Show me someone who would rather lose tough games and I'll show you a loser!

Back to being serious, I get your point, and those losses are easier to accept, but damnit, I'd rather not lose at all, ever.

much of Ramzy's criticisms are over-dramatically spewed b&^%&^%t without the benefit of a solid foundation.

Congratulations...? It appears you stumbled, without the requisite corrugations of gray matter, on the point of the articles. Ramzy is an entertaining writer. While I'm sure he believes most of the things he says, the allure of his articles is the wit and "over-dramatically spewed b&^%&^%t.

False starts are the most avoidable penalty (delay of game and illegal formation are close seconds) of all possible penalties. They are the definition of a lapse in discipline. Stadium noise has absolutely no impact, unless these players are somehow capable of seeing soundwaves. Nearly every other penalty has some level of subjectivity involved. Nothing shows a lack of discipline more than false start penalties.

Iowa, I like the idea, as there is some pretty terrible officiating each week. However, your example, with video, is not the example you think it is. in the collision that, as you said, possibly ended McCall's career is perfectly legal, and one of the risks that are inherent in the game. If you watch closely, #9 initiates contact to McCall's midsection with his shoulder and his head in front (textbook). All the while, McCall is lowering his head into the oncoming defender (#45) who is being partially blocked and appears to be lower than McCall's head. McCall's helmet had popped off in the direction of #45 from the impact of #9's hit, and that possibly caused the helmet to return to McCall's face. Simultaneously, #24 impacted from the opposite side, again, with his head to the side and making no contact with McCall's head. There was no contact initiated with the crown of the helmet from #9, #45, or #24. Additionally, there was no forcible contact to McCall's head or neck from any of these three players (unless you count the helmet that was previously dislodged hitting the helmet of #45). Other than what has been incorrectly called targeting in the past (see Ward v. Maryland or Corey Smith's block in the 2014 B1G CCG) the only "foul" on the play was that they hit McCall really, really hard.

There was no context to the picture other than the empty seats. I didn’t know if that was at the beginning or the end or the middle or wherever.

The score bug at the bottom of the picture that displays the score, timeouts remaining, quarter, and time remaining were not "context" enough for you? While I don't believe the Shoe would be that empty in a 10-point game that late in the game, the score at halftime was pretty lopsided and the weather shyte. I could see the shoe emptying pretty good against an unranked opponent with that halftime situation. It also looks like the stadium is still somewhat full, with the exception of that corner. I don't know what the other side of the stadium looked like.

Not my comment, but my guess would be "yards." Q is currently our leading rusher, but in terms of talent, I wouldn't be able to say one is better than the other.

I also think he was out, but I also agree with Pellets. I think they actually (which I'll admit is quite rare in the replay booth) stuck to the "indisputable" standard that the rules require.

That's great. Did the replay booth have access to NBC4's video? I doubt it. From the different angles the broadcast had, I "thought" it looked like his foot was on the line, but would I call it "indisputable?" Nope. This is one of the few times I actually have agreed with the refs in a questionable situation in the last few years. I think either way (if it were called incomplete or touchdown) the angles provided by the broadcast didn't provide enough to overturn the call. 

I think officiating across the board, not just OSU games, has been horrific for a good 3-4 years, but I think they made the correct decision not to overturn the call on the field. If they had access to NBC4's video, then they blew it. But in the words of the great Forrest Gump, "shit happens."

Pate was right. In addition to the Gundy/Saban types of examples he uses, he mentions that some coaches are too young to speak their minds. The age/tenure may be one consideration, but I'd surely think that the financial security of being paid $10M/yr ought to get certain Scarlet wearing coaches to grow a backbone and stop hiding behind the, "I can't really say more" bullcrap. So you might get a fine, for that kind of salary, Day should take all the fines to have the back of his players, and  tell the NCAA/B1G to kiss his ass while writing the check.

"Does anyone in this room of spineless cowards dare to challenge me, the great and mighty...

12 years of teaching military/national agency courses, I am so disappointed in myself for never coming up with something like this! But know this, if I get the chance to teach in my new career, I will 100% be stealing this phrase. 

Kyle, 

It's surely a good thing there are no UV/DV option for staff, or you'd probably be getting run out of town. Something I've noticed since October is that any objective thought that maybe, possibly, the players and coaches wearing scarlet have a scintilla of ownership in the last three losses is met with a fierce volley of downvotes. You must understand, OSU only lost due to cheating, there is no other acceptable reason, just cheating. 

Cheating is what caused Steel Chambers to be out of position or Tommy to miss a tackle on two long runs in the fourth quarter at home. Cheating is what caused Farmer Gronk to drop a fourth-down conversion. Cheating is what caused #0 to make a ridiculous recovery and pass deflection in the endzone after being out of position. Cheating is what caused Cameron Brown to completely wiff on a tackle on the sideline (a play where cheating also caused Tanner McCallister to drop his jockstrap because of a tiny stutter move on the opposite side of the formation) . Cheating is what caused Lathan Ransom to get put in a blender and beat for a 75 yard Touchdown.

Every one of those examples is just from the '22 game. They are also not the only examples of plays from that game that were massive, and self-inflicted. Like you said, I re-watched all three of those losses yesterday from the perspective of hoping to see the obvious signs that the scUM defense knew exactly what play was coming. In all three games combined, they're were less a small handful of plays that maid me say, "hmm." There were far more, like the ones pointed out above, that were mistakes, blown assignments, or dropped passes that led to those losses.

Go_Bucks57, I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree with paying these players outright. But, I did do some rudimentary math, to come up with some numbers. Ohio State players who are on full-ride scholarships (please correct me if I get this wrong, I'm not privy to the exact workings of the scholarship system) get tuition, room & board. Per OSU's website, for non-Ohio residents this comes out to a little over $54,000 for the year. I did not take the time to lookup the cost of gym memberships, nutritionists, personal trainers, and the like that are also perks that come with the territory of playing for the Buckeyes. Now, that is roughly the same as an enlisted member makes after three years of service (estimating a 21-year old E-4) (and for those who know, this includes Columbus, OH BAH and BAS). 

For a small amount of perspective, given recent holidays, since 2003 in just Iraq, 2358 members who fit the age category of OSU football players (18-24) died in combat (leaving out all of the other causes and conflicts). Meanwhile, since 1886 90 college football players (all levels, not just D-I) have died during football games or practice. To keep the comparison fair, since 2003, 17 players meet that standard. 

My primary point here, as I said at the beginning of the post, I don't care one way or another if these players are getting paid. But, the NCAA and these schools made the mistake of classifying scholarships as "not paying" or maintaining "amateur" status of players. If they had made it more clear exactly what the costs/value of those scholarships are for each school, I think they could roll that into the "compensation" for the athletes, much like Health Care and other benefits are a part of private companies' total compensation for their employees.

The Earth still hasn’t completed a full 365.24-day rotation (look it up) around the sun since Brandon Inniss arrived on campus at Ohio State.

The condescension regarding the difference in a solar and sidereal days' contribution to the calendar is ironic when paired with the wrong word for the Earth's motion around the sun (look it up).

Agreed on the compilation of opinions method. Unfortunately, the possibility of "group-think" can creep in, though I'm not asserting that it did, among these different opinion pieces. Any method of trying to "predict" the future in terms of a football season is going to be inherently flawed, but these analytical approaches are about as good as it gets. As long as there are human-beings coaching/playing the games, teams like Clemson and Bama, or FSU will underperform or overperform the "analytics."  It is refreshing to see something on this site that took some effort and real data every now and then, rather than rah-rah, scarlet shaded opinion. 

Stant, I think a bit of your response actually proves my point. But first, I remember (a highly recommended read) an article that quoted several "anonymous" coaches about the operation Venables was running at Clemson. The mention of how many "analysts" Clemson employed in the process hints that the "learning" of opponents' signs was not simply limited to watching in-game signals. The article also mentions that no one knew (obviously someone knew, they just weren't talking) exactly how Clemson did it, but all knew it was happening. The Clemson method may very well have been perfectly within the rules, while scUM went outside of the rules, but the end result is pretty much the same. Teams regularly breakdown film to understand tendencies based on down & distance, formation, scenario, etc. Knowing the signs can help a team not be fooled by the deception you allude to with Wilson, but execution by the 11 players on the filed is still the paramount factor involved.

As for the "pistol" example you cited, illegal methods to obtain an opponent's signals were hardly necessary or even a contributing factor. When I, no football scheme expert by any stretch of the imagination, knew exactly which play was coming out of that formation as I sat on my fat ass at home, then one would expect every member of the opposing team (coaches and players) who actually watch and breakdown film knew exactly what play was coming. There would be no need to even peek at the sideline. If, other than the infamous pistol formation in '22, there are not multiple plays built off of similar concepts for every formation, the coaching staff shouldn't even be on a Pop Warner field, let alone have an office in the Woody.

once Day figured it out, it was nighty night to the Clemson defense.

If that's the case, what's the excuse for 2022 and 2023? I've seen posted in several spots that we (in the proverbial sense) knew about the scheme prior to the 2022 matchup in Columbus. 

I agree that we have some issues on the o-line, but I am curious as to your assuredness in the "toughness" of the other units. I fully believe in the talent and skill in all of the other units, but "toughness," I'm not so sure. When is the last time you saw an OSU receiver demolish, or heck even have a good physical block in the run game, not that patty-cake shield blocking that is common (Fleming was close to good a few times, but he's gone)? When is the last time you saw an OSU running back stone blitzers on a regular basis (a la Zeke)? Shoot, you mentioned "QUALITY" opponents, when is the last time the OSU D-line dominated in the run game against a "Quality" opponent?

Lets have a look: 2021 Minnesota had a good runner for most of the game, Oregon, Purdue (not typically quality, but Rondale Moore still gives me nightmares), scUM, and Utah. Those teams averaged 5.7 ypc, and in OSU's two losses, 7.15 ypc.

2022: Wisconson, Penn State (not a bang up job in the run game, but did throw for nearly 400), scUM, and Georgia (averaged 5.2 ypc and also threw for nearly 400). Those teams averaged 5.3 ypc.

2023: ND, Rutgers (vomits as I consider them a quality opponent, but they're RB was legit last year), scUM and Missouri. Those teams averaged 4.4 ypc (hey, looky there, slight improvement).

For reference, an offense typically (things may have changed in the couple of decades since I wore pads) consider 4 ypc a win. so if we are giving up more than that, are we tough? 

I'm pumped for all the changes. I do enjoy the hate when people complain about the similarities from one year to the next. This one will be drastically different than 14, but 26 will likely only have minor changes from 25. Back in the good ol' days, I owned, NCAA '04, '06, '11, and '13 (still play '13 to this day). I never understood why anyone would buy the release every year. There is only so much they can do in the limited time between releases to make the changes worthwhile. I was certainly not spending the money for some very minor changes. I would wait until the changes built up over time and would provide a somewhat different experience in the gameplay.

Gotta say, as much as I loved the game in the PS3 days (still have my PS3 just for that game), I hope this is a banger. I don't give a shit how the head of drawing, or whatever his title is, happens to be, the best move for EA from a marketing perspective is to "diss" OSU in the trailers. OSU has the largest fanbase in the country, this will piss a substantial portion off, and if it irks some like me, we will just buy the game to create an undefeated 60 year dynasty as a method of saying, "Go f*** yourself, EA." For those unenlightened (read: Ohio State haters), they love seeing the scenes that made me cringe in the trailer, this will entice them to buy the game, too. One aspect of having the largest individual fanbase, and one of the most historically successful programs in history, is that all the other fanbases greatly outnumber any individual school, and that's who a company looking to sell a product should market to.  Granted, this year, EA could probably just release the game with no marketing or promotion and make a killing, but for subsequent years, regardless of OSU's real-world success, I fully expect to see them treated poorly in the marketing.

Not a doctor, but line (f) seems relevant here.

My line that you quote is not an insult, but an observation. The very first line of the very first comment in disagreement with Baddog was:

Knowing where the play was going and knowing what alignment the OSU defense was going to be in sure AF made a difference

The only possible explanation for this response would be a failure to read or comprehend the entire point of the original post which I already quoted above. You are correct as to my own introspection, and here is how it is done: I erred in my use of the word "ability" with respect to reading, the more appropriate verbiage would have been "an unwillingness to read or failure to comprehend..." Never was the intent to call other posters stupid (I have done this for other posts, but that was not the intent here). 

I think the point of Baddog's post was, in effect: I don't care if every team Ohio State plays cheats on multiple levels, Ohio State should just lineup and kick the living $h!t out of their opponent. 

I agree with this sentiment, and the result of a failure to accomplish this goal should lead first to a look within the program to diagnose the cause of the failure. To be fair, I honestly believe this is the track taken by the individuals who actually have a role in the success or failure of the team (coaches, players, etc.). But fans just sound whiney and petty with the constant drum-beat of "they cheated!" Every time I read one of these posts, the image of "Crying Jordan" pops into my brain. Ownership of failure is always preferable to "finger-pointing" and "blame." 

Before this is possibly misconstrued, I acknowledge that the possibility exists that Ohio State might line-up across from a team that is just better (see Alabama in 2020 CFP). But this does not change my belief or expectation that the best team in America (my opinion will always be OSU) should win every game (I like to ignore the old adage that the enemy gets a vote until after the game is concluded).

Baddog,

I'm with you all the way on this one. Apparently, those who would tend to disagree (see other responses in this thread) fail in their ability to read, or in the ability to comprehend the following:

The OSU I root for should be able to put our next play on the jumbotron and win anyway

It does not take a rocket surgeon to watch tape and be able to reliably predict the exact play call based on simply personnel, formation, and down and distance (espceially after watching 11 previous games). The sign stealing may provide an advantage in getting the "read" in more quickly, but it isn't like the Buckeyes were employing much tempo in the most recent three iterations of "The Game." That tactic worked pretty well against another known sign-stealer (Brent Venabels) in 2020.

In the end, you hit the nail on the head, if we knew they were doing it (Day and others in the program have said we did), and we changed our signs for that game (again, has been claimed), why do some have such a hard time looking within to find the reasons for failure, but instead place the "fault" entirely on outside nefarious forces?

 This is not just a cop-out used to defend an individual's favorite college football team, but too often, a coping mechanism employed in every day life. The world needs a bit more introspection, and a lot less blaming others for failures in life.

Trot, There have been some bad takes on this site in the past, but this makes Woody's soldiers (or whatever his name is) sound like Nikola Tesla and Steven Hawking had a miracle genius baby.

Damn, Gerry.

There is sure a lot of butt-hurt over what was clearly a joke, and other than naming a person who happens to be a politician, didn't get into "politics" in the sense intended in the commenting policy, as any reader with an IQ in the double-digits should realize. Perhaps some others should take their own advice and read a few books on the art of jokes. But for those who clearly didn't get it:

OSU is flush with mountains money, and regardless if the economy is in shambles or roaring, or who happens to be running the government, OSU can definitely afford "it."  (Insert nearly anything your imagination can conjure for "it")

I hadn't made it this far down the comments when I responded to Hove above. You are absolutely right, and the previous responses to yours highlight the blindness I mentioned in that response. That was not a "one-time" occurrence in Marv's career. In addition, his blocking effort rarely (though there are examples where this is not true, hence the use of the qualifier "rarely") went beyond simply standing in front of the defender, then jumping out of the way when the action reached his heels.