Notre Dame SOS, history, Charlie's weight, opinions (not football)

[NOTREDAMECHIEF]

Originally Posted by Steve19

Darn it, we've had this discussion for a number of years, as NDChief bloody well knows.

When the objective facts are put on the table (ulukinatme, we have a search function), Notre Dame's schedule and Ohio State's average SOS are virtually equivalent over the years, although Ohio State's has been tougher during the past decade.

That's not the point that posters are making here. The point is that being out of a conference allows Notre Dame to schedule "tough game-creme puff-creme puff-tough game", whereas in conference play, you can face three tough games in a row. Uh, Army, Navy, uh...

So, let's assume that Notre Dame has played tough schedules and examine the objective facts. This will allow us to move away from a "mine's bigger than your's" discussion and to stop the [censored]ing contest.

Notre Dame haven't lost less than three games a year since 1994 and have lost 4.5 games on average every year.

Now, you may argue that this is because they play such a tough schedule, but as I said, we have analyzed power ratings, win-loss records and etc over the years and that simply is not so.

What does emerge from any analysis is that when Notre Dame plays good programs when those programs are not rebuilding, they have a very high chance of losing.

Let's examine the last ten years, 1996-2005. Surely to refer to anything past a decade is to make comparisons that have no meaning anyway. Otherwise, we're debating the glory years at Oberlin.

So, how do your beloved Irish perform against the name brand teams mentioned in this thread?

In the last ten years, Notre Dame is 0-2 against Nebraska (who lost two games both years that they played. They are 2-2 against Tennessee. Tennessee lost a combined 5 games the years Notre Dame lost to them and a combined 9 games the two years Notre Dame won.

In your trophy series with USC, Notre Dame is 3-7 the last ten years and has won only in years that USC lost at least 5 games (and as many as 7 games).

Against Florida State, you are 1-1, winning the year they lost 5 games. Hey, you did beat Oklahoma by four points at home in 1999, uh, yep, they lost five games that year.

You are even only 2-1 against Brigham Young, despite the fact that they did not lose less than 6 games any year you played them. Ohio State and Notre Dame did both play Brigham Young in 1993, they blew you guys out by more than three touchdowns and we beat them.

As for North Carolina State being no a no name brand, we beat them in 2003 44-38 and they put an ass-kicking of note on you guys in your bowl game, winning by more than three touchdowns!

Objective facts speak for themselves. Even if schedule strength is roughly equivalent, you guys have a knack for scheduling "name teams" during down periods and being out of a conference lets you fill the middle the schedule every year with creme puffs.

Now, what about Ohio State?

Between 1996 - 2005, only Florida State and Miami won a higher percentage of games than Ohio State (77.4%). Notre Dame is tied with West Virginia for 30th place (60.8%).

If Ohio State should lose just one or fewer games this year, they will become the winningest program in the 1997-2006 decade, even with the meltdown in the final Cooper years. By any objective measure you wish to choose, computer power ratings, whatever, this has not happened because Ohio State played a softer schedule.

It happened because Ohio State, not Notre Dame, is the premier power in college football. And no matter what Knute Rockne thinks about that, he can't change the facts about what Notre Dame has become.

And this isn't name calling, it's also an objective fact. We have had three modern era games between Ohio State and Notre Dame. Notre Dame was not even in any of those games after the first quarter. There is no comparison and there hasn't been for a long time.

Steve you made some very good points but to say that ND was not in any of those 3 OSU games after the first quarter? The first game ND was in control until the muffed punt and even last year game many of you were ready to [censored] late before they showed the flag on Zibby's return.

Try as you may and you can spin it any way you want but year to year ARIZONA, UCLA, WASH, NC STATE simply do not have the name, history, tradition that FSU, NEBRASKA,TENN or OKLAHOMA do.

But not one of us ND fans can deny that OSU has had the edge anyway you want to spin it the last 10 -15 years. That is just a waste of time....

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by NOTREDAMECHIEF

Steve you made some very good points but to say that ND was not in any of those 3 OSU games after the first quarter? The first game ND was in control until the muffed punt and even last year game many of you were ready to [censored] late before they showed the flag on Zibby's return.

Try as you may and you can spin it any way you want but year to year ARIZONA, UCLA, WASH, NC STATE simply do not have the name, history, tradition that FSU, NEBRASKA,TENN or OKLAHOMA do.

But not one of us ND fans can deny that OSU has had the edge anyway you want to spin it the last 10 -15 years. That is just a waste of time....

Uh, Washington and UCLA have pretty good history and tradition...and of course you've played them the last 2 years yourself. Florida State was absolutely nothing before about 1980 or so. And while it is true that Nebraska and OU have quite a bit more than Arizona or NCSt, both have gone through a few downturns, as have everyone else. What teams did in 1960 or 1970 has no bearing on how easy or difficult a schedule is. Your schedule last year had a lot of big names with mediocre to downright crappy teams...that's just the way it is.

[NOTREDAMECHIEF]

Yes Washington and UCLA have decent traditions but they are not teams that would make fans (exp.fans from other teams) take notice either.

[scooter1369]

In 2003, Washington came to Columbus with two Heisman candidates in Cody Pickett and Reggie Williams and were ranked in the top 15.

In 2002, Washinton State came to Columbus with a Heisman candidate in Jason Gesser and ranked in the top 10.

In 2001, UCLA was a preseason 15 (AP) and 17 (Coaches) ranked team.

[Bleed S & G]

Originally Posted by osugrad21

?Realistically, it?s tough to be in the coaching profession and simultaneously be a loving husband and father and be the molder of young men, where at the same time your job is to win football games,? Weis said.

lol amazing

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by NOTREDAMECHIEF

Steve you made some very good points but to say that ND was not in any of those 3 OSU games after the first quarter? The first game ND was in control until the muffed punt and even last year game many of you were ready to [censored] late before they showed the flag on Zibby's return.

Try as you may and you can spin it any way you want but year to year ARIZONA, UCLA, WASH, NC STATE simply do not have the name, history, tradition that FSU, NEBRASKA,TENN or OKLAHOMA do.

But not one of us ND fans can deny that OSU has had the edge anyway you want to spin it the last 10 -15 years. That is just a waste of time....

Chief, you might enjoy these two historical reports on scout.com

1995: http://ohiostate.scout.com/2/482498.html
1996: http://ohiostate.scout.com/2/483132.html

As Lou Holtz and the Notre Dame players said, they got blown out in the first half of the two most recent games, that is, the games in the 1996-2005 period.

Notre Dame led the Buckeyes 17-14 at halftime in 1995, as you suggest, and I must accept that what I meant to say is not clear in that final paragraph. You are right, Notre Dame was still in the game early in the third quarter in 1995, before getting shellacked.

My point is not about history and tradition, which seems to be the only thing that Domers hang on to.

You have a losing record against most of those "storied" teams you play and you have played them in their down years. So, this incessant bloody bleating about SOS and the tough teams you are playing is old and tired and it is not based in facts.

Notre Dame fans like to crow about its wins against 6-loss Tennessee teams, but this is hardly going to convince anyone who looks at the objective facts behind Notre Dame's performance the last two decades.

As for whether UCLA is a big team, there was a time when the UCLA-USC game was one of America's top games. Their winning percentage the last ten years is 60.5%, almost exactly the same as Notre Dame. In fact, they have played one less game and won one less game, that is the only difference.

I might add that the schedule that you are playing this year is not impressive. Even with our "down Big Ten" this year, there is still less than one point between Ohio State and Notre Dame in SOS this year. By the end of the season, our SOS will again be higher than yours.

Here is my point. Notre Dame fans want use to look in hindsight at wins over weak teams with "big names" and tell us that we should all be impressed. Well, we have examined the facts.

In truth, the facts overwhelmingly suggest that when Notre Dame has played quality teams in the recent era, they tend to lose. When they win, the teams tend to be in rebuilding years and to have three or more losses. And I see nothing this year or last year to tell me that anything has changed, except that you now have a genius coach, of course!