Is it Ohio State's fault?

[Rolltide94]

exactly. Oregon scheduling Tennessee was thought to be one of the greatest grabs in Duck football history.

Just happened Oregon caught them when they were down which is very unfortunate from a fans perspective.

But, it was fun and their fans were incredible. Just the games werent what both fan bases hoped for.

I think there is a big difference between you guys scheduling Tenn and Ohio St. scheduling Cal and the expectations that should have been.

A good year for Cal is the anomaly...Tennessee is 3rd all-time in # of bowl appearances, 1 behind Texas and 1 ahead of USC....but 28 ahead of Cal.

They may be in similar straights right now, but I would bet Tennessee is back long before Cal and stays there long after everyone forgets Cal had any good years.

 

[bocomo007]

blame? blame is the wrong sentiment. the schedule just is as it plays out--blame never enters my mind

as the barner said, when it's time to decide amongst the unbeatens, the schedule is simple taken into account

 

[Shanemansj13]

Tedford was 82-57 at Cal...his best team was 10-2 in '04 with Aaron Rodgers at QB...what exactly did you think you were getting. I know I would have expected an 8-5, 7-6 type team, because that's what they typically were under Tedford...then the plan was to follow that up with Vandy, Buffalo and the Rattlers...not sure how you can't blame the AD for that shitfest.

Kudos for Ohio St. doing what it needed to do in the first place going forward...scheduling a Northern Illinois or North Carolina who may or may not be good would be like scheduling Cal...but in the future you are pairing them with Oklahoma and Virginia Tech...teams that have a much higher probability of being good.

With Ohio State's luck though the pendulum will swing back to the Big 10 and the conference will get better just as their OOC schedule takes an upturn.

The more competition, the better. I hate how tOSU has played shitty teams in the last couple years plus adding to the fact the B1G is down. I loved the recent years we played USC and Texas H+H.

 

[rmilia1]

Its stupid to mock OSU's scheduling IMO. The Buckeyes have done a better job in the BCS era of scheduling tough OOC games than just about anyone in the country. Hell in just the last 10 years OSU has played Texas Tech, Wazzou ( when they were good ), Washington 2x, NC State 2x, Texas 2x, USC 2x, Miami 2x, Colorado and Cal 2x. Its not always easy to tell if a team is going to be good in the future ( ie Colorado, Cal or even Miami) but at least the Buckeyes attempt to schedule OOC games unlike some teams ( looking at you Baylor!!! LOL)

 

[Shanemansj13]

I think there is a big difference between you guys scheduling Tenn and Ohio St. scheduling Cal and the expectations that should have been.

A good year for Cal is the anomaly...Tennessee is 3rd all-time in # of bowl appearances, 1 behind Texas and 1 ahead of USC....but 28 ahead of Cal.

They may be in similar straights right now, but I would bet Tennessee is back long before Cal and stays there long after everyone forgets Cal had any good years.

I don't think they were going with the knockout punch as far as playing the best or even close to that. They might have been leading up to the Va tech's, Oklahoma's, and Oregon of the nation. So I don't think they thought they were going to be a big non-conf game just a decent bowl team win 7 or 8 wins to fill an empty space. It totally backfired.

 

[NickVT10]

Ohio State has had some bad luck with the conference taking a nose dive recently. Nebraska has underachieved. Michigan came and then went (I do think they will be good in a few years with the recruiting classes they are getting) Wisconsin seems to always be a 20th ranked team every year. PSU is in a weird case of what the fuck over there but should improve. Sparty is the perennial disappointment.

They have done what they needed to do but other teams have done what they needed to do against some tougher teams. FSU has looked great but will be interesting to see them against Bama if they win out. FSU's win over Clemson is really their only resume booster but they have laid a whooping on everyone in impressive fashion. Baylor has the meat of the schedule right now so if they win out they will jump tOSU as well. The shock and awe of them putting up 70 points all season doesn't hurt their perception either.

 

[UNA Lion]

it's not their fault, but when only 2 teams can play for the title, it gets taken into consideration.

Yep, as of next season such a scenario wouldn't matter.

 

[Rolltide94]

I don't think they were going with the knockout punch as far as playing the best or even close to that. They might have been leading up to the Va tech's, Oklahoma's, and Oregon of the nation. So I don't think they thought they were going to be a big non-conf game just a decent bowl team win 7 or 8 wins to fill an empty space. It totally backfired.

Good point..I have nothing against how Ohio State schedule's btw...I think they do as good or better than 95% of the team's in cfb, particularly for their future scheduling...if all those games come to pass it has the potential to be top 1%. Nor is it the AD's fault that the rest of the Big Ten has been down...but the fact that it has been probably has a lot to do with how the future schedule is coming together. It is certainly a better OOC schedule than Alabama has planned...but I would expect that to change if perceptions about the SEC were to take a nose-dive, as it is I am happy with 1 decent OOC opponent and the rest patsies.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Good point..I have nothing against how Ohio State schedule's btw...I think they do as good or better than 95% of the team's in cfb, particularly for their future scheduling...if all those games come to pass it has the potential to be top 1%. Nor is it the AD's fault that the rest of the Big Ten has been down...but the fact that it has been probably has a lot to do with how the future schedule is coming together. It is certainly a better OOC schedule than Alabama has planned...but I would expect that to change if perceptions about the SEC were to take a nose-dive, as it is I am happy with 1 decent OOC opponent and the rest patsies.

One good or great non-conf game is all you need IMO. But for a team that plays in a weaker conf, might need some more. SEC teams might need 1 non-conf game if that, bc their conf is so strong every year. Now if the B1G continues its struggles, this future schedule should only benefit tOSU...hopefully

 

[theboardref]

this is why i laugh at everyone who makes a big deal about out of conference scheduling years in advance. it can be tough to know who will be good during a season in august, never mind 5 years earlier.

this is why i also laugh at everyone who makes fun of fans from teams in the SEC who like to see teams in the SEC do better. it's as if it never occurs to these people that indiana losing to missouri, purdue losing by 5 touchdowns to cincinnati, and multiple big 10 teams losing to the MAC effects the perception of the entire conference (as it should).

Agreed, that's why these big opening week neutral site games have become the new craze. Personally I think they are beginning to tarnish college football's non-conference games a bit though. I have a huge problem with LSU and Wisconsin playing at Houston and Lambo, both teams have great home field environments. Instead of LSU opening their renovated stadium with a great game, now they will only play one good game in their opening season. Need more home and homes, and teams are getting away from it and it is bothering me.

 

[Gator]

Add that to a game scheduled vs Cal years ago when they were a top 15 team rivaling USC as the best team in the PAC. Now Cal is having the worst year in school history. Cal will finish 1-11 with the only win being Portland State, a game that was close in the 4th quarter.

Sorry Mamba, but I am not buying that excuse. No one in their right mind schedules Cal as a top 15 ranked opponent. Cal is NOT a top 15 Team on any sort of regular basis. Here are the records for Cal from 1990-2012
1990-California (Pac 10)-(7-4-1)
1991-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #8
1992-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1993-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0) AP #25
1994-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1995-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1996-California (Pac 10)-(6-6-0)
1997-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1998-California (Pac 10)-(5-6-0)
1999-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
2000-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
2001-California (Pac 10)-(1-10-0)
2002-California (Pac 10)-(7-5-0)
2003-California (Pac 10)-(8-6-0)
2004-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #9
2005-California (Pac 10)-(8-4-0) AP #25
2006-California (Pac 10)-(10-3-0) AP #14
2007-California (Pac 10)-(7-6-0)
2008-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0)
2009-California (Pac 10)-(8-5-0)
2010-California (Pac 10)-(5-7-0)
2011-California (Pac 12)-(7-6-0)
2012-California (Pac 12)-(3-9-0)

That's 5 AP ranking in 23 years. Over that span, Cal is only 143-134-1. Hell, Ole Miss has been ranked 7 times over that span and NO ONE considers them a Top 25 school let alone a Top 15 team.

 

[ellupo]

Sorry Mamba, but I am not buying that excuse. No one in their right mind schedules Cal as a top 15 ranked opponent. Cal is NOT a top 15 Team on any sort of regular basis. Here are the records for Cal from 1990-2012
1990-California (Pac 10)-(7-4-1)
1991-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #8
1992-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1993-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0) AP #25
1994-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1995-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1996-California (Pac 10)-(6-6-0)
1997-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1998-California (Pac 10)-(5-6-0)
1999-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
2000-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
2001-California (Pac 10)-(1-10-0)
2002-California (Pac 10)-(7-5-0)
2003-California (Pac 10)-(8-6-0)
2004-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #9
2005-California (Pac 10)-(8-4-0) AP #25
2006-California (Pac 10)-(10-3-0) AP #14
2007-California (Pac 10)-(7-6-0)
2008-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0)
2009-California (Pac 10)-(8-5-0)
2010-California (Pac 10)-(5-7-0)
2011-California (Pac 12)-(7-6-0)
2012-California (Pac 12)-(3-9-0)

That's 5 AP ranking in 23 years. Over that span, Cal is only 143-134-1. Hell, Ole Miss has been ranked 7 times over that span and NO ONE considers them a Top 25 school let alone a Top 15 team.

According to your logic, no team can ever build up a program and keep that program up for long?

 

[rmilia1]

Sorry Mamba, but I am not buying that excuse. No one in their right mind schedules Cal as a top 15 ranked opponent. Cal is NOT a top 15 Team on any sort of regular basis. Here are the records for Cal from 1990-2012
1990-California (Pac 10)-(7-4-1)
1991-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #8
1992-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1993-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0) AP #25
1994-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1995-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1996-California (Pac 10)-(6-6-0)
1997-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1998-California (Pac 10)-(5-6-0)
1999-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
2000-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
2001-California (Pac 10)-(1-10-0)
2002-California (Pac 10)-(7-5-0)
2003-California (Pac 10)-(8-6-0)
2004-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #9
2005-California (Pac 10)-(8-4-0) AP #25
2006-California (Pac 10)-(10-3-0) AP #14
2007-California (Pac 10)-(7-6-0)
2008-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0)
2009-California (Pac 10)-(8-5-0)
2010-California (Pac 10)-(5-7-0)
2011-California (Pac 12)-(7-6-0)
2012-California (Pac 12)-(3-9-0)

That's 5 AP ranking in 23 years. Over that span, Cal is only 143-134-1. Hell, Ole Miss has been ranked 7 times over that span and NO ONE considers them a Top 25 school let alone a Top 15 team.

So basically what youre saying is that when this game was agreed to Cal was coming off a 3 out of 4 year stretch being in the top 25 with two of those seasons being in the top 15?? I get your overrall point about Cal not being historically strong but at the time the game was scheduled they were playing well.

 

[Rolltide94]

Agreed, that's why these big opening week neutral site games have become the new craze. Personally I think they are beginning to tarnish college football's non-conference games a bit though. I have a huge problem with LSU and Wisconsin playing at Houston and Lambo, both teams have great home field environments. Instead of LSU opening their renovated stadium with a great game, now they will only play one good game in their opening season. Need more home and homes, and teams are getting away from it and it is bothering me.

I like them. Although I must admit that the LSU-Wisconsin should probably be a home and home, I can see legitimate recruiting reasons to have it elsewhere.

I like that my team is going to play Clemson, Michigan, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Wisconsin in one offs. In fact I was a little annoyed that this year's opponent was Tech given that we played them in '09. Added bonus that those games are going to be in Texas and Georgia, two prime recruiting beds for Alabama and it is win win. I like a little variety, and if we can line our pockets at the same time with money and recruits, so much the better.

But don't act like this is a new thing...the Kickoff Classic started back in '83...back then you got an extra game played the week before the season opened if you played in one, so the incentive was even greater. Since the NCAA did away with that rule in 2002, the Kickoff Classic and West Coast Pigskin Classic folded up,so there have been less of these games, not more.

 

[theboardref]

Don't get me wrong, I like them to an extent. I just feel like they take away a lot of home and home series. Ridiculous to me LSU and Wisky isn't a home/home series.

 

[GreenNickle]

I was at the CAL game and yeah the Buckeyes put them to sleep after that game.

The Buckeyes get VT next season so everyone say goodbye to VT cause the Buckeyes gonna put that program to sleep.

Buckeyes lose 4 on the O-line next year so of course that will be a concern regarding dudes stepping in and playing up to the standard set by this years O-Line

Defensively they will be real deep next year they should finally be 3 deep with healthy guys, have had a ton of dudes getting dinged up here and there this year on each level.

Brax will be back with a stable of RBs & lose only 2 WRs both TEs are back

2014 Class will just add to Depth

Great times ahead for the Buckeyes

 

[7Samurai13]

The perception of the Big10 will go up when we start doing well in bowl games and stop having horrible records in them. Go 7-0 the next two to three years and people will not think so badly of the B1G.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Agreed, that's why these big opening week neutral site games have become the new craze. Personally I think they are beginning to tarnish college football's non-conference games a bit though. I have a huge problem with LSU and Wisconsin playing at Houston and Lambo, both teams have great home field environments. Instead of LSU opening their renovated stadium with a great game, now they will only play one good game in their opening season. Need more home and homes, and teams are getting away from it and it is bothering me.

All about the mighty TV dollar

 

[Codaxx]

I have an issue with what OSU has done vs its competition. We can all say Baylor, FSU, and OSU have bad schedules, but OSU's relative performance has not been as good. Basing it on computer rankings that measure relative performance OSU is behind the others..

S&P+: 1. FSU 2. Bama 3. Baylor.....8. OSU
FEI: 1. Bama 3. FSU 6. Baylor 9. OSU

Baylor is averaging 43.8 pt wins vs 30.6 for OSU. Not saying it means that much, but there is not a lot to argue for OSU at this pt. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Sorry Mamba, but I am not buying that excuse. No one in their right mind schedules Cal as a top 15 ranked opponent. Cal is NOT a top 15 Team on any sort of regular basis. Here are the records for Cal from 1990-2012
1990-California (Pac 10)-(7-4-1)
1991-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #8
1992-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1993-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0) AP #25
1994-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
1995-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1996-California (Pac 10)-(6-6-0)
1997-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
1998-California (Pac 10)-(5-6-0)
1999-California (Pac 10)-(4-7-0)
2000-California (Pac 10)-(3-8-0)
2001-California (Pac 10)-(1-10-0)
2002-California (Pac 10)-(7-5-0)
2003-California (Pac 10)-(8-6-0)
2004-California (Pac 10)-(10-2-0) AP #9
2005-California (Pac 10)-(8-4-0) AP #25
2006-California (Pac 10)-(10-3-0) AP #14
2007-California (Pac 10)-(7-6-0)
2008-California (Pac 10)-(9-4-0)
2009-California (Pac 10)-(8-5-0)
2010-California (Pac 10)-(5-7-0)
2011-California (Pac 12)-(7-6-0)
2012-California (Pac 12)-(3-9-0)

That's 5 AP ranking in 23 years. Over that span, Cal is only 143-134-1. Hell, Ole Miss has been ranked 7 times over that span and NO ONE considers them a Top 25 school let alone a Top 15 team.

You see all those AP rankings in the mid 2000s?

That is when the game was scheduled and Cal hung out in the top 15 quite a bit. I wasnt speaking of where the team finished.

Since we are going off of a teams perceived strength when a game is scheduled 25 years of Cal's scheduling was a huge waste of time and another chance for you to chant SEC to inflate your fragile ego.