It is if you can't get past the fact that even with that underperforming offense we still win 10 a year...

dwccrew wrote:

newarkcatholicfan wrote: He has not won a big game with his own players.

newarkcatholicfan wrote: Michigan has not been a big game for a while now.

BIG GAME TOP 5-10 TEAM.

2004- #7 Michigan had only one loss and the Bucks dismantled them 37-21. Michigan went on to lose the Rose Bowl by 1 point to Texas.

2005- Notre Dame was #6 in the BCS when the Bucks dominated them, with Tressel's players.

2006- Beat #2 Texas, #2 Michigan and Iowa was #13 (just outside the top ten. With Tressel players.


This season he beat #10 Iowa and #11 Penn State, with his own players.

People mainly have a problem with his style of play not translating to wins against OOC teams. The style works in the Big Ten because the Big Ten is a horrible conference. We win the Big Ten easily by playing a certain style, which builds up Tressel's confidence that the style works, then we lose when we play the bowl game or a big out of conference game against teams that have a similar talent level to us (sometimes we lose big). So once again, no one has a problem with Tressel winning or winning the Big Ten....no one is complaining about that. Its that he wins playing a certain way that doesn't translate itself to success out of the conference, which is what gets your respect this day and age, not beating up on a craptastic Big Ten conference. And that needs to change.

And LOL at using the ranking at the time of the game to justify a "big game". Really, both Texas and Michigan were the #2 team in the nation in 2006? Texas had a freshman quarterback and went on to have an ok season, but they certainly weren't a great team. Michigan showed that they were the second most overrated team in college football (behind the buckeyes). Seriously, isn't it funny to look back and think about the fact that people were lobbying for these two to have a rematch in the NC game because they were so clearly better than everyone else? No, its just that they were clearly better than everyone else in the Big Ten. Both would have been middle of the pack SEC or PAC 10 teams.

Big Gain wrote:

lacknett wrote: Actually the Big 10 was one of the best conferences in football throughout the 90's. Now its one of the worst. The coaching is down and the talent it down. How many all pros are in the NFL from Tressel? Cooper wasn't a great coach either but he had boatloads of them. And for those dogging USC rebuilding or what not....whatever. They still beat the Big 10's best team on the road and have been beating the Big 10's best teams all decade long.

14 points scored on offense against a terrible Michigan team with getting 5 TO's....nuff said about Tressell and his coaching. His selection of offensive plays is worse than "Tecmo Bowl." His only savior is he coaches in a conference that doesn't have the talent to stop his plain vanilla offenses. Maybe he should think about running different plays out of the same formations as opposed to running the same play out of different formations. Its just like somebody on here said, "If I know what play they are going to run then imagine what the other coaches know"

Ohio State won the freaking game. ONLY ignorant whiners are PO'd if Ohio State doesn't score 50 points.

Yawn....did you even read what was posted?

newarkcatholicfan wrote: His own players would start after his first class became seniors that way the Jr. class, Soph. class and the Freshmen class would be all of his own players.

How many in a row has he lost against top five teams?

trep14 wrote:


And LOL at using the ranking at the time of the game to justify a "big game". Really, both Texas and Michigan were the #2 team in the nation in 2006? Texas had a freshman quarterback and went on to have an ok season, but they certainly weren't a great team. Michigan showed that they were the second most overrated team in college football (behind the buckeyes). Seriously, isn't it funny to look back and think about the fact that people were lobbying for these two to have a rematch in the NC game because they were so clearly better than everyone else? No, its just that they were clearly better than everyone else in the Big Ten. Both would have been middle of the pack SEC or PAC 10 teams.

Michigan still finished in the top ten with a win over Wisconsin who ended the season with 1 loss (bowl win over tennessee) and finished #5. Texas ended #13 that year. Not that bad off. True, he still doesn't have that signature win with his own players, but you guys can't be so choosy and picky. He has big wins against Washington St. in 2002 and Miami (FL) in 2002. Also Kansas St in 2003. But you guys say it wasn't with his own players.

People can nitpick everything, the point is he coached the players to the wins.