Love Bandit, OSU would have beat UC last for the same reason they beat Oregon, UC has no defense. Yeah uc went 12-1 last yr, but they were giving up mounds and mounds of points to some pretty average teams (UConn comes to mind).
Well maybe early in the year UC would have had a chance to beat OSU, but not by November.
it's difficult to speculate how UC and OSU would have turned out, because they didn't play, but I have a difficult time thinking that UC could have won. I just don't see the Bearcats playing good enough defense and also I could see OSU running the ball too easily. if OSU runs the ball with ease, you can pretty much count them in for the win.
Heh-heh-heh......well, yes, thank you for some substance to the argument. And while anyone dangling a buckeye in front of me knows I'll bite, truth be told I'm talking shit out of my ass, and you are more right in your words than I think I am in mine

. I agree, Cinci had little to no defense, but they didn't need it when scoring 30+ most of their games. Tressel ball rarely scores above 30

So, it comes down to exactly what you say - can tOSU run the ball and keep Cinci's scoring down to where tOSU wins? Or does Cinci score a few quick ones and force tOSU into a catch up game - something they aren't accustomed to doing, even against a weak defense? We may never know...as I strongly suspect Cinci is more of a 2-3 year flash in the pan, wheres tOSU remains among the top 2-3 in the Big10+1 every year (until TX comes along, and Rich-Rod gets his act together

). If I had to put money on it, I'd probably go with my heart (rather than my head that has to nod to what you say) and say Cinci's offense would have pulled ahead and stayed ahead in such a match up - but it will remain an unanswerable, since they don't play eachother.
and I can't believe you are stating that UC probably would have won because they had more Heisman contenders? I'm sure you know the stat of how the Heisman winners do in the National Championship, but you are even talking about Heisman contenders - not even winners.
troll bait taken, score one for me

Heisman winners is a weak argument for wannabe's. Heisman contenders is a shit argument for never-will-be's. Glad to see we agree that argument I made is bullshit :D
the USC loss was bad, but early in the season the Buckeys weren't looking like the National Title contenders we all know them to be tOSU faithful wish they were
fixed. nobody else thinks they were last year, at any point of the season.
The SEC is still top dawg.
....
And the weather is great!
Seriously, how can anyone argue with this awesome SEC logic?
But I'll also admit I got a bit sick in knowing we (SEC) had 9 teams in bowl games. Yes, it says we can fill seats with our 9th best team, and most other conferences can't get seats filled with more than their 4-5th best team. But it doesn't say our 9th best team
belongs there, as proven by how well they do in the matchups

I want to 'puff up my SEC chest' for having so many teams in bowl games, but I quickly stifled it when watching so many of those teams lose. Meh, I'm heading down a path of the bowl situation, affiliations, and crap bowl games....not a place I want to go, because that doesn't even have the fun of teasing tOSU fans about a mythical game against Cinci. There is no enjoyment to be had with our bowl system. We need playoffs. Period.
I want to go get in the March Madness thread, but if the SEC gets more than 3-4 teams in the tournament, I'll vomit. We don't deserve it, and we'll get our asses pounded like we deserve (other than UK (Final 4), TN (Elite 8), and Vandy (Sweet 16)).