Notre Dame fan because my father taught there for most of my life. Alabama fan because my Tuscaloosa roots go deep: My great-grandfather's grave is across the street from Bryant-Denny stadium.
I'm actually a Notre Dame fan, and I think ninth is about right for ND this year going in. Playing Georgia and Michigan on the road will be tough. Michigan at 11th just goes to show how many unknowns there are in that team. Phil Steele has them in third place and making the playoffs.
Another reason that Notre Dame doesn't want to join the ACC.
That's about where I am, too.
ND might have been consistently overrated a few years ago, but since 2016 they have performed above expectations. Nobody expected them to go 10-3 in 2017. Nobody expected them to beat LSU in the bowl that year. And sure as hell did nobody expect them to go undefeated last year, despite the schedule becoming more cooperative than expected. As far as Clemson "proving" that ND is overrated, if that's so then they proved the same about Alabama. So no, I think ND is actually a bit underrated at this point. As for as motivation, all we need (I'm an ND fan first and a Bama fan second) for motivation is articles like this one. "Georgia should be fighting this year to prove that they belong after the Bowl loss" and ND shouldn't? I don't think so. :)
Yeah, I'm going to spread this one around. :) Good luck to Georgia, and I think they're the better team, but ND is better than people think as well. I think the spread is about right, and a blowout is the prediction of the average "Georgia should have been in the playoff ahead of ND" apologist.
Well, Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick is on the committee. Tough crunchies.
If it's fact it ain't bragging.
Maybe they are the second best team in America. Unfortunately, they lost. If a team gets "upset" by an inferior team, the inferior team moves on and the better team goes home, usually fussing about how much better they are than the team that beat them. C'est la vie.
Can you name any other team in football that played 10 top-25 teams? No, of course not. Notre Dame is the "discriminated against minority" who has to be twice as good as everyone else to be just as good.
The other side of the argument is that Notre Dame doesn't play FCS teams. The Big Ten stopped playing them a few years ago, but the other Power 5 conferences play them. Since 1978, FCS teams have won 85 games against Power 5 teams, or about .0125 percent. The average number of wins that those Power 5 teams had was 1.2. Meaning that a potential playoff contender playing an FCS team is as close to a guaranteed win as it can be, a chance to give game reps to backup players with virtually no chance of losing the game. So, I have trouble seeing how FCS games count as "one more game" than Notre Dame plays.
Assuming LSU beats either of them, that is.
I think also that it's unlikely that a one-loss ND team will make it, but more because the quality of the loss won't be a good one than the lack of a conference championship. I think that that metric as an indicator for a playoff berth is rather overblown, in light of the fact that all of the Power 5 teams in contention play at least one FCS game and Notre Dame doesn't. That "13th data point" is therefore a very weak one. I expect that Alabama's chances of wiping the floor with everyone else are pretty good. I don't feel the same way about any other possible SEC champion, however. Any SEC team beating Alabama (which I think is unlikely) simply will show that Bama is a mere mortal like the rest of the teams. Furthermore, I think you're reading too much into the Ohio State meltdown. That does nothing more than prove that Ohio State isn't as good as advertised, which a lot of us believed anyway in light of their uneven performances prior to the Purdue game. If Michigan goes to Columbus and wins as well, then I would like their chances against any SEC team but Alabama.
Semantics. ND played three teams that were in the top 25 at the time it played them, so the statement is not incorrect. Neither is your statement it has played one. While I don't take issue with the idea that ND's schedule is weak, I do take issue with your implication that the writer is factually incorrect. Neither interpretation is wrong, rather, one interpretation is one that you don't like and the other is one that you do.
Coming back to this very late, but it's important to say that it isn't possible to do any REAL harm to the word of Jesus. "Harm" is a belief -- one of many -- that we have concocted to justify our judgments of the world.
I'm glad to see LSU doing well, win or lose to Bama. I like Ed Orgeron, and I can't imagine that he would rather coach anywhere but LSU -- someone mentioned that he's the "first coach we've ever had who doesn't have a foreign accent." So, I'm glad to see that he's doing well enough to stay. At least for the time being.
It will be interesting to see who makes it in if Notre Dame manages to win out. Especially if Alabama and Georgia are undefeated going into the SEC championship game and OSU, Clemson and Oklahoma are all undefeated as well. It would be tough to eliminate any two of those.
Well, I hope he isn't, although without animosity. I will say that Herbstreit's prognostications concerning Notre Dame can be taken about as seriously as Lou Holtz's. He's clearly an anybody-but-Notre-Dame type who believes in wishful thinking. That doesn't make him automatically wrong, but he talks himself into a Notre Dame losing scenario and runs with it pretty much every week.
Picking on Derek Mason again. :) I'm an ND fan, and all the hoopla about his comment on the ND boards was pretty overblown IMO. He provided a great opportunity to slice and dice what he said to make it sound like he wasn't going to be concerned about the ND game. But what he was really saying was that he'd worry about his date in South Bend when it was time to go to South Bend, and meanwhile, he had some SEC games to pay attention to.
I'm not seeing that Alatide is offended by this one, either. He has said as much.
That's my attitude as well.
The point is that "Fighting Irish" IS related to the Notre Dame identity, and most Irish don't find it offensive to be labeled fighters.
I disagree with you there, sir. You don't trivialize Americans when you call them fighting Americans, and you don't trivialize Irish by calling them fighting Irish. The Irish came over and had to compete with the people who already owned all the stuff to make good. Those people tried to marginalize and trivialize the Irish, as people who have all the stuff will do when they feel that their stuff is threatened. But the fact that our ancestors fought back and won their place in society is something that we are proud of. The point about team names and mascots is that some propagate negative stereotypes and some pay homage to aspects of our culture that we consider positive. It's important to think through which is which. When I do, I don't see anything offensive about the "Fighting Irish" moniker.
The Virginia WASPs, for example. But I believe the poster is being sarcastic.
Thank goodness. We'd like to keep keep Chip Long!
I've noticed that turnovers have often been huge for Notre Dame this year. Maybe because they have a way of forcing them. If you spend time every practice on a drill where everyone who ever carries the ball runs through a gauntlet of defenders who all try to strip the ball from him, it seems you'll get good at it. Notre Dame is +1.0 in fumbles recovered vs. fumbles lost per game. Also, their turnover margin per game is +1.4 (they're at +10 for the year), and they haven't had a game with a minus turnover margin. That kind of consistency doesn't seem like a lucky accident; I suspect that Georgia (+0.2 TMPG) doesn't do drills like that. That said, Georgia did indeed thoroughly dominate Notre Dame's offense, but that suggests that Notre Dame thoroughly dominated Georgia's as well -- although all the penalties surely helped, too. If, in the unlikely but not impossible event that Notre Dame and Georgia get to play in the playoffs, it would probably be two much improved teams slugging it out all over again. Maybe we'll get to see that. In any case, best of luck in the rest of the season. The better both of us play, the more we help each other's chances at the end.
Just to be clear, anyone traveling from Oxford to Berkeley would log more than 2,000 miles of travel, yes. But if they wanted to come back, too, they'd need to log 4,000+ miles.
I lived in California for a few years and now live in Tennessee, and there's definitely a cultural difference between the two. I don't think it has much to do with politics, either. I'd say mainly it has to do with having so many people jammed together there.
LOL Okay, brother. Just so you know, the closest that the Hubble telescope ever gets to Berkeley (not to mention Oxford, or Tuscaloosa for that matter) is about 340 miles over some point in the southern Pacific ocean. That's right, that's the telescope that's in orbit. Perhaps you were thinking of the Mt. Palomar Observatory telescope. That's a little closer, only 500 miles away over by San Diego. Maybe if you went to a USC or UCLA game you could take a side trip there. On the other hand, you could go visit the wine country on a day trip. Just bring a few hundred bucks so you can buy a couple bottles. Otherwise, just go down to your local wine store and spend maybe $40 for a couple of good California vintages there. Now, as for redwoods, you're on to something there. If you go to Berkeley, and you have a day to spare, go four hours north on Highway 101 and take a ride on the Avenue of the Giants. It's awesome. If you can't make it that far, take a 30-mile trip to Muir Woods National Monument over by Mill Valley. Just don't do it at the wrong time of day, or you'll be four hours getting there, too. I grew up in South Bend, and they have California wine there, too. But they don't have redwoods, and the redwood forests are definitely something to see.
I'm a long time Notre Dame fan. I wouldn't compare Golson and Zaire equally. Golson continued his turnover-prone ways at FSU and got himself benched. Zaire had zero turnovers in three starts. He only had three starts due to a whole lot of bad luck. He's a potentially outstanding, if largely unproven, quarterback who could do very well given the right chance. Great runner, much better passer than he's been given credit for. As for your point, true frosh can use reps, but redshirting them for a year has its advantages as well. I'd say it really depends on how well they know the position and their personality makeup. Some people thrive on improvising their way through mistakes, and some do better when they come into their first test more thoroughly prepared. In the end, the coach is the one who has to make the call. Although I'm sure you know more about the FU QB situation than I do, I wouldn't second-guess the decision one way or the other unless whoever winds up starting can't get the job done.