Tangent Thread - Ohio State Recruiting Edition

Huskers93-97 said:
If you have FAR and AWAY superior talent than your competition and your coach is better than everyone else in the league. Do you not think 33% conference title win rate is kind of a let down. I do. 
Click to expand...
Well again, they weren't eligible in 2012 when they probably would have won it .  They have won 40% when they are eligible.  Considering UM and PSU also finish in the top 10 of most recruiting rankings, I wouldn't consider that much of a let down.  I also don't know why you insist on keeping this focused on conference championships either.  They have finished in the top 10 every year under Urban and top six in 5 out of 6 seasons with a national championship.  I'm beginning to understand why people say there are unrealistic expectations at Nebraska.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
Because you are one of the guys who have a hard on for recruiting star rankings and you cant argue with the lack of results when it relates to conference titles. The problem is your looking at this like I am saying ohio state is no good. I am saying they have under performed with their coaching advantages and personnel advantages in comparison to their conference competition. Its about the game that matters right? When other conference teams have put together a good year they have beaten them head to head right?
Click to expand...


Saban has only won the SEC in 5 out of 11 years at Alabama.  Only wins it 45% of the time, what a disappointment he has been!  ...am I doing this right?

 
I'd take Alabama or Ohio State's record and championships (nattys or conference) any day ending in y.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FrankWheeler said:
Saban has only won the SEC in 5 out of 11 years at Alabama.  Only wins it 45% of the time, what a disappointment he has been!  ...am I doing this right?
Click to expand...
I was trying to stick to the same parameters for alabama as what the sample size of ohio state would be IE 6 years. But if you want to twist this to 11 years of sample size thats a different story. That aside big difference between 45%(66% is same 6 year span) and 33%. But who is counting thats just a silly thing called math. Not to mention that 45%(66%) is against far superior competition. Little bit more impressive. How many national title contender competition was bama playing vs meyer? 

 
StPaulHusker said:
Ohio St arguably has the highest rate of turnover of players year after year.  Yet they are usually within a game of getting to the CCG.  Once in a while they get beat for a tie breaker to go.  That doesn't mean recruiting 4 star talent is overrated because MSU or PSU catches them in their "down" year.
Click to expand...
OSU is the Kentucky Basketball of college football.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
Not sure why you cant stick to the parameters of the conversation.
Click to expand...


I know, right? I mean this is a recruiting thread about Jean-Baptiste. Lol. Plus your measurements of success needs to be reexamined. I mean there are about two or three schools in all divisions in college football that might meet your requirements. 

What is happening in this thread?

 
I think some of you guys need to take a deep breath, put aside your love for ohio state, urban meyer or star rankings and take an objective look at a lack of conference titles given the facts. Top coach in conference and top recruiting classes in conference. Especially since half of that 6 year period the conference really was not even good.

 
jaws said:
I know, right? I mean this is a recruiting thread about Jean-Baptiste. Lol. Plus your measurements of success needs to be reexamined. I mean there are about two or three schools in all divisions in college football that might meet your requirements. 

What is happening in this thread?
Click to expand...
I get your point about two or three other schools. But there is only 2 schools that have the top 2 coaches in football. Alabama and Ohio State. Widely regarded as 1A and 1B. So thats who you would be compared against.

 
Mavric said:
Because your "parameters" exclude significant information about the success they've had.
Click to expand...
I just used conference championships as the measuring stick for this discussion. Because if you win your conference the general idea is you are the best in your conference. I would think if you have the best coach and the best players you should be winning your conference.

 
Mavric said:
FIFY
Click to expand...
So you really dont see a correlation between having the best coach and the best players to winning the conference championship? I am by no means saying ohio state has not had good success. They have won alot of games, a national championship and 2 conference titles. I think that point has gotten lost. 

I am saying I am surprised they have not won more conference titles. Especially since half of his coaching tenure the big ten was not very good.

 
Mavric said:
Because your "parameters" exclude significant information about the success they've had.
Click to expand...
Yup. Since Urb joined the conference:

Winning %:

1st - OhioSt 90.12%

2nd - Wisconsin 75.60%

3rd - MichSt 70.88%

4th- PennSt 66.23%

5th - Mich 62.33%

6th - NW 61.84%

T7th - Neb/Iowa 60.25%

Conference Championships: 

T1st - OhioSt, MichSt 2 each

T3rd - PennSt, Wisc 1 each

National Championships (you know the ultimate goal):

1st - OhioSt

So they are 1st in winning percentage (by a lot), tied for 1st in conference championships (even though they were ineligible the first year, when they beat every big 10 team on their schedule.), and 1st in national championships.

The big 10 runs through Columbus. I don't like it, but that's how it is and how it's been for the last 6 years. 

 
Huskers93-97 said:
So you really dont see a correlation between having the best coach and the best players to winning the conference championship? I am by no means saying ohio state has not had good success. They have won alot of games, a national championship and 2 conference titles. I think that point has gotten lost. 

I am saying I am surprised they have not won more conference titles. Especially since half of his coaching tenure the big ten was not very good.
Click to expand...
 Which part of his coaching tenure in the big ten has been "not very good"?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top