T1B

BTW, Terry, why do you assume you have a QB advantage? While MSU loses a 3-year starter, their QB situation in this game should be looked at relative to ND's QB situation. Aren't your QBs going to be battling into the fall for the starting spot? Andrew Maxwell, while he has little game experience, has been groomed to be the starter for 3 years. He's known for some time that he's gonna be "the guy." It's been a fluid transition, the only question at this point is how he executes in games. ND could very well be starting a guy with even less experience than Maxwell, and will do so early in the season, on the road, under the lights. Seems the QB situations, at the very least, cancel out, and if anything, probably favor MSU.

Terry, ND went 8-4 last year (8-5 after losing to a wholly forgettable FSU squad in your crappy bowl game) despite having an easier schedule and arguably their two best players, with Te'o being the third. This year they face a much tougher schedule and those two really good players are gonzo. Their QB who has any experience is generally thought of as the least desirable option among the three, while their most desirable option, Hendrix (and why wouldn't he be?)...



...hasn't proven anything in an actual college football game.

Meanwhile, ND lost at home last year to USF, a game which you undoubtedly had marked down as a 'W' in your preseason Flowchart O' Rampant Myopia. You barely survived Fredo at home and lowly Pitt on the road. You didn't exactly hand Wake their asses, either.

All those same types of potential fuckups are on this year's schedule too, only now you also have Oklahoma and BYU, and don't think for a second that you couldn't find a way to lose to Magic Underoos U. With your QB situation and no Michael Floyd, your offense may suck some seriously meaty balls this season. If nothing else, Cierre Wood had better get used to the idea of running against drooling eight-man fronts.

I'll be surprised if you beat either Michigan school. I'm nearly 100% certain you won't beat USC or OU. I'll be fucking stunned if you run the table over the rest of your schedule. No slip-ups at all against the likes of Stanford, BYU, Miami, a (supposedly) improving Purdue squad, BC, a Navy team that only very recently took you two years in a row, etc.?

You're ND. You will find a way to blow at least one of those somewhere along the line. On the bright side, hey, perhaps you'll be able to argue that you were just one play away from going 8-4.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:ND was a double-digit favorite on the road against Michigan last year? Musta missed that one.

I was obviously referring to the USF game. I don't recall much from the ND-UM game, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you lost due to factors related to the other team being better than you.

If you watched the video I posted, you would've known that ND gave up a 50-60 yard completion on a dying quail Shoelace threw up (double entendre fully intended) where a Michigan receiver was able to make an adjustment and an incredible run after catch AND get out of bounds (Michigan had no timeouts left at the time, IIRC) to set up their last touchdown, with ND's secondary completely asleep at the switch. That was every bit as goofy-ass (your word) a play as the 90+-yard fumble return for TD that USF had against us.

Van wrote:Terry, ND went 8-4 last year (8-5 after losing to a wholly forgettable FSU squad in your crappy bowl game) despite having an easier schedule and arguably their two best players, with Te'o being the third. This year they face a much tougher schedule and those two really good players are gonzo. Their QB who has any experience is generally thought of as the least desirable option among the three, while their most desirable option, Hendrix (and why wouldn't he be?)...



...hasn't proven anything in an actual college football game.

Usually, a QB controversy involves some sort of skills tradeoff. For example, you might have a choice between two QB's, one of whom has a stronger arm but the other is more mobile. Funny thing is, in ND's case, Rees is actually the least athletic option no matter which yardstick you're using. He's both the least mobile and has the weakest arm of the four options (three if you assume Kiel will sit out the entire year and preserve another year of eligibility).

As for Hendrix, he'd be my choice, but if the ND homerboards are a reliable indicator, I'm in the minority on that point. The homerboard posters seem to prefer Golson. They rave about both his arm strength and his mobility. However, in the Blue-Gold game he appeared to be both turnover-prone (a significant bugaboo last year, obviously) and demonstrated poor clock management skills.

Strictly mho, but Hendrix has the best combination of athleticism, skill set necessary to run the offense and experience.

Meanwhile, ND lost at home last year to USF, a game which you undoubtedly had marked down as a 'W' in your preseason Flowchart O' Rampant Myopia. You barely survived Fredo at home and lowly Pitt on the road. You didn't exactly hand Wake their asses, either.

ND lost to USF largely on the strength of two turnovers in the red zone, one of which amounted to at least a 10-point swing. We led Fredo the entire way, although there were obvious coaching errors made in that game (continuing to throw against 8- and even 9-man coverage). Game-winning scores against both Pitt and Wake Forest came relatively early on (about 7 minutes left vs. Pitt, about 9 minutes left in 3rd quarter against Wake), which of course means that our defense played well down the stretch in both games.

All those same types of potential fuckups are on this year's schedule too, only now you also have Oklahoma and BYU, and don't think for a second that you couldn't find a way to lose to Magic Underoos U.

Every game on the schedule is at least potentially either winnable or loseable. Of course, the likelihood of winning varies from around 10% vs. Oklahoma and USC to around 90% vs. Navy, Wake Forest and Purdue.

I would hope that Magic Underoos U. falls around the 70% possibility of winning.

With your QB situation and no Michael Floyd, your offense may suck some seriously meaty balls this season.

No Michael Floyd, but a number of decent wideouts on the roster with game experience. Among them are T.J. Jones, Theo Riddick/George Atkinson (I would expect one or both to get reps at RB, and one or both to get reps at WR, either or both could play a sort of hybrid position), Roby Toma, John Goodman. Of course, Tyler Eifert is likely a preseason All-American at TE and is fast enough to line up in a slot receiver position with another true TE in the game. So even though there's no Floyd, that doesn't mean that there aren't any good options left for whoever starts at QB.

If nothing else, Cierre Wood had better get used to the idea of running against drooling eight-man fronts.

You haven't watched a lot of ND football lately, have you?

The big knock many ND fans have on Kelly is that he doesn't run the ball nearly enough. As I mentioned earlier, against BC he was continuing to throw the ball even against 9-man coverage.

Wood will average 15-20 carries per game next year. Tops.

I'll be surprised if you beat either Michigan school.

Why? It's not exactly like either one of them has been blowing us out of late. We've lost the last three times to Michigan by a combined total of 12 points. Our last two losses to Sparty were by a combined total of 6 points, and we beat them by a comforable margin last year. Both of these games are completely winnable, although that doesn't mean that we're guaranteed to win both.

I'm nearly 100% certain you won't beat USC or OU.

I agree with you there.

I'll be fucking stunned if you run the table over the rest of your schedule. No slip-ups at all against the likes of Stanford, BYU, Miami, a (supposedly) improving Purdue squad, BC, a Navy team that only very recently took you two years in a row, etc.?

I'll believe that Purdue is improving (to the point where they're a real concern for us, anyway) when i see it. I haven't seen it yet.

The area of the team that has improved the most under Kelly is the defensive front seven. That bodes well for us against Navy. Until recently, we looked clueless on defense against the option offense. But last year we held them to 14 points. ND's offense probably could score more than 14 points against Navy if you or I were starting at QB for ND. Perhaps (hopefully), we've solved that dilemma going forward.

Stanford doesn't have Oliver Luck under center or Jim Harbaugh on the sidelines any longer. As for the rest, I think it could very well come down to coaching, and if Kelly is the man for the job, he should be up to the task. Teach the players to take care of the football, especially in the red zone. And the staff needs to do a better job with gameplanning in general, and adjustments on the fly in particular. Run the ball when faced with 9-man coverage, as I've already said twice. The bowl game loss to Florida State also provides a telling example. ND took advantage of some talent mismatches on the line and came out with a blitz package in the first half that had Florida State on its heels, Inexplicably, we stopped blitzing in the second half and Florida State was able to make the adjustments they needed to make on the line. That allowed them to take advantage of the mismatches on the field in their favor -- namely, their WR's against our CB's. That's where that game was won and lost.

If Kelly is the man for the job, then 9-3, maybe even 10-2, is by no means unrealistic this year. OTOH, if ND goes 7-5, as you suggest, then barring some concrete reason for which Kelly can't be held accountable -- a rash of injuries at key positions, perhaps -- then he definitely shouldn't be around next year.

You're ND. You will find a way to blow at least one of those somewhere along the line. On the bright side, hey, perhaps you'll be able to argue that you were just one play away from going 8-4.

Of course, if being ND mattered to us, that likely would mean that we'd find a way to beat Oklahoma or USC -- or maybe even both. Traditionally, as you know, ND always has been at its best when playing giant-killer.

Terry, the trade-off for you at QB this year will be skills vs experience. The backups may or may not be more skilled than Rees but they definitely have no experience, and that will kill you somewhere along the line. At least one or two games will be lost that you'll chalk up to QB-WR inexperience when you do your following-year summation of the previous season.

As for all your reasons as to how ND lost or nearly lost those other games, they all speak to the same reason you'll lose a similar game or two this year. You still haven't answered the basic question: What's changed?

Kelly is still there. Those mistakes you attributed to him in the Florida St game? The same guy will be on the sidelines this year. Those inexplicable losses and close-shave wins against doormats? ND's been doing those for a decade now, so why will they suddenly cease now? There's no fact-based reason to believe anything will be different ths year. If anything, you have so many tough games that those 'easy' games could easily become let-down games where you come out flat and allow a Purdue, Navy or BC to hang around with a chance to win.

As to why I'll be surprised if you beat either Michigan school? Simple. They'll both be favored over ND and, at least heading into the season, they're both better than ND. I'll take Michigan with an experienced Shoelace handling the offense all day long over a very green ND offense. If that game took place at the end of the season, okay, who knows, but early in the year, which it always is when those two play? Yeah, I'm taking the experienced team coming off a BCS bowl game victory who are returning their star QB over a team in shambles that's burping up yet another new QB. Michigan St? More talent, better coach, home-field advantage, more consistent team. Pick a reason. Lump 'em all together. Whatever. They'll be rightfully favored, especially if they get past Boise St.

Van wrote:Terry, the trade-off for you at QB this year will be skills vs experience. The backups may or may not be more skilled than Rees but they definitely have no experience, and that will kill you somewhere along the line. At least one or two games will be lost that you'll chalk up to QB-WR inexperience when you do your following-year summation of the previous season.

Assuming that to be the case (Hendrix, at least, has now been at least practicing with the team for the last two years), who's to say when that'll come? It could be an inexplicably close game to OU or USC that comes down to the wire where that comes into play.

As for all your reasons as to how ND lost or nearly lost those other games, they all speak to the same reason you'll lose a similar game or two this year. You still haven't answered the basic question: What's changed?

What's changed is this: Kelly is now in Year Three.

Every new coach will get a mulligan in Year One. In Kelly's case, the red zone turnovers and utter failure of the punt return unit (the latter, while embarrassing, wasn't actually a factor in any game) were new wrinkles. Now that he's on notice those are problems, this is the year to show he can fix them, especially the former. If he can't do that, he may well be gone after the season ends.

We may very well lose a game we should've won this year. But that's not necessarily inconsistent with a 9-3 season.

Kelly is still there. Those mistakes you attributed to him in the Florida St game? The same guy will be on the sidelines this year. Those inexplicable losses and close-shave wins against doormats? ND's been doing those for a decade now, so why will they suddenly cease now? There's no fact-based reason to believe anything will be different ths year. If anything, you have so many tough games that those 'easy' games could easily become let-down games where you come out flat and allow a Purdue, Navy or BC to hang around with a chance to win.

A few points:

1. Minor nit: I didn't blame Kelly for the defensive play-calling in the Florida State game. That's on Diaco, who otherwise has done a very good job with the defense. The defense did improve noticeably between the beginning and the end of last season, although the latter part of our schedule was generally weaker.

2. Close-shave wins don't matter in terms of a team's record. A win is a win is a win.

3. We have a tougher schedule than we have had in recent years (and remember, I told you it wasn't necessary to join the Big Ten to accomplish that), but the tougher games are actually spaced out quite well. Michigan is in Week Four, which is just about the latest that game has ever been played. There's a bye week between the Michigan and Miami games. Oklahoma is sandwiched between two home games (BYU and Pitt). USC is the final week of the regular season, and immediately after a home game with Wake Forest. Probably the greatest risk of a letdown comes against BYU (immediately preceded, in reverse order, by Stanford, Miami, a bye week, Michigan and Michigan State).

As to why I'll be surprised if you beat either Michigan school? Simple. They'll both be favored over ND

Debatable. And in any event, the line will be no more than a touchdown, and could be less than a field goal.

and, at least heading into the season, they're both better than ND.

Based on what? Last season? Yes, both teams had better seasons than ND last year. But that doesn't change the fact that ND nearly beat Michigan, had every chance to do so, and beat Sparty by a comfortable margin.

I'll take Michigan with an experienced Shoelace handling the offense all day long over a very green ND offense. If that game took place at the end of the season, okay, who knows, but early in the year, which it always is when those two play? Yeah, I'm taking the experienced team coming off a BCS bowl game victory who are returning their star QB over a team in shambles that's burping up yet another new QB.

Usually this game is in Week Two. This year it's in Week Four. So if ND is starting a new QB, that new QB will have three times as many starts heading into Michigan as he ordinarly would have.

Michigan St? More talent, better coach, home-field advantage, more consistent team. Pick a reason. Lump 'em all together. Whatever. They'll be rightfully favored, especially if they get past Boise St.

More talent? Not so sure about that.

Better coach? Dantonio is 1-1 vs. Kelly at their current jobs. Sparty won on a fake FG in OT, ND won by 18. Both coached at the same place (Cincinnati) prior to their current stop. Kelly had a much better record at Cincinnati than Dantonio (though, to be fair, Dantonio also left Cincinnati in a better position than he found it).

HFA? Yes, but HFA is not nearly the factor in this series, at least from a recent historical perspective, that it is in many others. Sparty won the last two in East Lansing, but ND won the three prior there. On the flip side, ND has won the last two at home in this series, but prior to that, their last win at home came in 1993.

Not to mention that if Sparty somehow loses to Boise State, I wouldn't expect them to be favored unless ND were to drop one of its first two games.

So, basically, the only thing that's changed is this is Kelly's third year there, and the Third Year Fairy will come along and sprinkle magic dust on him which will allow him to turn the program around on a dime. His assistant coaches will stop making mistakes, his inexperienced QBs will play like seasoned vets, there will be no QB changes whatsoever throughout the entire season, the running game will be utilized correctly, the WRs will gain a couple of years of experience in just a couple of games, the DBs will be able to defend an actual passing attack, and ND's middling overall talent will also magically improve to the point that it becomes better than a whole bunch of teams on the schedule that appear to have clearly superior talent, meaning ND will be favored in all but two or three games, tops.

All this, simply because it's Kelly's third year there.

Gotcha.

For all your wishful thinking I know there's no way you'd bet anything serious on ND going 9-3, and you'd even be dicey about 8-4. 10-2? You know that's a total pipe dream.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Sparty will be favored and better ranked than ND?

I expect ND will come in somewhere between 10 and 15 in the preseason.

Well, now that the preseason Coaches Poll is out, let's take a gander, shall we?

1 LSU (18)
2 Alabama (20)
3 USC (19)
4 Oklahoma
5 Oregon
6 Georgia
7 Florida State
8 Michigan
9 South Carolina
10 Arkansas
11 West Virginia
12 Wisconsin
13 Michigan State
14 Clemson
15 Texas
16 Nebraska
17 TCU
18 Stanford
19 Oklahoma State
20 Virginia Tech
21 Kansas State
22 Boise State
23 Florida
24 Notre Dame
25 Auburn

Well, imagine that? Who woulda thunkit?

Houston Cougars

Coaches:

Lost: Kevin Sumlin, Kliff Kingsbury, Jason Phillips, and Brian Stewart
New HC: Tony Levine
New OC: Mike Nesbitt
New DC: Jamie Bryant

Summary of coaching staff changes:
Houston went out and courted a bunch of young offensive minds at major programs to be the next head coach, but before they pulled the trigger, they went back and asked the players and coaches what they thought. They all wanted Tony Levine. He is a good guy and has been with the program for five years now. Nesbitt is an up and comer. He turned SFA's offense to an Air Raid attack and that is why he was the clear cut choice to replace Phillips and Kingsbury as the new OC. Jamie Bryant is switching back to the 4-3...not sure why because the 3-4 was working for Houston but it could be personnel reasons. We'll see.

Offense:

Key Losses: Case Keenum, Michael Hayes, Bryce Beall, Patrick Edwards, Justin Johnson, Tyrone Carrier, and Chris Thompson

New QB: David Piland
New WRs: Dwayne Peace, Ronnie Williams, Daniel Spencer, Isiah Sweeny, and
New RBs: Kenneth Farrow
New Center: Bryce Redman

Defense:

Key Losses: Marcus McGraw, Sammy Brown, and Nick Saenz

New MLB: Everett Daniels
New SS: Chris Cermin and Earl Foster

Summary of both units:

The bad news about the offense is that almost every skill position is being replaced with a new face. The good news is David Piland was the starter for 7 games in 2010 when Keenum got hurt. He was redshirted last year and is no doubt the starter this season as a redshirt sophmore. Piland took his lumps as a starter throwing too many costly interceptions. The overall numbers were good, but Houston lost four close games due to some untimely picks thrown by Piland in critical points of those contests. The reason for Keenum's rediculous success (other than the soft schedule) was due in large part of chemistry with WRs Edwards, Carrier, and Johnson. Keenum played with those three for three seasons and it definitely showed last season that they communicated on a different level than most other D1 QB/WR corps.

Piland will have to create the same continuity as Keenum did with new starters Ronnie Williams, Dwayne Peace, Daniel Spencer, and Isiah Sweeny. I have a feeling Peace, a former Michigan commit, will emerge as THE man within this group. Sweeny was supposed to be all world but he never really did grasp this offense and has been a disapointing recruit up to this point in his career. He has world class speed, but I guess he isn't a football player. Top recruit Deontay Greenberry decommitted from Notre Dame and signed with Houston on National Signing Day which was a big surprise to everyone. Greenberry's talents could land him as a 'Y' receiver if Sweeny or Aaron Johnson don't step up.

At running back, Charles Simms was a freaking beast last season, but it was probably because he was fresh when most defensive opponents were tired. Simms will be utilized a lot more this season as a safety valve for Piland. Kenneth Farrow will have to spell Simms from time to time, but I wouldn't be surprised if Simms has All-American type numbers by season's end for running backs.

On defense, Houston is going back to a 4-3 which I'm not a fan of, but Jamie Bryant must've seen something in talent level on the front seven that made him switch from the 3-4 Base. Houston is returning 8 of 11 starters on defense and that includes ball hawks DJ Hayden and Zach McMillian. TFL loss leader Sammy Brown and four year starting senior Marcus McGraw will be missed, but Derrick Matthews and Philip Steward are no slouches. I think the defense will be fine and will contain and create turnovers as they did last season. Getting to the QB will have to come from the front four with Brown gone.

Schedule and Results

Date Opponent
Sep 1 Tex St-San Mar - W
Sep 8 Louisiana Tech - W
Sep 15 @UCLA - L
Sep 29 @Rice - W
Oct 6 North Texas - W
Oct 13 UAB - W
Oct 18 @SMU - L
Oct 27 UTEP - W
Nov 3 @East Carolina - L
Nov 10 Tulsa - W
Nov 17 @Marshall - W
Nov 24 Tulane - W

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Sparty will be favored and better ranked than ND?

I expect ND will come in somewhere between 10 and 15 in the preseason.

Well, now that the preseason Coaches Poll is out, let's take a gander, shall we?

1 LSU (18)
2 Alabama (20)
3 USC (19)
4 Oklahoma
5 Oregon
6 Georgia
7 Florida State
8 Michigan
9 South Carolina
10 Arkansas
11 West Virginia
12 Wisconsin
13 Michigan State
14 Clemson
15 Texas
16 Nebraska
17 TCU
18 Stanford
19 Oklahoma State
20 Virginia Tech
21 Kansas State
22 Boise State
23 Florida
24 Notre Dame
25 Auburn

Well, imagine that? Who woulda thunkit?

Terry wrote::crickets:

All right, so I was off on ND's preseason ranking. But we're making preseason polls the be-all and end-all now?

I'm not quite sure how coaches determine their preseason rankings. Maybe it's a prediction of where the teams will be at the end of the season. In that regard, it's worth noting that both Michigan and Sparty stand to benefit from sanctions imposed against Penn State and tOSU.

But I'm not quite sure why you're making such a huge deal about a one-game difference in predictions during the preseason. You do know that that one-game difference, given the team we're discussing as well as the area of record we're talking about, doesn't amount to a hill of beans' worth of difference when it comes to bowl game destination, don't you?

ND can't go to the Champs Sports Bowl, there was a limit of one time in the four year stretch from 2010-13. They used that up last year. 10-2 is usually the minimum record ND needs for a BCS bid. 9-3 won't get us into the BCS unless it's a really, really strange season overall (see, e.g., 2007). With that in mind, ND's likely bowl destination:

9-3 season: Pinstripe Bowl (assuming Big XII is unable to fill all its alloted bowl slots).
8-4 season: Pinstripe Bowl (assuming Big XII is unable to fill all its alloted bowl slots).

As for talent, ND clearly has more talent than 7 of the teams on its schedule. It clearly has less talent than 2 of the teams on its schedule. The remaining 3 teams are in somewhat of a gray area, although 2 of those teams (Sparty and Stanford) lost a lot of talent last year. Given those facts, it's not unreasonable to argue that ND has more talent than 9, or even 10, of the teams on its schedule.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:All right, so I was off on ND's preseason ranking. But we're making preseason polls the be-all and end-all now?

I don't know. It was the basis of your argument that Notre Dame would be favored against MSU:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Sparty will be favored and better ranked than ND?

I expect ND will come in somewhere between 10 and 15 in the preseason. Assuming we start the season with wins vs. Navy and Purdue (the argument is moot otherwise), we'll probably be ranked a little higher than that come Sparty gametime.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
9-3 season: Pinstripe Bowl (assuming Big XII is unable to fill all its alloted bowl slots).
8-4 season: Pinstripe Bowl (assuming Big XII is unable to fill all its alloted bowl slots).

With 7 bowl tie ins, ten teams and generally weak non-conf scheduling, I wouldn't count on ND getting that slot. Kansas is the only non bowl team for sure. Tech, Iowa St, Baylor, only if all three cant get to .500 does ND get that slot.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:All right, so I was off on ND's preseason ranking. But we're making preseason polls the be-all and end-all now?

No, nobody has. This whole thing started because you said an ND loss to MSU would be a "stumble." I used some objective metrics to show how that's a game you're in fact "supposed" to lose. Obviously, none of that stuff guarantees anything. Try to follow along.

Since my team has a bye this week, I thought I'd bump this one for shits and giggles.

And looky look. For all the shit I took on a 9-3 prediction, my team sits at 4-0 right now, and, more importantly, having already beaten not one, but two of the teams on the schedule that Van was regarding as guaranteed losses.

A lot of football still to be played, and anything can happen, but it looks at least possible at this point that I wasn't giving my team enough credit, as it turns out. The next three games on the schedule -- vs. Miami in Chicago, home vs. Stanford, and home vs. BYU -- are absolutely critical. No automatic outs in there, but we should be favored in every game (I'll say a FG or less against Stanford) and there's a real possibility of being 7-0 heading into Norman on 10/27. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be too worried about BYU, but they're in a classic trap game position on the schedule -- directly between Stanford and Oklahoma.

And no, I'm not making the "we're #1" argument. We definitely aren't #1, and since the Navy game, our offense has struggled far too much for my liking. Our schedule hasn't been nearly as challenging, thus far, as it looked in the beginning of the season (although it's a damned site better than Florida State's season-opening slate, save Clemson). Our defense is pretty damn tough, though -- holding two consecutive ranked opponents out of the end zone for eight consecutive quarters is nothing to sneeze at.

And while I hate to jinx it, and there's still lots of football left to be played, seems to me that all we need to do from here on out to get a BCS bid is to play to expectations. That's particularly true when you consider the rules for BCS at-large bids -- no more than one per conference -- as well as the horrible play overall of the ACC, Big East, and B1G, plus the fact that Boise State's season-opening loss to Michigan State all but eliminated any possibility of a BCS buster this year.

Not going to argue against 4-0 but from a Michigan fan's perspective there's a bit of trouble on ND's horizon. Your offense managed just one TD on a pedestrian (if that) defense, and that was mostly because Denard the Human Interception left you the third of four straight gifts on your side of the field. Even then you needed a freshman PI call to bail your ass out of a FG. Defensively, Michigan was moving the ball with relative ease and really only stopped to test whether Teo or anyone else could catch a ball thrown between their numbers. (And people say Denard has no accuracy.) Not going to go Noj and claim we were six turnovers from winning but both of Michigan's lines won the day. That and what's the point of starting the guy you're only going to pull halfway through the game because the backup is better?

But suppose fair is fair considering last year.

I'll grant that we looked far from impressive against Michigan, and the pessimist in me is starting to compare this season to 1982, my freshman year, when we also started off 4-0 but limped to a 6-4-1 finish (although we did beat Pitt that year when Pitt was ranked #1, and one of our losses was due to a fumble ruled as a TD which would have been overturned by instant replay today, even using the "indisputable video evidence" standard). The similarity is that like in 1982, even though we won our first four games, we've looked progressively less impressive every week.

One thing Kelly has available to him this year that Faust did not have in 1982 is a bye week. I thought it was a little early this year, but as it turns out, it's come at precisely the right time. Hopefully he uses the bye week to work on the offense.

Point in bumping this thread, however, was mainly to bash Van for his prediction of a 2-2 start and no better (and quite possibly worse) than an 8-4 record overall. At this point, all we need to do is play to expectations to finish 10-2 or, at worst, 9-3.

I had no idea what to expect out of this game going into the season. Figured we'd lose just because the piper was due to collect his after the 09 and 11 games but absolutely thought we were going to lose after the MSU game. (I even took ND in the pick 'em.) Was pleasantly surprised we were holding our own and even had a feeling up until the end that Denard was going to pull something else out of his azzz, but that Efert catch did away with that illusion. (Caused me to think of Weis's dipshit call to throw in that 09 game, only this time you guys executed.)

TiC wrote:two of the teams on the schedule that Van was regarding as guaranteed losses.

Show me where I guaranteed losses to both Michigan schools.

Van wrote:

TiC wrote:two of the teams on the schedule that Van was regarding as guaranteed losses.

Show me where I guaranteed losses to both Michigan schools.

Okay, my bad. I was going by memory and didn't bother to re-read first. What you did say was:

Van wrote:You're going to lose to USC, Oklahoma and one of the Michigan schools. That's three losses right off the bat. No way you run the rest of the table. Between Stanford, BYU and the other Michigan school you'll find a way to lose at least one more. I'm tempted to say 7-5 is more likely than 9-3.

You also said . . .

Van wrote:You're losing at least four games this year. Count on it. Looking at your schedule and knowing your recent history stretching back quite a few seasons now, 7-5 really does seem more likely.

And you said . . .

Van wrote:I'll be surprised if you beat either Michigan school.

Yet we beat both.

Van wrote: I'm nearly 100% certain you won't beat USC or OU.

I don't expect a win against either, but at this point I'm extremely loath to put the odds at "nearly 100%" that we'll lose. Both OU and USC look a lot more vulnerable now than they did in the preseason, and our defense certainly has looked a lot stronger than expected.

I'll be fucking stunned if you run the table over the rest of your schedule. No slip-ups at all against the likes of Stanford, BYU, Miami, a (supposedly) improving Purdue squad, BC, a Navy team that only very recently took you two years in a row, etc.?

We beat Navy in impressive fashion.

We also beat Purdue, albeit in somewhat scabdick fashion.

Stanford is potentially worrisome, I expect a defensive slugfest that could go down to the wire. BYU is in an ideal "trap game" setting, although we either will be gunning for 7-0, 6-1, or to avoid a three-game losing streak at that time. A few less worries about a trap game. As for Miami, this is not your father's Miami team, except from the perspective of NCAA rules violations. They're pretty meh this year. I feel pretty good about our chances of winning this game, although that's certainly not a game we can take for granted.

BC is plain terrible this year. We should beat them handily, although that is their rivalry game, so it could be a lot closer than I hope.

I don't know what to make of Pitt. If you told me before the season started that they'd split with Youngstown State and Va Tech, I would've agreed with you. But I would've expected it to happen in the reverse fashion of how it did. For Pitt to lose to Youngstown State, get curbstomped by Cincinnati, then beat Va Tech convincingly, either they're the most schizophrenic team in the country, or Va Tech is a whole lot worse than any of us thought. Or maybe both.

All in all, it looks like my prediction was pretty close to dead on. If anything, it may have been somewhat on the conservative side, although there's still a lot of football to be played.

But you know what's most amazing of all? MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan gave his team a 65% chance of finishing bowl eligible (or better), yet nary a peep came from Van about that. I gave my team the same percentage chance of finishing 9-3 or better, and Van went on for a page-plus about how ridiculous that was. Of course, at least right now it looks like my prediction was a whole lot closer than Mike's was.

Obviously this season isn't turning out the way anyone expected it would for ND...so far.

-MA

And yeah, with the way USC, OU, and ND have looked I wouldn't call anything a lock at this point.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Stanford is potentially worrisome, I expect a defensive slugfest that could go down to the wire.

Stanford will be looking to throw their first shutout of the season.

Van wrote:Obviously this season isn't turning out the way anyone expected it would for ND...so far.

-MA

You're right. I thought ND would be 3-1 at this point, not 4-0.

What's most different of all, of course, is how we're getting it done. Specifically, with defense. Short of what Stanford did against USC, I can't recall anyone yet looking as impressive as we have on that side of the ball. Te'o was always a stud, but early on he had a maddening tendency to run himself out of plays. That seems no longer to be the case, though to be fair, he has a lot more talent around him in the front seven than he did when he first got to ND. And yeah, Michigan and Michigan State probably aren't as good as everyone expected, but anytime you can hold two ranked teams out of the end zone entirely in two consecutive weeks, that's impressive.

Everyone figured that with a more athletic, yet inexperienced, QB at the helm, Kelly's high octane offense either would click on all cylinders, or turn into another turnover machine a la last year. Truth be told, neither has quite been the case (exception for the Navy game, where we had a considerable talent advantage, and possibly last week on the turnovers, although Michigan was even worse in that regard). And Kelly has an opportunity to turn the offense around, facing a bye week and a remaining schedule where 5 of the remaining 8 opponents are weaker than the last two, at least on paper.

But I figured (and this is hardly rocket science) that if Kelly was the right coach for this program, this is the year you'd start to see a turnaround. I never said it would be as meteoric a turnaround as we saw under Parseghian and Holtz in their respective Year Threes, but at least so far we're starting to see a more gradual yet unmistakeable turnaround.

TiC wrote:That seems no longer to be the case, though to be fair,

STOP IT! JUST FUCKING STOP IT ALREADY! GAH!!

You're OK with this, though?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Truth be told

Terry needs to drop a few "at this point in time"s and "irregardless"es, and it would be nearly complete...

we'll save "coconspirator" for down the road.

Dins, at least when it includes the hyphen and it's used in the proper context 'co-conspirator' is the correct word. There's nothing wrong with it, unless it's used incorrectly.

Goobs, I'm okay with Terry using "truth be told" since he doesn't hit us with it every goddamn post, the way he does whenever he goes into full-on Pedantic Elbow Patches Mode.

Dinsdale wrote:Terry needs to drop a few "at this point in time"s and "irregardless"es, and it would be nearly complete...

we'll save "coconspirator" for down the road.

I've never used "irregardless." No such word exists.

And if you want to talk grammatical pet peeves (as seems your wont to do in nearly every one of your posts), you do understand that "lose" and "loose" are different words, don't you?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:(as seems your wont to do...)

:facepalm: doesn't do you justice.

Something about "knowing your shit" and "knowing you're shit."

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:(as seems your wont to do...)

:facepalm: doesn't do you justice.

Something about "knowing your shit" and "knowing you're shit."

Open mouth, insert anus.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wont?s=t

wont [wawnt, wohnt, wuhnt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, wont, wont or wont·ed, wont·ing.

adjective 1. accustomed; used (usually followed by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.

noun 2. custom; habit; practice: It was her wont to walk three miles before breakfast.

verb (used with object) 3. to accustom (a person), as to a thing.

4. to render (a thing) customary or usual (usually used passively).

verb (used without object)
5. Archaic . to be wont.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; (adj.) Middle English wont, woned, Old English gewunod, past participle of gewunian to be used to ( see won2 ); cognate with German gewöhnt; (v.) Middle English, back formation from wonted or wont (past participle); (noun) apparently from

And yes, at least when it comes to vocabulary, I know my shit. I also know your shit is mostly bullshit. Put another way, I know that most of the time, you're bullshitting.

Terry, unless I'm way off the mark here, Dins isn't :facepalming: due to your use of 'wont.' That was fine. It was the addition of "to do" in this context, which was utterly redundant.

"As seems/as is your wont" are the full and correct expressions when you've already identified the action. Nothing else is required.

Yup.

Either "your wont" as a standalone (meaning sans the redundant qualifier), or "you're wont"... one or the other would work (although "wont" as a noun is pretty archaic).

And Terry, bro... when it comes to the actual usage of said vocabulary... you're freaking horrible. Matter of fact, you have a reputation for it around here. And all the wishing in the world doesn't fix that.


Make all the boners you like -- I don't give a shit. Just don't brag about your horrid usage.

dyslexiheimerson's

Van,

If that was the case, then why did Dins go to the your/you're card? This is actually a case where either is correct, since "wont" can be used as either an adjective or a noun.

"you're wont" -- wont as adjective.
"your wont" -- wont as noun.

Terry...no.

Actions are used with 'wont,' yes, but not repetitiously, which was your error.

John? He can probably be found out on the terrace taking a smoke break, as is his wont.

Your error was in adding "to do" after you'd already stated the action...

Terry wrote:And if you want to talk grammatical pet peeves (as seems your wont to do...)

You should have simply written it this way: And if you want to talk grammatical pet peeves, as seems your wont, you do understand that 'lose' and 'loose' are different words, don't you?

Your sentence required neither the parenthetical parentheses nor the repeated action declarative.

There is an appropriate time to add an action following the use of 'wont.' That time comes when...wait for it...you haven't already stated the action.

As is your wont, you again fell victim to a case of the awkward redundancies.

Can you guys just get a room somewhere?

Should we get a room to go into a room?

Sin,
Dude who's STILL defending his horrible usage, even after his multiple errors have been pointed out

Dinsdale wrote:Should we get a room to go into a room?

Sin,
Dude who's STILL defending his horrible usage, even after his multiple errors have been pointed out

sin,
someone posting on a message board who hasn't had a poster type "my bad" since 2004

M Club wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Should we get a room to go into a room?

Sin,
Dude who's STILL defending his horrible usage, even after his multiple errors have been pointed out

sin,
someone posting on a message board who hasn't had a poster type "my bad" since 2004

Solid point...


My bad.