After reading several other boards, the feeling of many are as follows: as long as ND continues to operate the way they have been for over 20 years, this is an 8 year program with an occasional 9 or more outlier and an occasional 6 or less win outlier. And if we can all accept and live with that, we will all be a whole lot happeier.

 

It is just reality in modern day football. Can you live with that if it means doing it ND'S way? I'm starting to realize that I might need to do just that.

Explain to me what you think this means?

Explain to me what you think this means?

 

It means accepting the fact that the rest of cfb operates as a semi pro league while ND operates as a true amateur team. And that 8 wins is the norm with an occasional great season and an occasional poor season and being content with it because we are doing it the right way.

I'm not going to switch teams but I'll be upset if they don't play up to their talent level. If we recruit in the 30's I'll be alright with 8 wins but with the talent we have, 9-11 wins should be the minimum.

And what about Stanford? They've won 76 ganes the past 7 seasons, which proves nd can be a helluva lot better then they've been for the last 20 years even with increased restrictions

And what about Stanford? They've won 76 ganes the past 7 seasons, which proves nd can be a helluva lot better then they've been for the last 20 years even with increased restrictions

 

Yes, that is one example. But they have not won or even played for a title. Also, they play a different brand of football than we do.

I'm not going to switch teams but I'll be upset if they don't play up to their talent level. If we recruit in the 30's I'll be alright with 8 wins but with the talent we have, 9-11 wins should be the minimum.

this is okay if your iowa, who's probably never had a top 30 recruiting class. but ND always has a top 15 recruiting class and should always finish in the top 15.

Yes, that is one example. But they have not won or even played for a title. Also, they play a different brand of football than we do.

 

Well the brand of football can be changed with the coach, that's not set in stone. And yes it's just one example but it's an example that proves success beyond what Notre dame has accomplished is possible. You don't have to settle for being an 8 win program just because you have tougher academic restrictions. Notre dame is not northwestern or Vanderbilt which is potentially who this can be applied too.

 

Notre dame gets kids that rank high enough recruiting wise year in and year out that there's no reason to accept that the ceiling can be 9 wins and that we as fans should be ok with an 8 win team

If you settle for mediocrity, mediocrity becomes the norm.

After reading several other boards, the feeling of many are as follows: as long as ND continues to operate the way they have been for over 20 years, this is an 8 year program with an occasional 9 or more outlier and an occasional 6 or less win outlier. And if we can all accept and live with that, we will all be a whole lot happeier.

 

It is just reality in modern day football. Can you live with that if it means doing it ND'S way? I'm starting to realize that I might need to do just that.

 

When does this troll get banned....

I think it is a legit question and I have been living and dying ND every Saturday in the fall for 38 years.

 

Our expectations are predicated on a reality that hasn't been real since the early 90s.

 

We can be good, sure, as good or even better than the Wiscos or Stanfords, but we will not be elite without a major overhaul to recruiting, all the way up to the priests running the place.

 

And if you know ND, then you know that's not going to change.

 

Elite college football requires a professional mindset and institutional buy in which in turn creates the necessary perception for an 18 year old kid that this University is their best shot at playing on Sundays, no matter their background, grades, geography, or other socioeconomic factors.

 

And that currently is not and nor do I ever see it being the case.

 

If you're a top HS recruit and want to give yourself the best shot at the NFL, you're going to place where that and winning championships are prioritized above all else... Bama, tOSU, Clemson, FSU, SC, OU, LSU, UF, Auburn, etc.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

And the sooner Irish fans recognize that, the more our expectations will align with reality and the more we can enjoy each team for how hard they compete, win or lose. Good seasons and bad.

No.

 

No, I cannot accept an 8-win Notre Dame as the norm. That is why I was calling for Kelly to be fired LAST year. His record speaks for itself. He is not Weis/Willingham/Davie/Faust levels of inept, but he is absolutely not close to the level of Dan Devine and light years beneath Holtz/Ara and could not find Rockne/Leahy with a map.

 

Notre Dame football rises and falls on the ability of the COACHING. Players have been hearing about the "academic rigors" and "lack of social life" canards for going on 75 years now. Ara won. Devine won. Holtz won. Some will claim that Holtz was only winning during a window of relaxed admission standards, but give me the program I was weaned on...1987-1993. Three top 2 finishes, multiple New Year's Day (ie. MAJOR) bowl wins. Exciting teams and players. Legendary games ('88...'93...Snow Bowl...Cheerios...games that are so memorable that anyone who is a die hard KNOWS what those are without ANY additional information).

 

I was a babe when Ara was coach and barely football literate under Devine. My alumni neighbor introduced me to the term "Oust Faust" by hanging a bed-sheet sign out of the windows of his home when I was a kid.

 

Notre Dame is Notre Dame until they decide institutionally to become Yale or University of Chicago or Army. History can and will repeat...Notre Dame WILL rise again (just as Ara promised a beleaguered and battered fanbase in Miami during the 51-7 disaster), but accepting the current level of performance is NOT acceptable under any circumstances...

 

The program was left for dead before...post-Leahy, the early 60's were a time of gleeful proclamations that the program was in terminal decline. We are again precipitously close to the edge of oblivion again. Accepting Brian Kelly's ceiling (cannon fodder for elite teams in big games) would be the end.

 

Brian Kelly must do one of two things: 1) WIN OUT in 2017 (the only real 'upset' on this schedule would be USC, and even THEY look weaker than forecast and MUCH weaker than ranking); 2) resign and make way for a coaching change to bring in a coach who CAN bring us back...

 

Stoops? Meyer? Fleck? An unknown? A rising star? I don't know and I can't speculate, but I can say that the only way I would allow Brian Kelly to return for a 9th season is with sustained, massive improvement and reversion to the TRUE NORM and away from the last 25 years.

No.

 

No, I cannot accept an 8-win Notre Dame as the norm. That is why I was calling for Kelly to be fired LAST year. His record speaks for itself. He is not Weis/Willingham/Davie/Faust levels of inept, but he is absolutely not close to the level of Dan Devine and light years beneath Holtz/Ara and could not find Rockne/Leahy with a map.

 

Notre Dame football rises and falls on the ability of the COACHING. Players have been hearing about the "academic rigors" and "lack of social life" canards for going on 75 years now. Ara won. Devine won. Holtz won. Some will claim that Holtz was only winning during a window of relaxed admission standards, but give me the program I was weaned on...1987-1993. Three top 2 finishes, multiple New Year's Day (ie. MAJOR) bowl wins. Exciting teams and players. Legendary games ('88...'93...Snow Bowl...Cheerios...games that are so memorable that anyone who is a die hard KNOWS what those are without ANY additional information).

 

I was a babe when Ara was coach and barely football literate under Devine. My alumni neighbor introduced me to the term "Oust Faust" by hanging a bed-sheet sign out of the windows of his home when I was a kid.

 

Notre Dame is Notre Dame until they decide institutionally to become Yale or University of Chicago or Army. History can and will repeat...Notre Dame WILL rise again (just as Ara promised a beleaguered and battered fanbase in Miami during the 51-7 disaster), but accepting the current level of performance is NOT acceptable under any circumstances...

 

The program was left for dead before...post-Leahy, the early 60's were a time of gleeful proclamations that the program was in terminal decline. We are again precipitously close to the edge of oblivion again. Accepting Brian Kelly's ceiling (cannon fodder for elite teams in big games) would be the end.

 

Brian Kelly must do one of two things: 1) WIN OUT in 2017 (the only real 'upset' on this schedule would be USC, and even THEY look weaker than forecast and MUCH weaker than ranking); 2) resign and make way for a coaching change to bring in a coach who CAN bring us back...

 

Stoops? Meyer? Fleck? An unknown? A rising star? I don't know and I can't speculate, but I can say that the only way I would allow Brian Kelly to return for a 9th season is with sustained, massive improvement and reversion to the TRUE NORM and away from the last 25 years.

 

 

Another name to throw into the mix is Jeff Brohm, what he's done so far at Purdue is remarkable and they should have beat Louisville too.

 

I really thought we were back in 2014 then that ASU game happened any everything changed. Kelly can show that 2016 was a mirage but I think I speak for all fans when I say 9-3 is the minimum.

I think it is a legit question and I have been living and dying ND every Saturday in the fall for 38 years.

 

Our expectations are predicated on a reality that hasn't been real since the early 90s.

 

We can be good, sure, as good or even better than the Wiscos or Stanfords, but we will not be elite without a major overhaul to recruiting, all the way up to the priests running the place.

 

And if you know ND, then you know that's not going to change.

 

Elite college football requires a professional mindset and institutional buy in which in turn creates the necessary perception for an 18 year old kid that this University is their best shot at playing on Sundays, no matter their background, grades, geography, or other socioeconomic factors.

 

And that currently is not and nor do I ever see it being the case.

 

If you're a top HS recruit and want to give yourself the best shot at the NFL, you're going to place where that and winning championships are prioritized above all else... Bama, tOSU, Clemson, FSU, SC, OU, LSU, UF, Auburn, etc.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

And the sooner Irish fans recognize that, the more our expectations will align with reality and the more we can enjoy each team for how hard they compete, win or lose. Good seasons and bad.

 

Some good points here, ultimately I think the question becomes what are your expectations as a fan? I don't think we have to settle for 8 wins a year but I think it's unrealistic to expect 12. We aren't nor will we be anytime soon if ever ohio State or Alabama. But it's not unrealistic to expect 10 wins consistently and new years day bowls more often then not.

After reading several other boards, the feeling of many are as follows: as long as ND continues to operate the way they have been for over 20 years, this is an 8 year program with an occasional 9 or more outlier and an occasional 6 or less win outlier. And if we can all accept and live with that, we will all be a whole lot happeier.

 

It is just reality in modern day football. Can you live with that if it means doing it ND'S way? I'm starting to realize that I might need to do just that.

 

Per most measures of recruiting, ND averages being in the top 10-15 of all programs. As such, Notre Dame can shown it can recruit at the level to be a top team. ND also can match the infrastructure investments made by other top programs. It has not been talent or money but some other factor (i.e. coaching) that has prevented the Irish from performing at the level desired by most fans.

 

As demonstrated by long bouts of mediocrity experienced by Alabama, USC, Georgia, Texas, Miami, and others in the past 20-30 years, the difference between winning 8-9 games and 10-11 games a year can simply be a change in coaching. Perhaps Brian Kelly 2.0 (and the new coaching staff) is that change. If not, then the next Sweeney, Saban, Meyer, or Fisher might be Brohm, Fleck, or someone else.

Only 4 teams have averaged 9 or more wins since 2012?

 

 

There is 130 in FBS....

Per most measures of recruiting, ND averages being in the top 10-15 of all programs. As such, Notre Dame can shown it can recruit at the level to be a top team. ND also can match the infrastructure investments made by other top programs. It has not been talent or money but some other factor (i.e. coaching) that has prevented the Irish from performing at the level desired by most fans.

 

As demonstrated by long bouts of mediocrity experienced by Alabama, USC, Georgia, Texas, Miami, and others in the past 20-30 years, the difference between winning 8-9 games and 10-11 games a year can simply be a change in coaching. Perhaps Brian Kelly 2.0 (and the new coaching staff) is that change. If not, then the next Sweeney, Saban, Meyer, or Fisher might be Brohm, Fleck, or someone else.

 

Maybe that other "factor" is school? Have you considered the fact that we expect our athletes to go to class? Tuitt was sat a game for being late to class twice. We suspended 5 people for a tutor issue.

 

The factor is, school. Bring Stanford up, PLEASE!! But first tell me when the last time they went to the NC Game was.

Maybe that other "factor" is school? Have you considered the fact that we expect our athletes to go to class? Tuitt was sat a game for being late to class twice. We suspended 5 people for a tutor issue.

 

The factor is, school. Bring Stanford up, PLEASE!! But first tell me when the last time they went to the NC Game was.

 

Is your position that the main culprit of diminished results by the Irish since Holtz are the academic expectations of ND for their players rather than coaching?

 

My point is that other "football factory" schools without the same academic expectations all experienced long stretches without football success but quickly turned things around after a coaching change. ND may hobble itself with higher standards but I remain convinced that the institutional advantages enjoyed by ND offset those limitations and that coaching is the primary factor responsible for results (good or bad).

 

Even if one looks at a school such as Purdue, the impact from a new coach can be amazing. But it has to be the right coach since the two previous Purdue coaches also came in with some similar fanfare but couldn't get it done.

Only 4 teams have averaged 9 or more wins since 2012?

 

 

There is 130 in FBS....

 

Also only 15 schools have played for a title in the last 20 years. ND is one of them. The program could be better, but it isn't exactly dead.

Maybe that other "factor" is school? Have you considered the fact that we expect our athletes to go to class? Tuitt was sat a game for being late to class twice. We suspended 5 people for a tutor issue.

 

The factor is, school. Bring Stanford up, PLEASE!! But first tell me when the last time they went to the NC Game was.

 

Well that's fine you can dismiss Stanford if you want and if your expectations are national titles then yes Stanford hasn't won any recently but does that mean Notre dame can't win 1? Maybe but I don't buy that, Notre dame consistently outrecruits Stanford so I feel with the right coach who can maximize the talent on the roster there's no reason they can't be better then Stanford. And quite honestly being a little better then Stanford wouldbasically put them in the elite category considering Stanford is close to that with 10.8 wins per season over the last 7 seasons.

 

But even if you believe that because of academic restrictions then Stanford is Notre dames ceiling then an 8 win average isn't good enough, 10 wins yes but 8 wins no.

Well that's fine you can dismiss Stanford if you want and if your expectations are national titles then yes Stanford hasn't won any recently but does that mean Notre dame can't win 1? Maybe but I don't buy that, Notre dame consistently outrecruits Stanford so I feel with the right coach who can maximize the talent on the roster there's no reason they can't be better then Stanford. And quite honestly being a little better then Stanford wouldbasically put them in the elite category considering Stanford is close to that with 10.8 wins per season over the last 7 seasons.

 

But even if you believe that because of academic restrictions then Stanford is Notre dames ceiling then an 8 win average isn't good enough, 10 wins yes but 8 wins no.

 

I understand Notre Dame plays for National Titles, but I don't even think that is the issue. ND might never win a title again. But they should at least be able to be in the hunt on a consistent basis. As you said, there is no reason with the players they bring in that they can't win 9-10 games every year with a burst to 12-13 on occasion.

 

Coaching is the deciding factor. It isn't like coaches who have failed at ND have gone on to winning careers elsewhere.

 

Bob Davie - 28-38 at New Mexico

Ty Willingham - 11-37 at Washington, 44-36 at Stanford

Charlie Weis - 6-22 at Kansas

 

Why should we have expected those guys to have won big at ND when they haven't proven they could win big anywhere else? When a proven, top tier coach fails at ND, I'll start to believe the academics argument. Until then, it's just a built in excuse for poor coaching hires.