Ohio State opens its 2026-27 regular season on November 2 against No. 25 BYU in Salt Lake City. The Buckeyes enter that game after a pair of exhibition contests that highlighted a familiar issue: rebounding. Jake Diebler’s team won its final exhibition 82-73 over Butler on October 25, but it was outrebounded 42-33, including a 19-5 deficit on the offensive glass. That performance followed an earlier exhibition loss to Cincinnati in which Ohio State was also beaten on the boards, 45-35. The pattern is consistent enough that rebounding remains a point of emphasis for Diebler heading into the road opener.
Diebler has addressed the issue directly in recent weeks. After a closed scrimmage against Louisville, he noted that the Buckeyes rebounded better through the middle of that contest but still struggled at the beginning and end. He has described rebounding as an area where Ohio State “hasn’t been as good in the last couple of years” and has linked strong rebounding to success in the Big Ten. The roster additions of Josh Ojianwuna, Andrija Jelavic, and Vuk Lazarevic were intended to improve size and physicality inside, yet the early exhibition results show the group has not yet translated those additions into consistent board control.
Exhibition Evidence
Against Butler, Ohio State shot efficiently—50 percent from the field and 40.9 percent from three—while forcing 16 turnovers. Those advantages allowed the Buckeyes to win despite the rebounding deficit. Amare Bynum led the team with 23 points and six rebounds, while John Mobley Jr. added 17 points. The offensive rebounding margin was particularly stark. Butler generated 18 second-chance points to Ohio State’s eight. In a closer game against a more efficient opponent, that disparity would have been more difficult to overcome.
The Cincinnati exhibition produced a similar result. Ohio State led at halftime before being outscored 49-33 in the second half. The rebounding gap contributed to Cincinnati’s ability to extend possessions. Diebler has acknowledged that the team improved in toughness and resiliency between the two exhibitions, but he has not claimed the rebounding issue is resolved. The staff continues to emphasize physical contact on the glass and positioning rather than pure technique.
Roster Context
Ohio State returns Bynum and Mobley as the primary holdovers from last season’s rotation. Bynum averaged roughly five rebounds per game in 2025-26 while playing significant minutes. The frontcourt also includes Ivan Njegovan and the incoming transfers and freshmen. Ojianwuna averaged 6.4 rebounds per game at Baylor before a knee injury cost him the 2025-26 season; he is fully cleared and expected to contribute. Jelavic arrives from Kentucky with a similar size profile. These pieces give the Buckeyes more options than they had in recent seasons when the team ranked near the bottom of the Big Ten in defensive rebounding rate.
Still, the exhibitions suggest the group has not yet developed a consistent interior presence that can limit second-chance opportunities. Last season, opponents frequently generated extra possessions against Ohio State, particularly against teams with capable big men. The 2026-27 roster was constructed in part to address that specific shortcoming. Early returns indicate the process is incomplete.
The BYU Matchup
BYU presents a relevant test. The Cougars averaged more than 38 rebounds per game during the 2025-26 season and finished with a positive rebounding margin. In their October 16 exhibition win over Nebraska, BYU collected 15 offensive rebounds and scored 15 second-chance points. The Cougars’ roster includes multiple forwards and centers capable of attacking the glass, including Jaxon Kohler, who recorded a double-double in that exhibition. Playing at the Delta Center adds a further variable; road teams that struggle on the boards often face longer possessions and fewer transition opportunities.
Ohio State will need its perimeter players to contribute on the glass as well. In recent seasons, guards such as Bruce Thornton have occasionally led the team in rebounding in individual games. Against a ranked opponent on the road, that secondary production becomes more important if the frontcourt does not dominate. Diebler has stressed that rebounding is both a physical and a mental requirement. The staff has practiced it as a priority throughout the preseason, and the BYU game will show whether that emphasis produces measurable improvement.
What Improvement Looks Like
Closing the rebounding gap does not require Ohio State to lead every game in total boards. It does require limiting offensive rebounds allowed and converting its own misses at a higher rate than it has shown in the exhibitions. Against Butler, five offensive rebounds were not enough to offset 19 allowed. In a Big Ten season, repeated deficits of that size typically correlate with losses, especially on the road. Diebler has noted that good rebounding teams tend to succeed in the conference. The early schedule includes BYU, UConn, Vanderbilt, and Kansas before the Big Ten slate begins in December. Those opponents will test whether the added size produces better results or whether the issue persists into the regular season.
The 82-73 win over Butler demonstrated that Ohio State can score efficiently and defend the perimeter. The rebounding numbers, however, remain the clearest unresolved item from the preseason. How the Buckeyes perform on the glass against BYU on November 2 will provide the first regular-season data point on whether that concern has been addressed.
