Does Notre Dame deserve a BCS bowl?

[Fotop]

And it's arguable to say that if ND had the warm-ups Michigan did instead of two difficult games to start the season, the result of the ND/Michigan game could have been considerably different (not saying ND would have won, but it's damn hard to open your season like that).

[Rex Hudler]

I'm so sick of ND and their b****ing about rankings. Because, you know what, for that JV schedule they play, they sure as hell should be able to win at least 9 games, and hell, for being ranked in the preseason top 5, they should at least be able to beat one of the two good teams they played. And instead, they got their asses kicked by Michigan and USC, and should be embarassed for even playing a close game against MSU. Voters are a disgrace for their blind love of all things ND. And I swear to god, if I hear how great of a coach Fat Boy is again, I'm going to set the entire College Gameday setup on fire next week.

 

Yeah and there is no bias in that statement.

 

:whatever:

 

Wisconsin would beat ND.

 

Sorry but they both played Michigan, and Wisconsin played them much better. If anything it is possible had Wisconsin played Michigan later in the season when their WR's started to play much better that Wisconsin could have had a chance to beat Michigan. Not to mention Michigan played at ND, where as Wisconsin played at the Big House.

 

You seem to believe that because ND played a better team USC, and lost, that they are some how better than Wisconsin. Wisconsin beat the same quality of teams as ND.

 

I dont see why losing to a team should get you bonus points.

 

 

The point is, Wisconsin is not eligible, so that is a moot point. The limit of two from any conference is to prevent any one conference from loading up on all the cash. That rule has nothing to do with Notre Dame, NOTHING. So while you may not like the rule, we have a system and we knew the rules before the season ever began. Based on the system we have, Notre Dame deserves an at large bid over Va Tech or Louisville. End of argument unless you want to b**** about the BCS in general. If so, leave ND out of the argument, because they have nothing to do with how this year has played out.

 

ND would be much more credible if they did not play teams like army and navy and joined conference to play real compentition. I would love to see ND v. Wisconsin. The fact that ND plays a JV schedule as was previous credibility earns them a lot of disrespect. It adds fuel to the fire for ND haters. Playing a real schedule would go a long way to saying STFU to ND haters like me.

 

This is one the dumbest arguments going. Notre Dame's schedule is set many years in advance. Notre Dame has always played the service academies. That's history. No worse than playing a Division I-AA school or one of the Louisiana directionals. Stanford, Purdue, UCLA, Michigan St are all traditionally respectable teams at minimum. The played Ga Tech and Penn St in addition to their more traditional rivals.

 

So it didn't work out as the strongest schedule this year. But to act as if ND schedules weak intentionally is not only inaccurate, but ignorant how how college football works.

 

And Wisconsin's schedule was worse. They couldn't help the Big Ten being down this year and the fact they missed Ohio State, but they COULD help that they scheduled Bowling Green, San Diego St., Western Illinois and Buffalo. None of those teams are traditional rivals or traditionally strong programs.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Rex Hudler

[IlliniKrush]

This is one the dumbest arguments going. Notre Dame's schedule is set many years in advance. Notre Dame has always played the service academies. That's history. No worse than playing a Division I-AA school or one of the Louisiana directionals. Stanford, Purdue, UCLA, Michigan St are all traditionally respectable teams at minimum. The played Ga Tech and Penn St in addition to their more traditional rivals.

 

So it didn't work out as the strongest schedule this year. But to act as if ND schedules weak intentionally is not only inaccurate, but ignorant how how college football works.

This has been brought up so many times, and no one's ever had a decent response to it. All anyone says is OMG THEY PLAYED THE SERVICE ACADAMIES. As if they aren't allowed to have those games, considering othere teams' OOC schedule.

 

Year to year, ND has what should be a pretty tough schedule based on the programs they schedule. End of story.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

So it didn't work out as the strongest schedule this year. But to act as if ND schedules weak intentionally is not only inaccurate, but ignorant how how college football works.

 

And Wisconsin's schedule was worse. They couldn't help the Big Ten being down this year and the fact they missed Ohio State, but they COULD help that they scheduled Bowling Green, San Diego St., Western Illinois and Buffalo. None of those teams are traditional rivals or traditionally strong programs.

 

ND football is probably as polarizing an issue as abortion, you either love them or hate them. Either way, you will fall over yourself to make excuses for or against them depnding on your perspective..

[Texsox]

LSU had to play at Auburn, at Florida, at Tennessee, and at Arkansas. That's 4 very tough games,

 

ND's first 3 games were pretty tough, but after that they were able to coast until playing USC.

 

Four tough ones, versus four tough ones. It seems your major complaint it when those games were played. I would say playing those right out of the gate is tougher on the better teams than the lesser teams.

 

I'm kind of neutral on Notre Dame. I suspect maintaining their independent status is tough and results in a spotty schedule when other top programs are playing their conference games. Who really wants to schedule ND in between conference games?

 

 

 

Well i think Other teams like, Wisc, Arkansas, and Aubrun DESERVE it more, but ND will get it. Lets Just get rid of the frickin BCS. Please...

 

And go back to the invitation system or always, for example, pairing the Big Ten and Pac 10 Champions? That system favored programs like ND even more because they "traveled well". Back room deals to get into the "major bowls" were almost legendary.

 

The BCS is a major improvement for the fans. It can be tweaked, like any system, but I wouldn't throw it out.

[Buehrle>Wood]

So it didn't work out as the strongest schedule this year. But to act as if ND schedules weak intentionally is not only inaccurate, but ignorant how how college football works.

 

Wether it is intentional or not is well besides the point. Fact is, they did not play enough tough competition this year to belong in the BCS.

[ZoomSlowik]

Four tough ones, versus four tough ones. It seems your major complaint it when those games were played. I would say playing those right out of the gate is tougher on the better teams than the lesser teams.

 

There's really no comparison in toughness between playing at Tennessee and Auburn and playing at Georgia Tech and against Penn State, so it's more like 4 very tough games to 2 very tough games and 2 other fairly difficult games. Penn State and Georgia Tech shouldn't really be a threat to a top-5 team unless they have an off game(at least this year).

 

People keep saying that Notre Dame should have a tough schedule every year, but when was the last time it actually turned out that way? Scheduling up-and-down programs like Stanford or MSU doesn't bolster a schedule all that often, and teams like that make up a good chunk of their schedule. Even Georgia Tech didn't look like THAT tough a game before the season got going. They have two traditional powerhouses on there that are usually going to be tough, but they don't typically have teams from the next tier down like Wisconsin or Georgia that are usually solid and occasionally great. Because of that it typically ends up lacking punch, especially if it turns out that Michigan or USC isn't that strong like last year.

 

I'm not saying that every game has to be against someone like FSU or Tennessee, but it'd be nice to see a little more balance to the schedule. People are always going to b**** that your schedule is feast or famine with that type of setup. If they scheduled 4 or 5 teams that look like they might be tough as opposed to 2 or 3 then it'll generally end up stronger, since that way one team under-performing doesn't kill you. I know they're scheduled years in advance, but I have a hard time buying that they really thought teams like MSU, UNC, or Stanford were really going to be tough.

Edited December 1, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[Rex Hudler]

There's really no comparison in toughness between playing at Tennessee and Auburn and playing at Georgia Tech and against Penn State, so it's more like 4 very tough games to 2 very tough games and 2 other fairly difficult games. Penn State and Georgia Tech shouldn't really be a threat to a top-5 team unless they have an off game(at least this year).

 

People keep saying that Notre Dame should have a tough schedule every year, but when was the last time it actually turned out that way? Scheduling up-and-down programs like Stanford or MSU doesn't bolster a schedule all that often, and teams like that make up a good chunk of their schedule. Even Georgia Tech didn't look like THAT tough a game before the season got going. They have two traditional powerhouses on there that are usually going to be tough, but they don't typically have teams from the next tier down like Wisconsin or Georgia that are usually solid and occasionally great. Because of that it typically ends up lacking punch, especially if it turns out that Michigan or USC isn't that strong like last year.

 

I'm not saying that every game has to be against someone like FSU or Tennessee, but it'd be nice to see a little more balance to the schedule. People are always going to b**** that your schedule is feast or famine with that type of setup. If they scheduled 4 or 5 teams that look like they might be tough as opposed to 2 or 3 then it'll generally end up stronger, since that way one team under-performing doesn't kill you. I know they're scheduled years in advance, but I have a hard time buying that they really thought teams like MSU, UNC, or Stanford were really going to be tough.

 

 

So how does this schedule look?

 

09/04 - Purdue

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

09/18 - Michigan State

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

10/09 - Pittsburgh

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

H - Michigan

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

H - Stanford

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

H - Brigham Young

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

H - Rutgers

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

A - Boston College

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

A - Navy

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

11/27 - Southern Cal

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

? - Washington State

 

Question is, do we have a clue how it will look like in 2010 when they actually play it? Scheduling Rutgers now looks like a smart move. I'd be willing to bet when they scheduled Rutgers, that was a gimme win. Probably still will be, but I think this year shows you never know.

 

Teams in conferences have to schedule three or four games. Notre Dame has to schedule 12. I'm willing to bet it's not as easy as one might think.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Teams in conferences have to schedule three or four games. Notre Dame has to schedule 12. I'm willing to bet it's not as easy as one might think.

Again, their own fault. Again, they did not win against tough competition this year to belong in the BCS.

[IlliniKrush]

Wow, talk about missing his entire point.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Wow, talk about missing his entire point.

It's simple. It doesn't matter how much effort they put into scheduling tough teams and its their own problem that they have to schedule 12 games of their own. If those teams turn out bad, then they have played a weak schedule and (based on their results this year) do not belong in the BCS.

 

 

They could schedule USC, OU, OSU, LSU, Florida, etc all in the same year. If those teams were to all turn out bad for whatever reason, then they have played a weak schedule.

 

 

 

This is not hard to understand. "But they try to schedule hard" remains the least convincing argument on why Notre Dame should be in a BCS bowl.

[ZoomSlowik]

So how does this schedule look?

 

09/04 - Purdue

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

09/18 - Michigan State

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

10/09 - Pittsburgh

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

H - Michigan

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

H - Stanford

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

H - Brigham Young

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

H - Rutgers

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

A - Boston College

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

A - Navy

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

11/27 - Southern Cal

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

? - Washington State

 

Question is, do we have a clue how it will look like in 2010 when they actually play it? Scheduling Rutgers now looks like a smart move. I'd be willing to bet when they scheduled Rutgers, that was a gimme win. Probably still will be, but I think this year shows you never know.

 

Teams in conferences have to schedule three or four games. Notre Dame has to schedule 12. I'm willing to bet it's not as easy as one might think.

 

While things can change, I would say that is moderately better than last year's schedule. At least they drop two of the service acadamies. It looks like there should only be two dogs, although on the other end you probably also only have two good teams unless one or more of the other programs takes a step forward.

 

It could fluctuate a bit depending on the last team though. Army would make it weaker, while bringing back an FSU series would make it pretty good. They still have an awful lot of poor to mediocre programs in there though, which is my entire point.

 

You certainly can't say that looks like a killer schedule considering most of the team on it are rarely strong. Unless the stars align and Purdue, MSU, and Rutgers are all good in the same year it's got a lot of the type of teams that were a problem this year (not sure how you can give Rutgers credit as a tough game considering this is their first good team in my lifetime). If you schedule someone like Nebraska, Georgia or Tennessee instead of Pitt or WSU you get a slightly better idea of what you are getting.

 

You don't have to worry about that randomness (is that even a word?) as much in a major conference, because even in a down year you're almost certainly going to play at least 2 good teams (barring years where you skip a big guy) and as many as 4 or 5. Schedule one good out of conference team and you'll generally have a tough schedule, or at least one that gets you more respect if you go 9-2.

Edited December 2, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[Rex Hudler]

It's simple. It doesn't matter how much effort they put into scheduling tough teams and its their own problem that they have to schedule 12 games of their own. If those teams turn out bad, then they have played a weak schedule and (based on their results this year) do not belong in the BCS.

They could schedule USC, OU, OSU, LSU, Florida, etc all in the same year. If those teams were to all turn out bad for whatever reason, then they have played a weak schedule.

This is not hard to understand. "But they try to schedule hard" remains the least convincing argument on why Notre Dame should be in a BCS bowl.

 

Let's compare then......

 

Notre Dame has wins over Ga Tech on the road and Penn St. (played 7 bowl teams)

 

Virginia Tech has wins over at Wake Forest and Clemson (played 7 bowl teams)

 

Louisville has wins over West Virginia, Miami and Pitt (who lost to Michigan St) (played 7 bowl teams)

 

 

I'd say Notre Dame's wins are as good as the other two. At worst you have a wash here, so how can you bark Notre Dame doesn't deserve it. They deserve it as much as Virginia Tech or Louisville, who are the only two other real options.

 

And just for reference, Wisconsin, who isn't BCS eligible, played just 5 bowl teams.

 

I have yet to see you or anyone else give me another team that deserves it more. I fail to see other teams that have separated themselves over the Irish.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Rex Hudler

[Rowand44]

Let's compare then......

 

Notre Dame has wins over Ga Tech on the road and Penn St. (played 7 bowl teams)

 

Virginia Tech has wins over at Wake Forest and Clemson (played 7 bowl teams)

 

Louisville has wins over West Virginia, Miami and Pitt (who lost to Michigan St) (played 7 bowl teams)

I'd say Notre Dame's wins are as good as the other two. At worst you have a wash here, so how can you bark Notre Dame doesn't deserve it. They deserve it as much as Virginia Tech or Louisville, who are the only two other real options.

 

And just for reference, Wisconsin, who isn't BCS eligible, played just 5 bowl teams.

 

I have yet to see you or anyone else give me another team that deserves it more. I fail to see other teams that have separated themselves over the Irish.

You're missing a HUGE difference between ND and Louisville.

[Rex Hudler]

You're missing a HUGE difference between ND and Louisville.

 

Enlighten me. Yes, Louisville's win over West Virginia is better than any of ND wins (they lost to Rutgers tomorrow and you can throw that argument out the window). But how is there a HUGE difference?

 

Break it down, please.

[Rowand44]

Enlighten me. Yes, Louisville's win over West Virginia is better than any of ND wins (they lost to Rutgers tomorrow and you can throw that argument out the window). But how is there a HUGE difference?

 

Break it down, please.

1 loss vs. 2.

[knightni]

ND has played Tennessee the last 2 years. They've played Florida St., Pittsburgh, Ohio St, Nebraska and Boston College in the past as well.

 

 

Notre Dame has teams locked in as traditional matchups.

 

USC - every year since 1926

Navy - every year since 1927

Purdue - every year since 1928

Michigan St. - every year since 1936

Stanford - every year since 1988

Michigan - most years since 1978 beginning in 1887

Pittsburgh - most years since 1930

Air Force - most years since 1969

 

So, they play 6-8 same teams every year. leaving maybe 3-5 extra games a season - not much room.

 

They played Army this year because the NCAA allowed a 12th game and Army had an open day.

 

Future schedules show Duke, San Diego St. etc because of agreements ND had to make in order to move a game a few years ago.

[Buehrle>Wood]

ND has played Tennessee the last 2 years. They've played Florida St., Pittsburgh, Ohio St, Nebraska and Boston College in the past as well.

Notre Dame has teams locked in as traditional matchups.

 

USC - every year since 1926

Navy - every year since 1927

Purdue - every year since 1928

Michigan St. - every year since 1936

Stanford - every year since 1988

Michigan - most years since 1978 beginning in 1887

Pittsburgh - most years since 1930

Air Force - most years since 1969

 

So, they play 6-8 same teams every year. leaving maybe 3-5 extra games a season - not much room.

 

They played Army this year because the NCAA allowed a 12th game and Army had an open day.

 

Future schedules show Duke, San Diego St. etc because of agreements ND had to make in order to move a game a few years ago.

 

What point, exactly, are you trying to make? Are we supposed to pity them now because they like playing the same teams for most years? And by pity, I mean reward them with a BCS bid.

 

 

I really don't follow CFB all too much, so I shouldn't say who gets a BCS bid and who doesn't. However, the schedule argument for Notre Dame is, well, dumb. "But they try to schedule hard" is a lame argument that makes no sense for why Notre Dame deserves a bid. The same goes for the argument stated in the quote.

 

I don't care if you schedule thousands of years in advance. If it turns out weak, you still do not deserve a free pass.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Buehrle>Wood

[IlliniKrush]

1 loss vs. 2.

In a conference that over the past few weeks has proved it's not as good as some people originally thought.

 

**************************

 

For all those people who are going to use the "Wisconsin played Michigan close" argument (keep in mind they lost by 2 touchdowns, not exactly a down to the wire game), i'm going to point to the "Wisconsin barely snuck by Illinois" argument. I can't stand people who use the margin of victory argument...i just proved you can frame it however you want to.

 

I still haven't seen anything that shows me that Wisconsin is really THAT good. What are their biggest wins? Penn St at home and Iowa on the road?

 

For all the b****ing that people have done about ND's schedule, the games they could control were not scheduled against cupcakes.

 

Their nonconference schedule included BGU, WILL, SDSU, and Buffalo. They also didn't play OSU in Big Ten play.

 

I realize that they can't get into the BCS anyway, but i just don't see how we know that they are as good as some people think they are. I'd certainly put OSU and Michigan ahead of them...way ahead. I also see no way in which OSU wouldn't beat them convincingly, regardless of venue.

Edited December 2, 2006 by IlliniKrush

[Rex Hudler]

What point, exactly, are you trying to make? Are we supposed to pity them now because they like playing the same teams for most years? And by pity, I mean reward them with a BCS bid.

I really don't follow CFB all too much, so I shouldn't say who gets a BCS bid and who doesn't. However, the schedule argument for Notre Dame is, well, dumb. "But they try to schedule hard" is a lame argument that makes no sense for why Notre Dame deserves a bid. The same goes for the argument stated in the quote.

 

I don't care if you schedule thousands of years in advance. If it turns out weak, you still do not deserve a free pass.

 

It's pretty obvious you don't follow CFB too much, because your reasoning is not solid. Unless I missed a post, I don't recall anyone arguing "they try to schedule hard".

 

The point is simple. Schedules are made out years in advance. Notre Dame's schedule is comparable to most other college teams.

 

But to insinuate ND doesn't deserve a bid based on their schedule this year, without comparing their "resume" to the other teams that are competing with them for such a bid is not making an argument at all. Saying Notre Dame does not deserve a BCS bid is assinine without backing it up and providing an alternative solution.

 

So, if you want to argue that, should Rutgers beat West Virginia, then Louisville, the 2nd place team in the Big East deserves a bid instead of the Irish, then make it. Provide an argument. But keep Wisconsin and other teams that are not eligible to be picked instead out of it. Argue the issue over ND and keep it relevant.

 

If you don't like the BCS system and think a team like Wisconsin should be eligible, then discuss the merits of the limitations of the BCS and why you think it is fine there is an unlimited amount of teams goign from one conference. But leave Notre Dame out of that argument, because it is a totally different discussion.

 

Pick your argument, go ahead. But get off the ridiculous statements that are based and half the information without an alternative.

 

And for everyone's information, I am a casual Notre Dame fan at best. I am a Michigan football fan and root for the Big Ten. I am far, far from a ND diehard, but I laugh at all the hate of ND. Hate them if you want, but at least make a logical arguement.

[AbeFroman]

Ultimately, ND faced top ten teams twice... twice they were beat by 20 or more points (once at home). If ND wins one of those games, or maybe stays close in one or both, they are a bonafide top ten team. But they didn't. I think there are 10-12 teams that are more deserving than ND. The point was made that Wisconsin had an easy schedule... but at least Wisconsin stayed with Michigan for a while (at the Big House no less).

 

This ND thing is driven by fans of Notre Dame desperately trying to harken back to the days when the Irish were a powerhouse. Sorry guys. They aren't one of the elite football schools anymore. They haven't won a bowl game in 12 years and they've been absolutely smoked by the last three top teams they've faced (including OSU last year).

 

Charlie Weis may have been successful with the Patriots. But the fact remains that Ty Willingham, Bob Davie, or probably 50 NCAA coaches could have led the Irish to exactly the same record they have this year. In my mind, he hasn't done anything to set himself apart as a great NCAA coach yet.

[Pauly8509CWS]

What point, exactly, are you trying to make? Are we supposed to pity them now because they like playing the same teams for most years? And by pity, I mean reward them with a BCS bid.

I really don't follow CFB all too much, so I shouldn't say who gets a BCS bid and who doesn't. However, the schedule argument for Notre Dame is, well, dumb. "But they try to schedule hard" is a lame argument that makes no sense for why Notre Dame deserves a bid. The same goes for the argument stated in the quote.

 

I don't care if you schedule thousands of years in advance. If it turns out weak, you still do not deserve a free pass.

 

I think his point was that it's similar to a conference schedule, in that, they basically have to play these teams, and are actually only scheduling four or five other "non-conference" games. These four or five games fluctuate every year, similar to non-conference games for the other schools in D1.

 

Charlie Weis may have been successful with the Patriots. But the fact remains that Ty Willingham, Bob Davie, or probably 50 NCAA coaches could have led the Irish to exactly the same record they have this year. In my mind, he hasn't done anything to set himself apart as a great NCAA coach yet.

 

Plus he's an arrogant jag to reporters and the news media. And too damn whiny about where ND is ranked. Don't b**** Charlie, WIN!!! That's how you stay in the top 10, not by winning games in thrilling fashion and then hoping you get hyped by ESPN. Win games, smoke bad teams, and hell, when you play against Michigan and USC, try to compete with them!

 

But honestly, what the hell should he care, he just signed an undeserved extension for 50 years.

 

Wisconsin has a JV schedule, just like ND's. Actually, ND played 2 elite teams this year, Wisconsin played 1.

 

ND would be 1-loss playing that schedule. Hell, maybe they'd catch a few breaks and even beat Michigan.

 

I never brought Wisconsin into this. I'm not really impressed by them much either.

 

But of course, you must find something to make fun of him for because his coaching skills are unprecedented.

 

Really? As a head coach he's won what? As far as I'm concerned, Weis is on the same level as Wanny as a College coach.

[Rowand44]

In a conference that over the past few weeks has proved it's not as good as some people originally thought.

 

**************************

Why exactly is that? Because a pretty good South Florida team beat WVU? If anything that just proves the conference is deeper than thought, to me. Rex basically just compared Louisville and ND's schedule and wins and concluded they're pretty close to equal, if that's the case why would you take the 2 loss team over the 1 loss team?

Edited December 2, 2006 by Rowand44

[IlliniKrush]

USF over WVU...Cincy over Rutgers...

 

It doesn't quite have the dominant teams that people originally thought it did. In no way does that make it a 'deeper' conference, it just means the teams are a lot closer to each other than we thought. It doesn't, however, make them that much better due to those games.

[Fotop]

Charlie Weis may have been successful with the Patriots. But the fact remains that Ty Willingham, Bob Davie, or probably 50 NCAA coaches could have led the Irish to exactly the same record they have this year. In my mind, he hasn't done anything to set himself apart as a great NCAA coach yet.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Ty Willingham is a fraud. Don't believe me? Ask Washington fans. They fell in the same trap of Ty being a great "character" guy and the "right person for the program" as ND did 4 years ago. Now they're calling for his head just like ND was; too bad there wont be the same fanfare that was involved when he was fired at ND after 3 years. The man is an awful, awful game coach and an overrated recruiter. If you can't see that, then I've got some prime, overlooked land for sale in the swamplands of Florida. Quick ridiculous Weis v. Willingham stat of the day, Brady Quinn threw for 35 TDs this year. Ty Willingham never had more than 34 offensive TDs in any season he coached ND

 

Now for the more pertinent Weis v. Willingham Stats (considering two season sample sizes):

- Willingham took over an ND team that was 14-9, w/ a +56 difference in points for/points against.

- Two years later, he's 15-10 w/a +1 differential

- Weis took over an ND team that was 11-13, that had a -72 difference in points for/points against.

- Two years later, he's 19-5 w/a +266 differential.

 

And for fun...here's the comparison for Pete Carroll:

- Carroll took over a team that was 11-13 w/a +52 differential and turned it into a 17-8 team w/a +314

differential.

- Point being, Weis produced an 8 win improvement over a 2 year span (Carroll 6 wins), and has a 328 pt

improvement (Carroll's was 262 pts)

 

Simply put, Weis turned an undisciplined, awful 6-5 team (that lost the friggin insight bowl) into a 9-3 team that finished in the top ten. He's 19-5 in his first two seasons, and I believe the only ND coach (in the modern era) with a better two year record is Ara.

 

He completely flipped the momentum for recruiting top athletes around (Ty brought in the two worst recruiting classes in ND history in back to back years) finishing with one of the top 5 recruiting classes in the country last season, and lining up to do the same this year. When's the last time you saw athletes like Armando Allen, Jimmy Clausen, et al flocking to ND? Isn't it too cold, too hard in class, and an awful college "experience"? Weis is relentless when it comes to recruiting...certainly couldn't say that about Willingham.

 

Needless to say, it's good to see some people in this thread (Rex, Krush, to name a few) that can actually step back and objectively analyze ND. I don't know what it is about ND that makes people so angry and/or irrational, but again, I find it quite funny.