centralbucksfan;637942 wrote:Agree about the comparison. But you know as well as I do, that the OSU OOC schedule has nothing to do with how they are doing in conference play. And if it is, then the same could be said for just about every freaking team. And you just said as much about the conference comparison comment. Simple as that.

Big Gain;637807 wrote:If you had a desire to be accurate instead of an instigater you would have said it he wouldn't average 17/10 in the Big Ten, because that's what he's averaging now. OBVIOUSLY he won't be able to put up numbers like 25/10 night in and night out in the Big Ten. .

thedynasty1998;637968 wrote:Do I think they could have been better prepared for conference play? Yea, probably.

But OSU is still winning. If they would have lost one of those close games, then the OOC debate might have some substance. But they are winning, so there really isn't anything to talk about.


To discuss it during OOC play is one thing, but we are in conference play now so it's irrelevant.

Don't totally disagree. But again, its not like OSU is the only team who played poor OOC.

Prescott;638090 wrote:You keep replaying this argument and it has nothing to do with OSU's schedule or how that schedule might have prepared them for the rest of the season.

Not that it matters, but not everyone played as poor of an OOC schedule as OSU. Right now kenpom.com has OSU's OOC schedule at 179. duke is at 71;Kansas is at 93;Washington is at 33;Kentucky is at 27;Texas is at 49;Illinois is at 34.............Nova is the only top team that approaches OSU's level, as they are at 172.

thedynasty1998;638121 wrote:To make the argument "everyone does it" is just childish. As fans, we don't give a shit about anyone else.

The only argument in defense that is worth mentioning is "they needed to increase revenue, therefore had to schedule home games".

CinciX12;638155 wrote:Thats not the point. If you are going to play pathetic teams and just get an income from the game, why not schedule an in state opponent who would nearly sell the place out?

ytownfootball;638260 wrote:Damn, still on the pissy OOC shit I see....SMH

Doesn't playing a few close games in this short B1G season already prove that a brutal OOC schedule is not necessary?

Red Saul;638487 wrote:The Cunteyes wont last long at #1.

Prescott;638090 wrote:You keep replaying this argument and it has nothing to do with OSU's schedule or how that schedule might have prepared them for the rest of the season.

Not that it matters, but not everyone played as poor of an OOC schedule as OSU. Right now kenpom.com has OSU's OOC schedule at 179. duke is at 71;Kansas is at 93;Washington is at 33;Kentucky is at 27;Texas is at 49;Illinois is at 34.............Nova is the only top team that approaches OSU's level, as they are at 172.

swamisez;637976 wrote:I have never been and never will be an instigator on this forum. Judging by the name calling and the mindless retorts you and Prescott shared a while back, I think this will be the last post I put in your direction. I see nothing beneficial coming from reading your retorts.

As for you believing it is obvious that Sullinger won't average 25/10 during the Big Ten games, you may be more realistic than some of your peers. Granted every fan base has a few nuts, for your sake I hope the football community doesn't jump on the bandwagon for the basketball team. It could make rooting and cheering for the squad insufferable.

swamisez;636500 wrote:OSU is a decent team, but they need someone in crunch time to step up. I don't know who that is right now. I think Lighty?