The Bill and Doug Show: Ohio State Football Talk

Episode: Jeremiah Smith motivated, describing Ohio State talent, 2026 Heisman favorites: Around the Shoe
Date: December 15, 2025
Host: Doug Lesmerises and Bill Landis (plus guests Stephen Means and Stefan Kreischnik)

Episode Overview

This episode gathers Doug Lesmerises (C), Bill Landis (B), Stephen Means (A), and Stefan Kreischnik (E) for a lively, in-depth discussion on all things Buckeye football. The focus spans Jeremiah Smith’s controversial loss of the Biletnikoff Award, Ohio State’s current and future talent pipeline, early predictions for the 2026 Heisman Trophy, and comparative program outlooks for Indiana and Michigan. The tone is energetic, analytical, and at times humorously self-aware, with inside perspectives from four experienced Ohio State beat reporters.

Key Discussion Points

1. Jeremiah Smith and the Biletnikoff Snub (03:12–21:32)

Main Question

Why didn’t Jeremiah Smith, considered by many to be the best wide receiver in college football, win the Biletnikoff Award, and what are the implications?

Panel Reactions – “One Word” Responses

• Stephen Means (“Unrealistic”) (03:12)
  • Smith’s elite talent sets an impossible standard—voters expect him to do the extraordinary just to meet expectations.
  • “My word is unrealistic. JJ has to do something that's unheard of, it feels like, to win awards while everybody else can just do what JJ's floor is.” (04:46, A)
• Stefan Kreischnik (“Relative”) (06:15)
  • Expectations and evaluations for Smith are unfairly warped by his hype; defenses key in on Smith more than other receivers.
  • “If Jeremiah doesn't have 3,000 yards receiving, it's like, see, he wasn't as good of a recruit as everyone said.” (06:24, E)
• Bill Landis (“Motivation”) (08:09)
  • Believes this will motivate Smith to elevate his game in the playoffs—Smith feels genuinely disrespected, and he responds to slights.
  • “When Jeremiah Smith puts on full display the fact that he is the best college football player in the country...you will see why. He feels disrespected and I think rightfully so.” (09:12, B)
• Doug Lesmerises (“Circumstantial”) (13:54)
  • The process is more to blame than the outcome; stats-based voting excluded critical games and context.
  • “I said actually I thought that when Jalen Hyatt from Tennessee wanted over Marvin Harrison Jr. in 2022, I thought that was worse. But with Makai Lemon it’s… kind of in the same realm.” (13:54, C)

The Broader Problem with Award Voting

• Awards often come down to stats rather than who is truly best (“600 voters just look at the numbers” – 18:22, B)
• All-American team selection, featuring more discussion among a smaller panel, might better reflect true talent.
• There’s a tendency to “owe” a trophy to guys who get snubbed, which can backfire the next year.

Notable Quote

“He has set a standard for himself based on his talent that is almost impossible to reach. And then he's being penalized for not reaching the own impossible standard that he set for himself." (05:23, C)

Timestamps of the Segment

• 03:12 – First question and answers begin
• 10:14 – Smith’s direct response and motivation
• 13:54 – Circumstances and flaws in the selection process

2. 2026 Heisman Trophy Favorites (21:32–33:44)

Main Question

Who should be the favorite for the 2026 Heisman and how will the voting landscape shift?

Panel Picks and Thinking

• Stefan Kreischnik: Julian Sayin (Ohio State QB)
  • With another year, his development could boost his candidacy if OSU wins big games.
  • “He’s shown you that he can do everything to win the Heisman Trophy... another year in the system, it’s enough for me to think he’ll do it next year.” (23:33, E)
• Bill Landis: Jeremiah Smith (Ohio State WR)
  • Predicts voters may broaden their criteria beyond just QB stats. Smith’s stardom and production set him up well.
  • “I think maybe his rise to what should be his Heisman year might be coinciding with a bit of a shift in the way the Heisman voters think about things.” (26:14, B)
• Doug Lesmerises: Also leans Smith, especially with Carnell Tate leaving, meaning Smith could dominate targets. But notes it’s historically tough for receivers.
• Stephen Means: Also Jeremiah Smith, citing the lack of proven depth at WR for OSU, creating a “funnel” to Smith.

Notable Quotes

“Are there just six safeties covering Jeremiah every play?” (28:31, C)

Timestamps of the Segment

• 21:32 – Heisman favorites question introduced
• 23:33 – Kreischnik’s analysis
• 26:14 – Landis’ argument about voting mindset shift

3. Ohio State’s All-American Talent and Roster-Building Approach (34:11–42:17)

Main Question

How would you describe Ohio State’s overall talent and its source?

Panel Themes (“One Word” Each)

• Bill Landis (“Proof”) (34:11)
  • OSU’s blend of recruiting and development pays off; focus on homegrown talent is the right way forward.
  • “Players...lurking and hiding in plain sight until it was their time to play and then turning into bona fide stars is a pretty good validation.”
• Doug Lesmerises (“Surprising”) (36:10)
  • Even after decades, he’s surprised by how much talent keeps emerging, especially from guys who weren’t top recruits.
• Stephen Means (“Validation”) (37:15)
  • Ryan Day’s blueprint—recruit, develop, supplement with transfers—is proving to work at the highest level.
• Stefan Kreischnik (“Patience”) (40:05)
  • Credits players like Kaden Curry for staying and developing rather than bolting for portal money: patience pays off for players and team.

Notable Quotes

“This is no longer Ryan Day is benefiting from Urban Meyer’s world. This is Ryan Day benefiting from his own world and having some foresight on how to do things.” (38:44, A) “There’s not a lot of guys in college football that would do that. And it’s a balance of Ohio State having the right approach...Ohio State backed it up but those guys had to do it too.” (41:07, E)

Timestamps of the Segment

• 34:11 – Talent discussion begins

4. Program Confidence Scale: Indiana vs. Michigan (42:17–57:34)

Main Question

On a scale of 1 to 100, how much do you believe in Indiana football and Michigan football—both now and in the immediate future?

Panel Averages

• Indiana: High 70s to 90 (Avg: 83)
• Michigan: 46–60 (Avg: 52)

Reasoning – Indiana

• Indiana’s credibility is rising (Kurt Signetti effect): Turnaround, hardware (Big Ten title/Heisman), capable of building through both recruiting and portal. (87 – 51:33, E)
• “It just feels more sustainable now...because of the level of accomplishment.” (51:05, E)
• Caution: It remains to be seen if they can sustain it once James Madison transfers age out.

Reasoning – Michigan

• Current turbulence/uncertainty: Coaching instability; under NCAA/FBI investigations; challenges in making a great hire.
• “It wasn’t that long ago that Rich Rod and Brady Hoke happened...they’ve demonstrated an ability to sort of have the floor drop out on them.” (54:54, B)

Notable Quotes

“What you don't want to do is fall behind in this race, because I do believe that if you fall behind now, you're not going to catch up and then you're going to be new Nebraska or new Miami.” (47:58, A) “It was not long ago I was in college...If the media school professor at Ohio State threw a few million dollars my way, guess what? My parents would’ve driven down to Bloomington and picked me up.” (41:36, E)

Timestamps of Segment

• 42:17 – Indiana/Michigan question starts
• 53:41 – Closing comments on instability

5. Playoff Format – What’s the Ideal Number? (57:34–62:01)

Main Question

What is the perfect College Football Playoff format?

Panel Preferences

• Stephen Means: 10 teams, 2 byes, 4 auto-bids (57:57)
• Stefan Kreischnik: 16 teams (“more meaningful football; play-ins instead of conf. championship games,” 58:31)
• Bill Landis/Doug Lesmerises: Generally happy with the 12-team setup; see benefit in increased parity (“I think they got it right by accident”, 60:43)

Notable Quotes

“There’s just not more than 10 teams on a given year who can say realistically we can win a national title.” (57:57, A)

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On Jeremiah Smith and Motivation:
  “When Jeremiah Smith puts on full display the fact that he is the best college football player in the country over the next month, you will understand why now. Because this happened to him and he feels disrespected and I think rightfully so.” (09:12, B)

• On the Unfairness of Award Voting:
  “He has set a standard for himself based on his talent that is almost impossible to reach. And then he's being penalized for not reaching the own impossible standard that he set for himself.” (05:23, C)

• On Patience and Development in College Football:
  “There's not a lot of guys in college football that would do that...it's not an easy thing to do. So I think the patience that a guy like Kaden Curry showed...help[ed] make this season possible.” (41:07, E)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:12: Jeremiah Smith/Biletnikoff discussion begins
• 13:54: Overview of voting confusion/process
• 21:32: 2026 Heisman Trophy predictions begin
• 34:11: Discussion of Ohio State’s All-American talent
• 42:17: Indiana vs. Michigan belief scale
• 57:34: Playoff format preferences

Conclusion

The panel delivers deep, insightful, and often witty analysis, highlighting the peculiarities of award voting, the shifting Heisman landscape, and the nuances of building a sustainable top-tier college football program in the NIL/transfer portal era. Whether discussing statistical nuance or institutional patience, the episode is invaluable listening (or reading) for any Buckeye or college football fan who wants context beyond the box score.