College Football - Week 13 (Thanksgiving Week)

[Tracer Bullet]

Well done taking a 10 or 11-win team (and just as importantly, a 10 or 11-win schedule) and coaching them to 8, Mr. Kelly. Three different QBs started halves this year without any injury involved. Ugh.

 

ND was not a 10-11 win team. Jeepers.

 

I think there's definitely an argument that they were, considering they won 8 and essentially gave the first two games away.

 

Yes, they could have won 10. They were also lucky to escape Pitt with a W and played Wake and BC closer than they should. They were a solid team with a bad QB and depth issues. Those teams can be competitive in all their games and with some luck win 10 games, but can also win 7-8. It's not like BK drove an LSU-type team into the ditch.

[CubColtPacer]

Nah. They lost to 3 ranked teams and didn't get blown off the field by anyone.

 

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime).

 

They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games.

 

They were a fumbled snap from tying the USC game and it turned into a 14-point swing. They put a lid on Stanford at the half and Hendrix was moving the ball well. I didn't say they were going to win but ND was competitive in both.

 

And your last sentence is nonsensical.

 

It's only partially nonsensical. ND has historically had their cupcake games between the middle of October through the middle of November. That's been especially true in years where USC is the last game. But that's also why I don't understand when people say ND gets overranked based on one or two games at the start of the season. ND consistently plays one of the hardest September schedules in the country and so will yo-yo in the rankings much more than the average team who is playing cupcakes at that time.

 

Next year that definitely won't be true of ND though because their tough games come at all different points of the season (MSU/UM in September, Oklahoma in late October, USC in late November).

[Tracer Bullet]

Give me the seasons with all these November cupcakes. Like last year when they played #10 Utah in November?

 

Outside of the last few years when Dr White's 7-4-1 was crapping all over the place, ND hasn't had cupcakes. They only did the last 2 years bc swarbrick had to scramble to find teams willing to play at ND in November in order to honor the NBC contract.

 

Historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. You seriously want me to believe that you're an ND fan?

[Guest]

If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the MNC game. If you don't win your division, you shouldn't be in a BCS game at all.

 

Which does not mean: If you win your division, you should be in a BCS game.

 

That wasn't what I asked.

 

Wait, so do you actually believe UCLA should go to a BCS game before Stanford?

 

I'm asking if a BCS bowl this year, for whatever reason, had to choose between UCLA and Stanford and those were the only two choices, do you think UCLA should be the team picked?

[CubColtPacer]

Give me the seasons with all these November cupcakes. Like last year when they played #10 Utah in November?

 

Outside of the last few years when Dr White's 7-4-1 was crapping all over the place, ND hasn't had cupcakes. They only did the last 2 years bc swarbrick had to scramble to find teams willing to play at ND in November in order to honor the NBC contract.

 

Historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. You seriously want me to believe that you're an ND fan?

 

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season.

 

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

[jersey cubs fan]

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State?

[Tracer Bullet]

If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the MNC game. If you don't win your division, you shouldn't be in a BCS game at all.

 

Which does not mean: If you win your division, you should be in a BCS game.

 

That wasn't what I asked.

 

Wait, so do you actually believe UCLA should go to a BCS game before Stanford?

 

I'm asking if a BCS bowl this year, for whatever reason, had to choose between UCLA and Stanford and those were the only two choices, do you think UCLA should be the team picked?

 

That's a ridiculous hypo.

[Tracer Bullet]

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State?

They played USC and Stanford in the 2nd half.

[jersey cubs fan]

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State?

They played USC and Stanford in the 2nd half.

 

Yes, and lost. They played better late was a meaningless claim by you, supported only by the notion that they won 4 straight against garbage teams.

[Tracer Bullet]

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State?

They played USC and Stanford in the 2nd half.

 

Yes, and lost. They played better late was a meaningless claim by you, supported only by the notion that they won 4 straight against garbage teams.

 

Um two different points. You said ND played garbage games later in the season. I supplied evidence which directly refuted your claim.

 

You don't think ND looked better in November. Outside of Rees, they did. You are free to disagree. I don't know if you watched any ND games since you hate the team, so maybe you're not the best judge of whether they improved.

 

ND's toughest opponents were Stanford, USC, MSU, UM, Pitt. They're pretty evenly spread out in the season.

 

ETA the play better late claim isn't meaningless when the question was the coach's ability to coach (which Andy raised). It's supported by what I saw and what other people, whose opinions I value on the matter, saw and reported. I don't much care if you think it's meaningless or if you disagree.

[Tracer Bullet]

Give me the seasons with all these November cupcakes. Like last year when they played #10 Utah in November?

 

Outside of the last few years when Dr White's 7-4-1 was crapping all over the place, ND hasn't had cupcakes. They only did the last 2 years bc swarbrick had to scramble to find teams willing to play at ND in November in order to honor the NBC contract.

 

Historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. You seriously want me to believe that you're an ND fan?

 

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season.

 

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

I take issue with your comment about historical schedules. ND has always played the big ten early bc the big ten requires it. Maybe you think of big ten as better opponents, so that's why you think it's weighted heavy in September. ND has often scheduled other teams, like PSU, BC, Miami, FSU, and obviously USC and Stanford later in the season. Getting schools from the south to play in the cold in November is not easy, made more difficult by growing conferences requiring 9 game schedules, and bc SEC teams reserve 1 OOC cupcake for November.

 

But if you look back at the pre-White years, I don't think you'll see cupcakes on ND's schedule every November. You seen to suggest that ND schedules a bunch of cupcakes before USC, which just doesn't have any support.

[CubColtPacer]

Give me the seasons with all these November cupcakes. Like last year when they played #10 Utah in November?

 

Outside of the last few years when Dr White's 7-4-1 was crapping all over the place, ND hasn't had cupcakes. They only did the last 2 years bc swarbrick had to scramble to find teams willing to play at ND in November in order to honor the NBC contract.

 

Historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. You seriously want me to believe that you're an ND fan?

 

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season.

 

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

I take issue with your comment about historical schedules. ND has always played the big ten early bc the big ten requires it. Maybe you think of big ten as better opponents, so that's why you think it's weighted heavy in September. ND has often scheduled other teams, like PSU, BC, Miami, FSU, and obviously USC and Stanford later in the season. Getting schools from the south to play in the cold in November is not easy, made more difficult by growing conferences requiring 9 game schedules, and bc SEC teams reserve 1 OOC cupcake for November.

 

But if you look back at the pre-White years, I don't think you'll see cupcakes on ND's schedule every November. You seen to suggest that ND schedules a bunch of cupcakes before USC, which just doesn't have any support.

 

I'm more talking about the BCS era. Trying to look how teams scheduled before that is pretty pointless IMO because the BCS changed how schedules are done dramatically. PSU hasn't played Notre Dame since 1992. They haven't scheduled Miami in over 20 years (until next year). They play Florida State pretty rarely. And BC and Stanford are not at the level of Michigan or maybe even Michigan State.

 

In the BCS era, the first half of Notre Dame's schedules most years has been stronger. It's mostly not their fault. As you mentioned, it's hard for them to schedule games in November when it's cold and when other teams are deep in their conference season. They've also gotten unlucky at times (that series with Tennessee was mostly a bust but it looked promising at the time it was scheduled). But it still has been true of them.

 

Looking at their future schedules, in 2012 the back half appears to be harder. 2013 looks front heavy (after the USC game it goes way downhill). The 2014 schedule just looks weak overall, 2015 looks front heavy, 2016 looks front heavy, and after that there are too many games not scheduled.

[KingCubsFan]

You don't think ND looked better in November. Outside of Rees, they did. You are free to disagree. I don't know if you watched any ND games since you hate the team, so maybe you're not the best judge of whether they improved.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good.

[Tracer Bullet]

You don't think ND looked better in November. Outside of Rees, they did. You are free to disagree. I don't know if you watched any ND games since you hate the team, so maybe you're not the best judge of whether they improved.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good.

 

I said except Rees. Jonas Gray was a new man until his knee blew out. The secondary looked better, esp after the UM debacle. Where they looked bad was where they lost key starters including C and both DEs. But the kids looked much better late in the year than in September when, for example, Aaron Lynch was almost solely a pass rusher.

[jersey cubs fan]

Um two different points. You said ND played garbage games later in the season. I supplied evidence which directly refuted your claim.

 

You didn't directly refute anything.

 

You claimed they looked better in November and I pointed out you may think that because they played a series of bad teams.

 

 

I know ND fans are incredibly sensitive to perceived criticism but you are making a much bigger deal out of what I said than is reasonable.

[KingCubsFan]

You don't think ND looked better in November. Outside of Rees, they did. You are free to disagree. I don't know if you watched any ND games since you hate the team, so maybe you're not the best judge of whether they improved.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good.

 

I said except Rees. Jonas Gray was a new man until his knee blew out. The secondary looked better, esp after the UM debacle. Where they looked bad was where they lost key starters including C and both DEs. But the kids looked much better late in the year than in September when, for example, Aaron Lynch was almost solely a pass rusher.

Well, I guess guys like Aaron Lynch played better later in the year, but overall they looked clearly overmatched against both USC and Stanford. Early in the season, they dominated two good teams in MSU and Michigan for 7 quarters (excluding the 4th quarter against Michigan when Gary Gray forgot how to play football). Overall, a pretty disappointing season as they were a top 10-15 team in the country based on talent. Can't really expect an improvement next year, as both Floyd and Te'o are gone, and this team makes too many mistakes to trust the coaching staff. With Floyd and Gray gone, I think they need to go with Hendrix to have any shot at a dynamic offense.

[Andy]

You don't think ND looked better in November. Outside of Rees, they did. You are free to disagree. I don't know if you watched any ND games since you hate the team, so maybe you're not the best judge of whether they improved.

I disagree. I thought they, overall, looked better in the beginning of the year, but the stupid turnovers (and some bad luck) really did them in against South Florida and Michigan. Up until USC, they were clearly the best team on the field in each game. Starting with USC and continuing through Saturday, the lack of depth and poor QB play really did them in. November consisted of too close games against crappy major conference teams and a poor showing against Stanford. Not sure how someone would think that's good.

Yeah, other than a ridiculous amount of turnovers, ND was significantly better in September. They pretty easily beat a possible BCS team in MSU and would've beaten another if not for any one of the first four stupid turnovers in Ann Arbor, or if Gary Gray turned around (which, as Stanford's first score on Saturday indicates, he still has yet to learn how to do after 5 years on campus).

[Tracer Bullet]

Give me the seasons with all these November cupcakes. Like last year when they played #10 Utah in November?

 

Outside of the last few years when Dr White's 7-4-1 was crapping all over the place, ND hasn't had cupcakes. They only did the last 2 years bc swarbrick had to scramble to find teams willing to play at ND in November in order to honor the NBC contract.

 

Historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. You seriously want me to believe that you're an ND fan?

 

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season.

 

Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

 

I take issue with your comment about historical schedules. ND has always played the big ten early bc the big ten requires it. Maybe you think of big ten as better opponents, so that's why you think it's weighted heavy in September. ND has often scheduled other teams, like PSU, BC, Miami, FSU, and obviously USC and Stanford later in the season. Getting schools from the south to play in the cold in November is not easy, made more difficult by growing conferences requiring 9 game schedules, and bc SEC teams reserve 1 OOC cupcake for November.

 

But if you look back at the pre-White years, I don't think you'll see cupcakes on ND's schedule every November. You seen to suggest that ND schedules a bunch of cupcakes before USC, which just doesn't have any support.

 

I'm more talking about the BCS era. Trying to look how teams scheduled before that is pretty pointless IMO because the BCS changed how schedules are done dramatically. PSU hasn't played Notre Dame since 1992. They haven't scheduled Miami in over 20 years (until next year). They play Florida State pretty rarely. And BC and Stanford are not at the level of Michigan or maybe even Michigan State.

 

In the BCS era, the first half of Notre Dame's schedules most years has been stronger. It's mostly not their fault. As you mentioned, it's hard for them to schedule games in November when it's cold and when other teams are deep in their conference season. They've also gotten unlucky at times (that series with Tennessee was mostly a bust but it looked promising at the time it was scheduled). But it still has been true of them.

 

Looking at their future schedules, in 2012 the back half appears to be harder. 2013 looks front heavy (after the USC game it goes way downhill). The 2014 schedule just looks weak overall, 2015 looks front heavy, 2016 looks front heavy, and after that there are too many games not scheduled.

 

Well, BCS is like 20 years out of 100? The early 1900s aren't relevant, but that's an important distinction you left out.

 

They played PSU very recently - 05? Weis got [expletive] for a fake punt in the 3rd quarter or something. They've played Stanford every year for what, 2 decades? BC has been a regular opponent for almost that long (with a couple breaks). Pitt is a common opponent in October or November. And Stanford has been better than UM the last 2 years. MSU has rarely been a great team, though until the last 2 years, ND caught them right before the wheels came off. I wouldn't say MSU has regularly been one of ND's top several opponents.

 

As for future schedules, there is no glut of cupcakes late in November as you suggest. 2013: navy, Pitt, BYU, tbd, Stanford. 2014: Pitt, NW, tbd (BYU, I think), USC. 2015: Wake, Pitt, Cuse, Stanford. I think you give UM and MSU too much weight. The timing of tough games on ND's schedule depend largely on which teams are having good to great years.

[treebird]

jesus christ notre dame is boring

 

please talk about teams that matter (not illinois, i know)

[minnesotacubsfan]

jesus christ notre dame is boring

 

please talk about teams that matter (not illinois, i know)

 

Minnesota?

[bcl412]

jesus christ notre dame is boring

 

please talk about teams that matter (not illinois, i know)

 

Minnesota?

 

What's that?

[minnesotacubsfan]

jesus christ notre dame is boring

 

please talk about teams that matter (not illinois, i know)

 

Minnesota?

 

What's that?

 

a great place for walleye fishing

[Guest]

If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the MNC game. If you don't win your division, you shouldn't be in a BCS game at all.

 

Which does not mean: If you win your division, you should be in a BCS game.

 

That wasn't what I asked.

 

Wait, so do you actually believe UCLA should go to a BCS game before Stanford?

 

I'm asking if a BCS bowl this year, for whatever reason, had to choose between UCLA and Stanford and those were the only two choices, do you think UCLA should be the team picked?

 

That's a ridiculous hypo.

 

You're only saying that because it makes your opinion look completely idiotic.

 

You think a 9-4 South Carolina deserved a BCS spot over a 10-2 Arkansas in 2010 even though Arkansas went to South Carolina and handed out a 41-20 beatdown?

You think a 9-4 Missouri deserved a BCS spot over a 11-1 Texas in 2008 even though Texas beat Missouri 56-31?

You think 7-5 Colorado deserved a BCS spot over 10-1 Texas in 2004 even though Texas beat Colorado 31-7?

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm asking if a BCS bowl this year, for whatever reason, had to choose between UCLA and Stanford and those were the only two choices, do you think UCLA should be the team picked?

 

That's a ridiculous hypo.

 

You're only saying that because it makes your opinion look completely idiotic.

 

You think a 9-4 South Carolina deserved a BCS spot over a 10-2 Arkansas in 2010 even though Arkansas went to South Carolina and handed out a 41-20 beatdown?

You think a 9-4 Missouri deserved a BCS spot over a 11-1 Texas in 2008 even though Texas beat Missouri 56-31?

You think 7-5 Colorado deserved a BCS spot over 10-1 Texas in 2004 even though Texas beat Colorado 31-7?

 

No, I think it's ridiculous bc it presents a false choice. I think Georgia, for example, deserves a BCS game over Stanford. I don't have to pick between two schools you cherry pick when there are several other candidates each year. I think schools in divisions should have to win their division to go to a BCS game. Makes it more sporting. If someone is going to get fucked each year, it should be a team that couldn't win it's division.

 

Or do you think UConn deserved to go to a BCS game last year? bc you support the current system, you must support the selection of every [expletive] team that gets in bc of it.

[Tracer Bullet]

Um two different points. You said ND played garbage games later in the season. I supplied evidence which directly refuted your claim.

 

You didn't directly refute anything.

 

You claimed they looked better in November and I pointed out you may think that because they played a series of bad teams.

 

 

I know ND fans are incredibly sensitive to perceived criticism but you are making a much bigger deal out of what I said than is reasonable.

 

Two different arguments jersey, as I said before.