OT: Article- Tressel vs Carroll

Submitted by MGoTarHeel on September 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 PM

I know, I hate saying anything good about Ohio State or the Sweatervest, but this is actually a pretty cool article to read. Whether I like it simply because it gives me an excuse as a fan of Michigan I don't know, but the writer brings up the good point about the importance of location in recruiting and how that translates to talented teams. Pretty nice comparison of the vest and the surfer-dude.


Also, I apologize in advance for this post not including an MS Paint of Tressel fighting Carroll on the Starfox map of Super Smash Bros. I wish it would, but frankly I'm not that good. But in my defense, I made sure to include that this was an article post, not just Tressel vs Carroll.


Chunks the Hobo

September 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 AM ^

This isn't a particularly well argued piece, plus it raises (but doesn't answer) the obvious question: If Carroll is not as good of a coach as Tressel, why has he beaten Tressel twice?

I'm not taking a side, just pointing out the superficiality/incoherence of this article.


September 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 AM ^

Im not buying the location argument... if that was true then the Arizona teams would be great every year, with the warm weather and bevy of loose and hot women they have down there... Im just not buying that as a valid argument....it is a contributing factor in some kids choosing where they go to school....but...

Ohio is a football hotbed with lots of talented players, OSU gets their pick of these kids every year,....just like most of Texas' players come from the great football state of Texas...etc.

Location location location works for restaurants...

but not as much in college football as this writer makes it out to be.


September 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 AM ^

I have to agree with this argument from the article:
"The best players come from Florida, California and Texas. And where are the best college programs located? Florida, California and Texas (and Oklahoma). What a coincidence."

UM, OSU, Nebraska (I think they count as above and Oklahoma as below), and ND are pretty much the only teams above the Mason-Dixon line to win NC's in the last thirty years or so. I don't remember how long it's been since PSU won one, so they may be included, too. Nebraska hasn't won since the NCAA started testing for steroids and their walk-on program stopped producing kids who came in at 190 and graduated at 320 after a "corn-fed growth spurt."

The better players are from down south. They can pretty much play year around, and football seems to be a lot more important here than up there. And teams with southern players win National Championships at about a 5-1 ratio to northern teams.

I have said this time and again; it is part of why I love seeing UM recruit the south so well:

You can win the Big Ten occasionally and dominate the little eight with midwest kids, but you have to recruit the south to win NC's.

Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. But year after year, the kids with southern athletes win the National Championships, while the northern teams lament a "bad break" or a "bad day," but lose to the big boys when it counts.

Hopefully, UM will break that pattern with the help of the southern kids they are recruiting.


September 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^

I disagree on a few things the author says..

Tressel coaches. Tressel maximizes

But Tressel does get the most out of his teams.

I don't think either is necessarily false, but I feel like Tressel could do better in maximizing his talent. We all are aware of the Pryor argument (he should run more, spread the ball, etc), but it falls more on the coaching staff than the players.

Defensively we know the Buckeyes are there every year, but when it comes to the offensive line (which is now composed of essentially all 5-star recruits) and the weapons he's recruited, I feel like he could do more.