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

[Steve19]

I think therein lies the difference between Jim Tressel and Charlie Weis:

Substance versus image management.

Thank God we got Tressel.

[BuckeyeNation27]

Originally Posted by LordJeffBuck

I just split off 181 of the 456 posts in this thread and sent them to the Reference Locker under the tile "CW/ND/NDC Flame Fest". No link - find it yourself, if you are really that interested.

This thread is supposed to be about Notre Dame football in 2006, and not about last year's Fiesta Bowl, Weis' weight, whether CW or JT has visited more sick kids in hospitals, etc. Please try to keep on topic. If you want to engage in name calling, chest thumping, joke telling, or anything else not relevant to ND football in 2006, then take it elsewhere.

And while we're at it, try to show a little bit of class toward our ND guests. While NDC (in particular) can be annoying at times, he is not (usually) a flamer or troll, and he obviously wants to be here (for whatever reason). So, cut him some slack, and remember, personal attacks against any member of BP (even our ND fans) may subject you to a warning or infraction.

Why do we have a thread for NA that only blows sunshine up it's ass then? They have wealthy fans that can afford to make their own website.

[Oh8ch]

I think CW is an A-hole. It isn't because he coaches ND - it is because of things he has done.

Next year I look for ND to struggle. They play the meat of their schedule early and that is difficult with a new QB. CW will take some serious heat.

But ND is recruiting well. 10 players last year rated in the top 10 at their position and four more so far in this class. They will continue to get better and in a few years may be a legitimate NC contender.

If/when ND turns that corner will will hear a cry from Domers of "I told you so" and demands for apologies.

You wont get one from me because no matter how much he wins CW will still be an A-hole.

[osugrad21]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNation27

Why do we have a thread for NA that only blows sunshine up it's ass then? They have wealthy fans that can afford to make their own website.

Apparently, you only see the two extremes...namecalling BS or blowing sunshine.

Most normal people can have a conversation and even a disagreement/debate without doing either.

That is the intent here. If someone doesn't like ND or this thread, that is their choice and their right. I would simply suggest avoiding the topic as it is also our right to run this site the way Clarity and the Administration has outlined.

No harm, no foul. However, the expectations are now known by all.

[BrutusMaximus]

No harm, no foul. However, the expectations are now known by all.

There shoulda been a "like it or not" before that sentence

What if we cant speak of Notre Dame without having an episode of tourettes

Can we have a "I hate Charlie Weiss" thread? And not mention ND in it?

No I am not being difficult, just lightening the mood.

[OregonBuckeye]

Notre Dame will be absolutely demolished in their bowl game. I know it's cliche to say Notre Dame is overrated by they really are. They would struggle to go to a bowl game in any conference.

[ulukinatme]

Yeah, name me a conference that plays teams like Michigan, USC, MSU, Purdue (Yes, they've sucked the last two years along with MSU's mid season meltdowns) year in and year out, and usually schedules a few other tough teams each year too? We've played Tennessee quite a bit in recent years, we've played Florida State in '02 and '03, Nebraska and Texas A&M in 2000 and '01. We had LSU and Oklahoma a few times each in the late 90s along with more Tennessee, Texas in '95 and of course the ol' Buckeyes a few times there. Name me a decent team OSU has played outside the Big 10 since Notre Dame, aside from Texas...UCLA....maybe?
Anyway, my point is that Notre Dame's schedule is usually (not always) as tough as a conference if not tougher. We've been playing the only teams in the Big 10 that count for anything, aside from OSU, we've got other teams like USC in there. If we were in the ACC this year we'd be undefeated probably. If we were in the Big East in football like our other sports we'd probably be in a BCS game every year before last year. We can hang with the PAC-10 teams we play. The SEC would probably be the only division ND hasn't played much recently, they've beaten UT the last couple years, but had an ugly loss to FSU a few years ago and went 50/50 against LSU in 2 games one season awhile ago.
So...while I argue that ND could have a better chance getting to a bowl game in some of the conferences, I think the bowl game will be ugly if the opponent has learned anything about ND's inconsistant defense.

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by ulukinatme

Yeah, name me a conference that plays teams like Michigan, USC, MSU, Purdue (Yes, they've sucked the last two years along with MSU's mid season meltdowns) year in and year out, and usually schedules a few other tough teams each year too? We've played Tennessee quite a bit in recent years, we've played Florida State in '02 and '03, Nebraska and Texas A&M in 2000 and '01. We had LSU and Oklahoma a few times each in the late 90s along with more Tennessee, Texas in '95 and of course the ol' Buckeyes a few times there. Name me a decent team OSU has played outside the Big 10 since Notre Dame, aside from Texas...UCLA....maybe?
Anyway, my point is that Notre Dame's schedule is usually (not always) as tough as a conference if not tougher. We've been playing the only teams in the Big 10 that count for anything, aside from OSU, we've got other teams like USC in there. If we were in the ACC this year we'd be undefeated probably. If we were in the Big East in football like our other sports we'd probably be in a BCS game every year before last year. We can hang with the PAC-10 teams we play. The SEC would probably be the only division ND hasn't played much recently, they've beaten UT the last couple years, but had an ugly loss to FSU a few years ago and went 50/50 against LSU in 2 games one season awhile ago.
So...while I argue that ND could have a better chance getting to a bowl game in some of the conferences, I think the bowl game will be ugly if the opponent has learned anything about ND's inconsistant defense.

Well, uh, we play teams like Michigan, MSU, and Purdue every year, because they're all in the Big Ten. We also played both Texas Tech and Washington State (who went to the Rose Bowl) in 2002, and Texas last year. We've also played Arizona in 2000, UCLA in 2001, Washington and NCSt in 2003, NCSt in 2004, and Texas this year. So if you want to use the "we can't know how good they'll be when we schedule them" argument, then it looks like we play a Big Ten slate plus schedule at least one major conference team every year, doesn't it?

And as far as the bolded above goes, you finished 5-6 in 2001, 5-7 in 2003 and 6-6 in 2004...you aren't REALLY trying to claim you would have gone undefeated in ANY conference with those mediocre teams, are you? Your bowl record (when you've made one) over the past 13 years doesn't exactly back up that claim either.

[ulukinatme]

Some conferences play an easier schedule than others. I already mentioned that you played Texas...but we're going to count teams like UCLA, NC State, and Arizona while we're at it? Washington at the very least isn't good, this may be the first year they've been able to turn things around by winning a few games and hanging with USC, they're almost 50% anyway.
Sure we've got 5-6 during some of those seasons, we've done 9-2 as well though, once during one of Bob Davie's seasons even I think. If we had played in the Big East that same year, we probably would have been undefeated since West Virginia and Louisville hadn't really gotten their steam yet. The ACC is crap this year, Wake Forest is 8-1 sure, but the only team they've played thats been close to tough has been Clemson, and they lost that one.
ND would have gone 10-2 if they were in the Big 10 this year, and thats only if they played both OSU and Michigan. Wasn't it Purdue that got away without scheduling OSU or UM last year? Actually, it looks like they don't play this year either, must be nice

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by ulukinatme

Some conferences play an easier schedule than others. I already mentioned that you played Texas...but we're going to count teams like UCLA, NC State, and Arizona while we're at it? Washington at the very least isn't good, this may be the first year they've been able to turn things around by winning a few games and hanging with USC, they're almost 50% anyway.
Sure we've got 5-6 during some of those seasons, we've done 9-2 as well though, once during one of Bob Davie's seasons even I think. If we had played in the Big East that same year, we probably would have been undefeated since West Virginia and Louisville hadn't really gotten their steam yet. The ACC is crap this year, Wake Forest is 8-1 sure, but the only team they've played thats been close to tough has been Clemson, and they lost that one.
ND would have gone 10-2 if they were in the Big 10 this year, and thats only if they played both OSU and Michigan. Wasn't it Purdue that got away without scheduling OSU or UM last year? Actually, it looks like they don't play this year either, must be nice

I'm only counting UCLA, Arizona, and NCState for the ND fans that say "last year's schedule would have been tough other years" like I've heard so many times. Otherwise no, Arizona, UCLA, and NCState those seasons weren't all that special.

Yes, we all hate the Purdue dodge, but it seems like someone gets [censored]-assed lucky in the Big Ten scheduling every year, and I believe this is the second time around (meaning actually the 4th year) that Purdue has been able to dodge both OSU and UM. Funnily enough they were supposedly going to contend for the title last year with 11 starters on D back, and they didn't even make a bowl game, so they completely blew one of those years. They haven't done much better this year, but with their win today they'll go somewhere. It is garbage though.

Louisville wasn't in the Big East back in Bob Davie's years...remember you are now talking about you would have gone undefeated in a conference that contained Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech at the time...I don't think so

[ulukinatme]

Hmmm...Miami yes, and Boston College because they tend to have our friggin' number every year we've played them since '93...Its like a mini-Catholic rivalry or something, or a curse...
Virginia Tech is debateable I think though, they're ho-hum for me at least every other year, like this year they beat Clemson and thats about it, they were losing to a Cincinnati team until a 17 point rally in the 4th, and had to score a late one on a Miami team thats fallen pretty far this season. They went 10-2 under the little punk Vick, but aside from that they had 4 and 5 loss seasons I think.

[MililaniBuckeye]

Penn State was a perennial national power until they joined the Big Ten. Now, they're a middle of the road team with an occasional solid year. Miami was also a perennial power until it moved from the Big Least to the ACC. Once you join an established, tough conference, you're dropping a few notches in success unless you're truly a first-rate team. Notre Dame will likely never join a conference because then they'd have to earn accolades on the field rather than through the media.

[NOTREDAMECHIEF]

Come on Mili are you really trying to compare Arizona, UCLA, Washington and NC State to the likes of FSU, TENN, Nebraska and Oklahoma? Some year's yes but overall ???

[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.

[Steve19]

Now, to return to the thread topic, what happened to the "smashmouth" football that Charlie Weis promised all week to deliver yesterday, against one of the weakest rush defenses in the country (#114)?

Notre Dame only had 80 yards rushing after three quarters and ended with less than 150 yards against a team that was giving up more than 200 rushing yards per game.

Not very impressive, eh?