T1B

M Club wrote:

Laxplayer wrote:I don't like Kelly. Never liked the hire. WTF did he ever do?

errrr, won like 4000 national championships at grand valley state; turned cmu from a mac bottom feeder into its strongest program; then used cincy to tear through the big east. only took like four seconds at each to turn them around.

Surprised that a Michigan fan, of all people, would bring this up. Didn't you guys just have a flameout of epic proportions with a coach who, at least at the time, had the highest all-time winning % at West Virginia among coaches with more than one year of experience?

You of all people should know that success at one program doesn't always translate into success at another program.

maybe you guys should stop blaming all the decent coaches that come through. seems like an institutional thing.

I'm not always a fan of ND's administration, but they are taking some steps in the right direction of late. We were late to the table for EE's, very late for transfer students, but we do both now.

We probably should ease admissions standards a bit and maybe ease up on the academic requirements for a fifth year of eligibility.

Nah. You should probably just start winning more. As Mgo said, your admissions standards aren't preventing you from garnering consistently competitive recruiting classes, so that's not the problem. Whereas other programs succeed with much less, you're simply not doing anything with what you have.

Also, I seem to recall that Stanford just managed a monster recruiting class, and they've been in BCS bowl games the last two seasons despite being saddled with academic requirements that are quite stringent.

And M Club didn't claim that Kelly's success at his previous gigs was any guarantee that he'd achieve similar success at ND. He was merely answering Lax's "WTF did he ever do?" question. If anything, his point seems to be more along the lines that the head coach isn't the problem there, not when every guy you bring in suffers roughly the same degree of failure.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Surprised that a Michigan fan, of all people, would bring this up. Didn't you guys just have a flameout of epic proportions with a coach who, at least at the time, had the highest all-time winning % at West Virginia among coaches with more than one year of experience?

You of all people should know that success at one program doesn't always translate into success at another program.

Ja, you boring ass clown, rooting for Michigan totally precludes me from pointing out Brian Kelly had a resume that merited his hire at holy, sacred, everyone get a boner because it's Notre Dame. And speaking of Dickrod, if I had to live through the coaching search again I'd still be ecstatic about the hire since I can only go on the available evidence, which at the time was fairly promising. I just never expected him to show up and immediately start recruiting midgets to play Big Ten football. That and everyone but the two people responsible for hiring hated him and immediately began sabotaging his efforts, whereas Kelly was welcomed with open arms because he's a Catholic or some such nonsense wholly unrelated to coaching.

And since you bring up Michigan I'll take this opportunity to point out the Dickrod fiasco taught us a valuable lesson about who really drops everything just because Michigan called, whereas the short list of prospective coaches that comes out every time you guys go through a coaching search each new moon begins with Vince Lombardi, ends with Jon Gruden, and includes Bob Stoops and either Urban Meyer or Bill Beliceck, depending on whom you talk to. You fucks are delusional. I forget why you hired Davies, but when he wasn't good enough you went with the black guy because he proved you could win at a school with even tougher academics than ND; after him you hired the fat guy because he won 15 Super Bowls; and even thought those two hiring strategies didn't work out you now find vacuous douchebags ('sup, Lax) bemoaning the Kelly hire because what has he ever done except win. You guys aren't even internet dumbfucks; you're caricatures of internet dumbfucks.

M Club wrote:Ja,

Ja????? WTF is ja? Last time I checked, we post here in English, not German.

you boring ass clown, rooting for Michigan totally precludes me from pointing out Brian Kelly had a resume that merited his hire at holy, sacred, everyone get a boner because it's Notre Dame. And speaking of Dickrod, if I had to live through the coaching search again I'd still be ecstatic about the hire since I can only go on the available evidence, which at the time was fairly promising.

And I was actually happy with the results of the coaching search for Kelly. At the time, it looked like a good hire. Same as DickRod. So far, at least, the results have been underwhelming, albeit not quite as disastrous as DickRod's results at Michigan.

I just never expected him to show up and immediately start recruiting midgets to play Big Ten football. That and everyone but the two people responsible for hiring hated him and immediately began sabotaging his efforts, whereas Kelly was welcomed with open arms because he's a Catholic or some such nonsense wholly unrelated to coaching.

Can't speak to DickRod. But if you really think it's been nothing but wine and roses for Kelly at ND, then it's patently obvious that you haven't a fucking clue about ND, you smarmy little prick.

Most people at ND aren't exactly happy with Kelly over the Declan Sullivan incident, even if they, unlike Screwy, have stopped short of calling him a murderer over it.

Nor are most people happy over him advocating for stadium rock and field turf (which allegedly is coming in 2013, although I'm not yet completely convinced of that). Nor the way he handled the QB situation last year. Nor the alleged rift he created in the lockerroom when he compared Weis' recruits unfavorably to his own. Nor the run/pass ratio . . . and the beat goes on.

In fact, Kelly is so unpopular at ND that he has received a rather charming nickname (Purpleface) courtesy of the interwebs.

And since you bring up Michigan I'll take this opportunity to point out the Dickrod fiasco taught us a valuable lesson about who really drops everything just because Michigan called,

Yeah, because Brady Hoke was such a huge name in the coaching search. Hell, you couldn't even get Les Miles to return to his alma mater, much to the chagrin of LSUFan not named JSC810.

whereas the short list of prospective coaches that comes out every time you guys go through a coaching search each new moon begins with Vince Lombardi, ends with Jon Gruden, and includes Bob Stoops and either Urban Meyer or Bill Beliceck, depending on whom you talk to. You fucks are delusional. I forget why you hired Davies, but when he wasn't good enough you went with the black guy because he proved you could win at a school with even tougher academics than ND; after him you hired the fat guy because he won 15 Super Bowls; and even thought those two hiring strategies didn't work out you now find vacuous douchebags ('sup, Lax) bemoaning the Kelly hire because what has he ever done except win. You guys aren't even internet dumbfucks; you're caricatures of internet dumbfucks.

First of all, as I said above, I was actually cautiously excited about the Kelly hire, and I'm one of the few ND fans who has yet to completely write him off. I still see a window of opportunity for him at ND, although that window is rapidly narrowing.

And I recognize both the good and the bad that has come under Kelly. Yes, I was saddened about the Declan Sullivan incident (who wasn't?). And I'm less than enthusiastic over stadium rock, and considerably more negative toward field turf. I didn't like the way he handled the QB situation last year, I always thought Crist got a raw deal on that (too short a leash for Crist, far too long a leash for Rees). The inability to fix turnovers and the failure to even try to fix the punt return unit have also been a source of consternation. But at the same time, I recognize that the play on both sides of the line of scrimmage has improved markedly since Kelly was hired. Player development has improved considerably, as evidenced by both that and the fact that ND had two first round NFL draft choices last year for the first time since 1994. Yeah, most of this board probably could've coached Michael Floyd to first-round status, but Harrison Smith was another story altogether. If Charlie Weis was still ND's head coach, he would've been a fourth-round choice -- if he was lucky. So there's been improvement, at least in some areas. Just not enough, at least not yet anyway, to translate into significant improvement in the program as a whole.

If you want to look at the rest of the recent head coaches . . .

Davie: ND completely screwed the pooch on this hire. We dicked around with a flavor of the month (Barnett), and when that didn't pan out, we were left with Davie as the only guy we could get. Lou Holtz should have been succeeded by one of his DC's, but not Davie. Davie was the fourth-best of five DC's under Holtz (and maybe I'm being a little generous with that assessment). The guy we should've hired to succeed Lou was Barry Alvarez, and yes, he would've been gettable. Davie obviously would've preferred the aTm job to ND. No knock on aTm, and I'm sure Davie wasn't alone among the coaching fraternity in that regard, but any coach who would prefer the aTm job to the ND job has no business being the head coach at ND under any circumstances.

Ty: This hire was actually made in somewhat of a panic mode, as a deal for Gruden had fallen through earlier and then we had to go through the O'Leary resume debacle (I actually wanted a mulligan on the O'Leary hire, and thought Ty was an improvement over O'Leary, although it still wound up embarrassing us a little). Ty's problems were: (a) he was a lazy recruiter; (b) he didn't understand that the expectations at ND for the football team were considerably higher than they were at Stanford; and (c) he was loyal to a fault (literally) to his coaching staff. Of course, ND botched the firing (sup, El Bueno Medico Blanco) to the point that ESPN and its ilk got away with accusing ND of racism. Funny, but I never heard a retraction from those hacks following the job Ty did at Washington, which was far worse even than what he did at ND.

Weis: Was considered a "safe" choice for ND after they lost out on Meyer (a former ND assistant, btw). Weis also had been in the running for a number of NFL coaching vacancies. Weis was an outstanding OC who, I think, lacked the necessary social skills to transition into a successful head coach. He also may have underestimated the differences between coaching in the NFL and coaching in college -- while he focused on recruiting, and did quite well there, player development under Weis left a lot to be desired, except for offensive skill positions. I think an unsung reason for Weis' failure at ND was the heart attack of David Cutcliffe. I think Weis counted on Cutcliffe to be a head coaching mentor, as well as a sort of go-between between himself and the staff. In particular, Weis and his OL coach, John Latina, never seemed to be on the same page. Before coming to ND, Latina was the OL coach under Cutcliffe at Ole Miss.

Oh, and you've never heard me mention Gruden's name in connection with the ND job expect perhaps to shoot it down. Gruden hasn't coached at all in several years, hasn't coached at the college level in any capacity in over 20 years, and yet he's gonna come in and be the savior??? Honestly, I don't get why so many have such a mancrush on the guy. And fwiw, while this is strictly my opinion, I think Gruden is this generation's John Madden -- the coach who leaves the sideline for the broadcast booth and never goes back.

Van wrote:Nah. You should probably just start winning more. As Mgo said, your admissions standards aren't preventing you from garnering consistently competitive recruiting classes, so that's not the problem. Whereas other programs succeed with much less, you're simply not doing anything with what you have.

The bigger problem is with fifth years. ND doesn't grant a fifth year unless a player graduates in four, and gets accepted into one of ND's graduate programs. I've asked on several occasions for anyone here to cite another school that requires that, and no one has yet done so. Our fifth-year players aren't taking ballroom dancing. :P

Also, I seem to recall that Stanford just managed a monster recruiting class, and they've been in BCS bowl games the last two seasons despite being saddled with academic requirements that are quite stringent.

Stanford brought in 22 players in last year's class. Given that they're not in the SEC, and not coming off NCAA sanctions, that would tend to indicate that there were a lot of players in the departing class as well. And at least one of those guys was a pretty big reason why they've been in the BCS the last few years, in case you've forgotten.

And M Club didn't claim that Kelly's success at his previous gigs was any guarantee that he'd achieve similar success at ND. He was merely answering Lax's "WTF did he ever do?" question. If anything, his point seems to be more along the lines that the head coach isn't the problem there, not when every guy you bring in suffers roughly the same degree of failure.

And I agreed with him, to a point, in pointing out areas where the administration could improve its commitment to winning without jeopardizing ND's brand.

Btw, you asked for a rebuttal to Reilly's article, I provided one, and you failed to even comment on it. Very Un-Vanlike, if I say so myself.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:Nah. You should probably just start winning more. As Mgo said, your admissions standards aren't preventing you from garnering consistently competitive recruiting classes, so that's not the problem. Whereas other programs succeed with much less, you're simply not doing anything with what you have.

The bigger problem is with fifth years.

No, it's not. That's barely a problem at all. No one is winning on the backs of fifth-year seniors. These days, the stars tend to be underclassmen. Fifth-year seniors make up a small percentage of impact players.

Your recruiting classes vs your results, Terry. There's your problem.

Stanford brought in 22 players in last year's class. Given that they're not in the SEC, and not coming off NCAA sanctions, that would tend to indicate that there were a lot of players in the departing class as well. And at least one of those guys was a pretty big reason why they've been in the BCS the last few years, in case you've forgotten.

So? You're supposed to find excellence among consistent top recruiting classes. That's the whole idea. Besides, Luck doesn't have his success without those first-round draft picks on the OL.

Carson wrote:

the national championship drought is frustrating,

Auburn went 53 years and had two undefeated seasons during their drought.

Your knowledge of ND football history is apparently a bit spotty.

Included in ND's current drought is one season where ND suffered its only loss of the season at the hands of the eventual national champions (who also lost that season) as well as another season where ND suffered its only loss of the season by 2 points to a school that considers the ND game its personal Super Bowl, and in which ND beat the eventual national champion.

ND could lose to a military academy and still be considered.

Link?

Nope, no media love there.:clovereyes:

The media is not some sort of monolithic entity. Within the media are some who love ND and some who hate ND.

Btw, sorry for interjecting an actual fact into this, but you do know that ND beat Alabama in the '73 Sugar Bowl, and Alabama still won the UPI poll that year, don't you? http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... ?year=1970 In fairness, the voting was conducted before the bowl games were completed.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It's Reilly . . . and ESPN. 'Nuff said.

What about it? Is what he said wrong in any way?

A few examples, just off the top of my head . . .

1. The BCS revenue. A prime example of cherry-picking.

He's not wrong. ND has been getting paid by the BCS without even playing in BCS games. ND has also had a seat at the BCS table for no apparent reason. They've rarely even been a contender for one of those bowl games since the inception of the BCS.

2. The NBC contract.

He's right about it. Rationalize it all you want, but he's right.

3. While the national championship drought is frustrating, it's not exactly like no one else has ever gone through it. In fact, ND is nowhere near the lead in that dubious category. Off the top of my head, a few programs at the top of the prestige heap who have experience droughts comparable to, or longer than, ND's current drought:

Michigan: 49 years between consecutive national championships (1948 and 1997)
LSU: 45 years between consecutive national championships (1958 and 2003)
Texas: 35 years between consecutive national championships (1970 and 2005)
Ohio State: 34 years between consecutive national championships (1968 and 2002)
Georgia: 32 years since last national championship (1980)
Penn State: 26 years since last national championship (1986)
USC: 25 years between consecutive national championships (1978 and 2003)
Notre Dame: 24 years since last national championship (1988)
Nebraska: 23 years between consecutive national championships (1971 and 1994)

Alabama and Oklahoma also have had lengthy droughts, although not quite as long.

And every one of those programs other than Georgia and Penn State has won a championship far more recently than ND has, while also being consistently far better during the BCS era.

Notre Dame is not the first powerhouse to go through this, and almost certainly will not be the last. Yet they get more grief over it than all the other schools on this list combined.

That's because they get more preferential treatment than all those others combined while producing absolutely nothing to warrant said preferential treatment. ND isn't even Auburn or Tennessee anymore, so why are we still treating them as if they're Bama or OU?

4. The conference thing. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that every school that plays in a conference decided at some point that playing in a conference was in its best interests. ND, in contrast, has decided that not playing in a conference is in its best interests. Those who advocate forcing ND's hand into a conference don't really want ND to be treated like everyone else. In reality, they want ND to be treated differently from everyone else because they don't like the decision ND made on its own.

In reality, they're tired of ND demanding that they be treated differently from everybody else. They're tired of you talking about what the ND fanbase wants, as if ND deserves to be treated differently.

No one cares. Win something. Become relevant again, and not just in terms of the obligatory ND coverage given by ESPN and every other media outlet despite the fact that ND hasn't been anything but a middling Big East-level team for twenty years.

Terry wrote:Btw, sorry for interjecting an actual fact into this, but you do know that ND beat Alabama in the '73 Sugar Bowl, and Alabama still won the UPI poll that year, don't you? http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... ?year=1970 In fairness, the voting was conducted before the bowl games were completed.

Yeah, and USC went to Tuscaloosa during the regular season in '78 and curbstomped Bama yet there were still split AP/UPI national championships despite the two teams ending up with identical records.

Are we ever surprised when Bama gets crazy preferential treatment, especially back when Bear was there?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

M Club wrote:Ja,

Ja????? WTF is ja? Last time I checked, we post here in English, not German.

Oh burrrrrrrrrrn. Maybe it's Afrikaans or Dutch, you vapid, laborious deeb.

you boring ass clown, rooting for Michigan totally precludes me from pointing out Brian Kelly had a resume that merited his hire at holy, sacred, everyone get a boner because it's Notre Dame. And speaking of Dickrod, if I had to live through the coaching search again I'd still be ecstatic about the hire since I can only go on the available evidence, which at the time was fairly promising.

And I was actually happy with the results of the coaching search for Kelly. At the time, it looked like a good hire. Same as DickRod. So far, at least, the results have been underwhelming, albeit not quite as disastrous as DickRod's results at Michigan.

I really don't care what you thought of the coaching hire. I can't remember if I asked you about it (I didn't) but I definitely remember falling asleep reading your response if I did. I answered Lax's retarded "WTF did he ever do" question with some of the things he did and you, upset someone mentioned ND in such a way that even you couldn't autisticly reference that time you lived in the dorms there, attempted some feeble defense of your CFB turf with a weak azz "you hired a loser too" gamut.

Can't speak to DickRod. But if you really think it's been nothing but wine and roses for Kelly at ND, then it's patently obvious that you haven't a fucking clue about ND, you smarmy little prick.

Whoah, even more burrrrrrrrn. Smarmy little prick because I could give a fuck about ND? I must live in an entire country of smarm. Hey, tell us again about that one time you saw a football player in the cafetaria.

And since you bring up Michigan I'll take this opportunity to point out the Dickrod fiasco taught us a valuable lesson about who really drops everything just because Michigan called,

Yeah, because Brady Hoke was such a huge name in the coaching search. Hell, you couldn't even get Les Miles to return to his alma mater, much to the chagrin of LSUFan not named JSC810.

Er, you might want to go back and read again. Thought you were a lawyerin' sort. Pretty sure I was pointing out that not too many people were dropping their panties just because Michigan was whispering in their ear. Les Miles was one, though. Homeboy was waiting for a phone call that never came.

Van wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:A few examples, just off the top of my head . . .

1. The BCS revenue. A prime example of cherry-picking.

He's not wrong. ND has been getting paid by the BCS without even playing in BCS games. ND has also had a seat at the BCS table for no apparent reason.

The Sun Belt conference has a seat at the BCS table. If they have one, then ND certainly deserves one.

They've rarely even been a contender for one of those bowl games since the inception of the BCS.

They've appeared in three BCS bowl games. They barely missed a fourth (and would have been in the BCS that year, had the later rules been in effect back then). Only 17 teams have three or more BCS appearances. And that was the worst decade in ND football history.

2. The NBC contract.

He's right about it. Rationalize it all you want, but he's right.

No he's not. I'm pretty certain Iowa State gets a piece of the Big XII contract, Washington State gets a piece of the Pac-12 contract, Vandy gets a piece of the SEC contract, Indiana gets a piece of the B1G contract, etc., etc. So why should ND be shut out?

Besides, it's market forces that are dictating ND's contract. This may be difficult for you to believe, and you may not like it, but there is still a sizeable market on a nationwide basis for Notre Dame football. That, and that alone, is the only reason why ND has a national contract with NBC.

Notre Dame is not the first powerhouse to go through this, and almost certainly will not be the last. Yet they get more grief over it than all the other schools on this list combined.

That's because they get more preferential treatment than all those others combined while producing absolutely nothing to warrant said preferential treatment. ND isn't even Auburn or Tennessee anymore, so why are we still treating them as if they're Bama or OU?

4. The conference thing. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that every school that plays in a conference decided at some point that playing in a conference was in its best interests. ND, in contrast, has decided that not playing in a conference is in its best interests. Those who advocate forcing ND's hand into a conference don't really want ND to be treated like everyone else. In reality, they want ND to be treated differently from everyone else because they don't like the decision ND made on its own.

In reality, they're tired of ND demanding that they be treated differently from everybody else. They're tired of you talking about what the ND fanbase wants, as if ND deserves to be treated differently.

You keep talking about preferential treatment, but I've yet to see you cite just one example of such preferential treatment.

In fact, in at least one area (i.e., non-BCS bowl options), ND kinda gets a screwjob. Texas or Oklahoma can still compete for a bid in the Cotton Bowl if they somehow miss the BCS. USC can still compete for a bid in the Holiday or Sun Bowl. Michigan could still compete for a bid in the Capital One, Outback or Gator Bowls (so could tOSU and Penn State, except that both are under bowl bans this year). Alabama could still compete for a bid in the Capital One, Cotton, Outback, Gator or Chick-fil-A Bowls.

Notre Dame, by contrast, is all but certainly headed to the Pinstripe Bowl unless they make it to the BCS. Makes no difference in that regard whether they finish 9-3 or 6-6.

No one cares. Win something. Become relevant again, and not just in terms of the obligatory ND coverage given by ESPN and every other media outlet despite the fact that ND hasn't been anything but a middling Big East-level team for twenty years.

The only coverage ESPN has given ND of late is the hatchet piece written by Reilly. Not that I really expect any love from them -- after all, ND plays on a competing network. Also, ND's focus is on the historical, whereas ESPN exists in the little bubble where anything that happened before it went on the air doesn't really count.

And I noticed you didn't even try to defend the comparison to Penn State. Smart move.

M Club wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

M Club wrote:Ja,

Ja????? WTF is ja? Last time I checked, we post here in English, not German.

Oh burrrrrrrrrrn. Maybe it's Afrikaans or Dutch, you vapid, laborious deeb.

German per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ja?s=t. Dutch isn't terribly far removed from German, and Afrikaans is derived from Dutch. I know it's a cliche, but tell me you knew.

In any event, English, please, on this board.

Smarmy little prick because I could give a fuck about ND?

No, smarmy little prick because of your general board persona.

As just one example, I wasn't prepared to comment on DickRod's popularity at Michigan, and so I didn't. You weren't prepared to comment on Kelly's popularity at ND, but that didn't stop you from doing so anyway.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
German per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ja?s=t. Dutch isn't terribly far removed from German, and Afrikaans is derived from Dutch. I know it's a cliche, but tell me you knew.

In any event, English, please, on this board.

I had zero idea German, Dutch, and Afrikaans were related. I figured it was pure coincidence they all used the same word for yes, so thanks for that brilliant insight. In any event, the official board language is go fuck yourself, so kindly go fuck yourself, you dull cracker. The only thing more soporific than your run-of-the-mill posts are your excruciating attempts at smack.

Smarmy little prick because I could give a fuck about ND?

No, smarmy little prick because of your general board persona.

As just one example, I wasn't prepared to comment on DickRod's popularity at Michigan, and so I didn't. You weren't prepared to comment on Kelly's popularity at ND, but that didn't stop you from doing so anyway.

Oh, you mean on the occasion where someone writes something entirely retarded and I say it's retarded? Ja, lo siento about that. Not my fault you dipshits double down.

And too bad I was prepared to comment on Kelly's popularity considering I did so in passing. (Amusing when you're flailing around what ancillary points you'll grasp onto, non?) (Ohhhhh, I said "non!" That's French. Is okay?) Pretty funny, though: I seem to remember all the fawning over what a perfect fit he was with Notre Dame. I even googled "reaction to Brian Kelly hiring" and the only negative things I could find were from the sort of people who lead make believe lives and thought for sure Stoops would be HC, Jim Tressel his DC, and Urban Meyer the OC. So ja, they weren't happy with the Kelly hiring but they don't count. Otherwise, you illustrated your point about his popularity by referencing a bunch of shit that went down while he was coach. You know, after the hiring. You know, which had no bearing on the decision whether or not to hire him because it hadn't happened yet. And you know, which is tangential to anything I said about Kelly.

Van wrote: No, it's not. That's barely a problem at all. No one is winning on the backs of fifth-year seniors. These days, the stars tend to be underclassmen. Fifth-year seniors make up a small percentage of impact players.

Er, this is retarded. Most good teams are good because they have quality upperclassmen, whether redshirted or not. No one's winning a conference running an entire team of sophomore superstars out there because they just don't exist. Ask a coach about leadership and the first people he brings up are the seniors.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:In fact, in at least one area (i.e., non-BCS bowl options), ND kinda gets a screwjob. Texas or Oklahoma can still compete for a bid in the Cotton Bowl if they somehow miss the BCS. USC can still compete for a bid in the Holiday or Sun Bowl. Michigan could still compete for a bid in the Capital One, Outback or Gator Bowls (so could tOSU and Penn State, except that both are under bowl bans this year). Alabama could still compete for a bid in the Capital One, Cotton, Outback, Gator or Chick-fil-A Bowls.

Notre Dame, by contrast, is all but certainly headed to the Pinstripe Bowl unless they make it to the BCS. Makes no difference in that regard whether they finish 9-3 or 6-6.

You can't claim that it's in ND's best interest to remain indedependent, then complain about "screwjobs." Doesn't seem it's in ND's best interest when all you ever do in this forum is complain about the "system" screwing them over. If you want bowl tie-ins so badly, then join a fucking conference.

Van wrote:So? You're supposed to find excellence among consistent top recruiting classes. That's the whole idea. Besides, Luck doesn't have his success without those first-round draft picks on the OL.

Yeah, that got a good chuckle out of me.

"The only reason Stanford was good those years was because they recruited well."

M Club wrote:Most good teams are good because they have quality upperclassmen, whether redshirted or not. No one's winning a conference running an entire team of sophomore superstars out there because they just don't exist. Ask a coach about leadership and the first people he brings up are the seniors.

Look again. On the best teams of late the stars are generally not fifth-year seniors. The guys who are good enough to be the stars leave for the NFL before they ever see a fifth year in college.

As for "no one's winning a conference running an entire team of sophomore superstars," well, no, not an entire team but pretty damn near. USC's squad last season was nearly all freshmen and sophomores, and this year's team is mostly underclassmen. No fifth-year seniors. Bama's squad last year was loaded with young talent at key positions, as is this year's.

Fifth-year seniors may comprise important numbers at a meh program, but the best programs are in no way heavily dependent on them, not anymore. Among ND's many possible excuses for still playing like ND, the fifth-year senior argument is so far down the list as to be irrelevant.

Terry, you're totally high if you think: 1. ESPN pays ND no attention. 2. What little attention they do pay them only involves hatchet jobs.

ESPN treats ND as the college football equivalent of Tim Tebow. Even though ND hasn't merited any special attention in seemingly forever, ESPN religiously devotes entire segments to them in any of their College Football Roundup telecasts or articles. They are treated as their own entity, above and beyond the other independents, certainly, and above all but the very upper echelon of all programs. The thing about ND is that it doesn't matter whether they go 5-7 or 9-3, their coverage doesn't change. It just vacillates between "They're back!" and "What's wrong with ND?" stories. The amount of coverage remains the same.

Meanwhile, any other perennially meh program simply drops off ESPN's radar.

We don't see entire segments dedicated to Maryland football, do we? No, we don't. When Taco Tech goes into the shitter, does ESPN convene a studio panel to discuss the why's, wherefore's and what's-next discussions? Nope. They do with ND, though. We couldn't get fat ass Charlie Weis off our TV screens, regardless of how fucknasty his teams were. When most 7-5 programs fire their coach and set out in search of his replacement, it doesn't turn into an orgy of fevered analysis dissecting every coach they've ever had and every demigod coach who's likely to walk away from his current position as King of Earth just to come to ND and go 8-4 for a few years before being added to the scrapheap.

And who remains the face of ESPN's college football studio telecasts, despite the fact that he's an old feeb who speaks like a drunken Dick Clark in his final years? Why, it's Granny Holtz, whose only real claim to fame is...what?

That's right. He's a legacy of the last time ND mattered, and as such ESPN treats him like he's Vince Lombardi, Bob Costas and Bobo the Incontinent Clown all rolled into one even though he's just plain awful.

Your constant paranoia regarding ESPN is so wrongheaded as to be absurd. You think CBS slobbers SEC cock? (Which they do.) Try checking out ESPN if and when ND ever gets good again for a few seasons in a row. They'll throw so much 24/7 sickeningly fawning praise at them, it'll make Verne Lundquist sound like mvscal.

Rack every blast in your take, Van. Especially Holtz = Bobo the Incontinent Clown.

Van wrote:

M Club wrote:Most good teams are good because they have quality upperclassmen, whether redshirted or not. No one's winning a conference running an entire team of sophomore superstars out there because they just don't exist. Ask a coach about leadership and the first people he brings up are the seniors.

Look again. On the best teams of late the stars are generally not fifth-year seniors. The guys who are good enough to be the stars leave for the NFL before they ever see a fifth year in college.

As for "no one's winning a conference running an entire team of sophomore superstars," well, no, not an entire team but pretty damn near. USC's squad last season was nearly all freshmen and sophomores, and this year's team is mostly underclassmen. No fifth-year seniors. Bama's squad last year was loaded with young talent at key positions, as is this year's.

Fifth-year seniors may comprise important numbers at a meh program, but the best programs are in no way heavily dependent on them, not anymore. Among ND's many possible excuses for still playing like ND, the fifth-year senior argument is so far down the list as to be irrelevant.

I didn't say they had to be stars, just that the best teams tend to be pretty veteran, especially along the lines. Obviously the superstars are leaving after their junior year, especially if they've redshirted, but the pure numbers suggest most players are exhausting their eligibility, even at a place like USC that recruits more 5 stars in one afternoon than Cal's signed in their entire history. There are outliers, obviously. (I just looked at SC's depth chart and your D-line doesn't even have pubic hair.)

Did you also happen to look at our LBs? I think they're even younger than the DL, yet they're all returning starters.

The thing is, there's a difference between "upperclassmen," "seniors" and "fifth-year seniors." Matt Barkley is a senior, but he's not a fifth-year senior. Juniors and seniors are considered upperclassmen, and of course a team needs to have some experienced leadership. Fifth-year seniors comprising significant numbers on any roster are few and far between, and their lack is certainly not at the root of ND's issues.

Barkley's also been the starter since his sophomore year in high school. He's a star, I get it. Most CFB players aren't stars, and most programs aren't picking up 5-stars at every position a la Bama or USC. I think Michigan gets like one or two a year, Ohio State not much more. Wisconsin doesn't get any and as a matter of policy redshirts just about everyone (if I remember correctly). 5-stars are generally able to play much earlier than the 3-stars most other programs rely on, so I guess I'd take back the part about no one winning conferences running out a team full of sophomore superstars if SC or Bama could actually win their conference, hahahahahahaha.

Otherwise, most perennial Top 20 teams have the sort of personnel that doesn't require much in the way of freshman contribution + most players don't actually declare early = incentive to redshirt. Obviously in a class of 20ish recruits you aren't going to have 15 fifth-year seniors on your roster, but having five or so makes a world of difference, especially if their backup is pretty green. I guarantee if you scour rosters from the Top 25 you'll find them pretty senior dominated.

And no, I don't think 5th-year seniors are the root of ND's problems, but they could be the tipping point that gets them from 8-5 every year to something more respectable. As Jon as Terry's gone with three plays away from blah blah blah, he does have a point about being oh so close. Perhaps some of those plays turned on freshman mistakes or something.

M Club wrote:if SC or Bama could actually win their conference, hahahahahahaha.

M Club wrote:Barkley's also been the starter since his sophomore year in high school. He's a star, I get it. Most CFB players aren't stars, and most programs aren't picking up 5-stars at every position a la Bama or USC. I think Michigan gets like one or two a year, Ohio State not much more. Wisconsin doesn't get any and as a matter of policy redshirts just about everyone (if I remember correctly). 5-stars are generally able to play much earlier than the 3-stars most other programs rely on, so I guess I'd take back the part about no one winning conferences running out a team full of sophomore superstars if SC or Bama could actually win their conference, hahahahahahaha.

Otherwise, most perennial Top 20 teams have the sort of personnel that doesn't require much in the way of freshman contribution + most players don't actually declare early = incentive to redshirt. Obviously in a class of 20ish recruits you aren't going to have 15 fifth-year seniors on your roster, but having five or so makes a world of difference, especially if their backup is pretty green. I guarantee if you scour rosters from the Top 25 you'll find them pretty senior dominated.

And no, I don't think 5th-year seniors are the root of ND's problems, but they could be the tipping point that gets them from 8-5 every year to something more respectable. As Jon as Terry's gone with three plays away from blah blah blah, he does have a point about being oh so close. Perhaps some of those plays turned on freshman mistakes or something.

Wisconsin redshirts a lot of kids, but a handful of true freshmen play each year. I think they graduated about 13 starters from last year’s team, but I don’t know how many were fifth-year seniors. This year they start 2 seniors on offense, 5 on defense. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a little fall off from last year’s three-plays-from-an-undefeated-season team.

Van wrote:Terry, you're totally high if you think: 1. ESPN pays ND no attention.

Where did I ever say this?

2. What little attention they do pay them only involves hatchet jobs.

If you'd take your ND hater blindfold off, you'd see that much of the attention ESPN pays ND is negative.

You see, Van, the problem with ESPN is that it tries to wear two hats. On the one hand, it fancies itself a "legitimate" sports news source. On the other, it also has a vested interest in promoting the schools/conferences for which they have TV rights.

And THAT, in a nutshell, is where ND sits on the wrong side of the divide. Last I checked, their home games are being televised by NBC, a direct competitor with ABC/ESPN.

Yes, you could say the same thing about the SEC, given their tie-in with CBS. Of course, ESPN also has its hand in on the SEC TV deal, though, so it's not exactly the same thing.

If ND were to be one of three schools to finish the regular season 12-0, ESPN probably woud be arguing that they shouldn't play in the national championship game because they didn't win a CCG. Nevermind that we all know that the CCG's are mostly cash grabs that rarely match up the top two teams in the conference. Best case scenario for ND, they do some sort of point/counterpoint with Lou Holtz and Mark May arguing the relative merits of including ND in the national championship game.

We don't see entire segments dedicated to Maryland football, do we? No, we don't. When Taco Tech goes into the shitter, does ESPN convene a studio panel to discuss the why's, wherefore's and what's-next discussions? Nope. They do with ND, though. We couldn't get fat ass Charlie Weis off our TV screens, regardless of how fucknasty his teams were. When most 7-5 programs fire their coach and set out in search of his replacement, it doesn't turn into an orgy of fevered analysis dissecting every coach they've ever had and every demigod coach who's likely to walk away from his current position as King of Earth just to come to ND and go 8-4 for a few years before being added to the scrapheap.

Remind me, again, when the last time either Taco Tech or Maryland won a national championship. Or had a national TV contract.

And who remains the face of ESPN's college football studio telecasts, despite the fact that he's an old feeb who speaks like a drunken Dick Clark in his final years?

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's him being from the North, and whatsuch . . .

But compared to Bear Bryant, at least, Lou Holtz is a model of clear, intelligible diction.

Van wrote:Terry, you're totally high if you think: 1. ESPN pays ND no attention.

Where did I ever say this?

2. What little attention they do pay them only involves hatchet jobs.

If you'd take your ND hater blindfold off, you'd see that much of the attention ESPN pays ND is negative.

You see, Van, the problem with ESPN is that it tries to wear two hats. On the one hand, it fancies itself a "legitimate" sports news source. On the other, it also has a vested interest in promoting the schools/conferences for which it has TV rights.

And THAT, in a nutshell, is where ND sits on the wrong side of the divide. Last I checked, ND's home games are being televised by NBC, a direct competitor with ABC/ESPN.

Yes, you could say the same thing about the SEC, given their tie-in with CBS. Of course, ESPN also has its hand in on the SEC TV deal, though, so it's not exactly the same thing.

If ND were to be one of three schools to finish the regular season 12-0, ESPN probably woud be arguing that they shouldn't play in the national championship game because they didn't win a CCG. Nevermind that we all know that the CCG's are mostly cash grabs that rarely match up the top two teams in the conference. Best case scenario for ND, they do some sort of point/counterpoint with Lou Holtz and Mark May arguing the relative merits of including ND in the national championship game.

We don't see entire segments dedicated to Maryland football, do we? No, we don't. When Taco Tech goes into the shitter, does ESPN convene a studio panel to discuss the why's, wherefore's and what's-next discussions? Nope. They do with ND, though. We couldn't get fat ass Charlie Weis off our TV screens, regardless of how fucknasty his teams were. When most 7-5 programs fire their coach and set out in search of his replacement, it doesn't turn into an orgy of fevered analysis dissecting every coach they've ever had and every demigod coach who's likely to walk away from his current position as King of Earth just to come to ND and go 8-4 for a few years before being added to the scrapheap.

Remind me, again, when was the last time either Taco Tech or Maryland won a national championship? Or had a national TV contract?

And who remains the face of ESPN's college football studio telecasts, despite the fact that he's an old feeb who speaks like a drunken Dick Clark in his final years?

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's him being from the North, and whatsuch . . .

But compared to Bear Bryant, at least, Lou Holtz is a model of clear, intelligible diction.

Going back to this . . .

Van wrote:And who remains the face of ESPN's college football studio telecasts, despite the fact that he's an old feeb who speaks like a drunken Dick Clark in his final years? Why, it's Granny Holtz, whose only real claim to fame is...what?

That's right. He's a legacy of the last time ND mattered, and as such ESPN treats him like he's Vince Lombardi, Bob Costas and Bobo the Incontinent Clown all rolled into one even though he's just plain awful.

And what has ESPN done with him? They've made him into a buffoon, that's what. Or have you missed the "Dr. Lou" segments? Or his unwatchable pro-ND/con-ND point/counterpoint segments with Mark May? Not saying that Holtz wasn't complicit in that action, but still . . .

And using Holtz as a bit of a segue . . .

One manner in which I actually agree with M Club is that I think the overwhelming majority of ND's fanbase has been far too harsh on Kelly concerning his pre-ND background. And right or wrong, I took Lax's earlier post as a dis on Kelly's pre-ND resume, rather than conscious ignorance of it. In that regard, Kelly isn't too far removed from Holtz, pre-ND:

- Grand Valley State isn't all that far removed from William & Mary, at least not when it comes to football. Yes, I'm aware that they're different divisions (Division II vice Division 1-AA), but Grand Valley State is a power at their level in a manner that William & Mary is not. And certainly, there's far less difference between Division 1-AA and Division II than there is between Division 1-AA and the upper echelong of Division 1-A.

- Lou's next stop was at N.C. State. At that time (early 1970's), the ACC wasn't much better in football than the MAC is today, if at all.

- Yes, Holtz had a stop in the NFL, but his stint with the Jets was a disaster and ended in chaos (he resigned with one game left in the regular season, after less than a year on the job). Nobody in their right mind would have pointed to this stop as a predictor of future success with ND (although that's not the same as saying that he learned nothing from it).

- Holtz later took over a Minnesota program that was coming off arguably the worst season ever for a major college football program. It's much easier to get a program from abysmal to meh than it is to get a program from meh to great.

- Holtz' only stop that might have predicted success at ND was at Arkansas. But even there, (a) expectations at Arkansas are less than they are at ND; and (b) he eventually was forced out, notwithstanding his earlier success.

ESPN didn't make him into a buffoon. They merely allowed him to reveal himself as one.

Holtz is what Holtz always was. A coach who was concerned only with winning. Each of the 5 programs where he coached in D1 had some sort of probation following his departure.

As soon as he starts to speak about an program alleged or found guilty of infractions I turn the channel. The guy is nothing but a clown.

Bump.

We are currently in the "Notre Dame is Back!/Return to Glory part VII" portion of the news cycle. If ND can continue to play this well, we will quickly jump to the "ND sold it's soul for football glory" portion of the cycle. We're already seeing parts of that now.