dew1679666265

Mike Fetters. The first player I thought of when I saw this poll was Fetters. Mark Grace did a dynamite impression of him a few years back. I used to love watching Fetters pitch. That head whip thing was freaking cool.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND. I had forgotten about the beyond weak teams coming onto ND's schedule next year - though now that Butch Davis is coaching the Tarheels, I don't expect them to be pushovers after this year. 7-8 wins is definitely possible and reachable for ND next year, but because of the circumstances (extreme youth, etc) and two seasons of success, I think firing him after a dissapointing second season is overboard. I think a fifth year, with the littlest Clausen as a junior, should be a given for Weis then decide on his future. I agree Butch Davis will turn the Tar Heels around. But they've got next to nothing this year, I don't think next year is soon enough for a big turnaround. Notre Dame will be well into Weiss's strong recruiting classes. I also agree that Weiss should be given two more years. Of course, I think they'll rebound nicely next year and render that moot. Weiss is going to do very well at Notre Dame, I suspect. I don't think there will be a huge turnaround record-wise for North Carolina next year, but Davis already has had one talent heavy recruiting class and will almost certainly have a better one next year. The talent will be very young and, much like ND this year, lose a lot, but I think they'll actually give teams a fight before losing and even pull a few upsets (like I think ND could do this year if they played very many of their tough games late in the season). I think Weiss has a very good chance of turning the Irish around. My only problem with the coaching situation is why Ty deserved to be fired after just three years, but Weiss with a similar record (but granted much better recruiting classes) deserves a 10-year extension. Just like Weiss deserves two more years (at least), Ty deserved a little more time.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND. I had forgotten about the beyond weak teams coming onto ND's schedule next year - though now that Butch Davis is coaching the Tarheels, I don't expect them to be pushovers after this year. 7-8 wins is definitely possible and reachable for ND next year, but because of the circumstances (extreme youth, etc) and two seasons of success, I think firing him after a dissapointing second season is overboard. I think a fifth year, with the littlest Clausen as a junior, should be a given for Weis then decide on his future.

That's pretty much his last start. this is the cubs, they're incompetent... i won't believe that it's his last start until the season is over and he hasn't started another game Piniella does seem to have half a brain. I just hope he isn't seduced by this game into giving Trachsel more starts. And is there any official word on Marshall? was he hurt? No, but there was some concern from Lou and Hendry that Marshall - who is pitching more than he's ever pitched and showed signs of breaking down around this time last year - needed a break. That's why they acquired Trachsel.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands.

Mike Fetters.

I think Joe Buck really does hate the Cubs, or at least dislike them... he's a Cardinal announcer, it's not too hard to see the connection. Meanwhile, where is the Jimmy-Claussen-is-God coverage the other day does one get the idea that ESPN hates ND? Oh brother, it's the media. They pump up Jimmy because he got hype. As soon as he shows signs of not being good (which he hasn't really yet), they'll rip him down like they do everyone they put up on a pedestal. And Pat Forde JUST WROTE an article blasting Weis for winning with Willingham's players and being unable to win with his own, ignoring A) that Ty couldn't win with his own players (ever notice how NO ONE points out that Ty's only decent season as coach came with Bob Davie's players?) and B) that very few of Weis's players had any experience at all coming into the season and were immediately charged with beating two (current) Top 20 teams, one on the road in front of 110,000. So there's that. ND got thoroughly outplayed in both games and hasn't scored an offensive touchdown yet this season. Not saying the blame all, or even much blame, belongs to Weis. But when Willingham went through those two bad years, the seniors and juniors on that team were all Bob Davie recruits. If your team has bad senior and junior players, you're not going to win, regardless of how promising your incoming freshmen and sophomores were. Look at the guys that Willingham inherited - not many guys who went on to be successful players at the next level. A couple of things. One-Willingham only had success for one season, while Weis has already had it for two. Weis has already put together three great recruiting classes (including the one he already has put together for next year)-Willingham only had 1 in the top 20. Plus, even with two good seasons under his belt, Weis is already getting questioned by people. From an article in the Indy Star: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070911/SPORTS06/709110325/1068/SPORTS06 If ND has two straight losing seasons like they did under Ty, Weis will be fired. It won't be right, just like it wasn't right under Willingham, but it is at least consistent. You sure about that? Even with the extension he signed after his first year? That's a huge financial hit for the boosters to take.

The junior/senior classes during Willingham's last two years were horrible too. When your best players are Arnaz Battle and Carlyle Holiday, you're not going to win much. Willingham's teams were routinely being trampled by good programs those two years, and the reason was a deficit in talent. As for Samardzija not playing the first two years, you can find examples of that in any program. Larry Johnson started all of one year at Penn State. I could go on, but the point is that under even the greatest coaches' tenures, you'll have players who fall through the cracks, whose talent isnt recognized until late in their college career. Weis may be a better coach/recruiter than Willingham - not sure yet, but he probably will be regarded as such - but I still think Willingham is a good coach who got a raw deal in South Bend. I have no idea if Ty would have turned ND around, but I feel like he should have gotten another year or two to see. Just like I don't think Weis' tenure should be considered a success or failure after this season. Any coach needs more than three years to turn a faltering program around.

Did Ty rely more on timing routes and more complex assignments for his receivers or did the receivers just run to a spot in his offense? I know with Tennessee's offensive system, it's far more difficult to give freshmen and sophomores playing time than Florida under Spurrier, for instance. Fulmer and Cutcliffe run a very complex and difficult system for receivers to learn whereas Spurrier's system simply had them run to a spot and the QB had all the complexities.

I think Joe Buck really does hate the Cubs, or at least dislike them... he's a Cardinal announcer, it's not too hard to see the connection. Meanwhile, where is the Jimmy-Claussen-is-God coverage the other day does one get the idea that ESPN hates ND? Oh brother, it's the media. They pump up Jimmy because he got hype. As soon as he shows signs of not being good (which he hasn't really yet), they'll rip him down like they do everyone they put up on a pedestal. And Pat Forde JUST WROTE an article blasting Weis for winning with Willingham's players and being unable to win with his own, ignoring A) that Ty couldn't win with his own players (ever notice how NO ONE points out that Ty's only decent season as coach came with Bob Davie's players?) and B) that very few of Weis's players had any experience at all coming into the season and were immediately charged with beating two (current) Top 20 teams, one on the road in front of 110,000. So there's that. ND got thoroughly outplayed in both games and hasn't scored an offensive touchdown yet this season. Not saying the blame all, or even much blame, belongs to Weis. But when Willingham went through those two bad years, the seniors and juniors on that team were all Bob Davie recruits. If your team has bad senior and junior players, you're not going to win, regardless of how promising your incoming freshmen and sophomores were. Look at the guys that Willingham inherited - not many guys who went on to be successful players at the next level. Willingham was also transitioning the program into a West Coast offense, and that takes time. He brought in a good recruiting class his first year - Quinn, Samardzija, Abiamiri, and a couple others - but then had a poor class his second offseason, coming off a bad 5-7 year. There was a lot of negativity surrounding the program at that point. I'd argue that the schedules that ND played under Willingham were more difficult than the ones they've played the last two years under Weis - mostly because the last two years a number of teams they've faced have been disappointing. I guess my point is, I don't think three years is enough to determine whether a guy is a good coach. Weis went out and won with Willingham's players - some of whom turned out to be really good - and now he's struggling with some weaker classes brought in by Willingham. It's very similar to what Ty did, but Weis seems to be the golden calf, whereas willingham was already being panned at this point. I don't know what the reason is. I would guess that more of it has to do with Weis' reputation as an offensive genius with a team that won three super bowl titles. But I can't say for sure that race didn't play a role as well. I agree with much of this. I've often wondered (and discussed it with ND fans) why two coaches with similar results are treated so differently. Weis is winning (and now losing) with Ty's players, just like Ty won and lost with Davie's players. I have yet to hear a convincing argument why Ty deserved to be fired after three years, and Weis - who hasn't done much more than Ty - deserved a 10-year extension. Weis is 19-8 with ND in just over 2 seasons, Ty was 21-15 in 3 full seasons. Assuming the Irish go 6-6 this season (like many ND supporters say is optimistic), Weis' record will be 25-12 - slightly better than Ty.

I went with Sweet Lou. While he's made some iffy decisions at points this year, I like a lot of his apparent philosophies and don't feel that he's doing anything to cost games. I thought long and hard about Fredi Gonzalez (my offseason favorite), but just haven't seen enough to be convinced yet.

im impressed. Not taking anything away from Devine (he's an incredible athlete), but it helps that Maryland really isn't anything special. It'll look a lot better when he starts tearing up good football teams. It's just too bad for the Mountaineers the White, Slaton, Devine, Reynaud foursome won't be together longer than this year (or possibly next).

Almost definitely not. He was originally expected to miss a month, but after reevaluation, they now think he can return as soon as next week. The mountain of a QB Jared Lorenzen will take his place Sunday.

Those were my thoughts as well. I completely understand it from the perspective of a Bears fan. But if I really wanted to talk football on another site, I would just join a Raiders board. My problem is, I can't find a good Titans board. I've run across a few, but most just aren't worth perusing. I may just be spoiled by NSBB and my expectations are too high. :D

12 teams means 2 divisions with 6 teams per division. No other conference with conference championships (SEC, Big XII, etc) have problems with ties. They have set tiebreakers that decide who goes to the championship game.

I also saw a report that Harvin had some type of issue with his knee. The report said he would play, but I was wondering if it might hamper him Saturday. You know anything about this? It was just listed as a sore knee in the campus paper this morning, he should be fine. Too bad. :wink:

I also saw a report that Harvin had some type of issue with his knee. The report said he would play, but I was wondering if it might hamper him Saturday. You know anything about this?

You have to be lucky to win three or four games in a row against very good opponents which you would have to do in a playoff system. There would still be a luck factor. That's what I said. No matter the system, if the games are being played on the field, there's luck involved. Oops. I misread what you said. No problem. I'll allow one mistake. :wink:

You have to be lucky to win three or four games in a row against very good opponents which you would have to do in a playoff system. There would still be a luck factor. That's what I said. No matter the system, if the games are being played on the field, there's luck involved.

That's awesome. Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement. Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right. of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams. remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle. its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less. Obviously a team doesn't always play it's best, that's the point I've been trying to make. USC was the most talented team in the nation last year, they're losses to UCLA and Oregon State doesn't change that. It does mean that they played below they're potential in those two games, though. so in the end we didnt crown the best team as NC. we crowned some other team. so in reality the NC then is meaningless. you have to be lucky. Currently, the National Championship is not a meaningful as it could be. Look at situations similar to 2004 (two undefeated major conference teams at the end of the year) for examples. A playoff system would make things more meaningful, but there's no way to play the game on the field and take away any type of luck factor.

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky. True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have. im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season. What big game are you referring to exactly? in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5 Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5. So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point. The game matters to the extent that you feel seeding matters (assuming in this hypothetical playoff, seeding would be affected by the game). Also, let's throw a third 1 loss team in the mix - say USC at #3. My problem is that a large part of selecting between the winner of LSU/Fla and USC to play whoever is ranked #1 is subjective. A playoff system eliminates that subjectivity, thus the system is better. this isnt really true. Assume then USC has a laugher against UCLA and they win this time. If theyre close the BCS is going to reward the big win to LSU over UF because of SOS and the nine yards. So they get in. Now if USC is the better team.....then the odds of them getting in is still .5. What if LSU, though, is rather unimpressive all year - barely winning games and USC is blowing away crap competition? The polls may just put USC over LSU because they were more dominant. And the polls have as much (maybe more? I can't remember) impact in the final rankings as the computers in the current system.

That's awesome. Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement. Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right. of course im looking at it theoretically. in theory NO team brings their best game every time out. You just have to hope your struggles come against bad teams not decently average teams. remember when UF almost lost to SC and needed a miracle. its kind of funny im making these arguments. going into bowl season the gators had little business being in the NC and these faults in the system allowed them to win the NC and im a gator fan. of course the gator rape of osu may only lead to the discussion is if the sample is too small to analyze statistically? but if you accept that to be true you have to look at W-L even less. Obviously a team doesn't always play it's best, that's the point I've been trying to make. USC was the most talented team in the nation last year, they're losses to UCLA and Oregon State doesn't change that. It does mean that they played below they're potential in those two games, though.

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky. True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have. im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season. What big game are you referring to exactly? in a hyopthetical scenario. Say LSU goes 11-1 in the regular season is the best team in the nation ranked #2. If they beat Florida they go to the NC. UF beat them the first meeting and the chance of UF beating LSU (Say UF is number 4) is roughly 50 percent. Then at this point the odds of LSU making the NC is .5. The odds of them winning the NC is .5*.5 Now if we had a 8 team playoff. This game isnt going to matter. If LSU loses theyre going to go into the playoff. If they win theyre going in the playoffs. So they have to win three games in the playoff consecutively against top 8 teams in order to win the NC. So thats roughly .5*.5*.5. So its less likely for them to win the NC. Its a hypothetical scenario but illustrates the point. The game matters to the extent that you feel seeding matters (assuming in this hypothetical playoff, seeding would be affected by the game). Also, let's throw a third 1 loss team in the mix - say USC at #3. My problem is that a large part of selecting between the winner of LSU/Fla and USC to play whoever is ranked #1 is subjective. A playoff system eliminates that subjectivity, thus the system is better.

That's awesome. Anyway, UCLA could play unworldly and win (maybe), but that's not the way it turned out. Theoretically, you're right, but I was referring to a specific game that occured last year. UCLA played very, very well, but unworldly is quite an overstatement. Theoretically, though (which is how I think you're looking at this), you're right.

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky. True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have. im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season. What big game are you referring to exactly?