Never Accept Mediocrity
posted by Scott Engler
Two years ago Notre Dame signed the best recruiting class in the country, demonstrating very clearly that Notre Dame was able to not just compete, but beat out every school in the country on the recruiting trail.
This year, Notre Dame was in line for the top class in the country again, but worries about Weis's future have cost the Irish currency in the recruiting world.
Yet here we are reading about Joe Montana lowering the bar, trotting out the old Davieham party line that Notre Dame needs to accept mediocrity. "You can't ask any football coach here to be constrained like that on the academic side and to have a consistent team... Unless you try to relax some of that for the athletic programs here, it's hard to consistently compete with the programs that have different standards."
"With (coach Jim) Harbaugh and Stanford, if he fields a good and competitive team, they're happy," he said. "And once in awhile, they'll have a real good team. Here, you expect to be a little better than that. But that's the way it will be. A lot of peaks and valleys."
That's crap.
The fact is that Notre Dame recruiting was in the top 3, in aggregate, in the country over the two year period of 2007 and 2008 and the Irish beat every team in the country for players like Clausen, Floyd, Rudolph, Robinson, Ragone, Te'o, Johnson, Filer and Fleming.
There is no need to lower the bar; Notre Dame just needs to perform on the field. When the Irish are contending for a national championship, no team enjoys more advantages in notoriety and that translates into recruiting currency.
Montana's argument is backward. The inconsistency on the field over the last years doesn't stem from rigid academic standards that restrict recruiting, it stemmed from a lazy, narcissistic predecessor who didn't work at recruiting and a new coach who was still learning on the job.
When the Irish are winning, they can recruit against anyone in the country. That's not conjecture, that's fact proven over the last few years. If the Irish hadn't fallen apart after North Carolina last year, Notre Dame would have likely had the top recruiting in the nation over a three year period.
Montana's example to prove the point is just plain silly. "You look at the size of the SC's offensive line, and our defensive line," Montana said. "Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's hard to make up 30-40 pounds per guy. Sometimes, as good as our guys can be up front, that's an uphill battle for 60 minutes."
Okay, two things on this. The first is that our offensive line outweighs their defensive line by more than the other way around. The second is that Notre Dame's defensive line, with Hafis Williams in, outweighs USC's defensive line. There's no 30-40 pound advantage unless Notre Dame chooses to go to a smaller defensive line. Size is not the issue ladies. Notre Dame has signed six defensive linemen over the past two years, four of whom are 280 pounds or more and two of whom are over 300 pounds.
Montana does uncover a kernel of truth when he talks about the challenge in recruiting defensive linemen with grades, "That's the biggest difference, on the defensive side of the ball. It's harder for Notre Dame to get those guys."
Standout defensive linemen with grades are notoriously tough to come by, but Notre Dame's current predicament (having to start so many young players on the defensive line) can't be blamed solely on that fact. Poor recruiting by Jappy Oliver, Rick Minter and Charlie Weis in Weis's first two years have put the Irish in this position. Notre Dame put all its eggs in the Gerald McCoy (Oklahoma standout) basket three years ago and lost when personal circumstances forced McCoy to stay home. Even if the Irish got McCoy, Notre Dame still didn't recruit enough numbers that year and now Tenuta might end up starting two red shirt freshmen, a sophomore and a junior, but again, that's more a result of poor recruiting planning and effort than a restrictive environment.
Weis, Minter and Oliver (who was an awful recruiter) sowed the seeds for our current numbers problem on the defensive line three years ago and we "crazy internet fans" were the ones sounding the alarm. There's some concern the Irish may be making the same mistake with offensive line recruiting this year.
One advantage other schools have is that they can bring in Junior College transfers to fill gaps as Alabama did last year with Terrance Cody. Without Cody, Alabama may not have been a BCS team. Notre Dame is at a disadvantage there, but can counteract that by always recruiting numbers on the defensive line. Notre Dame has twice this decade pulled in what many consider to be the top defensive line class in the country; it just has to work harder at this position.
Stepping back, the academics vs. excellence argument doesn't jibe with reality. The facts are that Lou Holtz recruited more top classes than our last three coaches combined and did it while winning graduation award after graduation award. It was Malloy's meddling that brought the Irish program down and his attempt to Stanfordize the school has set the program back a decade and a half. Irish fans shouldn't embrace Montana's attempt to do the same right now. Stanford is not an aspirational peer, unless the aspiration is to not pursue excellence.
If Weis were to win this year, Notre Dame will be able to recruit (as has been proven) with anyone in the country.
Academics and football excellence are not mutually exclusive; in fact academic excellence can be a great ally. Notre Dame graduates almost every player who comes on campus and helps poor students become good students through a rigorous support program. That's an enormous recruiting weapon when looking at the horrid graduation rates for African Americans in top football programs around the country.
While I'm sure Montana's remarks are well-intentioned in support of Weis, they're not true. Notre Dame faced the same charge before Montana arrived on campus and the Irish won. They faced the same charge again in the 80s and the Irish won. If the Irish win again under Weis, Notre Dame will probably go through a down cycle and face the same charge yet again in the future. This is nothing new. Father Ted Hesburgh addressed this issue years back when he said, "There has been a surrender at Notre Dame, but it is a surrender to excellence on all fronts, and in this we hope to rise above ourselves with the help of God."
No organization can accept mediocrity without that becoming it's destiny; it's a simple truth proven over centuries. Notre Dame can never embrace mediocrity on the field. What a terrible lesson that would be for our youth. If that happens Notre Dame will become just another fable... and a 100 years of winning that inspired millions to strive for excellence will become a cautionary tale of what happens when poor leadership inherits a legacy.
This year, Notre Dame was in line for the top class in the country again, but worries about Weis's future have cost the Irish currency in the recruiting world.
Yet here we are reading about Joe Montana lowering the bar, trotting out the old Davieham party line that Notre Dame needs to accept mediocrity. "You can't ask any football coach here to be constrained like that on the academic side and to have a consistent team... Unless you try to relax some of that for the athletic programs here, it's hard to consistently compete with the programs that have different standards."
"With (coach Jim) Harbaugh and Stanford, if he fields a good and competitive team, they're happy," he said. "And once in awhile, they'll have a real good team. Here, you expect to be a little better than that. But that's the way it will be. A lot of peaks and valleys."
That's crap.
The fact is that Notre Dame recruiting was in the top 3, in aggregate, in the country over the two year period of 2007 and 2008 and the Irish beat every team in the country for players like Clausen, Floyd, Rudolph, Robinson, Ragone, Te'o, Johnson, Filer and Fleming.
There is no need to lower the bar; Notre Dame just needs to perform on the field. When the Irish are contending for a national championship, no team enjoys more advantages in notoriety and that translates into recruiting currency.
Montana's argument is backward. The inconsistency on the field over the last years doesn't stem from rigid academic standards that restrict recruiting, it stemmed from a lazy, narcissistic predecessor who didn't work at recruiting and a new coach who was still learning on the job.
When the Irish are winning, they can recruit against anyone in the country. That's not conjecture, that's fact proven over the last few years. If the Irish hadn't fallen apart after North Carolina last year, Notre Dame would have likely had the top recruiting in the nation over a three year period.
Montana's example to prove the point is just plain silly. "You look at the size of the SC's offensive line, and our defensive line," Montana said. "Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's hard to make up 30-40 pounds per guy. Sometimes, as good as our guys can be up front, that's an uphill battle for 60 minutes."
Okay, two things on this. The first is that our offensive line outweighs their defensive line by more than the other way around. The second is that Notre Dame's defensive line, with Hafis Williams in, outweighs USC's defensive line. There's no 30-40 pound advantage unless Notre Dame chooses to go to a smaller defensive line. Size is not the issue ladies. Notre Dame has signed six defensive linemen over the past two years, four of whom are 280 pounds or more and two of whom are over 300 pounds.
Montana does uncover a kernel of truth when he talks about the challenge in recruiting defensive linemen with grades, "That's the biggest difference, on the defensive side of the ball. It's harder for Notre Dame to get those guys."
Standout defensive linemen with grades are notoriously tough to come by, but Notre Dame's current predicament (having to start so many young players on the defensive line) can't be blamed solely on that fact. Poor recruiting by Jappy Oliver, Rick Minter and Charlie Weis in Weis's first two years have put the Irish in this position. Notre Dame put all its eggs in the Gerald McCoy (Oklahoma standout) basket three years ago and lost when personal circumstances forced McCoy to stay home. Even if the Irish got McCoy, Notre Dame still didn't recruit enough numbers that year and now Tenuta might end up starting two red shirt freshmen, a sophomore and a junior, but again, that's more a result of poor recruiting planning and effort than a restrictive environment.
Weis, Minter and Oliver (who was an awful recruiter) sowed the seeds for our current numbers problem on the defensive line three years ago and we "crazy internet fans" were the ones sounding the alarm. There's some concern the Irish may be making the same mistake with offensive line recruiting this year.
One advantage other schools have is that they can bring in Junior College transfers to fill gaps as Alabama did last year with Terrance Cody. Without Cody, Alabama may not have been a BCS team. Notre Dame is at a disadvantage there, but can counteract that by always recruiting numbers on the defensive line. Notre Dame has twice this decade pulled in what many consider to be the top defensive line class in the country; it just has to work harder at this position.
Stepping back, the academics vs. excellence argument doesn't jibe with reality. The facts are that Lou Holtz recruited more top classes than our last three coaches combined and did it while winning graduation award after graduation award. It was Malloy's meddling that brought the Irish program down and his attempt to Stanfordize the school has set the program back a decade and a half. Irish fans shouldn't embrace Montana's attempt to do the same right now. Stanford is not an aspirational peer, unless the aspiration is to not pursue excellence.
If Weis were to win this year, Notre Dame will be able to recruit (as has been proven) with anyone in the country.
Academics and football excellence are not mutually exclusive; in fact academic excellence can be a great ally. Notre Dame graduates almost every player who comes on campus and helps poor students become good students through a rigorous support program. That's an enormous recruiting weapon when looking at the horrid graduation rates for African Americans in top football programs around the country.
While I'm sure Montana's remarks are well-intentioned in support of Weis, they're not true. Notre Dame faced the same charge before Montana arrived on campus and the Irish won. They faced the same charge again in the 80s and the Irish won. If the Irish win again under Weis, Notre Dame will probably go through a down cycle and face the same charge yet again in the future. This is nothing new. Father Ted Hesburgh addressed this issue years back when he said, "There has been a surrender at Notre Dame, but it is a surrender to excellence on all fronts, and in this we hope to rise above ourselves with the help of God."
No organization can accept mediocrity without that becoming it's destiny; it's a simple truth proven over centuries. Notre Dame can never embrace mediocrity on the field. What a terrible lesson that would be for our youth. If that happens Notre Dame will become just another fable... and a 100 years of winning that inspired millions to strive for excellence will become a cautionary tale of what happens when poor leadership inherits a legacy.
""I read this book when it first came out and it had a very powerful impact on me. Recently my daughter was going through a rough time and I thought this book would be just the ticket to help her and guess what? She called and thanked me after she read it and passed it to her sister who also got a lot out of it and she just gave it to her husband to read. Now my other 2 daughters are demanding to read it. It can have a pretty powerful impact on the young and the not so young."
"As a son, a father and now a grandfather I found ten secrets a truly inspiring book. I read it cover to cover within an hour. My only regret is that the book was much too short.":
""""""""This book is one of the best that I have read. It is simple, meaningful and life changing. It was recommended to me by a priest as one of the best books that he has read. Not a religious book- but many positive, powerful thoughts."
37 Comments:
Insidious is right. Notre Dame seems to have lost this (from Built to Last) - "The visionary companies, the authors found out, had a number of common characteristics; for instance, almost all had some type of core ideology that guided the company in times of upheaval and served as a constant bench mark."
The core ideology under Malloy was acceptance by peers rather than standing for something unique and inspirational. Looks like that's where football is heading. Sad.
I don't always agree with NDN's 'commentary' articles; but in this case you are right on!
Unfortunately, as much as Mr. Montana gave us all thrills beyond belief during his tenure on the team, this is an example of his past inconsistencies while also at that position.
ND should never, ever, reduce it's student-athlete standards and should not have to in order to win.
That's part of what makes Our Lady different.
Dan
totally agreed. CW's recruiting has demonstrated that academic standards are not a problem. the inconsistency is the result of back to back incapable head coaches. the hiring of these coaches was the result either of Fr. Malloy's arrogance - thinking ND didn't have to take the normal steps and could get anybody we wanted - or his direct intent to downgrade the program (or maybe a dishonest combination of both). Excellence is achievable and should be pursued.
The problem with these discussions: Everyone talks in generalities, but this is really an argument about specifics. What are the standards, how high are they, and how much does Montana think they need to be lowered? What part of the standards? Lower Sat scores required? Accepting a bad college essay?
Screaming that the school needs to lower standards is like screaming that the gov't needs to lower taxes. Which taxes?
Are we missing out on recruits because of our academic standards? How many? 3 kids a year? 5? 10? How much lower would the standards have to be to get those players?
Every school has their handicaps in recruiting. Out of 119 schools ND has more recruiting pluses than 90% of the schools out there, most of whom have no legitimate chance to even get into a BCS title game. Just try and recruit on PS3 2010, and you see the advantages ND has that other schools don't.
And besides, how many kids does Notre Dame attract because of its high standards? How many football players talk about the academic prestige being a big factor in their decision? Do we lose some of those kids when we lower standards?
I know much, much less about football than Joe Montana does, and I would think anyone reading about football on a blog knows much less as well. But until we talk about specifics, what are we really talking about? I don't understand what Montana thinks he can achieve by saying things like this publicly, it just doesn't look good. Notre Dame flaunts its academic reputation constantly, so complaining about it looks twice as bad. It's like hearing about a pretty girl complain about her looks.
Your argument is flawed...."ND can recruit with anyone in the country" within a limited pool because of academic requirements. We have had superior classes despite our restriction.
That is what Joe is saying...let us have access to the same pool that Florida has... then we can recruit with anyone.
We choose not to...which is why we are ND!!
Spot on. Joe's a legend, and in this instance the legend is just wrong. I look forward to the team proving it, too.
I object to personal attacks on Coach Willingham, particularly using language ("lazy, narcissistic") that could be taken the wrong way. True, he was not a successful coach. But neither is our current coach. There is no need to make personal attacks.
Great article. It's ironic that Charlie is a great recruiter but fell short on the D/Line. Hopefully, Coach Hart will change that. Excellent first sentence to your last paragraph. With you permission I will use it with my Jr. PeeWee team.
Rock, I have disagreed with a number of our posts, but this one is very good.
Though this may be a minor point, I am not certain why you group Weis with Minter and Oliver in that one paragraph where you are discussing the numbers on the DL.
The old argument that it's hard for ND to recruit is moot now. Comparing our last 4 recruiting classes - this year's freshman through senior classes - with other big name schools, like LSU, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan and Oklahoma, the level of talent ND can put on the field now rivals all of those teams. Only USC and Florida seem to have a talent advantage, as they have grabbed more top-tier recruits. Starting this year, recruiting difficulties can't be used as an excuse for poor on-field performance. But it just so happens that, beginning this year, we aren't going to need excuses anyway because we're going to be winning big again, all because of great recruiting over the last 4 years. Wait and see. And Go Irish!
Just to add to my last post, looking at the Rivals star rankings of recruits at LSU, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma and Alabama, on average, those teams have received commitments from 7 (7.33) 5-star and 48 4-star recruits over the last 4 years. Over the same 4 year period, ND recruited 7 5-star and 47 4-star recruits. So, over an extended period of time, we have recruited just as well as other top-tier football programs. I don't see any reason to complain about recruiting difficulties.
And I agree that our academic standards actually help win some recruits. Recruits constantly say they like Notre Dame because of its academics and because they know they'll get a great education.
I'm a life-long notre dame fan and am currently counting down the days until kickoff... so my fidelity to that institution should not be questioned. But this article lacks cogency. Saying X is true by merely affirming the vague parameters of X is not an argument. Montana's comments are virulently attacked without consideration of their true cogency and reason. If Notre Dame is to mean a general striving for excellence, then it should mean that on the field as well as off, for not only students and players, but at once pundits and commentators. This article is plagued by both the inherent myopia and wanton passion of exceptionalist attitudes; as such it is a transgression, not affirmation, of that admittedly laudable striving.
The fact that Monk Malloy has a building named after him is a travesty. That man did more to ruin what made ND a great place (athletics, social atmosphere) than anyone before or since. If it were up to me, we'd still have a building named after him, but it would be Zahm Hall, because only the suck that is Zahm is comparable to the suck that was Malloy.
Dude, go easy on trashing Zahm Hall. I lived in Zahm and it was pretty good place to live...
With regards to CW, I see that he is toning a bit this time around. He's swallow some humility pills -- all in all we love our ND football; at the moment Charlie is the head coach who has made great strides to improve himself and the team. I am excited about this year's team -- I love the kids and I think that Coach Hart is exciting!
Go Irish!
once we we win alot, this year and on... can we stop with this argument? CW rocks in recuiting and like he said in 07, "have your fun now..."
One of the better pieces you have posted. Enjoybale read. Thanks.
Tricio
In my opinion, you can recruit all the blue chip players you want, but if you don't coach them up you are not going to be successful. Combine that with terrible game planning and that is a recipe for disaster. Am I the only one that has a meltdown every time he sees a linebacker blitz from the weak side and go in untouched to crush our QB?
I expect this argument from people who know nothing about ND football but like to tell the world why it's down regardless of that fact(see Michael Wilbon, Dan LeBatard, Jason Whitlock), but from someone with the firsthand knowledge of the program like Joe, this is very disapointing. Anyone who makes the argument that we can't recruit clearly hasn't been paying attention the past 5 years. Sure ND may only be able to go after 70% of the top players in the country, but our recruiting advantages and our national exposure more than make up for that. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES! Stop fishing for them.
Montana's comments also point to the fact that these "competitive" programs "employ" a lot of athletes that are so lacking intellectually (stupid/dumb?) that they really should not be in college. The student-athletes during Ara's Era were competitive in the classroom, some with a little pat on the back or a kick in the pants from Caoch DeCico (sp.). ND can be great again with an administration that is dedicated to the program and without an AD that schedules Nevada and UConn over Alabama.
I am happy to see how well we are doing at recruiting. It is a marked change from some of the results from the Willingham era.
However, I think Montana (and Hornung before him) have a valid point. Out of the top 100 players in the country, ND probably cannot recruit 50 of them, due to academic issues. In addition, we refuse to allow JUCO transfers. Both of these are essentially moral standards which we impose on ourselves. While this is laudable, it also is subject to scrutiny. At times, we fight with one arm tied behind our back. And, sometimes we get tired of losing those fights, and start untying that one arm.
As I recall, one of the concessions Charlie got from the University when he was hired was that the university would relax admission requirements in some instances. After that concession, our recruiting improved. (I may be wrong about that, but that's what I recall.)
In addition, as I recall, back in Lou's era, we also relaxed academic standards for recruiting purposes - otherwise, Chris Zorich and Tony Rice could not have attended ND. (I think it was called Prop 48 or something like that.) While there were other good players on the '88 Nat'l Championship team, no serious argument can be made that we would have gone undefeated without those two (and others who were recruited under relaxed academic standards).
It is my belief that, when Father Hesburgh stepped down (circa 1990), that our recruiting standards rebounded (and ND started tying its hand behind its back again). As a result, the '93-94 season was our last real chance at a national championship. By the time Lou left, our teams were no longer as deep, nor did we have superior talent to those around us. Some good players, sure - but not the dominant teams of the late 80's and early 90's. I think Lou's resignation speech reflected this, albeit in a subtle way, when he said he could have won another championship with just one more receiver. (I'm not sure if he alluding to Randy Moss, or was making a general point.)
I believe ND will always have stand-out players. But, to win a national championship, you really need a team of dominant players. I love watching the old tapes of our 88 Nat'l Championship season. It is amazing how dominating that defense was. They were big, fast, hit hard, and scared people. And, there really weren't holes in the lineup.
As much as I complain about Ty's recruiting classes, I believe that Charlie is (or at least was) playing with a different set of rules than Ty did. I hope ND continues to relax standards for its recruitment of standout athletes. In my opinion, ND helped shape Tony Rice and Chris Zorich into the men they are today. I fondly remember attending class with both of them, and am glad they attended ND (even if the University had to relax its own standards to admit them). I hope the University will continue to relax its standards for other similarly-qualified recruits.
You can't vilify Malloy while praising Hesburgh (that is, for the reason you do so). The entre deux guerres debacle between Leahy and Parseghian was entirely Hesburgh's creation in an attempt to reel in an athletic department deemed out of control for the sake of academic purity.
I reject any attempts to blame our lack of success on the talent level. We have enormously talented and smart kids who are certainly good enough to win a championship, assuming they have decent coaching -- something they haven't had for way too many years. Give them decent coaching, and they will deliver. Joe's the best, so we'll forgive him for essentially making excuses for his buddy.
last anonymous...I disagree. Weis was never given any reduction in admission standards for players..at least publicly. Willingham was lazy, and as Rock stated...narcisistic. He proved that after we fired him only to see the same fate at a university with admission requirements that weren't even in ND's same universe.
What the university did do was allow early enrolles...which I believe has helped us get some marquee kids here before signing day and avoiding some defections or late year changes (A. Allen, Clausen, T. Robinson, Motta, Banks Stockton, and soon to be C. Martin).
Lastly, I agree with you about watching the 88, 93 team. My wife bought me ND's greatest games and I watched them all. I could not believe how we dominated FSU in 93 with big, strong interior lineman. That toughness is something I never saw (as far back as 96...when I began my ND life as a freshman).
Regardless, I believe ND can recruit with the best...we have proven it. What is so striking to me when reviewing this years team is at WR we had a starter in 2007 (G. West) who cannot even crack the 4 deep this year! Only consistent followers of the program and recruiting could appreciate how big of a whole TW put this team in (one lineman recuited in 3 years!!!) In addition, looking back at ND during Lou's stellar recruiting one could argue that the intense competition that arose at each position made a strong team even stronger. I believe, we are now at or near that point.
Last year took my loyalty to Weis to its limit. But, there is no doubt that he and his staff are tireless recruitiers who, though learning on the job, care just as much about ND as many of us do because they get it. If they can figure it out this year I think we may really Return to Glory. Go IRISH!
The comment "Stanford is not an aspirational peer, unless the aspiration is to not pursue excellence" really sticks out for me.
I guess if all you care about is football, this is true. Maybe that's all people care about here, but I don't think so. If you care about the *University* of Notre Dame, then you are crazy not to think of Stanford as an aspirational peer. How many Nobel prizes do we have? How many Heisman Tropies do they have? Which is more valuable to a *University*? This pains me, as I am a Cal grad who has adopted ND as my team (and employer).
I wish NDNation took a broader view of the university, and stopped pinning all its hopes and aspirations on the success of kids on the football field. ND has to walk a very thin line here, and Montana knows it and I think you do too, Rock. The fact is, there are more constraints on ND than other schools, as well as more exposure. The two probably cancel each other out in terms of recruiting student-athletes. Yes, we should expect excellence in all facets. But if we start to emulate LSU or Alabama just to win, then we lose.
I agree with FE. The words you used to describe Coach Willingham are shameful. He hasn't been our coach in over four years. Please move on.
If you are willing to accept mediocrity, then continue to play the schedule you now do, continue to deny admissions to the best of the best runners and quick, big lineman. Play your schedule, get a good enough record and get creamed in a decent bowl game. Have you no recollection of recent history? Then quit complaining about everything and admit this is "ND"!.
Don't really care about winning recruiting battles.
I'd just settle for a few wins on the field.
That's just me.
I was at the SC game and then watched it again on TV. Montana was right. Our O=line got manhandled by the SC defensive line. Joe was right.
Did I read that right? We're still blaming Ty for something? Get over it, Rock.
Cracks me up when I read posts which cite "rankings" of recruiting classes. Do you really think these recruiting gurus can accurately access and compare raw HS talent on a coast to coast basis? Or that they can project how the kid will respond at the next level? IMPOSSIBLE! Lemming and his ilk have no clue. Relying on the recruiting of four and five star players as assurance of success on the gridiron is insane. Look at the kids that regularly enter the NFL ranks from the "lesser colleges". The majority were not highly regarded out of HS, but had core attributes (ability, determination and coach ability). Expose this type of kid to quality coaching and good things happen.
Rock agree with your comments. But now its time for fans to be focusing on a solution and who would be the best fit for new coach.... my list is and curious to hear others.
1) John Gruden - Has to be top of the list
2) Mark Richt - Georgia coach is proven 800% winner, BCS wins, great recruiter and may want a change
3) Tony Dungy - He loves working with youth, loved Indiana and may be ready to get back into coaching?
4) Kirk Ferentz - Not a Mark Richt but worth a look
5) Harbaugh - Not ready for ND yet, we dont need another Willingham Stanford overhyped coach
6) Brian Kelly - He needs to prove he can win big time for more than one season at Cincy
7) Bob Stoops or Steve Spurrier - Either may not want to move up north but they are both getting tired at their programs and may want the challenge.. worth a phone call.
8) Greg Schiano - He has proven he can build a program at Rutgers in NJ above all places
9) Steve Marriucci - He was good at Cal, success in NFL
Recruiting classes do matter. There is a direct correlation, whil you can argue there are also anomalies.
One needs not look any further than Florida's constant dominance, Alabama's resurgence, LSU and Ohio State continuously in top 10 rankings, USC's top 5 finishes 5 years running and top 5 recruiting classes to attest a good recruiting class year after year means a successful program.
All be it you need a good coach...unlike Weiss
Rock,
You really need to stop demonizing Willingham. As a general rule, it is not good to demonize people. It makes you seem incapable of being objective. For example, not once have you considered the fact that Willingham led Stanford to bowl games and twice beat a Davie-led ND team; he inherited a terrible ND team from Davie and was trying to rebuild; and he has a better ND winning percentage than Weis. An objective person would at least take that into account when assessing Willingham.
I would like to emphasize that I am NOT trying to defend Willingham. I am trying to get you to see that you have been overwhelmingly negative towards him instead of objective. My point is, an objective person can see the good as well as the bad. You seem only to be able to see the bad.
This lack of objectivity also showed up when you were assessing Weis in his early years. Again, an objective person can see the good as well as the bad. With Weis, you seemed only to be able to see the good. You were a Weis apologist, calling anyone who did not see him as a genius an “ND hater” when, in fact, they were right. Weis is no genius but you could not see that, at least not initially.
So I would respectfully suggest that you work on your ability to objectively assess the football program. Please, no more personal attacks and name calling.
The things montana said is crazy is that why his son didn't go to ND? We always have a good recuiting class. Thats not what I see to be the problem.This team has talant,but there not ready to play.Do we need a new coach? Maybe but who We all want ND to be the ND of old unless ND brings back Lou we have to keep moving on.
anyone out there who thinks in this world with this culture that a program is not behind the 8ball in recruiting when they have academic standards is smoking some good stuff in the shower.the vast majority of top recruits are off the list for ND.They have to go after a smaller pool of players who can go to the non-academic programs like USC and Florida or can choose Stanford,Ga Tech,Vandy,BC or Duke over ND.It is time to decide if ND is going to be a top tier program or settle for parity with Army,Navy et al.It doesn't cost a dime to put an extra seat in a classroom.It doesn't hurt the schools reputation.No one would argue that USC has an excellent academic football program.But it is still an excellent and prestigious university.I want to win.That whole defense and offensive line on this years team is barely division 1 talent level.QB and receivers were great.Its not the X's and O's,its the Willies and Joe's.
Why do we continue to accept the mediocrity that is Mike Brey?
Post a Comment
<< Home