What is our goal?

What is our goal?
by HTownND (2016-05-26 12:27:00)
Edited on 2016-05-26 14:08:55

In reply to: Look, that's a fair perspective posted by Domer99

We should start there, because if your goal is not to win a national title, then we can stop and part ways, and buy each other beers the next time we see each other, and laugh about 99% of this stuff.

But if the goal is to win a title, MSU isn't very relevant, because they haven't done it.

But let's look at the recent history

Saban at Bama - won the title in year 3 (2009) and has won several more since. Won at LSU in year 4 before moving on to the NFL
Meyer at OSU - won the title in year 3 (2014) and has won several others at schools like Florida (years 2 and 4)
Fisher at FSU - won the title in year 4 (2013)
Chizik at Auburn - won in year 2 (2010) and has since been fired and is the DC an UNC
Les Miles at LSU - won in year 3 (2007) and they are ready to run him out on a rail
Mack Brown at Texas - won in year 8 (2005) and has since "retired". He is the one example in the past 20 years of playing the long game on the title
Pete Carroll at USC - split the title in year 3 and won in year 4 (2003 and 2004), but cheated to do so
Jim Tressel at OSU - won in year 2 (2002)
Coker at Miami - won in year 1 (2001)
Stoops at OU - won in year 2 (2000)

That is all of the championships that have been won since we changed centuries. Of the 15 titles in that time frame, 1 has been won for the first time by a coach at that school beyond his 4th year at the school.

That's why I'm not OK with playing the long game, it's not how the vast majority of teams win titles. We're going into year 6. I don't think for 1 second we are capable of winning the title this year. Why? Because Kelly hasn't shown the ability to win one big time game, let alone 2 in a row.

As for what has been said previously, I don't think Kelly sucks, I don't think he's an awful coach either. I think he's very very good. But very very good isn't good enough, he needs to win titles. Competing for them is a good thing, and it's better than his predecessors. But ultimately, it's not good enough.

And I can sum it up very easily. What are the odds you'd put on Kelly winning 2 straight games against the best teams in college football on a neutral field? I've seen nothing in his track record to put those odds very high at all, and we're 6 years in, so I'm not sure what is going to dramatically change those odds. I don't fault you for holding out hope. But I'm tired of the trope that what I've just laid out is some antiquated, it's not 1988 anymore, gold seat bullshit. It's a logical and sound position to take, by all measures.

I agree with the goal

But I also see the goal a little different than I see the expectations. Clearly to me, 8 and 9 win seasons are not meeting expectations.

But I also don't want having a goal of a national championship to be the equivalent of shooting the moon. Larry Coker, Mack Brown, and Gene Chizik all won national titles, but I wouldn't want ND to hire any of those guys. If it's a national title without any kind of sustainability, then I'd argue that my definition of ND's goal is more nuanced.

Said a little differently, and I know this might sound sacrilege, but I think I'd rather have a program like Oregon that was constantly in the national title conversation morese than I'd want one title like Chizik. Heck, I'd rather probably see something that mirrored Dantonio's post year 6 than to have a program that was as inconsistent as Auburn. But I can understand those that disagree.

But of your list, I think Kelly stacks up well compared to Fisher, Miles, and Stoops. The latter being a poster child for how difficult it is to win any title.

But then I think the next question is how do we get there. I am still not convinced that Michigan, who made the biggest splash hire since Meyer is necessarily assured of winning the title.

There are 2 sure gold standards in college football right now, and I am not sure anyone is hiring those guys away.

The totality of Kelly's body of work is not enough. Clearly. But if 2015 becomes a baseline (and that's the most recent data point) then I think that provides ND the best chance at winning 2 straight games against the best teams in college football. Heck, our 3 losses were against arguably 3 of the best teams in college football last season, and 2 of those should have been wins on the road. Note, I did say should so it wasn't good enough. But for me (and I understand if there are different views), it demonstrated an ability to compete (although not finish) at the highest level.

I wished Kelly would mix things up defensively, because to my untrained eye, that was the primary obstacle in ND winning 2 games against the best teams in the country and being a 10-3 club. But Kelly is on the hook for that. I think next year bodes significantly toward proving whether 2012 was a fluke or whether 8 or 9 wins is likely. If it's the latter then I am fine moving on. But I just hope we have a viable reset strategy at that point.