I honestly felt with the inability to throw down field either due to Michigan State's pass rush or the wind (or both) and Sparty's speed on the edge, it didn't feel to me like that day Ohio State was going to get anything going consistently. I actually thought the game plan made sense in trying to get Barrett out of the pocket, but I did think they gave up on the power running game too quickly. But like I said, really not sure it would have made much a difference. Michigan State, on that day, dominated the line of scrimmage.

That's not what I saw. They tried to go outside with Barrett, but not by way of the read option. And the read option is what gashed MSU last year and OSU destroyed UM using it. Here's a breakdown that saw only two read options called all game:

http://www.acrossthefield.net/2015/11/statistically-speaking-osu-offense-vs-michigan-state/

goreds2

12-08-2015, 12:57 PM

Sea Ray

12-08-2015, 12:59 PM

The Fiesta Bowl starts at 1pm est. Won't that be 10am in Arizona?

Fiesta Bowl
Friday, January 1, 1:00 PM on ESPN
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona

8Notre Dame
Fighting Irish

@
Ohio State7
Buckeyes
All times are in Eastern Time

They're on Mountain time in the winter so it'd be 11am there. Recall how Reds ST games start at different times after DST

Brutus

12-08-2015, 03:22 PM

Notre Dame passed for over 300 yards in a monsoon against Clemson.

I understand the uncertainty about Elliot, but still no excuse for the lack of quick slants or anything in the intermediate passing range. QB sprint left and right weren't working all day.

Throwing in rain is different than throwing in wind. It was very, very windy that day. Michigan State wasn't throwing the ball either. That was partially because they didn't trust their QB, but the wind very much was a factor. If it were just rainy, I don't think it would have been as bad, but the wind was really gusting.

Brutus

12-08-2015, 03:34 PM

That's not what I saw. They tried to go outside with Barrett, but not by way of the read option. And the read option is what gashed MSU last year and OSU destroyed UM using it. Here's a breakdown that saw only two read options called all game:

http://www.acrossthefield.net/2015/11/statistically-speaking-osu-offense-vs-michigan-state/

You're taking the "read option" comment too literally. Ohio State runs several variations of the read option and that breakdown is not accurately describing just how many read options were actually called. With Ohio State, there are probably five or six different types of plays involving reads the QB can make, whether it's inside zone or outside zone, traditional read option, speed option, run/pass option, read option with run/pass option, etc. They can read the tackle, read the end, read the linebacker, etc. Their inside zone play as well as some of what might be perceived as designed QB runs are actually also types of read options.

If you look at the break down, inside zone and speed option plays bring the total to at least nine plays. Those are read option plays as well. They're not called "read option" on the breakdown but they're still read option plays. Ohio State, like Oregon, Auburn and several other teams, has a QB read on the inside zone play.

Here is a link that explains the zone blocking scheme on the "inside zone" for the running back, but an additional read that allows the QB to keep the ball: http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/august/6/ohio-states-bread-and-butter-inside-zone-read

I'll also bet you that at least some of those nine designed runs he spoke of had a pass/run option on them of some sort. Amey does a good job, but he very well may have not been aware of some of those options or simply missed them when watching.

I promise you, that game, Ohio State called AT LEAST a dozen read option plays and probably more.

*BaseClogger*

12-08-2015, 04:23 PM

Brutus

12-08-2015, 10:36 PM

Brutus, that still doesn't explain away Elliot and Decker's comments about knowing the coaches weren't calling the right plays and their desire to get back to the schemes that won them the National Championship last season. You can pretty easily read between the lines that they felt like the offensive coaching staff wasn't putting them in a position to maximize their skills...

Actually it does explain their comments, because my whole point was they didn't get into enough power north-south running game. That's, ultimately, what won them the title last year if that's your or their assertion.

That said, their comments about what won them the title last season don't carry a lot of weight because last year, they blocked a TON better on the perimeter with Spencer, Heuerman and Smith blocking outside. This year the running game was not nearly as effective on a consistent basis without having the bounce out lanes and off-tackle running game to rely on.

I'm not crazy about the playcalling (too much read option and not enough power football). However, if Decker wants to complain about playcalling, perhaps he should look in the mirror and explain why he was being manhandled up front by Cooper and Calhoun.

Frankly, Elliott I give a pass, but when guys like Decker say something, I don't exactly find myself sympathetic. Decker and the rest of the line needed to take more accountability for themselves and not worry about whether the coaching staff did well. The line was absolutely dominated by Michigan State up front. They have no room to talk about coaches.

villain612

12-08-2015, 10:44 PM

Actually it does explain their comments, because my whole point was they didn't get into enough power north-south running game. That's, ultimately, what won them the title last year if that's your or their assertion.

That said, their comments about what won them the title last season don't carry a lot of weight because last year, they blocked a TON better on the perimeter with Spencer, Heuerman and Smith blocking outside. This year the running game was not nearly as effective on a consistent basis without having the bounce out lanes and off-tackle running game to rely on.

I'm not crazy about the playcalling (too much read option and not enough power football). However, if Decker wants to complain about playcalling, perhaps he should look in the mirror and explain why he was being manhandled up front by Cooper and Calhoun.

Frankly, Elliott I give a pass, but when guys like Decker say something, I don't exactly find myself sympathetic. Decker and the rest of the line needed to take more accountability for themselves and not worry about whether the coaching staff did well. The line was absolutely dominated by Michigan State up front. They have no room to talk about coaches.

Bravo.

I posted something several pages back about the line play being the biggest mystery of the season to me. 4 returning starters from a unit who were pummeling people by the end of last year, who collectively all regressed. As mad as I am about the playcalling, they got their butts kicked in the trenches against MSU. And beyond that, they were sloppy for most of the year too, whether it was pass protection breakdowns or constant bad snaps from Boren. It was like they read all that great press in the offseason about themselves and decided to rest on their laurels. Decker will probably still go first round but not as high as he was once projected IMO.

bucksfan2

12-09-2015, 09:23 AM

Bravo.

I posted something several pages back about the line play being the biggest mystery of the season to me. 4 returning starters from a unit who were pummeling people by the end of last year, who collectively all regressed. As mad as I am about the playcalling, they got their butts kicked in the trenches against MSU. And beyond that, they were sloppy for most of the year too, whether it was pass protection breakdowns or constant bad snaps from Boren. It was like they read all that great press in the offseason about themselves and decided to rest on their laurels. Decker will probably still go first round but not as high as he was once projected IMO.

Not only did the line regress, the QB play regressed considerably. OSU went from a team with two very high caliber, hesiman caliber, QB's to two guys who struggled to get the ball rolling all season long.

Assembly Hall

12-09-2015, 09:46 AM

Not only did the line regress, the QB play regressed considerably. OSU went from a team with two very high caliber, hesiman caliber, QB's to two guys who struggled to get the ball rolling all season long.

The QB play puzzled me as well all year long.But in the end the Bucks were still there and had their chance to repeat. Just one of those years I suppose.

bucksfan2

12-09-2015, 10:12 AM

The QB play puzzled me as well all year long.But in the end the Bucks were still there and had their chance to repeat. Just one of those years I suppose.

There was a lot that went wrong this season even though they went 11-1. After the first game against Va Tech, they played the rest of the season like they had a monkey on their back. It seemed that after the close call against Northern Illinois every non OSU fan turned against them. Just look at the the OSU jabs from people here on RZ, the national pundits railed against them, cries of "they aren't any good" were lobbied about near and far.

I wonder this, I wonder what would have happened had they lost earlier in the season? The loss at MSU looked like it took a ton of pressure off of them. They went in to Michigan, a game in which few thought they could win, they were done, Urban had lost control of his locker room a la UF, etc. They went in and stomped Michigan into submission, playing their best game of the season. They lost the pressure to go undefeated and they started playing good football again. I think they look at lot like Oklahoma, both 11-1, OU lost to a terrible Texas team early in the season and then got better. OSU lost to a good MSU team, but only had one game to improve upon.

redrum

12-09-2015, 10:22 AM

There was a lot that went wrong this season even though they went 11-1. After the first game against Va Tech, they played the rest of the season like they had a monkey on their back. It seemed that after the close call against Northern Illinois every non OSU fan turned against them. Just look at the the OSU jabs from people here on RZ, the national pundits railed against them, cries of "they aren't any good" were lobbied about near and far.

I wonder this, I wonder what would have happened had they lost earlier in the season? The loss at MSU looked like it took a ton of pressure off of them. They went in to Michigan, a game in which few thought they could win, they were done, Urban had lost control of his locker room a la UF, etc. They went in and stomped Michigan into submission, playing their best game of the season. They lost the pressure to go undefeated and they started playing good football again. I think they look at lot like Oklahoma, both 11-1, OU lost to a terrible Texas team early in the season and then got better. OSU lost to a good MSU team, but only had one game to improve upon.

There is some truth to that. If their loss came early in they year they would have had time to redeem themselves. Of course if the only loss came early in the year they would have a conference championship as well as a string of solid victories to end the season - just like last year (and Michigan State this year).

traderumor

12-09-2015, 11:10 AM

Actually it does explain their comments, because my whole point was they didn't get into enough power north-south running game. That's, ultimately, what won them the title last year if that's your or their assertion.

That said, their comments about what won them the title last season don't carry a lot of weight because last year, they blocked a TON better on the perimeter with Spencer, Heuerman and Smith blocking outside. This year the running game was not nearly as effective on a consistent basis without having the bounce out lanes and off-tackle running game to rely on.

I'm not crazy about the playcalling (too much read option and not enough power football). However, if Decker wants to complain about playcalling, perhaps he should look in the mirror and explain why he was being manhandled up front by Cooper and Calhoun.

Frankly, Elliott I give a pass, but when guys like Decker say something, I don't exactly find myself sympathetic. Decker and the rest of the line needed to take more accountability for themselves and not worry about whether the coaching staff did well. The line was absolutely dominated by Michigan State up front. They have no room to talk about coaches.You beg the question with that hardline stance on the linemen, because they are affected by predictability just as much as any other offensive player. That was the issue in that game, and others, was predictable play calling. It certainly gives a d-lineman an advantage over the guy he is facing on the other side of the line.

Chip R

12-10-2015, 02:32 PM

Adolphus Washington cited for solicitation.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/blogs/2015/12/10/ohio-state-buckeyes-adolphus-washington-reportedly-cited/77097982/

Assembly Hall

12-10-2015, 05:19 PM

Adolphus Washington cited for solicitation.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/blogs/2015/12/10/ohio-state-buckeyes-adolphus-washington-reportedly-cited/77097982/

He wasnt hanging out with the Louisville basketball team was he?

Chip R

12-10-2015, 05:36 PM

He wasnt hanging out with the Louisville basketball team was he?

The obvious joke is why he's paying for it if he's a football player there. While it's probably true that it would not be difficult to "acquire" female companionship if you are a tOSU football player, perhaps the smart thing is to go to a professional. Legalities aside, if he wanted to have sex from a coed, perhaps she would back out at the last instant thus raising the messy question of consent. Also a professional may be better suited for a person like him.

traderumor

12-10-2015, 09:38 PM

The obvious joke is why he's paying for it if he's a football player there. While it's probably true that it would not be difficult to "acquire" female companionship if you are a tOSU football player, perhaps the smart thing is to go to a professional. Legalities aside, if he wanted to have sex from a coed, perhaps she would back out at the last instant thus raising the messy question of consent. Also a professional may be better suited for a person like him.

Wow on that last statement. I don't think prostitute is professional while non-prostitute is an inexperienced amateur, and I don't even know what to do with "person like him."

villain612

12-11-2015, 02:37 AM

#facepalm

This has been the most frustrating, unenjoyable 11-1 season ever.

Let's just get this over with.

GAC

12-11-2015, 05:31 AM

OSU went from a team with two very high caliber, hesiman caliber, QB's to two guys who struggled to get the ball rolling all season long.

Cardale may have went into the season as a Heisman candidate after his late season performances last year; but IMO he simply got exposed this year. Talented kid, but doesn't have a good head on his shoulders.

This team really got hurt offensively when Herman left.

I want to see what happens with the defense now that Ash s gone.

bucksfan2

12-11-2015, 10:35 AM

Cardale may have went into the season as a Heisman candidate after his late season performances last year; but IMO he simply got exposed this year. Talented kid, but doesn't have a good head on his shoulders.

This team really got hurt offensively when Herman left.

I want to see what happens with the defense now that Ash s gone.

It was a cluster of a season at the QB position. I thought Cardale played very well against Va Tech. I also think the loss of Noah Brown (I think) really hurt the team on offense that left them short at the WR position. All season long they tried to stick a square peg in a round hole with the personal as well as play calling. I think for too long OSU tried too long to make sure Braxton got enough touches instead of making sure he grew as a WR. Had Braxton grown as a WR and not the continual effort to get him the ball in the wildcat and on reverses, this team could have been better off.

The team never played to Cardale's strengths. Even with Barrett at QB they had, what, two good offensive performances? The team never clicked on offense, the play calling, as documented, was stale and predictable. I have watched OSU's run through Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon over and over again. What I saw with Cardale was not only the read option, him running the ball, but his ability to make plays. His ability to scramble and make great throws. He made some plays and throws last season that neither he or JT made this season. Maybe it was playing with house money, maybe it was playing with low expectations, or maybe it was him on a roll. Whatever it was, they never were able to harness it this season.

BuckeyeRed27

12-11-2015, 03:48 PM

Greg Schiano is going to replace Chris Ash as the Co DC. I like it.

RiverRat13

12-11-2015, 03:58 PM

Greg Schiano is going to replace Chris Ash as the Co DC. I like it.

That seems like a huge get. He should help recruiting in NJ and Florida, too.

BillDoran

12-11-2015, 03:59 PM

Hard not to like the hire. Doesn't have a ton of credentials as a defensive coordinator (because he moved pretty quickly from DB coach to head coach), but what experience he does have running a D is impressive, per Wikipedia:

Schiano served as defensive coordinator for the University of Miami from 1999 to 2000. In 1999, UM finished the year ranked 12th in the NCAA's Division I-A in points allowed per game (17.2), and in 2000 moved up to 5th (15.5 points allowed per game). His brief 18-month stint at Miami and his roots in New Jersey made him a candidate for his next position as head coach at Rutgers University.

GAC

12-12-2015, 04:49 AM

It was a cluster of a season at the QB position. I thought Cardale played very well against Va Tech. I also think the loss of Noah Brown (I think) really hurt the team on offense that left them short at the WR position. All season long they tried to stick a square peg in a round hole with the personal as well as play calling. I think for too long OSU tried too long to make sure Braxton got enough touches instead of making sure he grew as a WR. Had Braxton grown as a WR and not the continual effort to get him the ball in the wildcat and on reverses, this team could have been better off.

The team never played to Cardale's strengths. Even with Barrett at QB they had, what, two good offensive performances? The team never clicked on offense, the play calling, as documented, was stale and predictable. I have watched OSU's run through Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon over and over again. What I saw with Cardale was not only the read option, him running the ball, but his ability to make plays. His ability to scramble and make great throws. He made some plays and throws last season that neither he or JT made this season. Maybe it was playing with house money, maybe it was playing with low expectations, or maybe it was him on a roll. Whatever it was, they never were able to harness it this season.

I think you're spot on here. Braxton was an "enigma" to me this season. Never really caught on, fit into the offensive scheme, like I thought he would.

I might be wrong as rain here, but I'm gong to throw it out anyway ...... I thought this team, offensively, wasn't very balanced in their attack. Sure, you have one of the best RBs in Eliot, as well as two solid option (running) QBs, so running the ball was their forte. But they seemed, IMO, to over-emphasize this, become very predicable, because they ignored that down field threat when it came to their passing game... Thomas, Marshal, and yes, even Miller.

MSU exploited that, stacked/controlled the line of scrimmage, stop the run, and dared OSU to try and open it up ... and OSU (play calling) played right into their hands IMO.

Assembly Hall

12-12-2015, 05:10 AM

bucksfan2

12-14-2015, 12:06 PM

I think you're spot on here. Braxton was an "enigma" to me this season. Never really caught on, fit into the offensive scheme, like I thought he would.

I might be wrong as rain here, but I'm gong to throw it out anyway ...... I thought this team, offensively, wasn't very balanced in their attack. Sure, you have one of the best RBs in Eliot, as well as two solid option (running) QBs, so running the ball was their forte. But they seemed, IMO, to over-emphasize this, become very predicable, because they ignored that down field threat when it came to their passing game... Thomas, Marshal, and yes, even Miller.

MSU exploited that, stacked/controlled the line of scrimmage, stop the run, and dared OSU to try and open it up ... and OSU (play calling) played right into their hands IMO.

There was a ton of hoopla with Braxton at WR this season. ESPN did a segment on his transition, having Joey Galloway give him tips and what not. I wonder if the first game was fools gold with Braxton, who put on one heck of a show. I understand the idea of getting Braxton the ball in the wildcat, but the team needed him more in the slot or at WR than doing what Marshall was capable of doing.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I wonder when Urban and company look back if they are disappointed in Braxton's usage. IMO if Braxton lines up at WR starting with Hawaii and through the entire season, the decimated WR corps may just have looked impressive in November.

Assembly Hall

12-14-2015, 04:23 PM

There was a ton of hoopla with Braxton at WR this season. ESPN did a segment on his transition, having Joey Galloway give him tips and what not. I wonder if the first game was fools gold with Braxton, who put on one heck of a show. I understand the idea of getting Braxton the ball in the wildcat, but the team needed him more in the slot or at WR than doing what Marshall was capable of doing.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I wonder when Urban and company look back if they are disappointed in Braxton's usage. IMO if Braxton lines up at WR starting with Hawaii and through the entire season, the decimated WR corps may just have looked impressive in November.

One quick question as an "outsider". Why not put him back at QB?

Sea Ray

12-14-2015, 04:44 PM

One quick question as an "outsider". Why not put him back at QB?

Cause that's the last thing OSU needs. They've got plenty of QBs

BuckeyeRed27

12-14-2015, 04:48 PM

One quick question as an "outsider". Why not put him back at QB?

With the way they ran the offense it probably makes the most sense since he is the biggest running threat. Still not sure if he can actually pass it or not.

IslandRed

12-14-2015, 05:29 PM

One quick question as an "outsider". Why not put him back at QB?

I'm not an OSU fan either, but to me it seemed like a no-brainer at the time:

1. Miller's injury history involving multiple problems and surgeries on his throwing shoulder.

2. The success Barrett had last year, followed up with the success Jones had after Barrett got hurt. It didn't seem critical that Miller return to QB, especially given that his ability to throw would still be in question.

3. Given that uncertainty, but knowing how effective he was with the ball in his hands, as a coach you want him on the field somewhere.

4. Even when healthy, Miller's game as a quarterback didn't project well to the NFL. The wide receiver position arguably offered a better chance at a meaningful pro career.

All water under the bridge now, of course.