Here ya' go, Domers: Actual ND football talk

[Van]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/s ... id=4032629

It touches on Weis, of course, but this one's mostly real 2009 ND football talk. It's the kind of stuff that makes you wish football would get here, already.

One thing I got out of it, though, was that they sure are making a lot of that Hawaii game. Weis even says, "I don't care that it was Hawaii, that day we would've been competitve with anybody."

Charlie, what was so different about that day, other than the opponent? Had USC been the opponent again, would you have scored a TD?

The other thing I got from it was just the cool feeling of what it must be like to be involved in that program, in the pre-season, when Joe (yes, that Joe) is prowling the sidelines, talking about how he'll need to work on the third string QB's throwing delivery, after practice.

When Joe's kid is on the team and Joe's there too, that's a pretty serious program. If I'm one of the underachieving shlubs on that team, I'm telling myself, "That's Joe fucking Montana, and this is Notre fucking Dame. I have a responsibility here. No more losing at home to Syracuse. No more getting shut out by USC. It's time. We end this bullshit, right now, today..."

By the same token, if I'm Pete Carroll I'm sending Ronnie Lott into that USC clubhouse and locking the door, a half hour before USC runs out of the tunnel in Columbus.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Okay, I'll play, I guess.

First off, it's ESPN. I learned long ago to take anything ESPN writes or says with several grains of salt. That goes double, perhaps even triple, when the topic is ND football.

Having said that, I was glad to see the article mention Young. Imho, Young is a microcosm for where ND football is right now. Simply put, when a guy comes in with those types of accolades, then starts every game since he first set foot on campus, one would expect that by this time in his career, he'd be a monster, or at least a Ryan Harris-type OL. That he has failed miserably to accomplish even the relatively modest latter goal speaks volumes as to where player development is right now at ND. Even there, though, there are signs of hope at long last. Latina, perhaps the worst offender when it came to player development on the staff, is now gone, replaced by Frank Verducci (although Verducci's history suggests that he got the job, at least in part, because he's not afraid to work for a lame-duck coach). This year will tell if the program made a significant move in the right direction, or if the change is too little, too late.

I think your comment on Montana was just a little out of context. Would Joe Montana be staying after practice to work with ND's third-string QB on his delivery if that third-string QB were not named Nate Montana? The short answer is no. Having said that, I'm glad that Montana was at ND's practice, and I hope he goes to all of them, if for no other reason than to serve as a living, breathing example of the sort of uncommon greatness that ND football used to produce somewhat routinely, but now barely produces at all.

Is Weis arrogant? Imho, yes. But, a little bit of arrogance in a ND football coach can be a good thing, if it's done the right way. This year is make-or-break for Weis in that regard. If his comments were accurate, it apears that he recognizes that fact, even welcomes it.

Did Weis make too big a deal out of the bowl game win over Hawai'i? I think that question needs to be answered within the context of the big deal the media in general, and ESPN in particular, made out of ND's erstwhile bowl game losing streak. After all, as the adage goes, turnabout is fair play. But not for nothing, most ND fans would consider the amount of time since ND made a legitimate run at the national championship to be a far greater indictment of the program than the fact that ND lost nine straight glorified exhibition games before winning one. The win over Hawai'i doesn't fix that.

It's nice to get an article like this in the dead of offseason about your team, even if it comes from the WWL, so I'll rack Van for that. But I take it for what it's worth, nothing more. I'm not one to scrutinize all the minutiae of spring practice, then pretend I have all the answers. And perhaps this is, at least in part, a function of the fact that my profession requires this of me, but as I grow older I develop a greater tolerance for ambiguity, at least in the short term. The answers to most of the major questions I have about this team remain unknown, and for that matter unknowable, until September.

[Killian]

Actually, I thought that was an extremely well written article. People are making a lot out of that Bowl win, but I think the reason they are is because it was their first bowl win in almost 15 years, and they finally kicked the shit out of someone they should have. Last year, ND should have blown out SDSU, Navy and Syracuse. They almost lost to SDSU, let Navy back in at the end, and lost to an awul Syracuse team. Plus, that win came with a Soph throwing 5 TD passes, 3 to a Soph WR, 1 to a Soph RB, and a Soph RB had a kick off return for a touchdown. Say what you want about Weis, but that fucker has gotten some talent on campus.

Van, to your point, I think they would have been competitive with a lot of teams that day. The difference between that game and the USC game was night and day. First off, they had Michael Floyd back which didn't allow to roll coverage over to Golden Tate's side. This wouldn't have made much of a difference against USC, but it was a factor. Second, they went in to the USC game after one of the most embarassing losses in school history and with rumors that Weis was gone. No team is going to get up for that. And you saw the majority of that team roll over. That should have sealed Weis's fate, but it didn't. I think two things then happened. Weis realized he was lucky as fuck to still have his dream job, and it was made very clear to him that he needed to do a lot to change his ways. So he took the team out to Hawaii and let them basically do whatever the fuck they wanted. This was completely different from the Fiesta Bowl in '06 and the Sugar Bowl in '07. He let them go out and have fun and as a reuslt, had a much more relaxed team.

Also, Weis called the plays from the booth and he was clicking, as was Clausen, all game long. Clausen was 22-26 and literally all 4 incompletions were drops.

Everything Terry said was spot on. This whole season is riding on the offensive line. If they pull their shit together and rush for 175 yards a game, there is no question this team will make a BCS game. Their schedule is fucking horrific. I'm not in the OMG Shirtless Verducci camp just yet, but I think he is a significant step up over Latina.

I will say this, I think Swarbrick has the bar for next year set at 10 wins. Anything less and Weis will likely find his walking papers. Anything less and he should find his walking papers.

[TheJON]

I didn't read the article. It's a Notre Dame article written by ESPiN and so I don't think I could stomache such garbage.

Killian, I know this will make your eyes pop way the fuck out of their socket but let's be honest here.......the media has been trying to keep Notre Dame in the spotlight for years. This is nothing more than them trying to make Notre Dame football, yet again, into something it is not and has not been for a long time. If you can't see it for what it is, I'm sorry but you're just plain clueless.

Look, I think ND can have a very good team. The schedule is weak, as Killian said. But talks of BCS or National Title for crying out loud is insane. I am not saying it's impossible (well, the national title thing is), but beating fucking Hawaii in the College Basketball Invitational errrrrr Hawaii Bowl (is that the name of the bowl? I don't know because I don't watch those shit bowl games) is not a reason to start talking national championship.

Hawaii was fucking PITIFUL. There was not 1 major college team they could have beaten last year except maybe U-Dub or Wazzou and even those games would have been toss-ups. As for the whole "well, we finally blew out a shit team".......big fucking deal. I saw Iowa teams that were disappointments a couple years ago go blow some shit team out and think maybe we're turning the corner and then they go lay an egg the next week.

Bad teams blowout bad teams from time to time. It's not reason to start talking BCS. Yes, they'll be a more veteran team next year (yet still relatively young). But come on.......you're trying to convince me that all of a sudden a 7-6 football team that was about as good as their record indicated (maybe even worse- remember, San Diego State??) is now going to win 10-11 games and go to the BCS the next year because they beat the crap out of a very bad WAC team in some shit bow? Come on now. It just doesn't work that way. Take your 8-4 or maybe with some breaks, 9-3, season and be happy with it. 11-1 or 10-2? Come on now.......that's just crazy talk. Don't buy what ESPN is saying about your team because your team happens to be their favorite. Get back to me when they don't lose by 30 to every good team they face. As soon as you start doing that, maybe we can talk about potential 10 win seasons.

[Van]

Killian, I gotta say, the difference wasn't that Weis just let the kids play. The difference was that he just let them play against Hawaii.

Letting them just play in the Fiesta against Ohio St in '06 and especially in the Sugar against LSU in '07, he didn't see quite the same results.

Also, no, having one extra receiver wouldn't have made a bit of difference against USC. It would've been no factor at all. The difference you needed was in the O line, which couldn't even begin to protect Claussen, or generate any sort of a running game.

With the quality of USC's secondary and the pressure their front seven was applying, the addition of a Michael Floyd would've been akin to sticking a kitchen magnet on the side of the Titanic...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hawaii was fucking PITIFUL. There was not 1 major college team they could have beaten last year except maybe U-Dub or Wazzou and even those games would have been toss-ups.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/hhc

I'm not a big fan of the transative comparison, but since you brought it up, Hawaii did beat Washington State, and while the game wasn't quite a blowout, it wasn't exactly a tossup either. Hawaii also lost to Cincinnati (a BCS team) by less than one TD. Granted, both games were home games, but the bowl game against ND was a de facto home game as well.

you're trying to convince me that all of a sudden a 7-6 football team that was about as good as their record indicated (maybe even worse- remember, San Diego State??)

Yes, ND struggled mightily against San Diego State, and had to withstand furious late-game rallies by both Stanford and Navy to hang onto a win. OTOH, Pitt needed four OT's to beat ND, Syracuse got a late score to win by 1, and North Carolina won by less than a TD, with the game-winning score coming in the 4th quarter. So while ND could have been 3-9 about as easily as it was 6-6, it also could've been 9-3 about as easily as it could've been 6-6. So 6-6 is about right, I suppose. But a more veteran team (which is what ND will be next season) might have found a way to win more of those games, wouldn't you agree?

I didn't read the article. It's a Notre Dame article written by ESPiN and so I don't think I could stomache such garbage.

. . .

Don't buy what ESPN is saying about your team because your team happens to be their favorite.

Had you not posted that first sentence, it still would've been obvious from the last sentence posted above. ESPN said no such thing.

[Killian]

JON, I know you think that ESPN is trying to keep Notre Dame relevant. The fact is, Notre Dame will always be relevant. The people who love them will read almost every article and either agree or disagree. The people who hate them will do the same. Notre Dame is the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of college football. The people who hate them will tune in or read an article and to see dirt thrown on their grave. The people who love them will tune in and read to root and wait to prove the nay sayers wrong. And that's just if it's a negative article.

From 2004 to 2004, Notre Dame went from a team that was 6-6 (with a bowl loss) to a team that was 9-3. The difference, as Terry pointed out, was a team that was full of young players who went from underclassmen to upperclassmen in one offseason, and they learned to finish games. In 2004 they lost to BYU in a close game on the road, and lost leads against Pitt and Boston College. They got smoked by Purdue, USC and Oregon State. In 2008, ND lost a close game on the road to MSU (Ringer ripped off a long run and later a TD to ice it, all with under 2 left), lost double digit leads against Pitt, Syracuse and UNC, and got smoked by BC and USC.

ND's team last year was even younger than it was in 2004. ND has an absolute garbage schedule, and should be favorites in every game except USC and possibly MSU. No where did I say they would be competing for a national championship. I said if the offensive line is improved and they average 175 yards a game, 10 games should be the minimum. The games they lost last year were because of their in ability to run the ball. When Clausen was off (second half of UNC, Pitt, Syracuse), ND couldn't do shit.

Van, I agree having Floyd wouldn't have factored into who won and who lost, but I bet had he been healthy ND wouldn't have lost to Syracuse, and it wouldn't have taken them 3 quarters to register a first down.

[Terry in Crapchester]

JON, I know you think that ESPN is trying to keep Notre Dame relevant. The fact is, Notre Dame will always be relevant. The people who love them will read almost every article and either agree or disagree. The people who hate them will do the same. Notre Dame is the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of college football. The people who hate them will tune in or read an article and to see dirt thrown on their grave. The people who love them will tune in and read to root and wait to prove the nay sayers wrong. And that's just if it's a negative article.

For that matter, had JON bothered to watch the Hawai'i Bowl, he would've known that prior to the game, ESPN ran a scroll of all the FBS teams that had won bowl games since ND's last bowl win. I can't conceive of a reason why they would've done that other than to embarrass ND.

[Van]

Embarrass?

I don't know about that.

They were simply pointing out the gravity of the game for ND, is what it sounds like to me. They were simply trying to put lipstick on a pig, ie, trying to find a compelling angle to their game, which is exactly what tv networks always do.

ESPN very clearly does not have any grudge against ND, nor any bias against them. ESPN promotes the crap out of ND, far and above what ND deserves. ESPN would like nothing better than to see ND return to elite status, which would give ESPN and especially Lou Holtz a thousand more reasons and occasions to endlessly slobber.

If you don't think so, you've got your head in the sand.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Embarrass?

I don't know about that.

They were simply pointing out the gravity of the game for ND, is what it sounds like to me.

As I pointed out, most ND fans would consider the length of time since ND legitimately contended for a national championship to be a far greater indictment of the current state of the program than the bowl game losing streak ever was. Remember, this is a program that didn't do bowl games for a long time, regardless of the circumstances, and changed that policy only when it became apparent that bowl games were a necessary evil if ND ever expected to contend for another national championship. The Hawai'i Bowl, therefore, did nothing to change the current state of the program for ND fan. The only reason a win was important was so that the media in general, and ESPN in particular, would STFU.

ESPN very clearly does not have any grudge against ND, nor any bias against them. ESPN promotes the crap out of ND, far and above what ND deserves. ESPN would like nothing better than to see ND return to elite status, which would give ESPN and especially Lou Holtz a thousand more reasons and occasions to endlessly slobber.

If you don't think so, you've got your head in the sand.

USC fan, of all people, complaining about ESPN promoting another school?

I'm not privy to what is going on in the mindset of ESPN's braintrust (word used verrrry loosely). And there certainly are some on-air personalities there with ND ties -- Mike Golic, Lou Holtz, Bob Davie and Digger Phelps, for starters (also, to a lesser extent, Dookie Vitale, whose daughter and son-in-law are both ND alums). Having said that, when it comes to ND, ESPN is, without a doubt, guilty, at a minimum, of extremely shoddy journalism on numerous occasions, which has had the effect, if not the intent, of placing ND in an extremely misleading light. Some examples, just off the top of my head:

- When Willingham was fired (and, for that matter, again later when Weis was not immediately fired), ESPN made not-so-thinly-veiled allegations of racism against ND. I suppose it's possible for reasonable minds to differ as to whether Willingham received a fair shot at ND, and whether retaining Weis for this long was the wise thing for ND to do. What cannot be disputed, however, is that in both cases, there were legitimate, non-race based reasons for each decision. I'd also note that on a larger scale, one of the tragedies here is that ESPN is actually right on the larger issue -- imho, there is a component of racism when it comes to coaching hires. But to look at one of the few schools that has shown a willingness to hire an African-American head coach and accuse that school of racism -- well, all I can say is that ESPN is looking for racism in all the wrong places.

- I was out to dinner with the wife and daughter when ND hired Swarbrick as athletic director, and I was treated to ESPN's crawl which referred to him as "Indianapolis attorney Jack Swarbrick." That, of course, created the impression that it was a totally off-the-wall hire. Only later was I able to do some research and find out that Swarbrick had been the chairman of the Indianapolis sports authority, in which position he had negotiated bringing a Super Bowl to Indianapolis, as well as a sweetheart deal with the NCAA to bring one Final Four in the next decade to Indianapolis, and a first/second round and/or regional site in either the mens' or womens' tournament to Indianapolis in every other year. He also was influential in getting the NCAA to move its headquarters to Indianapolis from the Kansas City area. I'd say that qualifies him to be athletic director at ND, far moreso than your average, run-of-the-mill "Indianapolis attorney," wouldn't you? He also happens to be a ND alum (not an absolute requirement for the job, but it certainly helps one to "get" ND, something his predecessor, Kevin White, never did).

- After Gruden got fired by Tampa Bay, we were treated to the specter of ESPN running breathlessly with some non-story about Gruden lobbying for the ND job. No harm, no foul, I suppose, except for the fact that Swarbrick already had come out and said that Weis was safe, and oh, as it turns out, Weis and Gruden happen to have the same agent. Typical of the sort of hair pulling that passes for "journalism" at ESPN these days.

- During the ND-Washington game (televised on ESPN), I was treated to banter between Mark Jones and Bob Davie, in which Jones stated that he was surprised at the number of "ND fans who made the trip from South Bend" and mentioned how warmly they all greeted Davie. Misleading on two counts. First, absent a large-scale charter flight from South Bend to Seattle (a possibility I'll at least concede, since one of my classmates runs a travel agency which focuses a significant portion of its business on organizing large-scale trips to ND events, but ESPN never mentioned anything along these lines), I doubt that all of the ND fans in attendance "made the trip from South Bend." ND's fanbase is not confined to the South Bend area and immediate vicinity, never has been and never will be, and ESPN apparently still does not get this. Second, in terms of popularity among ND's fanbase, Bob Davie runs slightly ahead of the possibility of a modern-day recurrence of bubonic plague (that's probably giving him the benefit of the doubt). Now, I don't expect ESPN to advertise that fact, least of all on a game he's announcing, but let's not get carried away in the opposite direction, either.

- For years, ESPN has been leading the drumbeat of "ND won't be relevant again unless/until it joins a conference." Of course, that ignores the fact that independence is part of what makes ND unique. I'm not saying that independence should be etched in stone forever and ever, but I am suggesting that given its relation to ND football, the proponents of conference membership bear the burden of proof. And the only argument I'm hearing from ESPN in support of that is "everyone else does it." I'm pretty sure we all made that argument to our parents at one time or another (hell, I've been a parent long enough that it's been made to me as well). I'm also pretty sure I know how it turned out, across the board. It doesn't have any greater standing than that when the topic is ND independence vs. joining a conference.

Just a few off the top of my head, and I'm reasonably certain there are more that I can't think of right now.

[Van]

Not one of those points demonstrated an anti ND bias on the part of ESPN. They all dermonstrated a desire by ESPN to have something to talk about, concerning ND.

C'mon...Bob Davie, Digger Phelps...Lou Holtz??

ESPN would kill to have ND be back on top again.

[TheJON]

Notre Dame is the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of college football.

No it isn't. While I hate the Yankees more than I hate Notre Dame, there is a huge difference. The Yankees are actually a good organization. Notre Dame has been sub-par for 16 years.

JON, I know you think that ESPN is trying to keep Notre Dame relevant. The fact is, Notre Dame will always be relevant.

Yes, that's true. BECAUSE of ESPN. If ESPN and NBC would just shut the fuck up about Notre Dame, no one would care about them except their fans.

ND has an absolute garbage schedule, and should be favorites in every game except USC and possibly MSU.

That reminds me of Iowa in 2006 and 2007. "schedule is weak, lot's of starters back from a team that lost a lot of close games...." Fact of the matter is Notre Dame played a very weak schedule last year and went 7-6. You can spin it every way you want about how they almost beat so and so, but 7-6 is still 7-6. The truth of the matter is this......Notre Dame was about as good as their record indicated. No better, no worse. They lost some close games against quality teams and they won some close games against some bad teams. That to me is about a .500 team. .500 teams don't usually go 10-2 or 11-1 the following year. The next step is 8-4 or MAYBE 9-3. Now, a year from now we might be having a discussion about the REALISTIC possibility of a BCS bowl or maybe even a national title run for them. But next year? Doubtful

[Van]

Now, a year from now we might be having a discussion about the REALISTIC possibility of a BCS bowl or maybe even a national title run for them.

Right, 'cause by then Weis will no longer be the coach. Once Gruden takes that gig I don't expect ND to stay in the toilet too much longer...

As to how to measure ND's performance last season?

There are a lot of ways to look at it. One obvious way would simply be to look at their record. I wouldn't, simply because so often a team's record is simply a function of an exceptionally difficult or easy schedule.

In ND's case, they picked up their wins against horrible teams...

-San Diego St, at home, a game in which ND struggled.

-Michigan, at home, a game in which an historically bad Michigan team struggled in bad weather, handing the game to ND via seventy three turnovers.

-Purdue, at home. A decisive win against an awful team.

-Stanford, at home. A close game against a bad team.

-Washington. ND's only regular season road win of 2008, wherein they beat another team in the midst of an historically bad season.

-Navy, in Baltimore. They squeaked out a close win against another bad team.

-Hawaii. 'Nuff said.

There aren't too many teams in BTPCF who wouldn't have managed those seven wins.

So, no, I don't put any stock in their record. Their schedule was easier than their '07 schedule, and they garnered a few more wins.

If I'm an ND fan, I know how I'm measuring my team: Schedules come and go and they can be manipulated to our advantage, but what really matters is whether or not my team is competitive against the competition we need to beat if we're to return to elite status.

With Michigan being in the toilet, they weren't a barometer game.

ND got hammered by BC and MSU, which were two of the three good teams on our schedule.

Then...

No first downs, not until the final play of the third quarter, against USC.

As an ND fan, that's all I would need to know. ND still isn't even in the same universe as USC, and it seems to be getting worse, not better.

If the goal is simply to schedule ourselves into artificial mediocrity, okay, fine, we're getting there. If however the goal is to return to elite status, and it fucking better be, then we remain mired in the lowest point in our history.

We're simply not competitve, not against quality competition.

That's how I'd have to measure the '08 season, if I'm an ND fan.

Looking at ND's schedule for '09, it's more of the same. BC and MSU are the only somewhat tough games on their schedule, and ND gets both games at home.

USC?

ND gets 'em in South Bend, USC is breaking in nearly an entirely new defense and their QB bolted early for the NFL. One way or the other, ND had better find a way to play USC tough this year.

If ND burps up a 9-3 season but the three losses are blowouts to MSU and BC, plus another total annihilation at the hands of USC, would their record matter?

In the Big Picture the only constant, the only dependable barometer by which we can measure ND's progress, is whether or not they've significantly closed the gap on USC.

[Laxplayer]

No it isn't. While I hate the Yankees more than I hate Notre Dame, there is a huge difference. The Yankees are actually a good organization. Notre Dame has been sub-par for 16 years.

Right now the Yankees are not a good organization. They just spent the national debt on 3 players, one of which has Goodyear written on his side and may not last the year. CC Pavano may be out before the all star break. If you remember you dumb fuck the Yanks were horrible from the early 80's until the mid 90's. Let's not forget the time post 1964-1976. Georgie Porgie has done more to screw up that team than you have to mess up this board. As far as ND goes, Weis may not be the man and if he doesn't win at least 10 games then I think they throw out on his ass and bring in Gruden. Can they be competitive vs. $UC? Hopefully because that is the measuring stick in CFB right now. It's not Nevada, SDSU, Navy, etc....you have to dominate the games vs. weak teams and beat the mediocre teams and then be competitive vs. the elite teams. Right now ND is not there and many ND faithful are not sure Cheesesteak is the right guy for the job. Time will tell.

[TheJON]

Right now the Yankees are not a good organization.

Playoffs in 12 of the last 13 years. 4 World Series titles and 6 world series appearances. Yeah, terrible.

CC Pavano may be out before the all star break.

Right cuz CC is just always injured.......

If you remember you dumb fuck the Yanks were horrible from the early 80's until the mid 90's. Let's not forget the time post 1964-1976.

What in the bloody fuck does that have to do with anything? They suck now because they sucked 20 years ago??? Nice argument, smart guy.

Georgie Porgie has done more to screw up that team than you have to mess up this board.

Yeah, I know. They only make the playoffs and contend for a World Series title every year. That fucking Steinbrenner just keeps screwing things up! George was a shit owner. But he had so much money that it was impossible to screw up. Proof of that is exactly what you said about them sucking pre-Strike era under Steinbrenner for much of his tenure. After the strike, the biggest factor in being successful was having money. And since he had more money than everyone else, it was nearly impossible to fuck up.

But yeah, the Yankees organization and Notre Dame football right now are just about the same. Fucking retard

[Van]

Lax, if you had your 'druthers would you rather see ND do just well enough for Weis to keep his gig or is getting Weis outta there so important that you'd prefer another subpar season just to insure he gets the boot..

[Laxplayer]

Playoffs in 12 of the last 13 years. 4 World Series titles and 6 world series appearances. Yeah, terrible.

No world series titles in the last 9 years. Yep, terrible. Especially when you outspend everyone and expect to win every year. Yes, terrible. Their last WS win was when you had an actual take.

Right cuz CC is just always injured.......

Murphy's law asshole. I'm making a joke. Look at the last few big time FA pitchers or guys they've acquired in trades the Yanks have signed. Hideki Irabu...bust, Randy Johnson, bust, Carl Pavano, buts, Kevin Brown, bust....I'm just going with what's happened to them over the years. Don't even get me going on Steve Trout.

What in the bloody fuck does that have to do with anything? They suck now because they sucked 20 years ago??? Nice argument, smart guy.

If you have any clue about what the Yanks have done over the last 30 years you'd understand but in M200l like fashion you can't. I'll explain it to you. During the late 70's the Yanks were successful, then George started to change his mind on what type of team he wanted year after year. One year he signs Dave Collins and Griffey Sr. to get more speed in the line up because he wants to play little ball, then he signs guys like Don Baylor and Jack Clark to go with the power game. Then he went into the FA market to buy championships and it didn't work. 1981 they lose to the Dodgers, and they don't do shit for another 14 plus years. During the mid 90's they build from within. Jeter, Pettitte, Posada, Williams, Rivera, etc...along with a few key trades like Paul O'Neil, Charlie Hayes, Scott Brosius and what happens? Success. Once they won their 4th WS fat boy went out and started to try and buy championships again by trading good young talent for old shitty talent. He did the same thing for the last few years and now with CC, Texiera, Burnett you've got a bunch of mercinaries who don't give a fuck about winning, they've never won and they don't know what it's like to be a Yankee. They're just in it for the money.
Granted you wouldn't understand that because you're a dumb fuck.

Yeah, I know. They only make the playoffs and contend for a World Series title every year. That fucking Steinbrenner just keeps screwing things up! George was a shit owner. But he had so much money that it was impossible to screw up. Proof of that is exactly what you said about them sucking pre-Strike era under Steinbrenner for much of his tenure. After the strike, the biggest factor in being successful was having money. And since he had more money than everyone else, it was nearly impossible to fuck up.

Uh, no they don't contend every year. They've been bounced early in the playoffs recently but those facts would just confuse you. Well even with all his money he's fucked up so if you could see the success teams like the Rays, D-backs etc...have had recently then maybe you'd be able to understand my point.


Van, I think CW has had enough time to prove his worth or lack thereof. I like the fact that he's made changes to his coaching staff, but in all seriousness has he really closed the gap on the top notch teams in CFB? Where is this decided schematic advantage? Where is the toughness, where is the scrappiness? Where is the running game? I think his first year was a huge surprise and a lot of us ND fans bought into it. I would like nothing more than to see ND win but if this is what the ND brass is going to stick with then I"m not sure I want them to win. Just get someone in there who can win and I'll be happy.....oh, and follow the rules.

[TheJON]

Uh, no they don't contend every year.

And you call me a dumb fuck??

Man, you sir are fucking stupid. Playoffs every year (except last year) and one of the best records in the league = contention you fucking moron. Just because they've been bounced early doesn't mean they're not in contention.

If the Yankees aren't in contention, then who the fuck is? The World Series champ and nobody else?

God damn, dickweed, I just got dumber for having to argue with this retard.....

No fucking wonder our nations education system is in the shitter, they hire idiots like you.

[Laxplayer]

Being in contention means actually having a chance to win. If you've followed baseball the Yanks haven't had the pitching to get past the first round of the playoffs which fuck tard is why they have been losing to teams like the Angels, Indians, tigers etc....
the Yankees have been built for the regular season. Power hitting, average pitching, a closer, but erratic bullpen etc.....this is why they haven't won the WS in almost 10 years. Losing 3-1 n the ALDS does not make a team competitive. Making the playoffs does not make a team competitive. With teams that flat out suck all the Yanks have to do is outspend everyone and bingo they're guaranteed about 85 wins a year based on talent alone. Their problem is they run into teams with better pitching, a deeper bullpen, better hitting etc....and they end up on the short end of the stick.

No fucking wonder our nations education system is in the shitter, they hire idiots like you.

...which then produces people like you.

[TheJON]

Being in contention means actually having a chance to win.

And making the playoffs doesn't mean you have a chance to win?? Jesus christ, I swear to fucking god.......

Let me let you in on this well known secret about about baseball....


IF YOU ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS YOU HAVE A REALISTIC CHANCE TO WIN!!!!!

[Laxplayer]

I'm sorry if I outlined the reasons the Yanks have not been successful in the playoffs recently. I really don't want to have to type them all over again. I'm sorry you can't understand them. Making the playoffs in baseball these days isn't that hard especially when you have the payroll flexibility like the Yankees. If they outspend everyone they're going to get better players, however those better players don't necessarily translate into post season success. If you look at their championship years the keys to their teams were guys like Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Paul O'Neil, among the keys to their winning with Jeter etc....but even a dumb ass like you can realize that a team needs role players and a bit of fight in them which is what the Yankees have lacked in recent years. I really don't want to have to spell it out for you. It would be like explaining that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina to some of my special education kids.

[SunCoastSooner]

MLB hasn't declared bankruptcy yet?

[TheJON]

Making the playoffs in baseball these days isn't that hard especially when you have the payroll flexibility like the Yankees

Right. And going to the BCS at a school like USC is like stealing candy from a baby. What the fuck is the difference? The Yankees have unfair advantages (ie money) and schools like USC have unfair advantages (ie money, tradition, and enough recruits in their state to fill a national championship contending roster). It's the same thing.

So Ohio State goes 7 years without a national title and they're not an elite program?? Or Michigan? They haven't won a title in 12 years. USC goes to the BCS every year but haven't won since 2004. They must be a pitiful program, right?

My point was your comparison of the Yankees and Notre Dame is way off base. While the Yankees do have a butt load of money, at least they actually do make the playoffs. Notre Dame has all kinds of advantages. They've got money, they've got tradition, and they've got a national media out recruiting for them (that's a fact by the way, despite what Killian wants to believe) and they don't do shit and haven't done shit in years yet people still see them as this top notch program. A better baseball team that Notre Dame compares to would be the Mets. Lot's of money, not a lot of success.

[Van]

The Jon, I'd compare ND to the Dodgers, not the Mets. Nobody gives a rat's ass about the Mets. People care about ND, and the Dodgers. Both the Dodgers and ND have storied histories, rabid fanbases, phenomenal resources and fuckall success in recent years.

Lax is correct about why the Yankees have failed in recent years, but you're 100% correct in saying the Yankees have remained consistent contenders. If you're in the playoffs, you're contending. As recently as '04 the Yankees were up 3-0 in the ALCS, and leading late in game 4. They were on the doorstep to another Wold Series, one in which they would've been heavily favored to win.

The Yankees have been a tough out, for a buttload of years now. Along with the Braves they've been the most consistent winners in baseball over the past fifteen years, and they have a lot more to show for it than the Braves.

Last year, due to injuries, their pitching completely fell apart, otherwise they probably make the playoffs again.

Yeah, they buy their way into annual contention, but by and large it's certainly worked. Boston, Baltimore and the Dodgers also have spent a ton of money and none of them have had anywhere near the sustained success of the Yankees.

[Laxplayer]

So Ohio State goes 7 years without a national title and they're not an elite program?? Or Michigan? They haven't won a title in 12 years. USC goes to the BCS every year but haven't won since 2004. They must be a pitiful program, right?

Well for several years OSU was not an elite program. Is Michigan an elite program now? Nope. Aer Florida State and Miami elite programs? Who gives a shit about tradition. All these programs have money and where does it get them? Hell ND football brings in probably near 80 million dollars a year for the school and what do they have to show for it? Not a lot. Boise State has had more success recently than ND, but who do people care about? Who do people tune in to watch? Who do people want to see succeed or fail miserably? It sure the fuck aint Boise State. ND draws people, just like the Yankees. You either love them or you hate them. Shit, $C was very mediocre for 20 years with some success sprinkled in once in a while and I'm sure guys like Van, Jimmy etc...would tell you that they weren't an elite program despite their tradition, money, recruiting etc.....

My point was your comparison of the Yankees and Notre Dame is way off base. While the Yankees do have a butt load of money, at least they actually do make the playoffs. Notre Dame has all kinds of advantages. They've got money, they've got tradition, and they've got a national media out recruiting for them (that's a fact by the way, despite what Killian wants to believe) and they don't do shit and haven't done shit in years yet people still see them as this top notch program. A better baseball team that Notre Dame compares to would be the Mets. Lot's of money, not a lot of success

Well recently ND has been in two BCS bowls. I'm not sure people see ND as a top notch program. Anyone in their right mind knows that they are struggling with everything right now. Are they an elite program? Hell no, I'd rank them right around where Iowa is. A middle of the road D-1 school. I'm not sure the national media recruits for ND. Kids still have to qualify to get in and they still have to be sold on the school which is difficult. Bad weather, far away from home, have to attend class, women aren't walking around naked all year. Money just doesn't equal success and ND certainly has money so what has it brought them? They need better players, and better coaching. If you asked me if the Yankees were a contender for the world series this year I'd say they'll probably make the playoffs as a wild card but they don't have the starting pitching, or the bull pen to get through a tough series with a team like the Red Sox, Rays, or Angels. Does the fact that they may make the playoffs as a wild card mean they're a contender? You think so, I don't.

[Van]

women aren't walking around naked all year

Well...fuck..THAT!! It's college, and there are no naked hotties??

Dude, you just stumbled ionto the easiest way to get ND right back into the BCS title hunt picture.

As for USC not being an elite program, hell yeah, it certainly doesn't seem like it was too long ago when Rome was referring to USC as "L.A. City College," following shitty losses to shitty teams in shitty bowl games.

I gotta say though, as long as Pete and Urban Meyer stay put, I don't see either of those two programs falling off very much. A sub 10 win season would now be the definition of a disastrous year for USC. They won't be returning to the days when they were flat out embarrassing, not as long as Pete is there.

[Laxplayer]

I gotta say though, as long as Pete and Urban Meyer stay put, I don't see either of those two programs falling off very much. A sub 10 win season would now be the definition of a disastrous year for USC. They won't be returning to the days when they were flat out embarrassing, not as long as Pete is there

...and that's why both of them will continue to be successful. A sub 10 win season will have a lot of the idiots on wearesc bitching and moaning for Pete's head because they know little or nothing about football.

Now back to the naked chicks......

[Van]

Lax, c'mon, ND is sitting on a naked chicks goldmine. They ought to be proudly boasting a veritable trifecta of premium naked co-ed goodness...

-Catholic school girls
-"Girls next door" types
-Midwestern daughter warmth and innocence types

If ND really wants a seat again at the big boys table the first thing (okay, the second thing, following the firing of Weis) they need to do is make their entire campus look like an old Britney Spears video, at least when recruits take their official visits.

Catholic fucking school girls, only they're college co-eds now, sorority girls, even, and they're living on their own.

HOW did you lose to Syracuse again???

[Laxplayer]

Frank Zappa wrote a song about Catholic Girls....maybe they should change the fight song. The same way they lost to Navy the year before and struggled with the Spaztecs....they flat out sucked and the large one better win 11 games and a BCS game this year or he's out the door.

[Van]

"Why, yes, Ja'Wheezy, I am a freshman here at Notre Dame. Football games? Frat parties? Oh, gosh, I would never miss a single one...just as long as I have someone like you to escort me, and keep me safe.

Would you mind too terribly much if maybe I tagged along with you to the next party?

Daddy doesn't want me going to parties, especially with stud football players, but gosh darn it, I'm in college now and what daddy doesn't know won't hurt him, huh? ~giggle~"



~grabs cellphone, calls homies back in Florida~

"Bitch, you have GOTS to come here with me! We ALL coming here..."

[TheJON]

Does the fact that they may make the playoffs as a wild card mean they're a contender? You think so, I don't.

Wild Card teams have been making it to and winning World Series titles lately.

Is Michigan an elite program now?

Depends on your definition of elite, I suppose. Judging by what seems to be your definition, I'd say that Florida is the only elite program. Define "elite". Does finishing in the Top 25 year in and year out, with regular BCS and New Years Day Bowls constitute as "elite". I say it does. Because if you say it doesn't and ONLY winning national titles makes you elite, I guess Florida and LSU are really the only elite programs right now. 109 teams and 2 elite programs? That doesn't make sense. Elite is Top 10%. That's about 10-11 schools. Rank your Top 10-11 programs RIGHT NOW and those are the ones I'd consider elite.

Are they an elite program? Hell no, I'd rank them right around where Iowa is. A middle of the road D-1 school.

I would agree. In terms of on-field success, in this decade both Iowa and Notre Dame have been relatively similar. I would disagree with the middle of the road D-1 school, however. Both programs are better than that. Iowa's been Top 20 4 of the last 7 years and Top 10 in 3 of those and won 4 Bowl games in the last 8 years, along with 2 Big-10 titles. That's Top 25. Notre Dame has been to 3 BCS Bowls this decade. Middle of the road to me means there's 45-50 programs better than you. There aren't 45-50 better programs than Iowa and Notre Dame. Both are easily Top 30 right now even with ND's crap teams the last 2 years. They did make the BCS the previous 2.

[Laxplayer]

My top 10 CFB programs right now would be
SC
Texas
Florida
OU
Ohio State
Texas Tech
Georgia
Oregon
Bama is coming back
I gotta go with Utah based on last year

Now let me clarify....these are what I consider elite programs RIGHT NOW. There are some that will come and go. Maybe Utah is one of those. Some of these may not be up there next year based on a lot of things. I don't see Michigan as an elite program right now. They were 9-4 in 07 but with a coaching change, system change etc.....even good teams have down periods and UM is in one of them right now.

I guess Florida and LSU are really the only elite programs right now. 109 teams and 2 elite programs? That doesn't make sense.

I never said that.

[TheJON]

My top 10 CFB programs right now would be
SC
Texas
Florida
OU
Ohio State
Texas Tech
Georgia
Oregon
Bama is coming back
I gotta go with Utah based on last year

The question wasn't who were the Top 10 CFB teams last year. It was who are the top programs.

Because of 1 year teams like Utah, Texas Tech and Alabama are better than the likes of Michigan and LSU? LSU's got 2 national titles and averaged 10+ wins per year since 2003. Michigan wins 9+ games almost every year. I agree Bama is back, but still they've only had 1 good year since 2000.

[Laxplayer]

Elite teams all time vs. elite teams in the present are apples and oranges. Of course Michigan is an elite team all time, but right now they're not even close.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Lax, c'mon, ND is sitting on a naked chicks goldmine. They ought to be proudly boasting a veritable trifecta of premium naked co-ed goodness...

-Catholic school girls
-"Girls next door" types
-Midwestern daughter warmth and innocence types

If ND really wants a seat again at the big boys table the first thing (okay, the second thing, following the firing of Weis) they need to do is make their entire campus look like an old Britney Spears video, at least when recruits take their official visits.

Catholic fucking school girls, only they're college co-eds now, sorority girls, even, and they're living on their own.

You really don't know that much about ND, do you?

All male, until 1972.

In my day ('82-'86), it was 3:1 guys:girls. So not only was it a little tough to get a date, for a guy, with a fellow ND student, there was also pretty fierce competition for admission among the female gender. Most were ranked #1 in their high school class. There was a saying that went with the school back then -- Notre Dame: where men are men, and women are too.

I'm told that things have improved a little since my day, in both respects, but it's still not a 50:50 ratio yet.

And there are no sororities. Or fraternities, for that matter.

[Van]

I don't think I'd put Michigan in my Top 10 programs, not over the past ten years. They haven't been a good "big game" team in a long, long time.

LSU? Definitely.

Bama? No way. If Saban sticks around, yeah, they will be, shortly.

Over the last ten years or so? Hmmmm...

USC
Florida
LSU
Ohio St
Texas
OU

Shit. That's it. Those are the only elite programs, over the last ten years.

Stretching things, to try to get to ten teams?

Va Tech (God, I hate to include them. They're a total paper tiger.)
W. Virginia (Same thing.)
Boise St
Utah

I might try to jam Auburn in there somewhere. I'd at least put them above Michigan.

[Van]

Terry, who gives a flying fuck about pre 1972?? Who cares about ratios??

Ja'Wheezy sure doesn't. He's a stud athlete. He doesn't have to "compete" with you to land ND's best sluts.

Just trot the sluts out during recruiting visits, is the point. Assign one to each key player during their careers, for "word of mouth" purposes.

Quit being such a glass-is-half-empty guy. You can produce Catholic Girl sluts, even if they have to be pros, so work with me here.

[SunCoastSooner]

You people are actually debating in this thread as though either Notre Dame football or Major League baseball are relevant anymore...

[Terry in Crapchester]

So Ohio State goes 7 years without a national title and they're not an elite program?? Or Michigan? They haven't won a title in 12 years.

Since you brought it up (sort of), let's look at the following comparison, shall we?

Penn State: 14 years and counting since last national championship (1994)
Oklahoma: 15 years between consecutive national championships (1985-2000)
Alabama: 16 years and counting since last national championship (1992)
ND: 20 years and counting since last national championship (1988)
Nebraska: 23 years between consecutive national championships (1971-1994)
USC: 25 years between consecutive national championships (1978-2003)
Georgia: 28 years and counting since last national championship (1980)
tOSU: 34 years between consecutive national championships (1968-2002)
Texas: 35 years between consecutive national championships (1970-2005)
LSU: 45 years between consecutive national championships (1958-2003)
Michigan: 49 years between consecutive national championships (1948-1997)

Note that for purposes of this discussion, I'm counting split national championships as national championships.

All of these schools are generally considered elite programs. And all have had, viz-a-viz national championships anyway, extended droughts which either: (a) are ongoing at present; or (b) ended relatively recently (within the past 15 years or less). And while ND has had an extended dry spell, particularly by the standards of ND's fanbase, it's not nearly as long as some of the others.

Now, here's the part where I start to get confused. Maybe this is just an example of selective recall on my part, but I don't recall anyone ever calling any of these other programs irrelevant, even though a lot of them have gone through droughts substantially longer than ND's current drought. Yet the "i" word gets tossed around with respect to ND quite frequently. Why the different standard for ND on this point?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not one of those points demonstrated an anti ND bias on the part of ESPN. They all dermonstrated a desire by ESPN to have something to talk about, concerning ND.

I'd disagree at least as far as the racism allegations are concerned. But that's beside the point, in any event. All of the points I cited showed ND in a false or misleading light.

At a minimum, ESPN is guilty of shoddy journalism when it comes to ND, on more than one occasion. I'm hardly the first person ever to accuse ESPN of shoddy journalism. Nor have those accusations been limited to oversensitive ND fans. It's abundantly clear that ESPN doesn't "get" ND, and what's more, that ESPN is unwilling to do the work necessary to "get" ND.

C'mon...Bob Davie,

Prime example of someone who doesn't "get" ND. Exhibit A would be his infamous comment about ND needing to schedule "more directional schools." More than a decade later, that comment still gets reset about once a week on the ND homer boards.

Digger Phelps

A basketball guy, so not necessarily relevant to this discussion. In any event, on the rare occasions when I've tuned him in, he seems more interested in pimping the ACC than ND.

...Lou Holtz??

Truly sad that he's allowed ESPN to make a buffoon of him as "Dr. Lou." But money talks, I guess. In any event, any pro-ND comments on his segment are balanced out by Mark May. And let's not forget that ESPN had him giving Navy a pep talk before the ND game.