First off, welcome to my very first blog post, with hopefully many more to come.
When thinking of what to address in this initial post, the Ohio State offense, which at this point is offensive to say the least was gonna be the focus. However, following the embarrasing loss to Purdue, which the offense was suppose to get a boost, instead got busted. While gathering my thoughts on the woes of the offense, the loss itself lead to another area which as been the subject of much discussion. The Jim Tressel v Pete Carroll debate.
Over the last several years Tressel has been taken to task for the team's shortcomings in BCS bowl games and non-conference games against the power programs from other conferences. And deservedly so. But why not the same venom for Carroll whose teams have consistently loss to teams with sub-par records? Yes, Carroll wins his bowl games at the end of the year, thus saving him from the ridicule bestowed upon Tressel. Carroll is always the preferred coach when the two are put side-by-side. He's the better coach, the better recruiter, the better game-planner, etc. His two-deep is better than most team's starters? So why is it they lose to teams who are way inferior to them.
Since 2005 both teams are in the top 5 in winning percentage, 88% for USC and 84% for Ohio State, both teams Have been to 4 BCS games. Both teams have sent comparable numbers to the NFL. Yet Tressel gets trounced in public opinion polls, ESPN, etc.. Carroll gets a pass.
Since 2005 Ohio State has 8 losses, USC 6 losses. However, all of Ohio State losses have come to BCS teams. More specifically, those losses have come to BCS Bowl Teams, Two of which were in the national championship game itself. All the others have either come in a BCS bowl game or to teams that eventually played in a BCS bowl game. USC losses have come, save one, to teams in which most cases the Trojans were double digit favorites. How can we forget the loss to UCLA (5-6) I believe 5-6 at the time or that terrible loss to Stanford another team with a losing record.
When having lively debates with my SoCal Brethren and they use the played-out thought process that the Big 10 is weak. Which based on on-field performance by the conference as a whole might be valid point. That being said, its not like USC was losing to the top-tier of their own conference, which by the way, hasn't been all the impressive either.
And in those debates I could always state the fact the atleast the Buckeyes made it to the Title game by winning all the games they were Supposed to win! Many would argue that those games were embarrasing loses for the Buckeyes, and I would argue that it was USC that had the more embarrasing losses over this time period. While the Buckeyes were losing to the Florida's, LSU's, USC was losing to UCLA, Stanford, Oregon St.
Which brings me full circle back to the Purdue loss. This was the type of team Tressel and the Buckeyes always seemed to beat. And this was the one argument that Buckeye nation could always lean on, when it came to Tressel in this debate. You could count on a Carroll coached team to have a bad, bad loss at some point in the year, and for Tressel to win a very ugly, ugly game (well maybe two or three-but he would win) at some point in the year. Granted, it was just one game and hopefully for Buckeye Nation an abberation, but if this continues, I mean is Minnesota a guaranteed win at this point. Following the Purdue loss, my SoCal brothers quickly informed me that one of my key arguments was no longer as strong as it once was. The Tressel/Carroll debate will be even more one-sided and Buckeye Nation grumblings that are already loud, will set decibel levels to new highs.
When thinking of what to address in this initial post, the Ohio State offense, which at this point is offensive to say the least was gonna be the focus. However, following the embarrasing loss to Purdue, which the offense was suppose to get a boost, instead got busted. While gathering my thoughts on the woes of the offense, the loss itself lead to another area which as been the subject of much discussion. The Jim Tressel v Pete Carroll debate.
Over the last several years Tressel has been taken to task for the team's shortcomings in BCS bowl games and non-conference games against the power programs from other conferences. And deservedly so. But why not the same venom for Carroll whose teams have consistently loss to teams with sub-par records? Yes, Carroll wins his bowl games at the end of the year, thus saving him from the ridicule bestowed upon Tressel. Carroll is always the preferred coach when the two are put side-by-side. He's the better coach, the better recruiter, the better game-planner, etc. His two-deep is better than most team's starters? So why is it they lose to teams who are way inferior to them.
Since 2005 both teams are in the top 5 in winning percentage, 88% for USC and 84% for Ohio State, both teams Have been to 4 BCS games. Both teams have sent comparable numbers to the NFL. Yet Tressel gets trounced in public opinion polls, ESPN, etc.. Carroll gets a pass.
Since 2005 Ohio State has 8 losses, USC 6 losses. However, all of Ohio State losses have come to BCS teams. More specifically, those losses have come to BCS Bowl Teams, Two of which were in the national championship game itself. All the others have either come in a BCS bowl game or to teams that eventually played in a BCS bowl game. USC losses have come, save one, to teams in which most cases the Trojans were double digit favorites. How can we forget the loss to UCLA (5-6) I believe 5-6 at the time or that terrible loss to Stanford another team with a losing record.
When having lively debates with my SoCal Brethren and they use the played-out thought process that the Big 10 is weak. Which based on on-field performance by the conference as a whole might be valid point. That being said, its not like USC was losing to the top-tier of their own conference, which by the way, hasn't been all the impressive either.
And in those debates I could always state the fact the atleast the Buckeyes made it to the Title game by winning all the games they were Supposed to win! Many would argue that those games were embarrasing loses for the Buckeyes, and I would argue that it was USC that had the more embarrasing losses over this time period. While the Buckeyes were losing to the Florida's, LSU's, USC was losing to UCLA, Stanford, Oregon St.
Which brings me full circle back to the Purdue loss. This was the type of team Tressel and the Buckeyes always seemed to beat. And this was the one argument that Buckeye nation could always lean on, when it came to Tressel in this debate. You could count on a Carroll coached team to have a bad, bad loss at some point in the year, and for Tressel to win a very ugly, ugly game (well maybe two or three-but he would win) at some point in the year. Granted, it was just one game and hopefully for Buckeye Nation an abberation, but if this continues, I mean is Minnesota a guaranteed win at this point. Following the Purdue loss, my SoCal brothers quickly informed me that one of my key arguments was no longer as strong as it once was. The Tressel/Carroll debate will be even more one-sided and Buckeye Nation grumblings that are already loud, will set decibel levels to new highs.
No comments:
Post a Comment