Predict the B1G

[belcherboy]

It's almost identical to Alabama. If not for one of the flukiest plays in CFB history last year, Bama doesn't even play in the CCG. The year before, they lost to the same Ole Miss team. The only difference between the two is that Bama has had more beneficial conference losses, no more no less.

It's not identical...if "if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all be gay diabetics". Bama actually won their conference for the vast majority of the past 6-7 years...OSU has not. That's pretty undebatable IMO.

 

[ericd7633]

So how does that 86% factor into this statement:



That is all I commented on, yet many want to point out everything but the fact that haven't won the conference championship most years for the past 6 or 7 years.

They've been GREAT, and a won a lot of stuff...except conference championships most years in that stretch. That is all I pointed out.

Yes, they don't have a trophy in 6 of those 7 years. And that 86% goes to show you they've been the best and most consistent program in the B1G over this time frame. Therefore, it is there's to lose, which they've only done 4 out of those 7 years(2011, 2013, 2015, 2016) But last year they made the CFP.

 

[ericd7633]

But they haven't been champ or co-champ. Just because you break the rules, and are ineligible doesn't mean that you win the championship.

View attachment 158672

Do you think Wisconsin fans are proud of their 2012 "Conference Championship"? My guess would be no considering it's the worst year they've had during this time frame. Ohio State was the best B1G team in 2012.

 

[belcherboy]

Yes, they don't have a trophy in 6 of those 7 years. And that 86% goes to show you they've been the best and most consistent program in the B1G over this time frame. Therefore, it is there's to lose, which they've only done 4 out of those 7 years(2011, 2013, 2015, 2016) But last year they made the CFP.

That's fine, but it has been "their's to lose" and they have lost more than they have won. If they can't lose/win 2012, why should it count at all? It wasn't "their's to lose" if they cannot lose. Or actually it could be argued, they lost it when they were caught cheating, as they were ineligible to win it. Whatever that case, I guess the number should be 4 out of 6 years then.

I never disagreed that it wasn't their's to lose each year, just stated they have done a good job losing it over the past several years.

 

[belcherboy]

Do you think Wisconsin fans are proud of their 2012 "Conference Championship"? My guess would be no considering it's the worst year they've had during this time frame. Ohio State was the best B1G team in 2012.

I can't speak for Wisconsin fans, but I imagine they haven't requested the school to throw away the trophy, the players to return their rings, or have all markings removed on campus from that championship season. I'll bet they embrace it like most teams would. Just a hunch.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I can't speak for Wisconsin fans, but I imagine they haven't requested the school to throw away the trophy, the players to return their rings, or have all markings removed on campus from that championship season.

Wisconsin fans are the debil.

 

[ericd7633]

That's fine, but it has been "their's to lose" and they have lost more than they have won. If they can't lose/win 2012, why should it count at all? It wasn't "their's to lose" if they cannot lose. I guess the number should be 4 out of 6 years then.

I never disagreed that it wasn't their's to lose each year, just stated they have done a good job losing it over the past several years.

The way I look at is that they were the best team for 4 of those 7 years, whether or not they have a trophy. It makes no sense to argue about last year as they made the CFP. They had a season good enough to put them in a position to win the title, that means more than a B1G Championship at the end of the day. This is what college football has become and will become with conference playing unbalanced schedules, and differing OOC schedules. Get to the CFP is now the goal, sometimes you'll have to win the conference to get there, or sometimes you won't.

 

[ellupo]

Bama has not done the same. They have won the majority of their conference championships for well over a decade in the SEC. I wouldn't have said anything, if OSU was winning conference championships. Plus it's not the same. Penn State won the conference last year and beat OSU.

Again, keep your eye on your original statement:



That is a fact for most of the past 6-7 years (depending on if you want to throw out a season).

Bama has lost just to lesser teams that did not win the division. Thats the difference. Bama would lose to a TAMU, Ole Miss or some other team that would not win the division. They still had 1 loss in conf. just like tOSU. The only difference was who they lost to and how that kept tOSU out of the CCG and it didnt keep Bama out.

My original statement still stands true regardless of outcomes.

 

[belcherboy]

The way I look at is that they were the best team for 4 of those 7 years, whether or not they have a trophy. It makes no sense to argue about last year as they made the CFP. They had a season good enough to put them in a position to win the title, that means more than a B1G Championship at the end of the day. This is what college football has become and will become with conference playing unbalanced schedules, and differing OOC schedules. Get to the CFP is now the goal, sometimes you'll have to win the conference to get there, or sometimes you won't.

Again, you've moved the goalposts in the discussion. The statement was about winning and losing the "conference". What does the playoffs have to do with that? It's not about who the best team is on paper, but who actually hoists the "conference" trophy at the end of the year. If Ohio State doesn't lose to a team in conference in a season, they win. They haven't been able to do that for most of the past 6-7 years.

Where am I wrong there?

 

[ericd7633]

I can't speak for Wisconsin fans, but I imagine they haven't requested the school to throw away the trophy, the players to return their rings, or have all markings removed on campus from that championship season. I'll bet they embrace it like most teams would. Just a hunch.

They didn't even finish the year ranked. It's literally one of the worst seasons the program has had in the last 20 years.

 

[belcherboy]

Bama has lost just to lesser teams that did not win the division. Thats the difference. Bama would lose to a TAMU, Ole Miss or some other team that would not win the division. They still had 1 loss in conf. just like tOSU. The only difference was who they lost to and how that kept tOSU out of the CCG and it didnt keep Bama out.

My original statement still stands true regardless of outcomes.

Again, I agree with your statement. The B10 is Ohio States to lose every year. That is very true and they have proven that most of the past 6-7 years.

 

[belcherboy]

They didn't even finish the year ranked. It's literally one of the worst seasons the program has had in the last 20 years.

I don't debate that, but again, the discussion is about Ohio States "conference championships" and how it is theirs to lose every year. They couldn't even lose it in 2012 as they had already forfeited it before the season started. So why even bring it up?

 

[ericd7633]

Again, you've moved the goalposts in the discussion. The statement was about winning and losing the "conference". What does the playoffs have to do with that? It's not about who the best team is on paper, but who actually hoists the "conference" trophy at the end of the year. If Ohio State doesn't lose to a team in conference in a season, they win. They haven't been able to do that for most of the past 6-7 years.

Where am I wrong there?

Okay, so Co-Champs in 2010, ineligible in 2012 being the best team, 2014 Champs, 2016 CFP rep. 4 out of the 7 years they've been the best B1G team. Whether or not they have some trophy is besides the point. At least that's how I think about, but my team has never been in a conference, so I don't put any weight into being able to win one. I'd rather finish top 4 then get a trophy that otherwise is rendered meaningless in the end.

 

[ericd7633]

I don't debate that, but again, the discussion is about Ohio States "conference championships" and how it is theirs to lose every year. They couldn't even lose it in 2012 as they had already forfeited it before the season started. So why even bring it up?

Then take it out of the equation. 2010 Co Champs, 2014 Champs, 2016 CFP rep. 3 out of the 6 years they've been the best B1G team.

 

[ericd7633]

Also, I can't believe I just spent the last half hour taking a pro Ohio State stance...where's the soap.

 

[belcherboy]

Okay, so Co-Champs in 2010, ineligible in 2012 being the best team, 2014 Champs, 2016 CFP rep. 4 out of the 7 years they've been the best B1G team. Whether or not they have some trophy is besides the point. At least that's how I think about, but my team has never been in a conference, so I don't put any weight into being able to win one. I'd rather finish top 4 then get a trophy that otherwise is rendered meaningless in the end.

Whether they have some trophy is not besides the point when I commented on this statement:

The B1G is Ohio States to lose every year

It's kind of the WHOLE purpose of this discussion, no? I've said before in this thread that I'd much rather be a playoff team than win a conference, but again, that isn't the discussion on hand. I've also said how GREAT OSU has been overall over that stretch. The fact is Ohio State has managed to lose the conference many times over the past 6-7 years. For some reason, several people can't accept that fact without pointing out meaningless stats that have little to nothing to do with B1G championships. If you win the conference one time over the past 7 seasons (regardless if you were ineligible for two of them), you have managed to lose the conference just about every year.

Conference championships are about the ONLY thing OSU hasn't done well over the past 7 years...they've been GREAT in most other areas...and have several playoff appearances and even have a Natty to prove it.

 

[Across The Field]

It's not identical...if "if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all be gay diabetics". Bama actually won their conference for the vast majority of the past 6-7 years...OSU has not. That's pretty undebatable IMO.

That's not the debate. The debate is the circumstances of each respective teams' conference seasons. They were nearly identical, except Bama fortunately lost to bad teams that weren't in contention for the conference while OSU literally, for two years in a row, lost to teams they absolutely couldn't lose to. It's been pointed out ad nauseum. The dominance of both teams in their respective conferences is nearly identical - OSU has lost 3 conference games in 5 years; Bama has lost 4. Again, the only difference is Bama losses were just more fortunate.

 

[belcherboy]

That's not the debate. The debate is the circumstances of each respective teams' conference seasons. They were nearly identical, except Bama fortunately lost to bad teams that weren't in contention for the conference while OSU literally, for two years in a row, lost to teams they absolutely couldn't lose to. It's been pointed out ad nauseum. The dominance of both teams in their respective conferences is nearly identical - OSU has lost 3 conference games in 5 years; Bama has lost 4. Again, the only difference is Bama losses were just more fortunate.

Obviously you walked into the middle of this conversation, so let me get you up to speed.

the B1G is Ohio States to lose every year

So yeah, conference championships are the debate here. Bama wins conference championships, OSU has had a tough time winning them recently. The bucks still make the playoffs though, and that is way better anyway.

 

[7Samurai13]

Then take it out of the equation. 2010 Co Champs, 2014 Champs, 2016 CFP rep. 3 out of the 6 years they've been the best B1G team.

I think even the most hard core Ohio State fan would admit they weren't the best team in the B1G in 2010.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Losing 3 OL is still a very difficult thing to do, especially for a QB who is also replacing nearly all of his skill position guys from the year before. I feel like you guys are really underestimating the loss of Jake Butt. I could see Speight struggling mightily.

The issue was with Beck. He simply wasn't a good OC. I'm well aware of the 3 points thing you keep harping on. Keep in mind we were one of the best offenses in CFB last year before those games. I'm not sure if you genuinely think OSU just doesn't have WRs who can create separation or what. Don't you find it odd that we've put as many WRs in the NFL over the past several years and last year was the only year we actually struggled. Again, Beck was an awful OC. It should be obvious, especially when you see how much Barrett regressed under him. Route running is a product of gameplan in most ways. We struggled in those games because he made absolutely no attempts to adjust. You don't have to believe me right now, but this year will be dramatically different.

When talking about Barrett, I love the guy. He's a true leader and a hell of an athlete. He doesn't have an elite arm, and he looked shaky at best some times last year. Maybe Wilson will completely change things. All I know is that I'd take Burrow's or Haskins' arm over his.

The 7 on 7 is a horrible barometer of WR/QB talent because these are guys that have never played with each other. It's far easier for defensive backs to adjust than WRs.

OSU is ultra-talented. I'd say it'd be foolish to expect a step back in the secondary. Keep in mind we replaced 3 starters last year and were one of the best secondaries in the nation with 3 likely first rounders. I'm not even slightly concerned about that. As far as the WRs go, as I mentioned, Kevin Wilson was getting monster production from guys at Indiana that were just average players who have done nothing outside of his system. Guys like Victor, KJ Hill, Parris Campbell, Austin Mack, etc. will take steps forward this year under him, as he is a natural passing game coach. There's a reason Indiana went from being the worst offense in the B1G to routinely being top 3 under him in a short amount of time.

You definitely won't see me talking up UM this year. We have no idea what to expect at multiple positions and will rely on true freshman at a few positions. The easiest to replace, IMO, is OL. With the amount of training and the ridiculous size the guys come in at now -- I'm not overly worried about that position -- especially with the guys who are fighting for the spots have been in the program a year.

With QB, especially in college, arm strength is the least of your worries. It is between the ears and being able to handle the pressure, while making the right decisions. You know who had the strongest arm on Michigan the last 3 years? Shane Morris. You can have all the intangibles and skill sets in the world, but if you don't have it between the ears, it doesn't matter. And the reason Barrett looked shaky last year is simple -- his WR's couldn't get any separation. It is why their offense lived and died with Curtis Samuel in the passing game.

And I agree it is easier for DB than WR, which is why I said OSU is going to have the same issues at WR as UM. They are starting all new guys. And I used the 7 on 7 as an example because it is a WR/DB (other than the obvious, the QB) showcase. You are in man coverage. For most of the WR's -- it is their first time facing elite DB's on a national stage with everyone watching. It is the main reason why I'm excited about Oliver Martin. He torched the best of the best DB's at the opening. That is why he shot up the rankings.

And I have no doubt a new coordinator will help the offense. I think you are going a little overboard on him though. Indiana threw for a lot of yards because they were losing the majority of their games. I'd welcome OSU to go to IU's offense, much easier to defend than what you already run. That being said -- it is all about route running. If you can't get open, it doesn't matter what offense you run or what QB is throwing the ball. You don't need 4.4 speed in college to be a great college WR. If you can run crisp routes, you will get open. OSU struggled with that last year. If the OC can fix that -- I have no doubt OSU will be tough to beat for anyone.