I'm not sure it matters if he is NBA ready or not. If LeBron opts out and publicly says he's signing/spending the rest of his career with whoever drafts his son, teams post-lottery will line up for the chance to draft him.

I don't think there's any question that Jackson could play OT at OSU, I think the question is whether it's worth moving him from a position he likely projects best to in college/NFL and is already playing at an elite level at.

Yes, thank you. That is exactly what I meant. Could Jackson make the move to tackle and be a more-than-serviceable option? Sure. It certainly seems that way. But moving him to tackle is absolutely not the same thing as Paris moving back out to tackle after he dabbled at guard. Johnson was a tackle prospect through and through, who looked like he had been developed in a lab assigned to create NFL left tackles. Jackson isn't that guy. And while his arm length and athleticism could allow him to make the move in pinch, he will always be better suited to play guard. So the question becomes is the theoretical upgrade from Mickalski to Jackson at LT worth the clear downgrade it will generate from Jackson to whoever is behind him at guard? 

Yea, I think a lot of people look at starting o-line spots like they're just moving people around in a video game. Jackson is a dominant guard in college football, and while I am sure he'd be a serviceable left tackle, he isn't going to be better at that spot than he is at his more natural position. So let's say Jackson is a marginally better tackle than Michalski. He still isn't going to be Paris Johnson. So is it really worth moving Jackson and getting worse at two positions (LT AND LG), rather than simply having a slightly larger drop-off at a single position (LT), and allowing Jackson to continue to improve at guard? 

I think this is an excellent point of view. It is entirely possible the staff believes it already has a really solid left tackle option in Michalski, but behind him is a giant Bosa-shrug. It would make sense in that scenario that they'd be searching for a portal option, but telling them, "hey, we're dangerously thin at left tackle. Come here and you'll have an immediate chance to start, but we do have a guy we like, so it'll be a competition, and you'll have to earn it." If everyone else is guaranteeing them the job already, we become much less appealing. But if the staff actually does like Zen, it's best to be honest with our portal options and avoid the potential cancer straight-up lying to them could cause. 

I could totally see the point in your first post. This one? Not so much. 

Ransom was getting burned for a TD on that play regardless of whether he fell down or not. Arian Smith is their fastest receiver and we didn't even bother to jam him at the los going into his route

Yea, there’s literally no way of knowing that. Sure, Smith is the fastest guy on the field, but how many people did he run past up until that point? If a football was as simple as, “send you fastest guy running in a straight line and you’re guaranteed to score,” it wouldn’t make for a very interesting game. We had covered him the entire night just fine. Mostly without jamming (not sure why that seems to be a prerequisite here). Ransom tends to play the ball well once it’s in the air, and I have confidence he would have been fine has he not biffed in the worst possible way. 

The fact that no other defenders were anywhere near the play aside from Ransom makes me think that that was a formation Knowles drew up in the sand that they'd barely even practiced

Also, this not even in the realm of possibility. Knowles didn’t become one of the most highly sought after DC’s in the nation by making shit up on the fly. He called a play he was confident his players were talented enough to execute. Unfortunately for him, they didn’t.

I’m not invested in this argument enough to go back and rewatch the play, but odds are they simply rolled their coverage to where they felt more vulnerable with the blitz they called, like to, IDK, toward the best tight end in the nation, feeling that Ransom was more than capable of holding his own against Smith (I’m not sure without watching it again, but something like this would be completely reasonable).

I get your point, and it wouldn’t have been my preferred defense in that situation either, but on the other hand, no one was complaining when we were shutting Georgia out in the third quarter. It wasn’t like that was the first time he ran that defense all game. If your philosophy is to be aggressive, then that’s what you do. It bit him in the ass on that play because someone fell down. But once again, if he doesn’t fall, and we end up getting a sack with our pressure, everyone would be heaping praise on Knowles for “stepping on their throat.” 

All I’m saying is that the only people with any right to complain about an aggressive play call are the people who dislike aggressive defenses in general. If your a fan of aggressive play, then you can’t complain when it doesn’t work out. 

Everyone always jumps all over Knowles for being aggressive, but no one seems to notice what Georgia did on second and third down with the game on the line. They went cover zero and blitzed the shit out of Stroud. They put their corners/safeties on the same island Knowles did, the only difference is they didn’t have a guy fall down.

All off-season last year, all I heard about was how everyone wanted a DC to call a fast, aggressive defense. Well, here you go. You got exactly what you wanted. Being aggressive is great until it isn’t. And as fans, we all have the luxury to sit here now and second guess his decisions, but the fact is, if Ransom doesn’t fall down, no one complains about him calling that defense. It’s the same with the Michigan game. If the infamous Brown missed tackle resulted in a sack instead (which we were a nut-hair away from getting), or the McCarthey’s desperation heave goes off target and we get a pick, everyone here would be praising the aggression, and the go-for-the-throat mentality. You don’t get to have it both ways. 

You’re not wrong. But me no thinks he’ll actually be calling plays this year. More likely learning the ropes from Day for a season or two before taking over. And in the meantime we get to reap the rewards of him recruiting a few offensive linemen and running backs. 

You're not wrong, but that coach usually has to pay a buyout in order to do so (or at least the school he's going to has to pay it), so the school he's leaving at least doesn't end up completely empty-handed. I'm not sure what the player equivalent of a buyout is, but rarely is someone simply allowed out of a contract without any repercussions whatsoever. The players have that right now and it's turning the college football offseason into a shitshow.

I don't know. I understand what you're saying, but I feel like the whole process has spiraled out of control, especially now that NIL is in the picture. I mean, when you sign with a school, that school is guaranteeing you a 4-year scholarship. If your signature is a 4-year contract (minimum) for the school, is it really that crazy to expect a player to honor it for two seasons? I don't think it is. Putting a restriction like this on players could also slow the buy-a-recruit frenzy that we're seeing right now. If a player knows he's going to be held to his commitment for at least two years, will he be less likely to go bag-grabbing at a dumpster fire like Miami or A&M during his initial recruiting process? Maybe not, but that may factor more into some of these kids' decisions. On the flip side of that, would OSU boosters feel more comfortable shelling out for a recruit here or there if they knew he couldn't pull an Ewers and jump ship after their first payday?

Maybe you feel that way because everyone of your posts read like a recruiting apocalypse?

Umm we went into the spring literally two years ago without a single QB on the roster who had thrown a collegiate pass… then a game into the season, half the fan base was calling for the chosen QB’s head. 

People around here have a very selective memory.

Nah, that wouldn’t happen, because NIL would still exist in addition to it. Revenue sharing would just be a nice starting point for all discussions. “Hey player X, come to Ohio state and you’re guaranteed $Y amount of money a year through sharing. You come in, work hard, and become the starting QB, and you’ll make more in NIL here that anywhere else as well.”

The interesting thing in all this NIL nonsense, is that, with the new tv contract, the Big 10 is well positioned to begin profit sharing with its players. Something other conferences are not in a position to do, seeing as how most other schools are nearly operating at a deficit. So for as poorly as the conference seems to be handling NIL, a move like that could practically be check mate to a lot of other schools trying to keep up. 

So what? Let’s say we cave and offer to match what Lincoln was getting offered by Washington. While he’s the main prize for Washington, he’s our 12th best recruit and rated as the 14th best QB and 205th best player in the country. What are the ramifications of that? Now we have to pay everyone ranked higher than him at least that much right? What about a guy like Inniss? He’s a five star. How much do we now have to pay him so that he doesn’t feel slighted? And then if we don’t give that to Tate as well, he gets miffed and heads to Tennessee. What about QB recruiting next year? We’re flirting with five stars and we just set a precedent for handing out big bucks to a guy who isn’t even in the top 200. How much do you think we have to start negotiations with in that instance to even get in the door? Let’s say the magic number that Washington was offering was $250k upfront. Using that as a jumping off point, we’re not talking about spending $4-6 million to bring in the class we just signed, let alone if you want to dabble in a few of the five stars we just missed on. And if we’re spending that on recruits, how much will it cost to keep our team intact and not feeling jealous of one another. Day said $13 mil, but when they find out we’re giving half that number to twenty-some unproven freshmen, there’s going to be a reckoning at the top. Etc. Etc.

No, we just finished with the fifth best class in the nation without playing that game. And next year, we won’t have to deal with the snowball effect of an offer like that. Maybe in the future we will, but for right now, the brand still means something, and it could mean a lot more after the next few weeks. So I’m fine with the “come to Ohio State and we’ll get you your money once you prove yourself” strategy, and telling kids to bet on themselves, because doing that is currently still giving us plenty of firepower to compete for championships. 

I posted this exact thought in the 2023 recruiting thread, but here it goes again:

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. He was the gem of Washington’s class. No kidding they are going to fight to keep him. It isn’t that Washington can consistently out-NIL us, but they certainly can for a single player. Most of Ohio State’s class would be the top dog at another school, and those other schools may be willing to shell out big for a single top dog. But on the flip side, Ohio State can’t afford to pay their entire class that kind of money, so they’re left fighting against everyone else’s top offer. The Washington’s of the world have to shell out for what, two or three high value guys a class? That’s sustainable. But at Ohio State, EVERYONE is a high value guy to other programs. That’s why the wealth has been more evenly dispersed this year than any other, and that’s why we’re seeing guys get poached. Lee means more to Auburn, and Fletcher means more to Florida, and Lincoln means more to Washington, than they do to us. And that’s not saying they don’t matter to us, they certainly do. But if another team views one of our middle-of-the-class guys as a class-defining player - one of the handful they’re willing to go broke for - we’re likely to get out-bid because we can’t afford to play that game with 20-25 kids in a class. 

I was going to post this in the last thread about everyone being amazed by us being out bid by Washington, but it closed, so here it is:

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. He was the gem of Washington’s class. No kidding they are going to fight to keep him. It isn’t that Washington can consistently out-NIL us, but they certainly can for a single player. Most of Ohio State’s class would be the top dog at another school, and those other schools may be willing to shell out big for a single top dog. But on the flip side, Ohio State can’t afford to pay their entire class that kind of money, so they’re left fighting against everyone else’s top offer. The Washington’s of the world have to shell out for what, two or three high value guys a class? That’s sustainable. But at Ohio State, EVERYONE is a high value guy to other programs. That’s why the wealth has been more evenly dispersed this year than any other, and that’s why we’re seeing guys get poached. Lee means more to Auburn, and Fletcher means more to Florida, and Lincoln means more to Washington, than they do to us. And that’s not saying they don’t matter to us, they certainly do. But if another team views one of our middle-of-the-class guys as a class-defining player - one of the handful they’re willing to go broke for - we’re likely to get out-bid because we can’t afford to play that game with 20-25 kids in a class. 

The measuring stick isn’t the the rest of the big 10.

 Translation: Stars matter and we don’t have enough of them!

 This graphic means absolutely nothing,

 Translation: Stars don’t matter. If they did, we’d never lose because we have more than everyone else! 

Way to pick and choose your narrative there, champ…

Exactly. If we had half a dozen more three-stars, we’d be sitting in third, but instead of bitching only about NIL, the same people would also be bitching about us using up scholarships on the Trey Leroux’s (God knows he’s caught enough flack) of the world, and about how our average rating isn’t high enough because of them. At least this way they can only bitch about one thing. 

Honest question for everyone out there bitching about NIL. Removing Alabama and Georgia from the equation, whose class would you like to switch with?

Miami? They have 17 blue-chip recruits to our 18, and they had to drop all kinds bags to do it, bringing in a bunch of mercenaries in the process. 

Texas? Sure, their money bought them a few extra five-stars, but they obviously aren’t spreading the wealth very much with only nine of their other seventeen commits being blue-chips

 Oregon? Everyone is quick to throw out Phil knight money because of their recent surge, but up until today their class was average at best and they just had their QB poached. 

A$M? They’re a dumpster fire. 

Florida or Auburn? For all the talk of them buying recruits top recruits, it still bought them a class worse than ours. 

I understand the angst disappointment in the fact that NIL likely cost us Downs, Fletcher, Wilson, Keeley and MU. I get being mad about it costing us an all-time great class. But at the same time, have some damned perspective people! This is still a class that all but two or three other teams would trade for. And frankly, I’d rather have this group of twenty guys who really want to be here despite not getting paid, than any other class in the country not named Alabama or Georgia. 

And before anyone gets started with the “well, it’s Bama and georgia that we're competing with! Rabble Rabble Rabble!" Know this: Michigan just beat us twice, despite us having a clear talent advantage. So why couldn’t we do the same to Georgia by building a team of guys who are in it for the school rather than the money? In fact, now that I mention it, we may do just that in a little over a week. 

Some fans around here could stand to be lost…

These threads recently...

Yea, if he becomes a part of the program again, it would have a dramatic effect on their recruiting.