no class

moneymaker02 · Post by **moneymaker02** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:40 pm

SCREW OHIO STATE AND JIM TRESSEL. WHO GOES FOR IT ON 4TH DOWN TWICE IN THE RED ZONE WHEN UR WINNING 35-7 IN THE 4TH QUARTER. I USED TO HAVE RESPECT FOR HIM AS A COACH, BUT NOW I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANYTHING OHIO STATE. HE IS A CLASSLESS PIECE OF SH!T.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:42 pm

moneymaker02 wrote:SCREW OHIO STATE AND JIM TRESSEL. WHO GOES FOR IT ON 4TH DOWN TWICE IN THE RED ZONE WHEN UR WINNING 35-7 IN THE 4TH QUARTER. I USED TO HAVE RESPECT FOR HIM AS A COACH, BUT NOW I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANYTHING OHIO STATE. HE IS A CLASSLESS PIECE OF SH!T.

Seconded.

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:43 pm

TG1996 wrote:
moneymaker02 wrote:SCREW OHIO STATE AND JIM TRESSEL. WHO GOES FOR IT ON 4TH DOWN TWICE IN THE RED ZONE WHEN UR WINNING 35-7 IN THE 4TH QUARTER. I USED TO HAVE RESPECT FOR HIM AS A COACH, BUT NOW I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANYTHING OHIO STATE. HE IS A CLASSLESS PIECE OF SH!T.
Seconded.

Third..ed?

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:44 pm

Dunno about that. This is the first game this season that OSU has been unable to cover the spread.

BG didn't play to their potential, but OSU certainly weren't allowed to play to theirs, and BG gets a result no one else has pinned on OSU this season - the spread.

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:49 pm

Did you expect them to go for a field goal?

I don't see a problem.

able1 · Post by **able1** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:00 pm

There's two schools of thought there. Some view that as NOT trying to run up the score by giving the defense a chance to stop them rather than kick the field goal for the almost guaranteed points.

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:25 pm

Only Texas and Penn State have conceded fewer points to OSU, 24 & 28 respectively, and only two teams have scored more on OSU - NIU (12) and Iowa (17).

For what one journalist described as a "break" this week, I can't see how OSU has walked away with any less of a game than they've had so far this season, and as its apparently all down hill to Michigan with Mich State, Indiana, Illinois, & Northwestern to come, I wouldn't be surprised to see one of those teams taking a 50 point licking, bearing in mind Wisconsin hung 41 on Northwestern today.

So much for a blowout. I see no problems with Tressel's calls. Great BG effort, solid game.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:32 pm

I can kind of see the first fourth down conversion. However, being 4th and one in the red zone and going for it is absoultely classless.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:33 pm

Rightupinthere wrote:Did you expect them to go for a field goal?

I don't see a problem.

Neither do I.

At Temple a couple of years back, we got our 70th or 72nd point or something like that by calling a run on fourth and goal from the 12. Dan Macon -- who was third or fourth on the depth chart at that point -- took it in.

We made the right call then, and Tressell made the right calls today. Basically, we needed to sack up. On one of those fourth down calls, we did, and that was nice to see.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:38 pm

Having laid big money on us, I was getting very upset.

Glad we got the stop. I don't think there was a problem going for it on fourth and 1. It's the fourth and 6 when they could have punted that I had a problem with.

I'm starting to think Tressel might have been trying to cover at the end there. When a team has covered a bunch of spreads in a row, and you have 6 1/2 points to go, and you go for it twice on fourth down there, well that's just a tiny bit fishy.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:46 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:Neither do I.

At Temple a couple of years back, we got our 70th or 72nd point or something like that by calling a run on fourth and goal from the 12. Dan Macon -- who was third or fourth on the depth chart at that point -- took it in.

We made the right call then, and Tressell made the right calls today. Basically, we needed to sack up. On one of those fourth down calls, we did, and that was nice to see.

With a moment to think about it away from the passion of the moment, I can see this side. I agree with J4H on the 4th and 6, though. But then again, why wouldn't they go for it there when they just threw a fly pattern for a 60 yard TD already up 21?

It's our defense's job to stop the opponent regardless of the play call and position, but a couple of those calls go against the common thought of "Jim Tressel doesn't run the score up against anyone."

I'm starting to think Tressel might have been trying to cover at the end there. When a team has covered a bunch of spreads in a row, and you have 6 1/2 points to go, and you go for it twice on fourth down there, well that's just a tiny bit fishy.

Let's just say he won't be going back home to Y-Town for awhile.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:49 pm

I don't really have a problem with going for it on 4th and one either. The 4th and 6 call was a little shaky...it may have been more sporting to simply punt the ball and hope to pin us down.

Whatever the case, I really like the effort our kids put forth today. They didn't quit and they made some plays defensively. The game would have been much closer with a touch more consistency on offense and better punting.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:23 pm

I agree with the others that had the problem with the 4th and 6 call. I thought that was ridiculous. I was extremely proud of our team throughout today's game, but I was the most proud after they ponied up and stuffed them on that 4th and 1.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:34 pm

TG1996 wrote:Let's just say he won't be going back home to Y-Town for awhile.

Not without his AKs and body armor he won't.

falconfan1999 · Post by **falconfan1999** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:45 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
TG1996 wrote:Let's just say he won't be going back home to Y-Town for awhile.

Not without his AKs and body armor he won't.

Wait, are we talking about Jim Tressel or Maurice Clarett?

no class

no class

Re: no class

Re: no class