Відео

I think we shouldn't rank teams until like the 4th week because some teams ride the "we were ranked at the beginning of the year" wave and play terrible teams, but since they didn't lose and were ranked at the beginning of the year, they move up instead of being ranked properly compared to the teams they beat.

@@noelramirez1551 The CFP first ranking was Week 10. And, to my point above, they do reorder each week based on the previous week's events. But still, I agree with Dan that there's no good reason to release rankings in Week 10 other than to create content for ESPN. The AP and Coaches Poll are the ones that have preseason rankings and historically do not drop teams as long as they win. I don't know if that still holds true because no one looks at those polls anymore. They are irrelevant. The only way either poll could possibly matter is if somehow the AP or Coaches poll ranks a team #1 that did not win the CFP and then we'd have a split title. Other than UCF claiming a national championship because they were ranked #1 in the Colley Matrix, I don't think a split title ever occurred in the 4-team playoff era. I cannot envision a scenario where the AP would not vote the CFP winner #1.

@@BenMichigan Yeah, I just meant no preseason polls because you have teams like Utah that were ranked 12th in the preseason poll or Oklahoma State that were 17th, and they were terrible this season and don't start falling off until week 5 and 6, so if a team would've beaten, let's say, week 2, that's a quality win at the time, and they move up, and if they don't lose more than 2 games, they might stay up in the ranks because of that one win against Utah in week 2, so I was just saying let's wait and rank them after a couple of games when teams should've gotten rid of the first game jitters.

​​​@@noelramirez1551Agreed, the SEC benefits from this the most, over ranked in preseason, gets "quality" wins and losses all season based on nothing. Then at the end when we look at SOS the SEC is buoyed by this. Look at Mizzou. And the end of the season Syracuse I would say is better than Mizzou but it is too late to help ACC SOS and Duke was screwed over in rankings. First team in 10+ years in power league not ranked with 9 wins. The system is slanted towards SEC.

@@mktcrasher7 Yeah, because Texas beat Michigan, who was ranked 10th at the time, and that win alone kept them in the top 10 the whole season, and then you have teams like ASU that weren't ranked until way later in the season that had to play catch-up the whole time.

They can’t simply because it’s the SEC, And beck was out the whole second half and Georgia still beat Texas so they could believe in the backup.

And they can’t reseed

Now then, be nice!

"This team has underachieved so far, period. So far, the Ryan Day era has not lived up to expectations. " I mean, that's running counter to your prior point which is that OSU fans are sane, unless you're claiming to be part of the fringe, lunatic base. You say, "OSU fans are passionate, and their standards are high, not too different from most programs in the south," as though that's evidence that it's normal to expect to be Saban's Alabama. No one is Saban's Alabama, including now Alabama. Urban Meyer was historically great at OSU (.902 winning percentage). Did you think that would go on forever? Like Saban at Bama, Meyer (who only won one National Championship at OSU) set an impossibly high standard. Ryan Day's winning percentage at OSU is second only to Meyer (well, also to some guy named guy named Carroll Widdoes who coached for two years). Day has two Big Ten championships and has just made his FOURTH playoff appearance in six seasons. And he would have had a third Big Ten title except that the conference expanded which just means you need to adjust expectations. Adding Oregon (and Washington and USC) of course makes it harder to win the conference. Saying this team underachieved this year makes no sense to me unless you're coming at it from the standpoint of having irrationally high standards. Let's say OSU won the Big Ten and Oregon did not this year. Would that mean Oregon underachieved? So no matter what, any good team that doesn't win the conference underachieves? That's silly. OSU's baseline achievement for this year was host a playoff game and they are doing exactly that. And they could still win the whole thing! (And if you read my comment below, you will see that I am certain they will.) Ryan Day is meeting expectations. He might even be exceeding them, to be honest. He's simply not meeting the expectations of the irrational fans, which I will acknowledge it is redundant to say "irrational" when saying "fans" because fans are fanatics and inherently irrational.

@@BenMichigan It sounds like he is meeting your expectations, that's great to see. Ryan Day says that the program has 3 goals each year: 1.) Beat Michigan 2.) Win the Big 10 title 3.) Win the national title. I'll ask you this, which one of those goals has he met in the LAST 4 YEARS? I don't think beating Michigan every single year is attainable. I also don't think winning the national title every single year is the slightest bit attainable (I'd be happy with once every 8-10 years). I know, those are crazy expectations from a "lunatic fringe" fan. However, when you don't beat Michigan and don't win the Big 10 title 4 years in a row, you aren't living up to expectations. Mind you, they haven't even got to Indianapolis since 2020. Those aren't "irrational", 'lunatic", or "crazy" expectations. Those are Day's own goals, and I believe the expectations of most "sane" fans. My point is that the media, and apparently people like you, want to label a large portion of this fan base as "insane" or 'irrational" for the coach to meet his goals once every two years (Michigan), once every 3(ish) years (Big 10), and once every 8 to 10 years (National Title). People who are satisfied with the last 4 years, and who are satisfied with making the 12 team playoff are lowering the standard at OSU. Those people cannot say that OSU is a top 3 or 4 program any longer, they are a top 12 program. You say that if Oregon didn't join the Big 10 this year, that OSU would've won the Big 10 title. How do you know that? You put it in a context as if we should overlook not winning the BIG 10 because Oregon joined the conference. Oregon joined, OSU didn't even make it to Indy. Failed goal. OSU hasn't made it to Indy since 2020. But again, we can assume without Oregon, they would've won it. Gotcha. Not meeting expectations. Making the 12 team playoff is great, I am proud of them. But like most other objectives that Day supporters like to point out, there are a lot of coaches out there who would make the 12 team playoff with Ohio State. Especially with a 20 million dollar roster. Winning percentage? This is my favorite one. There are a lot of coaches out there who would have a great winning percentage against Minnesota and Northwestern if they coached at modern day Ohio State. Let's look at the talent acquainted games. What is Day's record in those? No, I am not asking for a .750 avg, but .500 avg would be nice. Most people in college football believe that OSU is the best football job in the country, at least top 3. Citing Day's accomplishments against inferior opponents does nothing for me. He is well below average in games when the other team has equal talent. Again, not meeting expectation. Is Ohio State elevating Ryan Day, or is Ryan Day elevating Ohio State? Ryan Day does less with more. He seems to be a great man, I've rooted for him to succeed, but unless he makes a deep run in these playoffs, this one measly irrational fan has seen enough. Day supporters act like Ohio State football is equal to North Carolina football. No history, no built in advantages. How dare we (irrational fans) not support this coach? If we move on, we will fall into the great abyss! What about the recruiting???? Ryan Day needs Ohio State a lot more than Ohio State needs him. Day has all the built in advantages, and I don't think it's irrational to ask him to meet those self imposed goals more frequently than what he has in the last 4 years. I know, that's crazy lunatic fringe talk. Who in the world would ask a coach to hit 50% of his goals (Michigan) 33% goals (Big 10), or 10% (National Title)? The lunatic fringe, that's who. STOP WITH THE EXCUSES

​@@BuccoDan72 For four years, Day did not meet his stated goals--except we still have a TBD on the most important one. For his first two years, he met two out of three. Okay, in 2020 he didn't beat Michigan but he likely would have had Michigan played. But you just want to discount the first two years as though they no longer matter or are a part of his record. Day is 19-9 vs. top 25 teams, a .679 winning percentage. You say what about "talent acquainted games" which I assume means where talent is equitable? I don't know which games you would count. Alabama and Georgia are ranked higher in recruiting rankings than OSU almost every year so those probably don't count as equal talent. (If they do count as equal talent then so is Penn State). And then OSU is ranked ahead of everyone else so those don't count as equal talent either. I imagine you would say that because OSU recruits better than Oregon historically that means OSU should never lose to Oregon. Well, that's what I call unrealistic. You don't get to win every single game. They lost by 1 point on the road to what is the only undefeated team in the country. That's not failing expectations. "You say that if Oregon didn't join the Big 10 this year, that OSU would've won the Big 10 title. How do you know that?" Well, I don't know that, but without the expansion it seems very likely OSU would have won the East (they beat PSU and IU this year) and then would have faced some Big Ten West team, like Iowa I suppose, who they crushed earlier in the year. Just seems like a really good, solid assumption. "You put it in a context as if we should overlook not winning the BIG 10 because Oregon joined the conference." Yes! Exactly! There was no hidden message there to decode. I stated this: "except that the conference expanded which just means you need to adjust expectations." The expanded conference added other quality teams which makes winning the conference significantly harder than it used to be. This isn't the Big 2 and Little 8. The expanded playoffs means making the playoffs is the new measure of success for elite teams, as well as more important than winning the conference. There are seven non-conference champions in the playoffs. I mean, one of the big talking points about playoff expansion has been about how unimportant and devalued the conference championships are now. I understand that "Beat Michigan, win conference, win national title" are the stated goals, but that doesn't mean those are actually the expectations. It's just rhetoric. Literally every team has a goal of winning every game. Tressel won one national title in 10 years. Urban won one national title in seven years. Day is in year 6 and might do it this year! Tressel and Urban won the Big Ten when the biggest threat came from Paul Chryst and Mark Dantonio. They beat up on RichRod, Hoke, and early Harbaugh teams. Holding Day to _those_ standards is not reasonable. This would be like Michigan fans being upset that Michigan doesn't win games with a point a minute because that's what Yost did in the 1900s. These are different eras. Holding coaches to past standards from previous eras is _irrational._ Now, that doesn't mean that being irrational is uncommon. It's very common. Many fanbases suffer from this. It is in no way unique to Ohio State. But that's why one of Doug's stated goals (which is probably less attainable than Day's stated goals) is that fans should learn to enjoy their teams, because OSU fans can't seem to figure out how to do that.

Honestly, you're being somewhat condescending. What are talent acquainted games? Well, not Purdue or Northwestern. You cite recruiting rankings, and that Georgia and Bama are normally ranked ahead of us, and question if those are talent acquainted games? If you have to ask what defines a talent acquainted game, I don't need to have any other dialogue with you. Since Ohio State out recruits Oregon," I am sure you think Ohio State should never lose to Oregon". In my opinion, you're the worst type of fan. You look down at any other fan who dares to justifiably criticize. You want to be positive? Go for it. I highlighted in the previous post that beating Michigan every other year, winning the Big 10 every three years, and winning a national title every 10 years is acceptable, and you still want to label fans like me as "irrational"? Does that make you feel like you're superior? The context of your responses leads me to believe so. "Now that doesn't mean that being irrational is uncommon. It is very common. Many fan bases suffer from this." You talk about Doug saying to just enjoy this. This is what I want you to do. Go back and listen to the Kings of the North podcast from 11/29. You are watching a podcast where both hosts said that they would move on from Day. Are they irrational fans? Maybe irrational hosts? Let me guess mind reader, they are just playing it up to us irrational fans? In 2020 he would have "likely" beat Michigan. Just as he was "likely" to beat Michigan two weeks ago? Day would have "likely" beat Penn State in the Big 10 title game this year. We "likely" beat Penn State even though we haven't even been to Indy in 4 years. You like assuming things. I am glad that "rational" "intelligent" fans, like you can identify what goals are "stated" and what goals are "rhetoric". Making the playoffs is more important than winning your conference? What type of logic is that? If you win the Big 10, you're obviously in the playoffs. In the future, winning your conference will be important, it should get you a more advantageous path to winning the title. That was an egregious error on the committee's part, and will undoubtedly be fixed in the near future. If Day beats Michigan, instead of playing Tennessee and Oregon, they are likely playing SMU and Boise. So again, tell me, how is just making the playoffs more important than finishing at the top of your conference? You don't think Urban was a big reason why you look at Harbaugh's early tenure as "the early Harbaugh years"? Giving Urban no credit for keeping his foot on Harbaugh's throat is lunacy. TBD, right? Pal, I pray that I am wrong. I pray that you're right. But what I am sure of is that if things go sideways this month you will still look down on any fan who questions if we have the right coach. You will "be a fan until the end" and "will support the team no matter what" as if the "irrational" fans won't do the same.

​@@BuccoDan72 Okay. Going point by point is going to be useless now. Some of your responses above were reasonable, some of them missed what I was saying. I think this has mostly boiled down to this: Ryan Day inherited three goals as the coach of OSU, which have long-been the stated OSU goals--beat Michigan, win the conference, win the National Championship. Are those goals, all of which were achieved by Woody, Tressel, and Urban, the actual standard just because they are stated out loud (much in the same way that Michigan says the goals are beat OSU, win the conference, win the National Championship)? You say, yes it is. The reason those are the expectations is because those are the stated goals. You can even further state they are attainable at OSU because three out of the last six coaches have done it (not including Fickell). But I would counter that the other three all achieved two of those goals, lacking only the national championship. Earl Bruce coached nine seasons and won 9 to 11 games every year except the last one when he won 6. So he got fired when his teams couldn't win against the lesser teams. Cooper--who only beat Michigan twice!--coached 13 years, took _six_ years to get above 8 wins, and then after a great six year run, was fired after he went a combined 14-10 over his final two seasons. So he got fired when his teams couldn't win against the lesser teams. Ryan Day beat Michigan and then lost to historically great Michigan teams. This year is an obvious exception to that. Criticism is clearly warranted! But that is _one_ game. I know he has lost _other_ games but we already had our debate above about how realistic it is to "expect" to win against Georgia, Clemson, Oregon, Alabama where he is 1-5 (and we discount his Rose Bowl and all his wins over PSU). So, yeah, I'm of the mind that he is very much meeting the standard. I suppose he's not meeting the "expectation" which I label as aspirational. Sorry that I leaned into the word "irrational." It seems to have been overly offensive, not my intent.

They beat two top ten teams since Oregon and only gave up 5 offensive touchdowns in 6 games, with the only TD to Michigan being an absolute gift from a bad interception that gave them the ball like 2 yards out of the end zone. Do you even watch the games? They clearly stepped up after Oregon.

Penn state and Indiana.

@@BenDehmlow they played an IU team who overachieved this year at home, and a PSU team they always beat. Is that supposed to impress me? Sorry it doesn’t.

The numbers are the numbers, doesn’t matter if those teams impress you. They’re both in the playoff and Penn State hung with the country’s #1 team and conference champion, scoring 37 on them. Not saying Ohio State’s defense was world beaters in every single game but your original position is just wrong and biased if you dismiss their performances in two quality wins

@@BenDehmlow "with the only TD to Michigan being an absolute gift from a bad interception that gave them the ball like 2 yards out of the end zone." This isn't really about is OSU's defense good or not but I just want to get this off my chest because I heard this statement A LOT about Michigan's only TD. It is true that the TD immediately followed the interception and the drive was officially 2 yards. But no one ever seemed to acknowledge that the reason the interception happened with Howard standing in his own end zone was because Michigan had just gone on a very long drive that ended inside the 5. That is all. Carry on.

And only use the speed option once, for a first down and never to be seen again, and only use pulling guards & tight ends three times, each time to extend a drive that then fizzles out with hat on hat inside and outside zone runs, to end in missed field goals.

@BruceMcFarling Facts

Also how bad those losses are. Two bad losses -- you are out.

Explain Indiana with 1 loss all the way down at 10 then

@@moose4ku440 Why, the transitive principle, of course, that long time refuge of scoundrels -- they barely beat TSUN, and then they lost to the team that lost to TSUN, so that made losing to the Buckeyes into a bad loss.

Might be NDs chance to win a big game playing against Stockton (most likely)

Flaw in the system. Get rid of conference championships. We all know there are strength differences in the conferences. Just take top 12 period. The way this is going and the rumor that the committee is “massaging” the rankings to control the matchups make so many thing suspect.

Or get rid of conference championship for wild card games and add a few more teams. Bottom line is the teams at the cut off line are always going to bitch about how they deserve to be in. Go figure

If PSU had won, they would have been rewarded. OSU beat PSU on the road. OSU lost by 1 in Eugene. PSU lost by 7 on a neutral field. PSU has no "good" wins. What is the case for PSU being ahead of OSU?

​@robschoenung9543 The case is if OSU made the conference championship they'd have 3 losses right now.

​@nick21b1985 No. You cannot confidently state that OSU would lose to Oregon. OSU lost by one point to Oregon on the road at night. On neutral field, the outcome could be quite different.