Sometimes, I think Tresselball slowly drives one crazy. As humdrum of a dude as Jim Tressel is, he inspires a diverse range of opinions, and frustrates and/or annoys many people for many different reasons.

For non-fans:

- He's sort of on the boring side, in the same way Alex from Clockwork Orange is sort of on the crazy side.

- He can make even the best of teams look bad, and will still find a way to lose to them and prevent an otherwise rather cool upset. (Texas 2005, Texas 2008, USC 2009)

- As boring as he may be and as boring as he may make other teams, his teams win consistently enough to stay in the national picture.

- GRR ESPN PAID PLAYER$ GRR O$U MAURICE CLARETT GRRR to which I say:

For Buckeye fans, all that crap is more annoying that anything else. Yeah, he's boring off the field, but we're largely used to that. What's tough to get used to is how hard it is to gauge whether or not his teams are truly great. After the year is over and 10 or 11 wins are in the books, it's easy to label the Buckeyes great. During the year, when we're down 26-10 to Purdue... it's not so easy. And it just might make some of us go insane.

You probably wonder why we're conditioned to accept his boring ways off the field but not on the field. Part of the reason is that nobody really pays attention to press conferences and other public appearances, and the demeanor of a coach before the media means jack and squat when he's winning, and Tressel usually is. Urban Meyer is usually a pretty damn boring interview, and Pete Carroll, despite all the glitz and glam and charisma, still occasionally retreats to the same old "gotta make plays, gotta execute" tripe when cornered. At the very least, Tressel rarely changes things up, so there's no expectation of anything else after all these years.

On the field, Tressel comes up with a brilliant gameplan every now and then - Texas 2006, Iowa 2006, Michigan 2006, Penn State 2007, Penn State 2009 - that completely befuddles both opponents and Buckeye fans alike, who were expecting simply more of the same. Instead, Tressel's teams took the field and remained aggressive for all four quarters, even after having built sizable leads. This may lead to charges of classlessness by bitter opposing fans, but it left us a tad bewildered, even as happy as we were: what happened to the days of 16-13 against San Diego State, after all? But for every one of those brilliant games, there are lately two or three Purdues in 2008 and 2009, or two repeats of Penn State and USC in 2008. It's not that Jim Tressel teams don't win enough - I'm getting the feeling that won't be the issue for quite some time, if ever - it's that the way they win (and lose every now and then) is pretty gutwrenching, so much so that it makes me (and others, probably) look downright bipolar. Nitpicking? Perhaps. Let me give an example that may make this clearer for you.

In Happy Valley last Saturday, Jim Tressel was given the ball at his own twenty yard line and opted to attempt to run out the clock, knowing fully well that Penn State had each of its time-outs left. Up to that point, all that had worked for Ohio State was the run game and a few bubble screens. It was 10-7. Coach Tressel opted to run the ball three times (once in the Wildcat, for the first time all year in a meaningless half-closing sequence) and punt the ball back to the Nits. One more floundering Penn State drive later, Tressel had the ball at the 50. He called exclusively deep balls, each of which fell incomplete, and the half ended with the offensive equivalent of a fart noise.

Jim Tressel faced this decision with his offense on its own twenty yard line with ~2 minutes remaining in the half:

1. Run the two-minute offense, which had worked against Wisconsin and Minnesota (prior to a drive-ending pick in the end zone)

2. Run the ball and punt

He chose the latter.

With ~30 seconds left at the 50, he faced this decision:

1. Lob moonballs - don't even attempt to get in field goal range

2. Run the ball and end the half

He chose the former.

This vexes me. I'm terribly vexed. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that when Ohio State starts on its twenty, a turnover is obviously a bigger deal than PSU intercepting the ball to end the half. But... Ohio State had yet to show a predilection for turnovers in the game, and Terrelle Pryor hasn't made a non-endzone gaffe on a two-minute drive yet this season. Is putting yourself in position for three or seven points worth the risk? Saturday night, Jim Tressel didn't think so, and after Ohio State dominated the second half, I can see why. But even as we accept the prior scenario as apt given Pryor's checkered past, why, in the second scenario, not even try to get into field goal range? Ed. note - I seem to recall Ohio State having timeouts here, which inspired my righteous indignation, but may indeed be mistaken. If so, I suppose this makes some sense.

I'm no coach (and any team coached by me would be fucked from the get-go when I try to install the "NCAA 10" offense and blitz on every down), but I'm not sure how you can look at Pryor's deep ball (witness: the pass to Sanzenbacher that landed in Philly) and imagine it paving the way to a score with a half-minute left in the half and most of Penn State's defense playing deep, especially after comparing it with previous successful drives that moved the ball and at least gave Ohio State the opportunity to score in similar situations against Wisconsin and Minnesota. 

In the wake of a 24-7 win, this does indeed seem like nitpicking. But at the time, a 10-7 lead seemed awfully tenuous, and resulted in much whining from yours truly in the live thread:

This is looking just like last year’s game. Ohio State is going to cling to this lead until it doesn’t exist anymore. How much faith do you have in the offense to rectify that situation when it comes? [Waaaah.....]

No, Penn State wasn't really moving the ball, but just because it hadn't happened didn't necessarily mean it wouldn't. Literally the exact same situation had occured in Columbus just a year ago; it wasn't until Daryll Clark was out of the game that Penn State cobbled together two successful fourth-quarter scoring drives and shat all over the good karma Ohio State built up in the first three quarters. This is why Jim Tressel football can be agonizing to watch, as Ohio State sits on a very vulnerable lead, runs off-tackle, and just hopes the defense can hold on to the bitter end. This strategy, fortunately, never reared its head in Happy Valley. Thanks to Penn State special teams' blunders, Ohio State was able to put up a couple touchdowns and seal the game.

This strategy however, has its shortcomings: against USC this year, Texas in 2008, Penn State in 2008 they were all made quite clear. Holding on for the win puts an incredible amount of pressure on the defense, and I can't help but feel we're getting away with it a bit more this year because this defense is so damn good, and because it features the best front four since 2002, if not the best of Jim Tressel's tenure at Ohio State. But even this front wilted under pressure during USC's final drive, which most Buckeye fans had to be expecting by around the middle of the third quarter, when the realization set in that, aesthetically, this was really not much different from the Texas and Penn State games of yesteryear.

 We've seen the build-a-lead-and-hang-on-for-dear-life routine before, and it has ended badly more often than not. Paradoxically, while Tresselball is all about limiting turnovers after said lead has been built, it makes turnovers that much more damaging to the team if and when they eventually do happen, as the lead was not built to withstand more than one or two at the most. This makes it twice the harrowing experience it could be if the offense actually tried to score when not gifted beautiful field position by the sheer wanton stupidity of the other guys. The margin of error with Tresselball is still razor thin, and while it results in more wins than you can shake a stick at, it's not difficult to see why so many of us Buckeyes act like headcases watching our team because we can't quite get a grip on whether or not the team is actually as awesome (or, in the case of the Purdue game, as awful) as it may seem.