The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-16-2021 04:02 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:19 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:10 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I think #8 is fair. Anywhere between #6 and #10 feels right to me. The OSU beat writer for the Cleveland fish wrap apparently ranked us #22. What a clown.

i agree with the sentiment that we have been steadily climbing towards perennial top 25 status but that cleveland writer is really just saying the quiet parts out loud for a large segment of the population. if we lose to anyone outside of ND, or we get curb stomped by ND, we will drop rather precipitously. We have no margin of error.

Someone talk me back from the ledge. I emailed Mr. Baird - covers Thee Ohio State for Cleveland.com - last season because he consistently voted UC below the average pollster vote position. I "politely" let him know I thought he carried a bias against UC. To my surprise, he replied to my email and said he hadn't seen enough of UC play against the harder teams on the schedule yet and that would impact his vote position. It didn't matter to him in the end when we were undefeated going into the Peach Bowl. The fact that we played Georgia as well as we did and brought back so many players again for this season should vault us higher than #22. Let it go, I know. Probably more impactful that Rece Davis voted us #7 and tons of more people will listen/see Rece on ESPN than some beat reporter living in his mom's basement eating bags of Chili Cheetos all day. FWIW, David Jablonski [Dayton Daily News] voted us #5, David Briggs [Toledo Blade] #8, Brett McMurphy #14.

Some love from my North Carolina peeps: #5 Lauren Brownlow [WRAL Durham] & #7 Ethan Joyce [Winston-Salem Journal]

i think the McMurphy ranking is about right for the group of voters that don't have the resources and/or interest to follow Cincy or the AAC more closely. Even with everything coming back and our Peach Bowl performance, they start us outside of the top 10 and are looking to drop us at the first opportunity. in their minds our ceiling is a top 25ish program (20-25).

(08-16-2021 05:40 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 05:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 05:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:19 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:10 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I think #8 is fair. Anywhere between #6 and #10 feels right to me. The OSU beat writer for the Cleveland fish wrap apparently ranked us #22. What a clown.

i agree with the sentiment that we have been steadily climbing towards perennial top 25 status but that cleveland writer is really just saying the quiet parts out loud for a large segment of the population. if we lose to anyone outside of ND, or we get curb stomped by ND, we will drop rather precipitously. We have no margin of error.

Clevelanders are generally dismissive of anything from Cincinnati.

I think they have a a deep-seated, unconscious need to think that Cleveland is the metropolis of Ohio. In their mind, Cleveland is the Light for all the factory towns and farmers (even Columbus, which is Cowtown to them). But the existence of Cincinnati disrupts this paradigm. So they reconcile their vision with reality by ignoring or trivializing anything from Cincinnati (or by saying that Cincinnati is culturally just as Southern as Nashville or Memphis).

Agree with the rest, but the Clevelanders I know love Columbus. There is a bit of a bromance going on. Clevelanders prefers their hospitals, parks, and museums but consider Columbus attractions such as OSU, Polaris, Easton and COSI as an extension of their world. I have had conversations with people up there, when citing “local teams” put OSU in the same sentence as the Browns, Indians and Cavs.

I have lived in the Cleveland area for a bit over 5 years now. Maybe since I don't get up to Cleveland proper much my view is skewed but I haven't heard anyone bad mouth Cincinnati as a city. Most people up here think Cleveland is great and are just sick of being a national punchline.

That being said, there is much more of a link between Cleveland and Columbus as was mentioned. Ohio State is covered as a local team but there is a ton of interest up here. I haven't ever heard anyone consider those Columbus attractions as part of Cleveland. Maybe it relates to how there's a different feeling regarding the state of Ohio as a whole and Cincinnati kind of gets overlooked. Just my $0.02.

Columbus does NOT interfere with Clevelanders self-image because Columbus as a whole is clearly inferior from a culture perspective (arts, museums, pro sports, architecture, etc). Columbus might become *bigger* but it will never be *better.*


But Cincinnati is one of the few cities nationally that can compete with Cleveland's culture. AND Cincinnati is bigger. AND it's booming (while Cleveland shrinks). So the very existence of Cincinnati interferes with Clevelanders' self-image.


Clevelanders love their city. It's a Shining City on the Hill, the metropolis of Ohio. When shown something good in Cincinnati, they have to do one of the following:
a) change their opinion of Cleveland (not happening)
b) ignore Cincinnati
c) dismiss Cincinnati
d) Label Cincinnati as "not Midwestern."

Which one of the four depends on the person. The sports reporter appears to have chosen "dismiss Cincinnati."

I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

(08-17-2021 07:23 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

It's something I hear a lot. Ohio State fans often tell me Cincinnati would be the worst B1G team. I tell them, you know they have been consistently ranked in the top 25 the last few years. I suggest that they would be a top 1/3 team in the conference. Their rebuttal is that Cincinnati would be one of the worst programs. That's the typical T-Shirt fan's mindset, from what I can tell.

(08-17-2021 07:31 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:23 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

It's something I hear a lot. Ohio State fans often tell me Cincinnati would be the worst B1G team. I tell them, you know they have been consistently ranked in the top 25 the last few years. I suggest that they would be a top 1/3 team in the conference. Their rebuttal is that Cincinnati would be one of the worst programs. That's the typical T-Shirt fan's mindset, from what I can tell.

Yep, always lots of bluster from B10 fans, often from member schools with irrelevant teams. A conference which of late, has produced a total of one team (OSU) capable of hanging with Clemson or a cadre of elite SEC teams.

Maybe the ACC should take OSU, just as the SEC took TX/OK and see what the B10 TV rights are worth minus the Buckeyes? LOL.

(08-17-2021 07:31 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:23 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

It's something I hear a lot. Ohio State fans often tell me Cincinnati would be the worst B1G team. I tell them, you know they have been consistently ranked in the top 25 the last few years. I suggest that they would be a top 1/3 team in the conference. Their rebuttal is that Cincinnati would be one of the worst programs. That's the typical T-Shirt fan's mindset, from what I can tell.

Yeah...we all know we would probably walk into the top half of the conference on day one, and when recruiting picks up, would probably end up as a borderline Top 4 team in that conference. We would never get to OSU's level, but I think our ceiling could be the Wisconsin/Michigan/Penn State level. I mean, we know right now that the UC Football Program is better than Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Rutgers, and Maryland...and on par with that next step of teams (Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan, and Iowa).

(08-16-2021 08:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 05:40 PM)Jchuges7 Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 05:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 05:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:19 PM)eroc Wrote:  i agree with the sentiment that we have been steadily climbing towards perennial top 25 status but that cleveland writer is really just saying the quiet parts out loud for a large segment of the population. if we lose to anyone outside of ND, or we get curb stomped by ND, we will drop rather precipitously. We have no margin of error.

Clevelanders are generally dismissive of anything from Cincinnati.

I think they have a a deep-seated, unconscious need to think that Cleveland is the metropolis of Ohio. In their mind, Cleveland is the Light for all the factory towns and farmers (even Columbus, which is Cowtown to them). But the existence of Cincinnati disrupts this paradigm. So they reconcile their vision with reality by ignoring or trivializing anything from Cincinnati (or by saying that Cincinnati is culturally just as Southern as Nashville or Memphis).

Agree with the rest, but the Clevelanders I know love Columbus. There is a bit of a bromance going on. Clevelanders prefers their hospitals, parks, and museums but consider Columbus attractions such as OSU, Polaris, Easton and COSI as an extension of their world. I have had conversations with people up there, when citing “local teams” put OSU in the same sentence as the Browns, Indians and Cavs.

I have lived in the Cleveland area for a bit over 5 years now. Maybe since I don't get up to Cleveland proper much my view is skewed but I haven't heard anyone bad mouth Cincinnati as a city. Most people up here think Cleveland is great and are just sick of being a national punchline.

That being said, there is much more of a link between Cleveland and Columbus as was mentioned. Ohio State is covered as a local team but there is a ton of interest up here. I haven't ever heard anyone consider those Columbus attractions as part of Cleveland. Maybe it relates to how there's a different feeling regarding the state of Ohio as a whole and Cincinnati kind of gets overlooked. Just my $0.02.

Columbus does NOT interfere with Clevelanders self-image because Columbus as a whole is clearly inferior from a culture perspective (arts, museums, pro sports, architecture, etc). Columbus might become *bigger* but it will never be *better.*


But Cincinnati is one of the few cities nationally that can compete with Cleveland's culture. AND Cincinnati is bigger. AND it's booming (while Cleveland shrinks). So the very existence of Cincinnati interferes with Clevelanders' self-image.


Clevelanders love their city. It's a Shining City on the Hill, the metropolis of Ohio. When shown something good in Cincinnati, they have to do one of the following:
a) change their opinion of Cleveland (not happening)
b) ignore Cincinnati
c) dismiss Cincinnati
d) Label Cincinnati as "not Midwestern."

Which one of the four depends on the person. The sports reporter appears to have chosen "dismiss Cincinnati."

Cleveland definitely has the legacy cultural institutions over Columbus, but don't think for a moment that their "big brother" attitude towards it isn't driven a little bit by insecurity. Columbus grew 15% in the last census, has many more Fortune 500 HQ than Cleveland (as does Cincinnati) and the most vibrant growing tech industry in the state. They're either resentful of it, or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

You're right that Clevelanders just dismiss Cincinnati. In terms of Columbus, they like to pretend it's still 1953.

Re name thread Cincinnati vs Cleveland debate. Sheesh.

(08-17-2021 08:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:31 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:23 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

It's something I hear a lot. Ohio State fans often tell me Cincinnati would be the worst B1G team. I tell them, you know they have been consistently ranked in the top 25 the last few years. I suggest that they would be a top 1/3 team in the conference. Their rebuttal is that Cincinnati would be one of the worst programs. That's the typical T-Shirt fan's mindset, from what I can tell.

Yeah...we all know we would probably walk into the top half of the conference on day one, and when recruiting picks up, would probably end up as a borderline Top 4 team in that conference. We would never get to OSU's level, but I think our ceiling could be the Wisconsin/Michigan/Penn State level. I mean, we know right now that the UC Football Program is better than Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Rutgers, and Maryland...and on par with that next step of teams (Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan, and Iowa).

You're confusing *teams* with *programs.*

Michigan gets over 100,000 fans to its games, even when its team is mediocre. That's the type of power money can't buy. It's the power of a program.

Indiana has been the worst Big Ten football program for a long time. It still is today (other than Rutgers), despite its recent winning seasons.

Cincinnati's biggest advantage as a program is the same reason the Big Ten doesn't want us in a power conference: we have great local high school football programs who send kids to other Big Ten schools.

(08-17-2021 11:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 08:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:31 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:23 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I believe the Cleveland AP voter is originally from Columbus but now works in Cleveland. From his photo he does not look to be that old so most of his perspective is shaped from a Central Ohio lens, not from Cleveland.

On another note, why are there no AP voters based in Cincinnati? Heck, even Dayton has one.

If he grew up in Cowtown and worshipped at the Horseshoe, there is some context for his perceptions of UC football. And for all of Cincinnati's success most of the past two decades, the only UC games he saw were some dreadful losses to his Buckeyes.

More meaningful than any polls will be UC taking what many believe will be the final step to national respectability: winning a New Year's Day game against a respected SEC or B10 opponent. Even then, some other fans will be dismissive with the usual comments about their conferences' teams not taking a G5 seriously. We'll live with that knowing Cincinnati can beat top programs and vie for the CFP.

It's something I hear a lot. Ohio State fans often tell me Cincinnati would be the worst B1G team. I tell them, you know they have been consistently ranked in the top 25 the last few years. I suggest that they would be a top 1/3 team in the conference. Their rebuttal is that Cincinnati would be one of the worst programs. That's the typical T-Shirt fan's mindset, from what I can tell.

Yeah...we all know we would probably walk into the top half of the conference on day one, and when recruiting picks up, would probably end up as a borderline Top 4 team in that conference. We would never get to OSU's level, but I think our ceiling could be the Wisconsin/Michigan/Penn State level. I mean, we know right now that the UC Football Program is better than Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Rutgers, and Maryland...and on par with that next step of teams (Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan, and Iowa).

You're confusing *teams* with *programs.*

Michigan gets over 100,000 fans to its games, even when its team is mediocre. That's the type of power money can't buy. It's the power of a program.

Indiana has been the worst Big Ten football program for a long time. It still is today (other than Rutgers), despite its recent winning seasons.

Cincinnati's biggest advantage as a program is the same reason the Big Ten doesn't want us in a power conference: we have great local high school football programs who send kids to other Big Ten schools.

Yeah, meant a team level comparison for that last parenthetical, especially given the context of my previous statement that we could get to that level. I'd argue our program is on par with the first group I listed already.

UC is nowhere near the "program" that Michigan State is.

MSU averages 70,000 fans per game. They have a $140 million athletic budget, higher than Clemson, Nebraska, or Oregon. They've made the CFP playoffs.

Michigan State gets almost as much revenue in alumni donations alone ($32 million in 2017) than UC's entire athletic revenue before school subsidies.


Purdue and Illinois and Minnesota, I'll grant you. But that doesn't exactly impress an OSU fan.

(08-17-2021 12:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC is nowhere near the "program" that Michigan State is.

MSU averages 70,000 fans per game. They have a $140 million athletic budget, higher than Clemson, Nebraska, or Oregon. They've made the CFP playoffs.

Michigan State gets almost as much revenue in alumni donations alone ($32 million in 2017) than UC's entire athletic revenue before school subsidies.


Purdue and Illinois and Minnesota, I'll grant you. But that doesn't exactly impress an OSU fan.

Not having the same financial resources is not the same thing as relative strength of program

(08-17-2021 12:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC is nowhere near the "program" that Michigan State is.

MSU averages 70,000 fans per game. They have a $140 million athletic budget, higher than Clemson, Nebraska, or Oregon. They've made the CFP playoffs.

Michigan State gets almost as much revenue in alumni donations alone ($32 million in 2017) than UC's entire athletic revenue before school subsidies.


Purdue and Illinois and Minnesota, I'll grant you. But that doesn't exactly impress an OSU fan.

I don't know why you're bringing AD budgets into an argument about football programs...it has no relevance. As of right now, the UC football program is in a much better spot that MSU. The program is recruiting at a better rate, winning and a better rate, has far better national perception, and, if the draft prognosticators are correct, will be sending more players to the League than MSU. Sure they get another $60M from a TV deal and have more generous alumni, but those two things are irrelevant to a specific sports program. If we are comparing Athletics Departments there is absolutely no comparison, you're correct there for sure.

(08-17-2021 12:44 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC is nowhere near the "program" that Michigan State is.

MSU averages 70,000 fans per game. They have a $140 million athletic budget, higher than Clemson, Nebraska, or Oregon. They've made the CFP playoffs.

Michigan State gets almost as much revenue in alumni donations alone ($32 million in 2017) than UC's entire athletic revenue before school subsidies.


Purdue and Illinois and Minnesota, I'll grant you. But that doesn't exactly impress an OSU fan.

I don't know why you're bringing AD budgets into an argument about football programs...it has no relevance. As of right now, the UC football program is in a much better spot that MSU. The program is recruiting at a better rate, winning and a better rate, has far better national perception, and, if the draft prognosticators are correct, will be sending more players to the League than MSU. Sure they get another $60M from a TV deal and have more generous alumni, but those two things are irrelevant to a specific sports program. If we are comparing Athletics Departments there is absolutely no comparison, you're correct there for sure.

Because:

1) Winning is caused by having good coaches.
2) Hiring and keeping good coaches is caused by money (and good leadership and a few other things, but money is a huge consideration).

If it hadn't been for MSU trying to screw over Fickell's mentor (Dantonio), Luke Fickell would be wearing Spartan Green today.

(08-17-2021 12:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  [
Because:

1) Winning is caused by having good coaches.
2) Hiring and keeping good coaches is caused by money (and good leadership and a few other things, but money is a huge consideration).

If it hadn't been for MSU trying to screw over Fickell's mentor (Dantonio), Luke Fickell would be wearing Spartan Green today.

That's quite the assertion. Bottom line is fickell chose uc over Michigan state and is going to keep kicking their ass all across the recruiting turf.

(08-17-2021 12:58 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  [
Because:

1) Winning is caused by having good coaches.
2) Hiring and keeping good coaches is caused by money (and good leadership and a few other things, but money is a huge consideration).

If it hadn't been for MSU trying to screw over Fickell's mentor (Dantonio), Luke Fickell would be wearing Spartan Green today.

That's quite the assertion. Bottom line is fickell chose uc over Michigan state and is going to keep kicking their ass all across the recruiting turf.

Ok, perhaps I was being hasty. There's also a lot of scandals at MSU right now that make it unattractive.

But scandals are short-term. Coaches are medium-term. Long-term, the MSU program is still going to have a huge advantage over UC. And that's due to their deep pockets and their proven ability to win and get to the Playoffs.

(08-17-2021 12:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:44 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC is nowhere near the "program" that Michigan State is.

MSU averages 70,000 fans per game. They have a $140 million athletic budget, higher than Clemson, Nebraska, or Oregon. They've made the CFP playoffs.

Michigan State gets almost as much revenue in alumni donations alone ($32 million in 2017) than UC's entire athletic revenue before school subsidies.


Purdue and Illinois and Minnesota, I'll grant you. But that doesn't exactly impress an OSU fan.

I don't know why you're bringing AD budgets into an argument about football programs...it has no relevance. As of right now, the UC football program is in a much better spot that MSU. The program is recruiting at a better rate, winning and a better rate, has far better national perception, and, if the draft prognosticators are correct, will be sending more players to the League than MSU. Sure they get another $60M from a TV deal and have more generous alumni, but those two things are irrelevant to a specific sports program. If we are comparing Athletics Departments there is absolutely no comparison, you're correct there for sure.

Because:

1) Winning is caused by having good coaches.
2) Hiring and keeping good coaches is caused by money (and good leadership and a few other things, but money is a huge consideration).

If it hadn't been for MSU trying to screw over Fickell's mentor (Dantonio), Luke Fickell would be wearing Spartan Green today.

I suggest Amy would not agree with you.

(08-17-2021 01:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:58 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  [
Because:

1) Winning is caused by having good coaches.
2) Hiring and keeping good coaches is caused by money (and good leadership and a few other things, but money is a huge consideration).

If it hadn't been for MSU trying to screw over Fickell's mentor (Dantonio), Luke Fickell would be wearing Spartan Green today.

That's quite the assertion. Bottom line is fickell chose uc over Michigan state and is going to keep kicking their ass all across the recruiting turf.

Ok, perhaps I was being hasty. There's also a lot of scandals at MSU right now that make it unattractive.

But scandals are short-term. Coaches are medium-term. Long-term, the MSU program is still going to have a huge advantage over UC. And that's due to their deep pockets and their proven ability to win and get to the Playoffs.

I mean, I guess this is just a very stark difference of opinions, but if you're asserting that MSU's potential of making the playoffs being higher is why they have a better program than UC, I just don't think there is a whole lot of sense in the argument...especially because they aren't sniffing the playoffs ever again in their current format and as long as Ryan Day is at Ohio State. I'd also argue that if you polled 100 college football fans nationally about what teams have made the playoffs, you'd have less than 5 be able to even name Michigan State. Also, that "proven ability to win" isn't as "proven" as you seem to think. I'd suggest you actually look at the Michigan State history books...because they look eerily similar to UC's in the last 30 years or so. They have been a .500 team for the better part of their history, and largely irrelevant nationally, outside of 4 years in the last decade...sound familiar? lol

MSU is 29-29 in the last 5 years (we are 38-22), We have both been ranked the same amount of weeks in that stretch (23), we have won the recruiting battle 4/5 of those seasons against them, and after this year, we will have sent the same amount of players in the draft over that span (15). Sure their ATHLETICS DEPARTMENT gets more money, but again, the on field play and health of the FOOTBALL PROGRAM is not the same thing.

I'd argue that the football program with multiple scandals that forced the resignation of their most successful head coach of all time, who has had fewer wins in the last 5 years, has next to no national buzz, was passed over by the coach of the team we're comparing (and as a part of that was basically a laughing stock for their entire hiring practice), and who is in a less fertile recruiting ground, and a less 'winable' division/conference, probably isn't the better football program...but those are just my sensible arguments. Agree to disagree.

(08-16-2021 04:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  He's going to be on with Mo Egger 1530 tomorrow afternoon. Should be interesting.

Here is Ohio State's armpit sniffer's justification for ranking UC #22....



Nathan Baird