Okay, I’m procrastinating on my Moot Court paper again, which means it’s time for another wild BCS scenario.
Once again, it involves USC losing to fUCLA. I know, I know, it’s disloyal of me to think of such things… but with Becky’s and my wedding set for December 30 in the Phoenix area, I had to wonder… could USC and Notre Dame somehow end up playing each other in a Fiesta Bowl rematch on January 2, thus sending attendance at our wedding through the roof? :) (Conveniently enough, I believe our RSVP date is a few days after the BCS pairings will be announced.)
Here’s the scenario. Notre Dame wins out, and finishes high enough in the standings that they are BCS-eligible. UCLA beats USC in a close game on Dec. 3; the Trojans drop to #3 or #4 in the BCS standings. Texas and UCLA finish #1 and #2, and play in the Rose Bowl. Miami wins the ACC and goes to the Orange Bowl. The SEC champion (doesn’t really matter who it is, but I’ll go with LSU) goes to the Sugar Bowl. Up for grabs, bowl-wise, are: Big 10 champion Ohio State, Big East champion Rutgers :), and two at-large teams — one of which must be USC, because (like in 2002-03), the Trojans are a non-conference-champion in the Top 4, are thus are guaranteed a BCS berth.
So, before any of the discretionary bowl picks, the lineup looks like this:
Rose Bowl: Texas vs. UCLA
Orange Bowl: Miami vs. _____
Fiesta Bowl: _____ vs. _____
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. _____
The Fiesta Bowl, having lost its host team to the Rose Bowl, picks first. Obviously, the folks in Tempe pick the team whose huge national fan base gives every bowl in the country wet dreams: the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, who went 9-2 on the season.
According to this article, the order of bowl picks then goes: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar.
The Orange Bowl’s choices are: USC, Ohio State, or Rutgers. Obviously Rutgers is out of the question (as any Big East champion would be). So who do they choose: the Trojans or the Buckeyes? Well, think about it. The Orange Bowl hosted USC three years ago, and again last year. Will they really want the Trojans again? I think not… especially considering that the Trojans would be coming off a loss, whereas Ohio State would be on a six-game winning streak. Moreover, picking OSU would be an the opportunity to host a rematch of 2002-03’s thrilling double-overtime championship game between Miami and Ohio State — a rematch that the Fiesta Bowl was salivating over in 2003-04, until Kansas State gummed up the works by beating Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game. (The Fiesta Bowl ended up hosting KSU vs. OSU instead.) Am I crazy in thinking that the Orange Bowl would pick OSU? (Or, for that matter, Penn State? Or Wisconsin? Okay, maybe not Wisconsin…)
If I’m right that the Orange Bowl would pick the Big 10 champ over USC, that would leave the Fiesta Bowl with two options for who would play Notre Dame: the Big East champ, or the Trojans. Right, like that’s a hard choice. The result: Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe, Arizona plays host to a rematch of OMG OMG The Greatest Game Ever, which immediately becomes the most-hyped bowl game this side of Pasadena. That’s right, it’d be USC vs. Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl. And suddenly, 250 people would be coming to Becky’s and my wedding, and that whole discussion about delaying our honeymoon would take on new urgency. :)
Of course, none of this is going to happen, because USC is going to crush UCLA on December 3. But it sure would be interesting…
|
Categories: Our wedding
|
November 1st, 2005 at 11:06:52 pm
Dude, USC is not going to lose. Just deal with it, OK?
November 1st, 2005 at 11:09:52 pm
Heh.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:37:03 pm
Not to mention that Notre Dame is…
November 1st, 2005 at 11:38:02 pm
Yep… to Navy. My predictions say so! :)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:05:12 am
I love all this talk brendan. Seems like a subconscious secret fantasy of UCLA beating USC
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:24:46 am
Bite your tongue young man….
Pthhh Pthhhh Pthhh I have to spit on you three times to wash away the very idea that USC will loose to UCLA
Never mention it again EVER!
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:31:26 am
LOL Toni.
Dream on, Tran… you’re going DOWN… I just love crazy BCS scenarios. :)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:51:26 am
Brendan,
Are you aware that Notre Dame’s winning streak against Navy is the the longest winning streak against one team in 1-A football history?
Notre Dame is not losing to Navy..just like the Irish didn’t lose to Washington.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:55:13 am
Wow, that’s a crazy scenario indeed.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:58:03 am
Are you aware that Notre Dame’s winning streak against Navy is the the longest winning streak against one team in 1-A football history?
Of course I am, and that’s why I predicted a loss. Navy is due! It’s gotta happen sometime!
Not to say I actually think it will happen. I like predicting crazy upsets. I didn’t think Bucknell would really beat Kansas when I predicted that, either…
That said, in this case (unlike with Bucknell) I won’t be rooting for my prediction to be right…
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:06:31 am
It would be a travesty if UCLA plays in the National Championship game. It already sucks that last year’s game was such a blow-out…not exciting enough. Texas will wipe its ass with UCLA–they’re pitiful. But, of course, Texas won’t get the opportunity, because there’s no way this USC team loses to UCLA.
However, should UCLA force an upset (and lord knows I’d love to see USC–scratch that, Pete Carroll–suffer a devastating defeat) I’m not sure the Fiesta Bowl would pick Notre Dame (assuming the Irish go 9-2, which they will–and assuming that 9-2 brings them to 12 or above, which it will) over USC. Regardless of Notre Dame’s national and fanatic following, Tempe is just too close to Southern Cal for Southern Cal to be picked over. It’s PAC-10 territory.
And, of course, even if they do pick Notre Dame, I doubt the Orange Bowl would pass on Southern Cal for Ohio St.–or any other Big 10 team for that matter. Pipe dream!
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:16:22 am
I think the Fiesta might pick Notre Dame first and gamble that they’ll get USC too, rather than picking USC knowing there’s no way in hell the Orange Bowl will pass up ND. I’m really not sure the Orange Bowl folks would want their bowl to become known as the Pete Carroll Invitational. Seriously, that’d be three out of four years! My impression is that bowls generally don’t like to have the same team over and over, if they can avoid it.
If UCLA were to beat USC, it would absolutely not be a “travesty” for them to play in the championship game. Indeed, it would be a travesty for them NOT to, under those circumstances. They’d be undefeated and they would have the best quality win of anyone in America. What more could you ask for?
But as you say, it’s not going to happen.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:41:32 am
Yes, but Brendan…you and your PAC-10 Ty loving friends consistently fail to understand that records aren’t the end-all-be-all indicators of greatness. If UCLA beats USC, it won’t be because UCLA is a better team. True, whether in a play-off system or in the BCS system, the better team won’t always win the “semi-qualifier,” so to speak.
But any true football fan would/should be tremendously disappointed to see UCLA in the championship game, as opposed to USC or Virginia Tech. It would, in my opinion, be a travesty to be deprived of seeing a Texas v. USC match-up. (unless of course, USC does in fact play ND, in which case game-on!)
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:45:57 am
Brendan, you are asking thebeef to see past his little golden nose and accept reality, don’t be so cruel.
Beef, if Brendan’s scenario holds true then UCLA is atleast capable of beating USC, the same USC who everyone outside of Texas thinks can beat the Longhorns. Seems a little odd for you to then claim that Texas would wipe the floor with UCLA.
And finally, you obviously don’t understand the bowl system. Bowls not only want to bring in teams for a good game, they want to bring in teams that will bring in fans that will spend as much money as possible. USC fans are less likely to spend any significant amount of time in Arizona (its allready Pac-10 territory, they visit once or twice a year allready), than a group from further away for whom a trip to Tempe would be a novelty.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:28:15 am
Hey, beef, don’t lump me in with David on the Ty issue, I supported his firing and I think Weis is a huge improvement. That said, I hope Ty succeeds at Washington, and who knows, maybe he will. But at the very least, I don’t think he was right for Notre Dame, and I think his firing was justified.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:19:16 am
So you feel that a Coach deserves to be fired for not being able to do his job because he isn’t being given the support of the administration and that having a decent season and building a team which was obviously talented means he doesn’t fit in at Notre Dame?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:24:46 am
I don’t want to get into a big debate over it. Bottom line, I think Ty is a bad coach. But even if I’m proven wrong about that (or if he gets better), I still think he wasn’t a good fit at ND; he always seemed uncomfortable with the whole pep rally, rah-rah, Fighting Irish spirit stuff. He never really seemed at home. And no, that has nothing to do with being black. The year before I started here, the Leprechaun was black, and by all accounts, he was awesome. :)
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:02:49 am
Check out this USC story: http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/sports/13050873.htm
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:17:25 am
Good pick going with LSU ;)
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:05:13 am
Miami finishing ahead of Virginia Tech AND beating Florida State in the ACC Championship game? Somehow, I think VT will wear the ACC crown this year.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:28:39 am
Perhaps, but I’m going to say that’s not exactly the most implausible part of my scenario. :)
Speaking of implausible… GO HUSKIES!! BEAT THE MOUNTAINEERS!! (Tonight at 7:30.)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:18:46 pm
Brendan, if Miami wins out, I guarantee you the Orange Bowl would choose USC in your scenario. Miami winning out would signal that Miami is *back*, and everyone in the media wants to see if the Miami of the West Coast truly has overtaken Miami in turns of talent and overall prowess.
There are three matchups that everyone is dying to see: USC vs. Miami, USC vs. LSU, and USC vs. Texas (that last one used to be Oklahoma, until we spanked them in the Orange Bowl in grand fashion).
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:32:32 pm
Okay then, what if it’s Florida State or a one-loss Virginia Tech? Or, for that matter, an undefeated Virginia Tech (though I assume such a team would trump UCLA and go to the Rose Bowl)? Does the Orange Bowl still pick USC?
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:34:42 pm
Everyone is dying to see USC v. LSU? Or are you only speaking for USC fans? Because this year’s LSU team aint the same team from a few years back…USC will kill them.
David, nice try…I admit that I wear golden colored glasses when it comes to college football–you, on the other hand, actually think that your stupidity is objective. You don’t need golden colored glasses to see that Ty is a bad football coach. Honestly David, watch your own team this year. And for one minute, please understand that football is not all about the talent…its about play-calling, development, game-time adjustments. Ty’s teams NEVER develop; Ty’s capable, at most, of one game-time adjustment per game; and he’s a horrendous play-caller, as should be evident from last weeks handling of the 4th quarter.
Somehow I very much doubt that Monk Malloy or Kevin White (who both openly LOVED Ty, and who both publicly said that they didn’t want him fired) forced Ty to make bad game-time decisions. I hardly think they kept Ty from teaching Quinn how to throw a three step drop, or how stand under center without duck-squatting.
I don’t think its an accident that Quinn is leaps and bounds better under Weis, considering that Tom Brady also performed leaps and bounds better under Weis. It’s the coaching stupid.
You do, however, make a fair point about the Fiesta Bowl. I don’t think its fair to say that the Fiesta Bowl would DEFINATELY pick Notre Dame over Southern Cal, should it come to that, but its plausible–I never said otherwise.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:36:38 pm
P.S. Incidentally, if the Rose Bowl were Virginia Tech vs. UCLA (i.e., Texas loses instead of VT losing), the Orange Bowl would get the first TWO picks, and could basically select whatever teams it wants from the other BCS qualifiers (minus the SEC champ, which is guaranteed to the Sugar Bowl, and the Big 12 champ, which is guarantted to go to the Fiesta Bowl). Leaving out the Big East champ, their options would be USC, the Big 10 champ, or an at-large team — which is to say, Notre Dame. My assumption is they would stage a Notre Dame vs. Penn State or Notre Dame vs. Ohio State game in such a scenario… but they could go with USC vs. Notre Dame instead, if they preferred. (That would probably become the most viable option if Wisconsin wins the Big Ten, no?)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:43:34 pm
Brendan, considering the hubaloo of ND v. USC earlier this year, I would think the Orange Bowl would find an ND v. USC match-up the most viable option regardless of who wins the Big-10
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:49:03 pm
Brendan, I’m quite certain that the Orange Bowl has to take the Big East champ if the ACC champ is not available.
beef, I don’t think LSU is that special, but there is a whole region of the country (and then some) that believes LSU was the better team in 2003, and they are dying to show that USC is a wussy, overrated program that should have lost to Auburn in the Orange Bowl last year. Meanwhile we at ‘SC are licking our chops at the chance to decimate an SEC champion and shut up the corndogs for good.
Brendan, if the Orange Bowl has Florida State or Virginia Tech as the ACC champion, then yes, I doubt they’d want USC. There’s a chance, but USC has played Virginia Tech and Florida State in recent memory, so the excitement for those games wouldn’t be quite as high as for USC vs. Miami.
Then again, I thought that in 2002, the Rose Bowl would have Washington State vs. Iowa, and the Orange Bowl would take USC vs. Oklahoma, but the Orange Bowl preferred USC vs. Iowa, so what do I know?
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:51:35 pm
I would think the Orange Bowl would find an ND v. USC match-up the most viable option regardless of who wins the Big-10
Perhaps so… but bowls generally hate rematches of regular-season matchups, no? But maybe you’re right, perhaps a USC-ND Orange Bowl is the more plausible scenario.
Of course, all of this is implausible, since it involves USC losing…
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:52:35 pm
Brendan, I’m quite certain that the Orange Bowl has to take the Big East champ if the ACC champ is not available.
Oh… really? Okay, nevermind then. :)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:52:59 pm
P.S. Rutgers vs. USC!! Bring it on!! LOL.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:54:41 pm
P.P.S. According to ESPN, representatives of the Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Gator Bowls will all be in attendance at the ND-Tennessee game on Saturday. Heh. (I’m not sure how on God’s green earth the Sugar Bowl folks think they have any chance at nabbing the Irish, considering they have last pick, but whatever.)
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:55:04 pm
Err, correction… if Alabama goes to the Rose Bowl the Sugar Bowl folks could get ND… so, disregard above statement.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:18:01 pm
Beef, the only one showing his stupidity here is you.
I have never, not once, claimed that Ty is/was a great coach.
As for the Huskies season this year, I doubt anyone short of Jesus himself could do much with what we have at Washington. Neuheisel was a terrible recruiter. Absolutely awful. Is it Ty’s fault he inherited a team that went 1-10 last year? (ok, i mean he took the job, but he took the job because he was going to rebuild the program, not work miracles in one year.)
What you seem incapable of comprehending is the reality that Weis has proved very little about how succesful he will be over time at Notre Dame. The only thing we know for sure at this point is he can coach well with players recruited by someone else.
Now its entirely possible that he will continue doing well, that Notre Dame will become a perenial Top 10 team. I don’t have a problem with that, I am not out to see him fail or anything, I honestly have nothing against Weis.
What I do have a problem with is people like you who were ready to beatify Weis but crucified Ty, a coach who started out with a better record. Fine, Ty didn’t work out, but don’t you think its a tad ridiculous to think that Weis is bulletproof?
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:48:41 pm
Typically when the BCS bowls and conference tie-ins are shown, it looks something like this:
Rose Bowl: Big [Eleven] and Pac-10
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12
Sugar Bowl: SEC
Orange Bowl: ACC/Big East
Note that the Orange Bowl doesn’t show ACC and Big East like the Rose Bowl shows Big [Eleven} and Pac-10. This leads me to conclude that the Orange Bowl is tied to both the ACC and the Big East but is not obligated to take both champs, only one of the two.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:58:10 pm
David, I know you’ve never claimed Ty was a great coach…what I cannot get past is your refusal to accept that he is a bad/below-average coach.
As far as the Huskies this year: again, you’re too dim-witted to get beyond the record. No, I wouldn’t expect a coach to go into Washington and finish with a winning season. I would expect, however, to see some marks of improvement–that’s the issue. Washington has shown barely any improvement at all. Look at their current points-for and points-against margin: -14. Where was it last year? -16. Not exactly dramatic improvement. But what’s worse…Washington has shown zero improvement from the first week. That is totally unacceptable. I don’t care who the players are, or who recruited them, a coach needs to be able to improve his team. Ty didn’t do it in South Bend, he’s not currently doing it in Washington.
Notre Dame fans, like me, are thrilled with Weis because there is dramatic improvement. And what’s more, the team improves (at least offensively) each week. (I’ll grant you, the defense looked poor against BYU) And Notre Dame fans are certainly not the only people singing Weis’ praises. Even sports-writers like Jay Marrioti (who has NO love for Notre Dame whatsoever) can’t get over what a great coach Weis is. The entire reason that the NFL rumor was plausible is obvious: Weis is doing a great job, the NFL would be nuts not to want him. Why is it we didn’t hear rumors about Ty going to the NFL? Exactly, because why in the world would the NFL want Ty?
You keep harping on Ty’s 8-0; but you’re not capable of getting beyond those numbers. You’re not capable of understanding that those wins came primarily from the defense. You can’t comprehend that when Notre Dame did start losing, they started losing in a big way, as opposed to Weis’ two 3-point losses.
And, while you’re right, Weis has not shown that he can win with his own recruits–what in the world suggests that he wont be able to? Especially considering his ability to run his offense with players not of his choosing?!
I’m sorry about constantly harping on Ty–I have to admit, it’s just cathartic. Notre Dame fans were raised to expect National Championship runs each year. We’ve been deprived of those expectations by under-achieving teams for the past decade. It feels good to have a coach that won’t accept mediocrity. And after the lambasting that Notre Dame received after firing Ty, it is cathartic to revel in Ty’s unmasking as a bad coach.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:04:30 pm
Andrew, fair enough on LSU v. USC. I certainly understand the draw considering 2003–but this isn’t the year the SEC wants to challenge USC’s status as king of the hill.
I don’t think the PAC-10 is better than the SEC…but I sure as hell think USC is leaps and bounds better than any SEC team this year. And I’m pretty sure an honest SEC fan would agree. Particularly if you’re talking LSU.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:15:09 pm
What’s with Linda and her FUSC outfit. And she dares throw a victory sign, as if she knows the meaning. Somebody please explain such ridiculousness.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:18:47 pm
Umm, she’s an ND student. (A Double Domer, in fact.) And she’s making fun of her archrival. Does that answer your questions?
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:28:53 pm
Brendan,
That is the simplest answer I’ve ever received.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:34:05 pm
Is this your idea of propaganda/marketing to promote and propagate a trend to deride SC in a similar fashion as fUcla. I would never, as an SC student, such a pix on my blog….nor give the intimation that UCLA will defeat SC.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:56:52 pm
thebeef, I am witholding judgment on Ty because he came in to a ridiculous situation. I really don’t think you understand the depth of what went wrong up here with the football program. It may not show in the numbers but this years Husky team HAS improved over last years, and in fact has improved since the begining of the season. Based on the way they played early on i never would have expected them to hang with USC as closely as they did, and certainly never would have expected them to almost beat UCLA.
It may not look like much, but when you have a team that is in the bottom of the cellar, going up a couple notches is an improvement, even if it doesn’t look like much from up above.
And I don’t care if Ty won 8 and then lost ever single game afterwards. My problems have been this:
1) Not giving credit to one coach for bringing in the players that another has succeeded with. We will never know whether Ty would be having the same type of success this year or not. We will get to see whether Weiss can continue winning with a program that will become more and more his. As for your comment about whether he can keep winning with his own recruits, I point you to the example of Rick Neuheisel, who came in went 11-1 with players that Jim Lambright recruited, and 3 seasons later went 6-6 with players he had recruited.
2) Praising Weis after one season and offering him such an overzealous contract, while at the same time ignoring your own history of a coach who came in and did very well and then struggled.
Weis may do great things for ND, Ty might do great things for Washington. Or not. We don’t know yet. We just don’t know. But failing to give credit where credit is due and understanding that creating a succesful team is about more than a couple of seasons shows a distinct lack of both class and understanding of football from a school that prides itself on both.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:09:06 pm
David–I’ll grant you that I didn’t follow Washington football last year or the year before, so maybe you’re right–maybe I don’t fully understand the horrible depths that Ty walked into. But I have followed Washington this year out of a morbid fascination…and I certainly disagree that Washington has improved over this season. I certainly find Ty’s game-time decisions apalling (spelling?).
If I have a lack of understanding for Washington’s situation, than you are infinitely more ignorant of Notre Dame’s situation. You keep mentioning that I should give Ty credit for his players. Fine…I give him credit for his players. But I give him no credit for their ability to perform this season. None. Nobody under-utilized talent like Ty (Bob Davie takes a close second).
Jeff Samardizja saw barely any play time last year. This past August, the ND baseball coach (Samardizja is also ND’s star pitcher) sat down with Weis and told Weis he doesn’t understand why Ty wouldn’t play Jeff, but that Jeff is a star and should be played. Weis agreed…and the rest is history. Why would the baseball coach know to play Jeff, but Ty didn’t? What about Julius Jones?? Why was everyone so surprised that Jones could play ball in the NFL, but not in college? Oh yeah, because Ty ignored Jones.
Why are players suddenly open, whereas they weren’t last year? You’d have us believe that the players suddenly became faster (on their own or as a result of Ty’s coaching last fall) due to past experience. And you’d have us believe that Quinn just magically learned to change his passing form because of Ty’s tutelage last fall. And then you have the audacity to say that I don’t understand football?
It never occured to you that players might be open because we have THE offensive guru in the nation implementing a new system, as opposed to that loser Diedrick? (By the way, Washington only took on Ty if Ty agreed not to bring Diedrick) It never occured to you that Quinn is performing better because he’s learning from the same masterful coach that turned Tom Brady into a hall of famer? (If you think that characterization is unfair, ask Tom Brady about it) You think Maurice Stovall is suddenly performing this year because something just clicked inside of him after Ty’s coaching last year? That it’s not related to Weis forcing him to lose weight this summer (something Ty never did) and Weis’ play-calling?
You sit here and try and tell me that these players are playing well because of coaching they received last November, and then claim I don’t understand football? Yeah right…nice try.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:17:07 pm
OK ALREADY!
YOU GUYS GOT YOUR DAMN IRISH CATHOLIC, JUMP UP AND DOWN HOO RAH, FIGHT FIGHT, COACH!!
YOU FINALLY HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN BACK IN CHARGE OF THE MIGHTY IRISH.
All I have to say is that he did not deserve the contract after 7 games.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:19:23 pm
sorry for the all caps.
this is a sore subject because on every board that I go to no one wants to admit that Ty was just not what the alumni wanted, an Irish Catholic coach that they could sit next to in Mass and share a Stout will discussing football.
what a messed up world!
again, sorry Brendan for being this loud in your blog.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:22:00 pm
“One of our own”?
Are you calling us racists who prefer Weis at least in part because he’s an “Irish Catholic”?
We like Weis because we think he’s a better coach than Willingham. You might disagree, but please stick to the topic at hand and don’t imply that we’re racists.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:23:23 pm
Nebraska, no apology is needed, but I vigorously disagree with you. The reason “no one wants to admit” that is because IT’S NOT TRUE. The reason ND fans wanted Ty out is because they felt he was a bad coach — I think they’re right about that, you might think they’re wrong, but regardless, that’s the reason, not because he wasn’t Irish Catholic.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:59:47 pm
Nebraska–your name speaks volumes for itself, so I wont assume that you’re anything but a prole. That said, I find it funny that you would suggest Notre Dame is racist, considering that Notre Dame f-ing hired the guy. It’s also worth noting that of all D-1 football programs, we have the highest rate of African-American players graduating within four years. Yeah, we’re racist.
By the way…what makes you think that Charlie WEIS is Irish?
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:08:26 pm
thebeef
first, I am not disputing that Weis is a good coach and has been able to bring out the talent in the players. Whether Ty could or couldn’t have done as well this season is something we will never know. To state with absolute certainty that he couldn’t just because they weren’t as good the previous season is absurd. Do you not expect players to get better after a year? Again I’m not saying Weis doesn’t deserve credit for being a good coach this year. What I am saying is he doesn’t deserve ALL the credit. I think it is unfair to give any coach full credit for a teams performance in his first year, because a coach is more than just the guy who is in charge on game day. I realize that most football fans don’t have an understanding of the depth involved in coaching but I do.
second, Nebraska’s reference was to the fact that Weis is a Notre Dame alum, not his national background
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:13:54 pm
David, Nebraska said “IRISH CATHOLIC,” not “IRISH ALUM,” and he added that ND alums wanted “an Irish Catholic coach that they could sit next to in Mass and share a Stout,” so I don’t see how you can possibly pass that off as merely a reference to Weis’s being a Notre Dame alum. Nebraska’s words clearly indicate that he was talking about people who are ethnically Irish and religiously Catholic.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:52:03 pm
David, so now we get to the heart of your position: we don’t know how the Irish would perform this year if Ty was the coach. Well, that’s pretty weak. Of course we don’t know for sure…but there were no indications that he would be a success. To the contrary, all indications were it would be more of the same.
Ty’s teams never show improvement. His 2002 team never showed improvement throughout the year. The defense appeared unbeatable early on, but of course, this was the result of fortuitous turn-overs. Smoke and mirrors. The offense never looked that good. Boston College exposed the team for what it was. Southern Cal exposed the defense for what it was. Oregon St. put the nail in the coffin.
Year two was utterly abysmal. No improvements from the short-comings of the year before. Bad play-calling week in and week out. A completely predictable offensive scheme with zero flexibility. No game-time adjustments.
Then came year three. Ty was close to saving his job. He was offered the chance to stay if he dropped Deidrick, an absolute disaster of an offensive coordinator. (Before you claim this illustrates ND ham-stringing Ty, Washington only hired Ty with the assurance that Deidrick would not be brought along….he’s that bad. He’s currently a failure in the Canadian Football League).
What sealed the deal for Ty? A number of things. 1) Not playing Darius Walker against BYU…a piss poor team. They humiliated us in our season opener, holding us to 11 yards total rushing. Darius just sat on the bench. 2) Losing to arch-rival USC for the third consecutive year by 31 points; 3) Punting from Boston College’s 30 yard line in the fourth quarter when we weren’t in control of the game; 4) Getting humiliated by Purdue; 5) Ty’s inability to adjust to Pitt’s game, losing at home to end the season in the 4th quarter; 6) Beating Michigan and Tennessee–those wins demonstrated the players’ talent while illustrating Ty’s inability to win consistently; 7) Julius Jones’ break-out year at Dallas illustrated Ty’s knack for under-utilization of players.
Nothing in Ty’s previous seasons indicate he would ever be a success at Notre Dame. To claim that I’m unfair for judging a man by his prior performance is absurd. How else do you judge? Claiming that it was unfair to only give him three years is more fair, but still weak considering the crisis stage of ND football.
Do we know for sure Ty would have failed? No. Were there indications that he would succeed? No. Does our success this year have anything to do with the West Coast offense? No. Is our success this year at QB more attributable to prior coaching or Weis’ tutelage? Weis’ tutelage. (Quinn is night and day) Is our offense soaring from the bottom of the 80’s (I think it was 86 or 88) to a top 10 offense more attributable to the players’ former experience with the West Coast offense or more attributable to the new coach, who just so happens to be THE former offensive guru of the NFL? You know the answer.
Of course the players’ game-time experience is another factor of our success. Why should I credit Ty? I’m going to give him credit for fielding a team? If he hadn’t fielded a team, he wouldn’t have been a coach. I’m not going to give the man credit for doing the bare minimum–putting men on the field. If that’s all it took, we wouldn’t have this discussion, would we?
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy into your argument. Ty deserves very little credit for this year
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:59:03 pm
Beef, one minor correction. ND didn’t play Oregon State at the end of Ty’s first season. The ND-Oregon State Fiesta Bowl was the conclusion of the 2000-01 season (Bob Davie’s second-to-last year). And of course, ND played Oregon State again last year in the Insight Bowl (and got creamed again). The Irish never played Oregon State under Ty. (If you recall, he was fired several weeks before the bowl game last year.)
In Ty’s first year, ND got knocked out of BCS consideration by the season-ending 31-point loss to USC, and thus played in the Gator Bowl against N.C. State … and got creamed. End result was the same, but just wanted to correct you on the identity of the opponent.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:09:44 pm
No Beef, that is not the heart of the matter, the fact that you are so fixated on Ty misses the whole point actually.
What I have been trying to get across to you is that
A) Giving Weis ALL the credit for everything that is happening this year is ignoring the realities of how football programs work.
B) Just because Weis is doing well this year doesn’t mean he will suceed in the long term (although I have no problem if he does).
C) Domers fanatical devotion to Weis (as evidenced by their recent contract extension to the year 2258 or something) is unsupported by his performance at this point. Its like trying to conduct a statistical survey without a sufficient amount of data, your conclusion has no assurance of accuracy.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:11:58 pm
btw, you really should check out my last comment in this post, it explains why I am skeptical of using first year records (scoring differential or win loss) as a barometer of a coaches eventual succes, and gives you a glimpse of what happened her in Seattle over the past few seasons
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:30:51 pm
On point (A) I don’t disagree, but I don’t believe Ty deserves near as much credit as you’re willing to give him. Also, for someone who understands “how football programs work,” your refusal to admit that Ty is not a good coach suggests otherwise.
On point (B) that is true, but there are no indications to suggest that he wont be successful, whereas there were numerous indications that Ty would be unsuccessful
On point (C) you’re missing the whole point of the extension. We didn’t give him an extension simply because of his success, we gave him the extension because of harmful rumors that he was leaving to the NFL. This dispells those rumors. And, although I don’t believe the terms of the contract have been made entirely public, I’m assuming that Notre Dame has some sort of escape/buy-out clause through which they can dump on Charlie should he (in the unlikely event) fail. I very much doubt ND is committed to giving Weis $30-40 million regardless of Weis’ performance.
Locking-in on the hottest coach in football wasn’t excessive–it was smart. Our recruiting is through the roof thus far, and we don’t want anything getting in the way.
As for your skepticism, it is well-placed to the extent that p/f p/a margins aren’t as predictable of future success as they are in baseball. But, to the extent that your skepticism is based entirely on Nueheisel, it’s mis-placed. Of course its not a perfect indicator. But its a good indicator more often than not, which is my point. One or two examples in which it wasn’t a good indicator doesn’t mean much. It usually is a good indicator.
Maybe you’re right, and it wont be a good indicator for Weis. But you have no basis for which to make that claim
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:18:57 pm
For me there is nothing cathartic about seeing Willlingham fail. I for one hope he does well. Notre Dame gains nothing by being able to say “See, told ya so.” It makes Notre Dame look petty and ignores the fact that there are many reasons which can cause a person to fail. I think Ty had the best of intentions coming to Notre Dame. There was the story about how he told Kevin White “You’re hiring the wrong guy. You need to hire me” when he got the news about George O’Leary being hired. So I do believe Ty wanted very much to succeed and to become one of the legends at Notre Dame, and for my part I would have been happy if he had done so.
However, I don’t give an inch regarding the fact that he ultimately did fail in his attempt at Notre Dame. Contrary to the beliefs of some, things were not all rosy up until the BC loss of ‘02. I was first concerned when I read the press release stating that he was bringing nearly his entire staff from Stanford. It seemed that he was either unaware of or uncapable of doing what it would take to succeed at the level at which Notre Dame plays. Still the first year was not a bad performance overall, and salvific changes could have been made at that point, but were not. The recruiting class that year was still good. Unfortunately, in the second year, there were simply no positive things that could have been said about the season. Notre Dame was of course not ready to fire Ty, but expected improvement. Recruiting was in the toilet, at a level lower than had ever been seen with either Davie or Faust, both of whom had been good recruiters. Still ND did not give up on Ty. The school forcefully rebuked suggestions that it would give up its football independence and join a conference. The NBC contract was renewed, and included in the press release was a vote of confidence for Ty. But alas, a third year with nothing but insignificant improvements was intolerable. In fact, if nothing else, the situation seemed to worsen. There were reports, still, thankfully, unpublished, of discipline problems with the teams. Stories of Ty’s frequent golfing outings were constantly being aired. Those in charge recognized at the end of 2004 that they were facing a pivotal moment, and made a decision that was severe and unexpected, but nevertheless not completely unprecedented for those with a knowledge of the fullness of Notre Dame’s tradition.
Lastly I take issue with the idea that there is insufficient data to reward Weis with a new contract. Obviously there is insufficient data if one has seen Notre Dame football in action for only four hours of each of 7 days this year. I doubt many of the critics on this blog have done even that (despite their ability to spend hours doing numerology on matrices of win-loss records). Thankfully the people who run the program have been watching Weis’ work ethic and results since before the Super Bowl was won. I trust that this has provided them with enough data to spend their money in a reasonable way.
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:18:15 am
Here’s a priceless one from ESPN.com:
“Robyn: I find it fascinating that no one mentioned that Willingham was the FIRST black head coach Notre Dame EVER hired. That’s right, people, it took them until the 21st century to join the 20th century.”
Uhh, Robyn, what percentage of D-1 schools have ever hired a black head coach?
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:27:47 am
beef, the Neuheisel thing was just an example, the fact that there are two rather prominent examples of coaches with good first years not doing well after kinda disproves your whole theory, and saying its a good indicator without evidence to back you up, well you might as well say that the height and weight of a coaches third cousins uncles roomate is a good indicator.
as for refusing to say that Ty is a terrible coach, your right I have, because I don’t think he is a terrible coach. I dont’ think terrible coachs have winning records, and I don’t think he has had enough time here at the UW to determine how his tenure will turn out.
for the person who thinks that after one season you extend a coaches contract 10 years into the future, well you shouldn’t expect to get a job in any other athletic department in the country. only in the deluded halls where leprechauns frolic is that seen as a solid defensible idea.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:42:28 am
David, I’m sorry, but I really think thebeef has the better of this argument, just logically. “I dont’ think terrible coachs have winning records”? Surely you can’t actually believe it’s that simple. If Pete Carroll had quit at the beginning of the season and was replaced by the worst coach on planet Earth, USC would still have a winning record — probably not undefeated, but there is just so much talent on the team, they couldn’t help but win most of their games. This is actually the corrollary of your argument about Ty and UW: it’s not his fault they suck so bad; there’s no talent. Well, it works the other way around, too. And thus it follows that you might sometimes have a coach with a winning record who nevertheless doesn’t push his teams to live up to their potential. That’s what ND fans feel was the case with Ty — he didn’t make the most of the talent he had to work with, his teams didn’t live up to their potential. Thebeef has given some pretty specific examples of why he felt that was the case, and why Weis’s early success is qualitatively different than Ty’s early success, and you respond with the same old quasi-arguments without really rebutting his points in anything approaching a satisfactory way. I don’t feel as passionately as either of you do about this issue, but I really don’t think you’re displaying much of an open mind on this one, David. You just seem to be very, very stubborn about this issue, and totally unwilling to consider the possibility that the crazy deluded Domers might actually have a few valid points mixed in with all their delusions. :)
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:53:15 am
David, one…I didn’t say terrible, I said bad. Semantics? Sure. And I understand, as a Washington fan, why you want/need to believe there’s redemption at the end of the tunnel. And someday there will be…but not under Ty. Forget, for one moment, about records. Forget, for one moment, about players. Indeed, forget about strength of schedule. Simply observe Ty’s play-calling. (Like punting in the 4th quarter when he’s losing but within range to win). Observe his inability to adjust to his opponent’s game-plan. Observe his inability to craft his own defensive or offensive shemes. Observe his team’s constant mediocrity without improvement. Observe his inability to utilize talent. (I know, I know, he has no talent! Just wait until he recruits some talent and lets them whither away) And, if you’d like to do some investigative work, find out how many rounds of golf the man plays per week. David, the man is a bad football coach.
As for the extension…you completely ignore the context in which the extension was given. You completely ignore the near certain likelihood (99.9% chance) that Notre Dame has an escape/buy-out clause in case Weis does fail (as unlikely as that is).
Couple Notes–I was, initially, the same way when it came to Ty at Washington. I said frequently that I hoped that he’d do well. But, after he implied that his firing was racist, I have very little sympathy. Very little. That man knows more than anyone his short-comings as a coach. Did he really want to be a legend at Notre Dame? If so, why all the golf? For him to pretend that his firing was anything other than a result of his incompetence is dishonest and dishonorable.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:02:40 am
Brendan, I’m glad to have read your last post…I was wondering if I was missing something from David.
And, of course, I’m partly delusional. A good Irishman has to be delusional…I think its evolutionary–its the only way our ancestors possibly could have survived!
I do have to say, however, that the man I thought most delusional was Charlie Weis himself. His confidence/arrogance certainly bordered on the crazy. But, when you think about it…he’s only 6 points shy of being in the National Championship running. If I were to have said that in August–I’d have been derided (and rightly so) as delusional
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:11:41 am
Indeed. The average predicted ND record in our little BrendanLoy.com contest was 7-4. And this is a friendly crowd! (More ND folks entered than ‘SC folks.) A possible 9-2 record and Gator Bowl berth (knock on wood) seemed like a pipe dream two months ago.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:14:38 am
Yeah beef I think I actually do part ways with you somewhere along here. I don’t think Ty was a liar. I think he had dreams of succeeding at Notre Dame, but maybe he just got in over his head. Maybe he played golf to escape the constant pressure of the job. He wouldn’t be the first person in history to squander the chance to do something great, even when that person really wants it. I’ve certainly done that, but not on as big a scale as this.
If that’s what happened, it’s good that he was fired, but I have no problem with someone else is giving him a chance. If he lacks any talent at all as a coach then he may be a total loss at this job. But inasmuch as his shortcomings were from lack of discipline, or lack of fervor, or mistaken loyalties, those things can be fixed.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:17:14 am
P.S.
For him to pretend that his firing was anything other than a result of his incompetence is dishonest and dishonorable.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Ty needs to publicly declare himself incompetent (or even privately think that about himself) in order to be honest and honorable. However, I will agree that it’s dishonest and dishonorable to play the race card when there is absolutely no indication whatsoever or rational reason to believe that any of this had anything whatsoever to do with race. It’s about as plausible as saying “it’s because his first name begins with a ‘T,’ Notre Dame doesn’t like people whose names begin with ‘T’” … except, because it’s race and America is freakin’ race-obsessed, implausible theories like “Ty was fired because he’s black” are treated as if they’re plausible. (Kinda like “Bush ignored New Orleans because he doesn’t care about black people.”) So if Ty implied that it was about race, as you say, then he goes down a notch in my book.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:40:09 am
Brendan and theBeef
If Ty is such a bad coach, why is he still coaching, why did he have success at Stanford for quite a few years?
But again all of this is complete beside the point. My argument doesn’t hinge on whether or not Ty is a good coach or not (i think that its too soon to tell), but on the inconsistencies in standards being applied to the pair of coaches, the incredibly questionable decision to extend his contract before the season is even over. That and the fact that the Irish don’t deserve to be ranked as high as they are.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:03:27 am
Ty’s record at Stanford was a pretty good, not stellar. It was OK. I think the most optimistic scenario saw him as another Ara, who coached well at Northwestern but never really made history until he took over at Notre Dame. He also took over from a pretty dry period in ND football. But I guarantee you this: had Ara not come within a hair’s worth of the championship in his first year and won it in his third, he would have been treated with no more kindness than Tyrone.
As for the contract, there was the potential for negative recruiting against ND, so they set up this deal. That never existed with Ty. What more reason do you need?
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:09:03 am
And let me clarify since it seems you have a penchant for thinking there is nothing more than W-L:
Ara’s “coming within a hair’s worth” in ‘64 was exactly that. It was not Ty of 2002. He lost one game by three points, which was decided with 1:33 of time left.
I am not suggesting that Ara had to win the championship in precisely year 3 (though, funny enough, every ND coach who has won it has done it at least in year 3). The fact is the team was so far from that in Ty’s third year it is tough to describe.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:36:54 am
You know, i was curious about how bad Ty was, so I looked at Notre Dame’s 2004 season results, and the teams they played.
They went 6-6.
They lost 2 games by 3 points, and 1 game by 1 point.
They beat Michigan (9-3 that season)
They beat Navy (9-2 that season)
They beat Tennessee (10-3 that season)
They only had two big losses, one to Purdue, and the other to USC, USC who went 13-0 that year and won the national championship.
Sounds to me like a team that was on the verge of being pretty good, not one that was terrible and had a coach worthy of firing.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:53:18 am
The standards are just high.
This is the same school where Dan Devine preemptively resigned at the beginning of the 1980 season, with a 75% record, two years after winning the national championship, because the fans were unhappy and he thought he was going to get fired.
November 3rd, 2005 at 7:18:38 am
I never knew that Ty placed his firing on race instead of wins/losses which is not always the reason a coach is fired…Frank Solich at Nebraska at the end of 2003! yes my school fired a coach with a .753 winning pct. (58-19-0) and who appeared in a National Title game and had a Heisman winner under his tutelage.
So this was never about race for ME even if it was for Ty but I work on wall st. and I have three collegues who’s children go to ND. so when I say that ND has ‘one of it’s own’ back as coach I know this because I am speaking to the ALUMNI! guys who attend every football/basketball/ladies soccer game and they do not receive government funds to help with the room/tuition/books o.k., they foot the entire bill. and there seats at the football games are three rows from the field.
and I ask them, man to man, what was it about Ty that was not making the relationship work. well, brendan alluded to it in an earlier post about Ty not being that excitable, pep rally, type of coach.
they say he never seemed to relax and enjoy being the coach of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. well, sometimes a person does not feel comfortable because they are not MADE to feel comfortable. and to be honest, I never thought he would last or succeed at ND because he was not the right coach for the job he is way too serious. Dennis Green would have been is a rah rah, pep rally, fire up the troops type of coach.
My argument is that Weis has done nothing to warrant a 10 year 30 million extension after only 7 games and ND is not undefeated.
will the stability help with recruiting? yes. for that reason alone the administration at the school and Weis himself could have just waited to announce the extension at the end of the year. I mean National letter of intent day is not until Feb. 1st. they could have announced it when they told the world what bowl game they were going to play in.
I am 33 years old and I come to brendan’s blog because all of the different subjects and views that are expressed here. it makes me miss being in college and not having these talks alnight long. this is truly a fun board and damn if you guys dont talk about any and everything, it is fun and spirited. I have an BA/MBA in Economics and history so the legal speak sends me to other web sites to understand all thats being said. lol
but at the end of the day you have to admit that when Ty was hired you all looked at each other like, ‘I dont think this is going to work!’ you had to because I did and everyone I know thought that the school was trying to make a statement but at the end of the day you cant fit a square peg into a round hole.
And ND did not have to make this type of move because they should be able to hire whomever they want.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:41:18 am
Nebraska, feel free to speak for yourself, but I think Notes did a better job of speaking for ND fans in general regarding Ty’s hiring. The fact that he brought his Stanford staff with him was the first bad indicator. The second bad indicator was when we went through nearly 3 football games without a single offensive touchdown. Once the smoke and mirrors became evident, I started to really get nervous. The FSU game eased my tensions a bit…but the Boston College game was really something dreadful.
I won’t disagree, however, about Ty not being comfortable in the job. Stoic Ty certainly didn’t hit it off with the fans–although ultimately that means very little next to his incompetence.
David…please, I never want to hear you claim to understand football programs or football coaching. You’ve said this numerous times. And then what do you do? You argue the fucking record! Probably without watching more than one or two Notre Dame games from last season. Honestly–you’re either just being absolutely obstinate, or you really are thick in the head.
And buddy–two blow-out losses might be acceptable at Washington–blow-out losses, year in and year out, are not acceptable at Notre Dame. Maybe that’s why you hate us so much
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:19:31 pm
thebeef
I always speak for myself and will continue to do so until brendan tells me that my presence is no longer wanted.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:35:25 pm
beef
I understand football far better than you do obviously, since I understand that its impossible for a team to be stellar year in and year out. High standards are one thing, but honestly your arguments are bordering on ridiculous at this point.
I’m not placing everything on records, but I certainly am using it to get information. When you say that a coach is so bad, and then it turns out that his team did fairly well its hard to take you seriously.
Now I don’t have a problem with Brendan’s assertion that Ty was just not a good fit for the Notre Dame program based on the type of coach they were looking for.
But deifying Weis and demonizing Ty seems to me to be incongruent and unfair. I’m not asking you to give the man an award or anything, just to have the least bit of honesty in that Notre Dame didn’t fire Ty because he was so terrible, they fired him because they thought they could get Urban Meyer, Weis was a back-up choice.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:04:56 pm
David–no one is saying that teams must be good year in and year out. Take for instance Tennessee–horrible year this year (let’s hope it stays that way)–they’d be nuts to fire Fuller. He’s proven that he is capable of winning at Tennessee in the SEC. This is a down year, which naturally happens.
Fuller is nothing like Ty. Fuller’s a proven winner. He has shown himself capable of improving football teams. He’ll coach good teams once more. Ty has never proven to be a winner (his performance at Stanford is not as impressive as its been made out)–particularly at Notre Dame.
You’re a football genius. You know everything about football–so obviously you know that there’s more to a football team than a record.
You know that a good football team with a good coach learns from its coach; that a good football team takes on the attitude of its coach; that a good football team improves week to week. Sure, maybe they start the season with poor tackling–but the coach then works on tackling during practice to fix the problem. They improve week to week. If they have a game with too many penalties, the team works on it. If a good team gets into a game, and takes an early lead–they adjust their play to strengthen their lead, not sit back and continue with the same plays over and over and over and over and over again–letting the opposition adjust and take the lead in the 4th quarter.
Now, as a football God, you know that if a team does all of these things, the team’s probably well-coached. They might come out–God forbid–with a 5-6 or 6-5 record. Those records are disspointing, but hardly indicative of a bad coach. If they do come out with a 5-6 season, than, if they have a good coach, there will be improvement. Now, even with this improvement they might still–God forbid–have a mediocre year again. But if there’s been improvement, success will surely follow. And by year three, the improvement on the field should be evident. The players should be able to illustrate their learning on the field.
Now, you point to Ty’s 6-6 record and say: “hey, it’s not that good of a record, but they had some solid performances. ON PAPER it looks like there was improvement.”
But, you’re ignorant. You don’t follow Notre Dame football. You haven’t been to the games. You haven’t been watching them on television. If you have…you either have a short memory or you’re nothing short of stupid.
There was no improvement in the play. Notre Dame couldn’t make tackles in 2003–they couldn’t make tackles in 2004. They ran the same plays week in and week out. Opponents didn’t even need to watch film to prepare for the games because the game never changed. Notre Dame was incapable of making game-time adjustments. Notre Dame would come out quick, score some points and take a lead, and then the opponent would adjust to Notre Dame’s game…and Ty would just keep running the same game. Sound familiar? It should if you’ve been watching Washington football this year.
You’re a self-proclaimed football guru because you understand that teams have up and down years. Wow, what a brilliant insight. But you can’t comprehend (whether it be from lack of intelligence or just obstinancy I cannot fathom) that a team can have a bad record and be well-coached–and that a team can have a good record and be poorly-coached. You certainly can’t see that Notre Dame showed barely any improvement over Ty’s three years. Neither did Zook’s Gators, which is why he was also fired after three years.
You don’t understand improvement. You don’t understand development. You don’t understand adjustment.
You don’t understand game-planning.
All you understand are W’s and L’s. And that, David, is pathetic.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:14:50 pm
David, I also note that you have never–not once–attempted to defend Ty’s game-planning, game-time adjustments (or lack thereof), or pointed to one example of the team showing growth and improvement.
The only improvement you can point to is this year’s performance (and let me make this easy for you…I’m not talking about a better record…I’m talking about better play–understand?). The only improvement you can point to came AFTER Charlie Weis took over and changed the entire system. And you claim that this is because of experience the players received under Ty. Well, sure, game-time experience is a component. But I’m not going to credit Ty for putting players on the field. They would have had that experience regardless of who coached them last year. Elmer Fudd could’ve coached them last year and they still would have received game-time experience.
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:16:21 pm
thebeef, the only pathetic thing here is your refusal to actually read what I am saying, to accuse me of things I have not said or claimed, and to draw such ridiculous conclusions.
I have never once claimed that Ty deserved a medal for his coaching. Never.
You claim I don’t understand development or improvement or adjustment or game planning. How do you measure development or improvement when a coach has been there for less than a year? Huh? You can only measure it in small quantaties.
What I have been trying to get you to see is that the reality in coaching is that it takes time to really get the measure of a coach, and one season is not enough. Three is barely enough, in most cases I’d still say its not enough.
Ty may have been doing a less than stellar job, but based on the evidence I have seen he wasn’t as bad as you make him out to be either. So he was mediocre. Fine, I have no problem with that. I really don’t know because I don’t think he was given the chance at Notre Dame one way or the other. Frankly I think the Irish fans have an unrealistic viewpoint on how good their team is or should be year in and year out, basically not being able to accept that they aren’t the Gods of football they used to be, and that getting back to being a perenial contender is going to take time and work.
What amuses me the most is how you claim it is about more than W/L yet that was what the argument against Ty was in the first place. That he wasn’t winning enough. Then you tried to put forth your unsupported theory about point differentials, and when I knocked that one down you then started saying it about more then numbers. Your’re right about that, and its what I have been saying all along.
Bottom line, Weis has not proven that he deserves the credit he is getting. He may prove it down the line, but for now its too soon. What I’ll find curious is how you defend him if the Irish lose a game (or two) going down the stretch. Personally I hope he does well in the future too, because after seeing how quickly you Domers turned on Ty, I’d hate to see what happens to Weis if Notre Dame struggles a little next year.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:02:10 pm
David, first off, disabuse yourself of the idea that you knocked down my argument about point-differentials. All I said was that point-differentials CAN be good indicators as to where a team is going. For further reading on the subject, check out http://bluegraysky.blogspot.com
All you pointed out was that it is not always a good indicator. Brilliant! No shit! You’re claiming Weis doesn’t deserve the acclaim he is recieving, and I gave you a stat to suggest that there are signs that he will succede. For all of the flaws of a point-differential model, its a hell of a lot more than you can cite to suggest Weis won’t be successful.
Secondly, I never said Ty was fired becauase he wasn’t winning games. I said Ty was fired because he was a bad coach, which he was and is. (Let’s say he is mediocre–which would be to give him credit–why would a football program trying to rebuild itself want a mediocre coach?) I’ve pointed out numerous examples of Ty’s inabilities…you’ve only pointed out W’s and L’s. Weak, but nice try.
Indeed, every aspect of this last post betrays your inability to get beyond W’s and L’s. How can you identify improvement and development in less than a year? Are you kidding me? 1) Look at the playing from last year; 2) Look at the playing from the first game; 3) Look at the playing from there on out. This year, thus far…constant development and improvement–something never seen under Ty.
What is it that will be amusing if Weis loses two or three down the? You IDIOT. You absolute MORON. What have I been saying?! Records are not the end-all-be-all. You dim-wit! Why do you think everyone at ND is so excited? Because we lost to Michigan St.? Of course not! Because our team is playing leaps and bounds better this year…win or lose. So if Weis loses two or three, will we be surprised? Yes. Disappointed? Yes. Disappointed with Weis? Not a chance.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:15:52 am
beef, your inability to do anything but hurl insults at this point shows that it is you, not I who have a problem here.
I read the link you sent and while it is amusing, it points out right away that unlike baseball the small amount of games played in football means that you don’t have enough data to come to meaningful conclusions. Not to mention that unlike pro-baseball, there is a high turnover in players in college football. Most players only play regularly for 2-3 seasons. You also have more players adding to the variety, and its a more physical game leading to more injuries causing personel changes. Not to mention that footballs use of multi point scores leads to an inflation of points. In addition to an easier ability to run up scores in football.
And you are right, I have pointed to wins and losses, although I haven’t used them exclusively, but they are kinda important since the whole point of the game is to win.
Everyone at Notre Dame is excited because they are winning. And I really have to wonder about how well a team is being coached when the Huskies can outpass them in a game.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:52:37 am
David, thanks for re-reading me the post on Blue-Gray sky, as though I haven’t admitted from the very beginning that the model, although flawed, is nevertheless a fair indicator most of the time. Perhaps you viewed the matrices and saw for yourself.
How can you claim you haven’t used win/losses as your exclusive argument thus far? When have you used anything else when arguing that: 1) Ty wasn’t given enough of a chance; 2) Weis doesn’t deserve the praise he’s receiving. You use Win/Losses alone as the predicate for both of your views.
I must say, however, it’s nice to see that, at the very least, you’re capable of understanding that football is about winning. Apparently you’re not beyond hope. Maybe you can pass on your wisdom to the Huskies…they seem to have forgotten that part.
“And I really have to wonder about how well a team is being coached when the Huskies can outpass them in a game”
Hahahahahaha, ah yes! There it is…finally! You’ve questioned Weis’ ability. David, apparently you’re such the genius, that you see failure in Weis; something that no one else sees. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’d know that Notre Dame fans are far from the only people singing Weis’ praises.
Oh, and please, don’t ever presume to speak for Notre Dame fans as to why we are excited about Charlie. Were you at the Michigan St. game? Probably not. There was lots of disappointment at the loss…and even more respect and love for Weis. That’s right…in the face of a loss (during the season’s home-opener no less) the fans were ecstatic with Weis. Why? Not because we lost, but because our players stepped up for a big fourth quarter rally–something never seen during the Ty years. The players showed poise and calm in the face of a large 3rd quarter deficit. The play-calling on that comeback drive was fantastic to watch. We may have been disappointed in the outcome; we may have been disappointed in some of the play early-on(too many flags); but we were thrilled with the coaching.
But, of course, I cannot hope for you to understand any of this. For you, it’s all winning and losing. For you it’s impossible to understand why/how someone could feel good about a team’s coaching in the face of a loss. Or, in Ty’s case, how someone can feel bad about a team’s coaching in the face of a win.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:29:48 am
I just wanted to vouch for thebeef’s statement about the MSU game. As crushingly disappointing as the ending was (we almost won it on a safety!! how awesome would that have been??), I’ve never felt a more positive vibe coming out of a stadium after a loss. Contrast that with the Pitt game last year, whenever everyone left the stadium feeling extremely pissed at 1) the refs, and 2) Ty.
November 4th, 2005 at 5:57:23 pm
Brendan, i have no doubt that the team has improved this year, and its likely that Weis has contributed to that improvement. But what else was supposed to happen? Weis was supposed to come in and then the team would get worse? Last season the Huskies went 1-10, yet most people placed the blame where it belonged, on the head of Rick Neuheisel for running the program into the ground. Knute Rockne himself couldn’t have done much with what we had left. Likewise I think Weis is succeeding because of the program that Ty left him along with his own skill at coaching. Its not an either/or proposition and I am annoyed at people like Beef who refuse to see that. They ignore the realities of coaching college football. I think Ty is not getting enough credit, and I think Weis is getting too much credit. I don’t think he doesn’t deserve some of the credit, nor do I think Ty doesn’t deserve some criticism. Its the extent to which each is happening that bothers me. That and his hypocrisy, at the same time accusing me of only using W/L (which I haven’t done) and then throwing me a backhanded compliment when I say that ultimately that what football is about. Not to mention he tries to upplay the validity of the point differential method, except when the evidence points against him. Hypocrisy bothers me and that is what he is presenting. All the while ignoring my points and trying to paint me into some ridiculous Ty worshiping/Weis hating corner.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:58:13 pm
I was against the Ty firing only because Notre Dame had more or less publicly stated that they felt five years was the right timeframe in which to judge whether or not the coach had succeeded. They gave Bob Davie five years, but cut Ty loose after three. Now, USC cut Paul Hackett after three years under some remarkably similar circumstances, but USC never claimed to be hoity-toity like Notre Dame does. At USC it’s about winning first and foremost, whereas Notre Dame went on and on about how they will honor the contract, that they value academic success (you took credit for the graduation which you can take credit for thanks to Ty Willingham) and integrity, and so on. The hypocrisy of the firing is what pissed me off. And then to turn around and give that contract to Charlie Weis so early in the first year? Look, I don’t care if he’s the genetic cross between Pete Carroll and Vince Lombardi, nobody should get an extension like that halfway into his first season. Does Charlie Weis have more leverage right now than he ever will again? Absolutely, but signing this contract was still a mistake, and Charlie Weis can still leave if he wants to go back to the pros, so it’s not like Notre Dame has really bought itself any protection. The move smacked of desperation and arrogance–two traits vividly on display during the firing of Ty Willingham and the subsequent search for a new coach.
Notre Dame shouldn’t claim to be above other schools and then make all sorts of actions that reflect the same shortcomings we despise in other football programs. To me, Notre Dame is exactly like the Catholic Church: arrogant, hypocritical, powerful, and shortsighted. That’s not to say any other institution(s) are better, it’s just to point out that a football program with the history and credentials of Notre Dame (and a church that claims to be the official vehicle of Christianity on this planet) should represent itself in a much classier manner.