Well done, sir.

Perfection.

It's not an apt comparison to this year's team. It's simply apples and oranges.

You won't ever see a team (ND or otherwise) succeed against that kind of schedule ever again. There was a time when the top teams truly stood apart (UCLA men's basketball, ND football). All the top talent (which was scarce) rose to the top few teams, to the point where even a "murderer's row" schedule like 1989 was difficult, but manageable for a program like ND (still damned impressive though, and I wouldn't argue with you if you still wanted to call that the "standard-bearer").

The point, though, is that we shouldn't get too hung up in trying to compare the 2018 team to team's past, even if we do win it all.

Today there is too much parity on college sports for something like 1988-89 ND to ever happen again, because there is too great a pool of talent of kids out there. The population and resources are simply higher. More kids playing sports, better coaching, better nutrition and strength programs to close the gap between normal kids and "natural athletes." 2018 Alabama couldn't survive a schedule like '89 ND, and it's not because 2018 Alabama isn't a great team. The game has changed. Make no mistake, 'Bama has been dominant, but they would never get away with a schedule like the ND schedules of old. There is simply too much parity in today's game.

If you want a glimpse into the past, take women's basketball today. That too will change as the women's game gets more developed and more girls are encouraged to play sports.

That you think this, but just because you state it as fact, doesn't make it so

"You won't ever see a team (ND or otherwise) succeed against that kind of schedule ever again"



"Today there is too much parity on college sports for something like 1988-89 ND to ever happen again"


Bama would like a word.

A sampling of Bama's schedule this year (number in parenthesis is final CFP ranking)


(5) UGA - W
(11) LSU - W
(18) MSU - W
(19) A&M - W
(23) Mizzou - W


And if they win it all, you would add (4) and (2/3) to the list

That would be wins over 3 of the top 5 teams in the final CFP regular season rankings

And 7 wins against teams ranked in the final regular season CFP poll.

For the post about all of the reasons for Bama's success, and how there is no way for ND to have that sort of success.

matters a lot is the grey shirting. Bama in effect gets 15-25 extra players every 4 years. It allows them to replace injured or ineffective players much like the NFL has free agency, practice squads and trades.

It works at Alabama because their tuition is so dramatically lower than ND's tuition. In state tuition is below 10k per year. Out of state is in the 30k range -- and they give a lot of academic scholarships to what ND would consider to be bottom half academically within any class -- lowering that to 15 to 20k for out of state.

Someone can carry the cost to grey shirt at Alabama for a year and hope it works out and then accept a scholarship somewhere else if it doesn't. At ND that one year will cost you 75-80k all in, so it is virtually impossible for ND to match that aspect of the Bama machine.

It was only a matter of time until this one came up.

25 extra players?

Bullshit (check the link) they didn't get any "grey shirts" in the 2016 class.

But let's check out their mid year enrollees from last year:

Alabama Enrollees January 2018

Kindly remind all of us which one of these kids were grey shirts that graduated in May of 2017? That's right, it was just Parks (and there are plenty of articles about how he was the last of a dying breed), which was 1 of 5. Their early enrollees projected for this year, all are graduating now, not last may.

But if we look at the large number of 2017 enrollees in January, still not a ton of grey shirts. In fact there were none. 12 of them graduated in December then enrolled, and 4 used their mini mester to enroll

2017 Enrollee Article

1 grey shirt in 3 years isn't what you wrote, or are you talking about a different practice?

• Click here for link at https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2016/02/nick_sa

What I am talking about is walk on players that pay their own way and then eventually get a scholarship - or leave to take a scholarship somewhere else that they could have taken straight out of high school.

EDIT: Your method of uncovering those players is invalid -- because they are not people that are enrolling in the middle of a year. They are already students at the school from day one and are on the team as walk-ons originally.

You may or may not be able to detect them by checking for changes in the names of players that have scholarships by class over time and/or by the number of players that originally were in a class versus the end -- but they still had 85 scholarships. It isn't trivial to unwind -- and it is perfectly legal (so not saying Saban is breaking any rules, just taking advantage of Bama being cheaper than most private grade schools).

Google it.

My method was fine and accurate.

A gray shirt is a player who doesn’t sign in February, graduates in May and doesn’t enroll until the following Spring because they don’t have a scholarship avaialable until the Spring semester.

That is gray shirting defined and few teams really do it anymore.

Seems like an odd stance

Well played.

Does anyone give this guy credence

Sounded like it was recorded on his kid's speak and spell......after he downed a couple bottles on Nyquil. I gave up long before he tried to make any semblance of a point

We have an entire generation of fans who have never seen ND win a major bowl game. Some of them don't even seem to realize that winning such games used to be considered a goal at Notre Dame. I have already read multiple comments on other Internet forums complaining that we can't recruit the same players as Clemson and that Dabo is dirty. Therefore this will have been one of ND's greatest ever seasons, even if Notre Dame loses in a blowout.

Many young ND grads say, without irony, that their greatest memory as a fan is losing to USC in 2005 or tailgating in Miami before being decimated by Alabama. Part of me can't really blame them.

What annoys the hell out of me, however, is when fans (of any age) take as their starting point the a priori belief that Brian Kelly is a legendary coach. It then becomes necessary to tear down the accomplishments of Holtz, Ara, and Devine by comparing them disparagingly to Kelly.

If you're going to make a statement comparing Holtz and Kelly, have the decency to do your research and educate yourself about the strength of schedule Notre Dame teams used to play.

During Holtz's run of 24-1 he played eight teams that finished in the AP top-10. He beat seven of them. Two of the opponents he beat were ranked number one at the time of the game. Two of the wins were on the road (against #2 at-the-time-of-the-game USC and #2 Michigan). Holtz beat a ninth team that was ranked in the top-10 at the time of the game but finished "only" #17. He won by a score of 45-7.

During Brian Kelly's current run of 22-3 he has beaten two top-10ish caliber teams. Last year's USC team finished #12 in the AP and #10 in the coaches'. This year's Michigan team will finish in the top-10 if they beat Florida.

During the last two years Kelly has one road win against a team that was ranked at the time of the game: #24 Virginia Tech. The Hokies are a poor team that probably shouldn't have been ranked then and have no prayer of finishing the season ranked. Last year's MSU road win was certainly solid; they ended up ranked #15 in the final AP poll. Oh by the way, I haven't even mentioned that Holtz went to Happy Valley in 1989 and beat a Penn State team that finished #15.

But yeah, Holtz sucked because he lost in 1989 to eventual national champion Miami, the 1980s version of Alabama. And though it was a sound beating, it was a fuck of a lot more competitive than the game Kelly mailed-in against Miami last year. The same Miami team that went on to lose their last three games and finish outside the top-10.

We need to end the spiral of death and create at least one data point for anyone 30 or younger on WTF ND football really was, is now and should remain every single year under proper management.

Even if we follow that with a loss in the title game, winning a real game to get into the title game will go a long way toward changing the future arc of the program -- especially within the media.

Reality is anyone under age 40 doesn't know true ND football. They were 1-10 years old when Holtz had ND at it's peak and 8-10 years old is about the earliest age kids really remember well.

A lot of planets aligned this year. A ton of upper-class defensive talent. Many of the "name" opponents having down years, especially FSU and USC. The toughest road game being Northwestern. A quarterback that fits the kind of offense Kelly wants to run (and well-coached, to the credit of Kelly and Rees).

It would be a shame to let this opportunity go to waste. You never know how long it will take to get back.

And I actually think on paper Clemson is the best match-up we have had in a major bowl since Holtz. An arguable exception is Ohio State in Weis's first year. But I think there was a bigger talent disparity between those teams.

There wasn't a talent gap for the starting units. If Weis had any kind of defense at all those first two teams would have been as good as any Holtz had.

when ND was trailing 10-0.....

"this is more like the ND I remember".

I felt for a moment like I saddled her with a weight.

I was in Dallas in January of 1994.

I know how young I was then, versus now.

I remember early season losses to Michigan and NW, which were crushing, because it most likely meant that winning the national title was out of the question.

That was the expectation going into every season, and it was disappointing when we didn't get there.

That said, people shouldn't confuse disappointment with not enjoying the season.

I enjoyed the shit out of the 1995 season, and we lost 3 games. Tom Krug damn near pulled it off against FSU. It was a fun season, especially destroying Texas.

But I understand. Someone born in January of 1994 is coming up on being 25 years old right now. Everything about the great ND teams transpired before they were ever born.

But I think "forgiving" is right. This isn't their fault. It's Notre Dame's for letting it come to this.

what I've thought for years. Loved Lou Holtz because you knew Notre Dame was special for him.

Thank you.

My only issue with ND claiming Consensus National Championships vs. other schools (namely Alabama) claiming every time someone in the media called them a National Champion, is that the media takes those numbers and gives them the same weight. It bothers me when some ESPN talking head mentions in the same sentence ND's 11 championships and Alabama's 16.

and arguably 1964 and 1989/1993. The NCAA credits ND w/ 13 (1919 and 1964) so I don't see harm in placing the number there at least. The absence of consensus is the reason we now have a playoff.

For some reason, those crazy bastards are all big time fanboys of the Fighting Irish. Bonger, you really touched something deep within the Bushmen’s passionate souls about ND Football. And you did the same to me. Well done!

Latching onto ND because of the Holtz era. Great work as always.

. . . of what we were once taught Notre Dame was.“

Well said.

Have you ever thought of writing a book? :)

Seriously, your missive should be required reading for all Notre Dame fans. I won't restate all your salient points; you've written them far better than I ever could. I just wish more ND fans could see it your way and realize our tradition is nothing to be ashamed of.

My fondest desire is that come January 8 we will have another milestone to celebrate.

to seperate my dollars from me. Me, a former 20+ year season ticket-holder and one of the younger gen-xers, who now possesses more spending power than ever before. Reaped what they've sown, indeed.

Your post is spot-on, sir. Well done.

that it's fine for people like us to ponder how many national championships ND would have if "Alabama math" or "Michigan arithmetic" were used.

ND only claims the 11 titles that are truly consensus championships: 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1966, 1973, 1977, and 1988. Fair enough. But under the expansive definitions used by most other schools, we'd add at least the following seven:

1919*
1920
1953**
1964*
1970
1989
1993

* -- recognized by College Football Data Warehouse
** -- recognized by most ranking systems that year except AP and UPI

they go on to beat both Clemson and Alabama this year (what tho' the odds), that would probably be the greatest finale to a championship season in ND history. To knock off the undefeated national champions from each of the previous 2 seasons in back to back weeks to win a championship is probably unprecedented for any team, not just ND. Not that previous ND teams wouldn't have been capable of pulling off such a feat, they just didn't have the opportunity.

Would that make them the greatest ND team of all time? No, I really don't think so but let's ask ourselves again after they do it because by then we'll all be seeing them in a different light than we are now.

Would it be the greatest finish to a championship season? Yes, I think they'd stand alone in that regard. Not much competition because most of their titles didn't involve bowl games. The best 2 game run to finish a season is probably 1988 when they beat undefeated USC and West Virginia in back to back games.

My father constantly reminded me that that team gave up 38 points the entire season. To put that in perspective to today, Oklahoma gave up 32.4 points per game.

Sure, the game is different, but that number is impressive even back then.

I believe that 14 of those points were not given up by the defense. I know that Purdue had a fumble recovery for a TD in the first game, and I believe there may have also been a blocked punt for a TD (against Navy?).

Therefore, the Defense gave up 24 total points in 10 games. 2.4 per game.

Yes, today we have a higher scoring type of game in general. But, 2.4 per game ... I don't know if such stats are available, but has anyone (at least those who ever played only D1 teams) come close to that?

The reserves gave up a TD late in the fourth quarter at Northwestern -- after ND already had amassed a 35-0 lead. The only teams to score on ND's first-string defense were Purdue and MSU.

ND was favored, but some predicted trouble. The final was 44-0 and easily could've been much, much worse.

Bryant in the sugar bowl. Have we had a more important win since then? Beating West Virginia in the fiesta doesn’t come close, at least to alumni of my generation. And I say that giving full credit to Tony Rice and company for beating southern cal in the coliseum in that year’s penultimate game. That was a pure thrill. But clements to Weber won it all, against the odds.

the final two games, but yes, denying Bear Bryant an AP national title two years in a row, including your swan song, is hard to top.

after the soul-crushing manner in which they had lost at Southern Cal -- which knocked them out of a shot at No. 1 in the coaches' poll -- was particularly impressive.

I think everyone, on all sides of our fanbase, should sit down and talk about these helmets (again).



They are great.

I don't know anyone who doesn't like these helmets (other than some trainers who placed a huge value on painting them the night before the games).

Moff posted this previously
Student Manager Perspective

It's hard to argue that some fans don't like any change, etc, when this helmet change is universally praised.

I'm not naive or myopic enough to think that the ND uniforms
1) Have never
and/or
2) will never change


Equipment, by design, will continue to improve/change, necessitating change.

The problem with changing our uniforms is doing it for the sake of doing it (which as you pointed out, has a huge money factor to it, despite what everyone says). We shouldn't do it, just because, but it's also not accurate to portray parts of the fanbase as against any and all change.

I think it's fairly universal that the new helmets are great and that these helmets were the worst thing we've ever ever done.

The helmets had turned to an ugly brown shade. The problem was identified and fixed. They look wonderful now.

I prefer non-Huffy gold for the helmets and non-Guldens gold for the pants

But relative to the way the paint looked on the new helmets before the change it’s far superior to what we had immediately before the change.

The reality is that helmet technology has changed (and will continue to change).

Getting your preferred Pantone on the new helmet designs is impossible.

You don’t have to love them, but most people agree they are better helmets than at the link

• Click here for link at https://goo.gl/images/1yFwKQ

Because it wasn't sticking to the new helmet materials.

I used to think it was BS, much like our "turf", and the failure of paint to stick was just an excuse to gussy things up.

But it turns out a friend of ours works for Riddell, and we talked through helmet changes "since I wore one" and specifically about the trouble ND was having with the paint (it wasn't just Riddell, Schutt and everyone else were having the same problem with our helmets and paint).

Now, could they have gone with less "sparkle" or something else? Sure, but I'm glad they did something because the other ones were shit. You may not think they are the right ones, but I still contend it's better than it was.

Some sort of primer, etc. Even if not, I just think the new paint is too sheap looking.

Why the old paint didn't work anymore. You have two options with helmets. Create/make the plastic in the color/style you want (and either buff it to a shine or keep it matte), or paint them.

We choose to paint, so do many schools. The new materials don't hold paint the same way the old helmets did. This isn't unique to ND. They had to change the process, because by the end, with the new helmets, and our old paint, it looked like shit.

Did they have to pick the exact gold they did, via hydrographics? No, but it's still better than what we had immediately before.

The old helmets were dull/cheap looking at best and befitting a poorly funded Pop Warner team at worst.

It was a nice story about the managers painting them from week to week but technology passed them by.

I don't like the current helmet. I think the gold looks cheesy. Which is not to say that its immediate predecessor was the gold standard, so to speak.

And the trousers are really bad.

Are you talking about our helmets right before we changed to hydrographics, or are you going farther back?

We will differ if that is your take on these:

The yellow/mustard looking ones we currently wear don't look good, in person, or on TV.

What is actually somewhat comical about that, is the pant color is "retro" in the sense it's much closer to what we wore in the 60s and 70s than what we wore in the 80s and 90s.

I believe I read somewhere, during the Jimbo Fisher era, they switched to how their helmets are prepared as well, and it's much more in line with how we do it, because they had the same problems.

One small exception is on preferred uniforms. The look from 1966-74 (navy home jerseys with white numerals) was utterly fabulous. And the socks (either blue at the calf, or blue & gold stripes) were very cool IMO. Great post. Thank you.

I especially liked this line: "They’d like nothing better than for ND football to go away so they can gain the “respect” of their fellow academicians — people who, they fail to realize, are never going to like them anyway."