Jaxbuck said:

They really don't want to see the numbers for the last half of the 20th century then.

They are a ~3 loss per year team historically. Not making it up because I hate them, it's fact.

More often than not they are teetering on that line between a 3 loss season and a 4 loss or worse season and have convinced themselves they are some kind of perennial title contender.

Click to expand...

buckeyemania11 said:

At this point I think they are stuck with a year of Bitch Tits Biff.

Click to expand...

scarletngray said:

Arrogance is the primary word to describe anything and everything Xichigan. Problem is that they are too arrogant to do anything about it. That's why, ultimately, nothing is truly going to change there. It's a large part of their DNA.

Click to expand...

OHSportsFan said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

CincyInterloper said:

CYou’re not wrong, but top tier college football is a professional sport now. So the only metric that matters for the playoff team selection process is maximizing television revenue. The playoffs are going to expand to at least 16. We’ll be lucky if it doesn’t expand beyond that. If you think it’s bad now, wait until private equity gets involved.

Click to expand...

Tomateaux Quinoa Gumbeaux said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

heisman said:

You can possibly apply that to an individual action or occurrence, but if OSU was the better prepared team in 1996, a slip would have never mattered. Football is like life. If you set goals in life, and execute daily on the steps required to achieve those goals, you’re going to live your best possible life. If you go through life aimlessly, you believe in the boogeyman of luck.

Click to expand...

BB73 said:

I was once in a casino in San Juan, PR and I was only playing red 27 at a roulette table. The damn number actually hit 3 straight times, but this stupid fucking tourist took away his chips after the first hit.

Click to expand...

Jagdaddy said:

But barring special teams scores and turnovers, each team is going to get the same, or very close to the same, number of offensive possessions. So, except situationally (e.g., trying to score with no time left for the opponent's offense at the end of the half or a game), I wouldn't think that tempo matters much. You're going to be on defense for roughly half of the possessions in most games no matter how fast or slow you play. Given that base level of equality, what a team should want to do is whatever maximizes the expected points per possession when on offense and minimizes the expected points per possession when on defense.

IMBSO, where Ohio State has often left meat on the bone in this regard is in poor starting offensive field possession resulting from lousy punt fielding/returning, poor defensive field position resulting from often mediocre punting, and, as great as the defense has been this year, in not forcing many turnovers or causing much "havoc" (e.g., in many circumstances, getting a sack on an opponent's 3d and 12 seems worth a fair amount more to me in terms of expected points on the next offensive possession than giving up 9 yards even if both results get the defense off the field). Of course, forcing "havoc" with blitzes creates risk, which is why being able to get great pressure on the opposing QB with a four man rush is, to me, a huge key to success. I'd also submit that trying harder to block punts might be something worth pursuing.

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

To use the casino analogy a different way; Offense in football is like playing poker. If you have a skill advantage you want to play as many hands as possible. Your skill will win out. BUT in football you have to play defense and that is like having to stop playing poker and go over to play roulette. You can even be the house and get better odds if you have an elite defense but sooner or later, some stupid fucking tourist is going to hit on red 27 and you are going to have to pay.

You want to stay at the poker table as much as you can and stay away from the roulette table in the process.

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

It goes back to the simple truth of every out come being skill + luck = outcome.

Look at the odds of giving up points. Greater when on defense than on offense, right? The luck element of the outcome is higher than when on offense.

Choosing a path that creates more opportunity for the opponent (defense) is a flawed strategy. It can work out and people think it’s ok, but it was the wrong approach no matter the outcome.

To use the casino analogy a different way; Offense in football is like playing poker. If you have a skill advantage you want to play as many hands as possible. Your skill will win out. BUT in football you have to play defense and that is like having to stop playing poker and go over to play roulette. You can even be the house and get better odds if you have an elite defense but sooner or later, some stupid fucking tourist is going to hit on red 27 and you are going to have to pay.

You want to stay at the poker table as much as you can and stay away from the roulette table in the process.

Click to expand...