Online Now 3143

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2175
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3064
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

How long does ND continue to get preferential treatment?

  • BetterOff said...

    Just an example of what the kind of changes they need to make to get a coach of that level and quit trying to find an up and comer or some off the wall idiot.

    The Notre Dame administration just needs to committ to winning. Its like someone said earlier they just haven't seemed to care as much as they used to.

    They could make it easier for athletes to enroll is probably the biggest thing that would help them. I'm not saying the best athletes are the ones that aren't smart. There are tons of great athletes with average smarts that can't get in because their grades are average.

    The have good facilities and a rich tradition mixed with an excellent fanbase. The recipe is there for a comeback, the administration just needs an excellent coach and maybe lower their academic standards for athletes

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • Big A said...

    You do realize that a vast number of those kids who helped bring those schools back could never get into ND, right?

    See my last post about them committing to winning.

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Sorry, I'm going to call BS on this. If ND was recruiting in the 40s and 50s nationally, then you could point to tougher academic standards. Going by the recruiting rankings, ND recruits above all of their regular opponents except USC. They're on par with Michigan. They, if you consider these recruiting rankings to be viable, pull in top 15-20 talent every year.

    They get more talent than Va. Tech, Stanford, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Arkansas, Penn State. Here are their 2008-2013 rankings on TOS (just because 247 doesn't go back to 2008)

    2008: #2 class, 3 5-stars, 16 4-stars

    2009: #21, 1 5-star, 9 4-stars

    2010: #14, 10 4-stars

    2011: #10, 2 5-stars, 8 4-stars

    2012: #20, 1 5-star, 8 4-stars

    2013: #8, 1 5-star, 7 4-stars (14 commits so far)

    Just taking 2009-2012, that's 4 5-stars and 35 4-stars. If even 1/2 of the 2008 4-stars are on the team that gives them 43 4-stars and a combined 47 4 and 5-stars on the roster. In other words, they have enough players to fill out a 2-deep on BOTH sides of the ball with nothing but 4 and 5-star guys.

    Either ND recruits, as a whole, are poorly evaluated by the recruiting services, or ND does less with more than just about any squad in the country. When you bring in that level of talent on paper, you should be doing better than 8-4/7-5, especially vs. schedules that feature 2-3 service academies, BC, Wake, Purdue, Pitt and others.

    developing talent has been not the best imo

    signature image

    3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3

    irishyoung

  • MrWoodson said...

    How does Oregon do it? Or Oklahoma? Or Nebraska? Or Stanford? Or Boise? Or Michigan? ND is not located in Texas or California or Florida, but neither are most elite programs. And even the elite programs in those states have had significant down periods, most notably when they've hired the wrong coaches. I'm not saying Minnesota could do that. Or Kansas. But ND has as much or more in terms of history, tradition, facilities, academics, money, and media/brand value as any the other elite programs. The only thing they are missing is the right coach.

    It helps that those schools (Stanford excluded) can recruit a lot of players that Notre Dame can't even talk to because of admissions requirements. Not say that is the only issue, but I think it is the most important. Without the ability to have a chance at the prospects everyone else does (for the most part), they are at a huge disadvantage in getting a top name coach to begin with. The coach is a secondary issue, IMO.

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    It helps that those schools (Stanford excluded) can recruit a lot of players that Notre Dame can't even talk to because of admissions requirements. Not say that is the only issue, but I think it is the most important. Without the ability to have a chance at the prospects everyone else does (for the most part), they are at a huge disadvantage in getting a top name coach to begin with. The coach is a secondary issue, IMO.

    I agree with all this sans the coach being a secondary.

    I still believe the coach is a primary concern along with admission requirements

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    Then explain why Stanford has been mediocre for most of its history. And FWIW the majority of Stanford's players are not from California (only 3 of 22 players in their 2012 class were from Cali). That argument might explain USC's success but it does not explain Stanford's. The difference between Stanford historically and Stanford the last five years is one thing: Jim Harbaugh.

    Exactly. But I will say, now that Stanford has a taste of success again, their elite academic reputation will pull in kids from all over the country that excel in both academics and athletics. A small base, but enough to consistently field a damn fine team.

    Stanford will be consistenly very good if they wish to be.

    signature image

    "Here are provided seats of meditative joy, where shall rise again the destined reign of Troy." Virgil

    usctrojan1 ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Sorry, I'm going to call BS on this. If ND was recruiting in the 40s and 50s nationally, then you could point to tougher academic standards. Going by the recruiting rankings, ND recruits above all of their regular opponents except USC. They're on par with Michigan. They, if you consider these recruiting rankings to be viable, pull in top 15-20 talent every year.

    They get more talent than Va. Tech, Stanford, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Arkansas, Penn State. Here are their 2008-2013 rankings on TOS (just because 247 doesn't go back to 2008)

    2008: #2 class, 3 5-stars, 16 4-stars

    2009: #21, 1 5-star, 9 4-stars

    2010: #14, 10 4-stars

    2011: #10, 2 5-stars, 8 4-stars

    2012: #20, 1 5-star, 8 4-stars

    2013: #8, 1 5-star, 7 4-stars (14 commits so far)

    Just taking 2009-2012, that's 4 5-stars and 35 4-stars. If even 1/2 of the 2008 4-stars are on the team that gives them 43 4-stars and a combined 47 4 and 5-stars on the roster. In other words, they have enough players to fill out a 2-deep on BOTH sides of the ball with nothing but 4 and 5-star guys.

    Either ND recruits, as a whole, are poorly evaluated by the recruiting services, or ND does less with more than just about any squad in the country. When you bring in that level of talent on paper, you should be doing better than 8-4/7-5, especially vs. schedules that feature 2-3 service academies, BC, Wake, Purdue, Pitt and others.

    Really what I think it has to do with is coaching continuity, or rather, a lack thereof. Since Holtz I think ND has changed coaches nearly as often as MSU, and moreover, they've changed O/D systems with every coach from Willingham on.

    Seriously, Willingham took at option team to the West Coast O, then was fired, Weiss came in, adapted the West Coast scheme to more of a downfield pro-team, then was fired, then Kelly came in and shifted AGAIN, this time to a spread attack.

    Notre Dame lacks an identity, and has refused to accept the fact that they aren't just a year or two away from competing nationally. They need to give a guy 5+ years to really build a program, because constant coaching shuffling only hurts.

    Numbers can get inflated for some programs. Bama isn't the only team that gets these bumps from time to time.

    BetterOff

  • Ichabod said...

    I agree with all this sans the coach being a secondary.

    I still believe the coach is a primary concern along with admission requirements

    I just think that the admissions requirements need to get fixed before they will find the right coach to be willing to do the job. That's the only reason I say it's secondary.

    BetterOff

  • MrWoodson said...

    How does Oregon do it? Or Oklahoma? Or Nebraska? Or Stanford? Or Boise? Or Michigan? ND is not located in Texas or California or Florida, but neither are most elite programs. And even the elite programs in those states have had significant down periods, most notably when they've hired the wrong coaches. I'm not saying Minnesota could do that. Or Kansas. But ND has as much or more in terms of history, tradition, facilities, academics, money, and media/brand value as any of the other elite programs. The only thing they are missing is the right coach.

    Oregon has Nike money behind them.Nike is the "IT" thing.Oregon also sits atop California.OU and Nebraska already had a rich traditions just like ND.OU is also next to Texas and close to Dallas.Define returning for me?Is ND about to be on the level of Alabama,Texas,OU,OSU,UF,LSU,USC or are they about to the equivalent of say UGA?Stanford has had a mini run.If you're saying that ND can have a mini run then sure most teams can.I'm saying they will never be ELITE again.UM an Nebraska aren't ELITE.

    signature image signature image signature image

    USC is a powerful place that Lane Kiffin is ruining.

    usctrojanglory ●

  • BetterOff said...

    I just think that the admissions requirements need to get fixed before they will find the right coach to be willing to do the job. That's the only reason I say it's secondary.

    Ok I see where you're going.

    They both are primary concerns but admissions before coach... Right?

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • Ichabod said...

    Notre Dame is a private school so we can't find out how much they bring in but when it has a tv deal for just one school then I'm fairly certain it's one of the top schools profiting.

    You're putting to much stock into winning for how much a school is worth. My point from the beginning is that Notre Dame is a nationally known university. Not just in football but academics as well.

    I have them estimated correctly. I really need a laptop in front of me to better explain but I'm away from my house all day

    In 2007 Bana was bringing in ~$80 million a year. And now we bring in something like ~$120 million a year 5 years later.

    Don't think overestimate how much winning is worth by that much.

    This post was edited by TalHawkins112 on 6/21/2012 at 1:47 PM

    TalHawkins112

  • usctrojan1 said...

    Exactly. But I will say, now that Stanford has a taste of success again, their elite academic reputation will pull in kids from all over the country that excel in both academics and athletics. A small base, but enough to consistently field a damn fine team.

    Stanford will be consistenly very good if they wish to be.

    Ok so what will Stanford do in the years where there just aren't many smart kids that are good football players?They will suck.Just because they hit a once in an age run doesn't mean they will maintain that success.I think they will be good going forward but nowhere near the heights that just passed.ND is in an even worse boat than Stanford.They have no recruiting base.In order to be elite you have to constantly bring in top shelf talent.ND can't go all over the country and steal the best players from elite schools like they used to for a plethora of reasons.

    signature image signature image signature image

    USC is a powerful place that Lane Kiffin is ruining.

    usctrojanglory ●

  • irishyoung420 said...

    developing talent has been not the best imo

    And that falls on the coaches, but it's hard to develop players when they play in one system for 2 years of their career, new coach comes in in the middle and then they have to learn a new system.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • Ichabod said...

    Ok I see where you're going.

    They both are primary concerns but admissions before coach... Right?

    If my theory is correct, it would have to be......or at least be a package deal like Holtz demanded.

    BetterOff

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    In 2007 Bana was bringing in ~$80 million a year. And now we bring in something like ~$120 million a year 5 years later.

    Don't think overestimate how much winning is worth by that much.

    Like I said I really need a computer to show you.

    I did a research paper on athletics and money brought in so I have the Bama numbers and the money brought in plus profits made.

    But I'm not trying to argue about who makes more and that. My original point was that Notre Dame is a much more recognizable brand than Alabama and Texas.

    While Texas and Alabama are THE brands here in the South, nationally it is Notre Dame. When you are the national brand nationally then the media is gonna hype you more. The average American doesn't have great media literacy so they take whatever is said on TV to be actual and not slanted.

    I could really go on and on and analyze certain areas and show examples but I don't have the resources nor the time available with just an iPhone

    signature image

    Ichabod ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    And that falls on the coaches, but it's hard to develop players when they play in one system for 2 years of their career, new coach comes in in the middle and then they have to learn a new system.

    no doubt man

    signature image

    3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3

    irishyoung

  • BetterOff said...

    Numbers can get inflated for some programs. Bama isn't the only team that gets these bumps from time to time.

    Ok, I get "from time to time", but how much are we talking here? Nearly 50 high level recruits are in the ND program from time to time. Even if HALF of them are over-rated (which would be horrible on the part of the recruiting services), that's still talent comparable to a Va. Tech, Standford or a Michigan State.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • Ichabod said...

    Like I said I really need a computer to show you.

    I did a research paper on athletics and money brought in so I have the Bama numbers and the money brought in plus profits made.

    But I'm not trying to argue about who makes more and that. My original point was that Notre Dame is a much more recognizable brand than Alabama and Texas.

    While Texas and Alabama are THE brands here in the South, nationally it is Notre Dame. When you are the national brand nationally then the media is gonna hype you more. The average American doesn't have great media literacy so they take whatever is said on TV to be actual and not slanted.

    I could really go on and on and analyze certain areas and show examples but I don't have the resources nor the time available with just an iPhone

    It is clear you have done your research.

    signature image

    "Here are provided seats of meditative joy, where shall rise again the destined reign of Troy." Virgil

    usctrojan1 ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Ok, I get "from time to time", but how much are we talking here? Nearly 50 high level recruits are in the ND program from time to time. Even if HALF of them are over-rated (which would be horrible on the part of the recruiting services), that's still talent comparable to a Va. Tech, Standford or a Michigan State.

    I agree that they have underachieved, but if you were to take deflate a recruit here and there, if that happened, then you are looking at a lot of classes in the 15-30 range, with one great year of recruiting.

    Those rankings aren't going to guarantee anything. I love our (Bama's) recruiting, but I don't think the gap between the number one class and the number 15 class is always that great, but when you get further down it is.

    Also, people like to act like Notre Dame has easy schedules, but they really don't. It could be compared to a B1G schedule with 2 big OOC games per year instead of just 1, IMO.

    All your points about the coaching staffs are just as valid though. They haven't had a good coach since Holtz and that hurts as well.

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    It helps that those schools (Stanford excluded) can recruit a lot of players that Notre Dame can't even talk to because of admissions requirements. Not say that is the only issue, but I think it is the most important. Without the ability to have a chance at the prospects everyone else does (for the most part), they are at a huge disadvantage in getting a top name coach to begin with. The coach is a secondary issue, IMO.

    Every program has plusses and minuses. And that's part of where hiring the right HC comes in. Harbaugh took Stanford's academic profile and instead of treating it as a negative he learned to sell it as a positive. That is one of the big differences between RR and Hoke at Michigan. Hoke understands Michigan and embraces its academic profile rather than looking at it as a problem. Some schools have money. Some have history and tradition. Some have academics. Some are members of stronger and higher profile conferences. Some have superior facilities. The right HC is ones who knows how to package all of those things and sell them to the right recruits. Harbaugh reached into Texas and convinced Andrew Luck to come to Stanford despite the fact that Stanford had been a losing program for years. Both Michigan and ND have had to do that historically as well (many of UM's best players, e.g. Desmond Howard, Charles Woodsen, have come from the State of Ohio). ND just needs the right leadership and many of its problems will disappear overnight.

    This post was edited by MrWoodson on 6/21/2012 at 2:05 PM

    MrWoodson

  • BetterOff said...

    I agree that they have underachieved, but if you were to take deflate a recruit here and there, if that happened, then you are looking at a lot of classes in the 15-30 range, with one great year of recruiting.

    Those rankings aren't going to guarantee anything. I love our (Bama's) recruiting, but I don't think the gap between the number one class and the number 15 class is always that great, but when you get further down it is.

    Also, people like to act like Notre Dame has easy schedules, but they really don't. It could be compared to a B1G schedule with 2 big OOC games per year instead of just 1, IMO.

    All your points about the coaching staffs are just as valid though. They haven't had a good coach since Holtz and that hurts as well.

    This year their schedule is tough. In years past, not so much.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • The state of Michigan has very little football talent and still fielded two top tenish programs last year

    signature image signature image signature image

    "The Michigan Man is certain he invented the Big Ten, along with intellect, cocktails and sex."

    Wendel Clark

  • usctrojanglory said...

    Oregon has Nike money behind them.Nike is the "IT" thing.Oregon also sits atop California.OU and Nebraska already had a rich traditions just like ND.OU is also next to Texas and close to Dallas.Define returning for me?Is ND about to be on the level of Alabama,Texas,OU,OSU,UF,LSU,USC or are they about to the equivalent of say UGA?Stanford has had a mini run.If you're saying that ND can have a mini run then sure most teams can.I'm saying they will never be ELITE again.UM an Nebraska aren't ELITE.

    Since 1970, UM has a winning record against OSU, Alabama and UF. We are 0-1 against both Oklahoma and and Texas (both close losses) and have not played LSU. The only team in the country we have a significant losing record against is USC. Of course, most of the schools you listed probably do not have winning records against USC. Pete Carroll was one of the best coaches in CFB history. It will be interesting to see how USC fares under Coach Kiffin.

    This post was edited by MrWoodson on 6/21/2012 at 2:33 PM

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    Since 1970, UM has a winning record against OSU, Alabama and UF. We are 0-1 against both Oklahoma and and Texas (both close losses) and have not played LSU. The only team in the country we have a significant losing record against is USC. Of course, most of the schools you listed probably do not have winning records against USC. Pete Carroll was one of the best coaches in CFB history. It will be interesting to see how USC fares under Coach Kiffin.

    USC is good under Kiffin.He is doing a helluva job.I think we will play for the Natty this year.I was in noway shape or form saying that UM doesn't have an elite history because they do.I was speaking more toward the landscape of College Football at this present time.UM will maintain it's current course if they keep raiding Ohio like they have been doing.Hoke has a sound strategy IMO.Get the best players from Ohio and cherry pick across the country.I don't think the national recruiting model that ND uses will consistently work in this day and age.The only team I see being able to maintain that sort of strategy is Stanford because of their elite networking and academics.

    signature image signature image signature image

    USC is a powerful place that Lane Kiffin is ruining.

    usctrojanglory ●

  • Wendel Clark said...

    The state of Michigan has very little football talent and still fielded two top tenish programs last year

    Because both recruit Ohio hard which is a great state for football talent.

    signature image signature image signature image

    USC is a powerful place that Lane Kiffin is ruining.

    usctrojanglory ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports