Getting massacred on national TV it’s going to have a hangover effect
I agree that the 2006 and 2019 seasons are very similar from a myopic Notre Dame fan's perspective. I don't mean "myopic" disparagingly, I just mean that they're similar if you're just comparing those 2 ND teams in a vacuum without any consideration towards other teams' results, ND's preseason ranking, or the timing of ND's losses.
In 2006 ND started the season ranked #2.
In 2019 ND started the season ranked #9.
In 2006 ND dropped 10 spots to #12 after their first loss.
In 2019 ND dropped 3 spots from #7 to #10 after the close loss to UGA.
In 2006 ND rose from #12 to #6 before their 2nd loss through sheer attrition during their 8 straight wins over unranked teams.
In 2019 ND rose from #10 to #8 after 3 straight home wins including ranked UVA and unranked but talented USC.
In 2006 ND dropped 6 spots to #12 after their 2nd loss.
In 2019 ND dropped 8 spots to #16 after their 2nd loss.
In 2006 ND finished #11 prior to the bowl game.
In 2019 ND will probably finish #14 if Oregon loses to Utah.
The big boring difference between 2006 and 2019 is that every team's ranking is affected by the results of other teams competing for the same rankings. By the time they lost to USC in 2006, there just weren't enough good teams left to pass them up. They did get passed up by every 2 loss team from the Big 12, SEC, and Big 10 just as they did this year (except for Minnesota who is behind us), and they remained ahead of VA Tech, WV, Wake Forest, and Rutgers. Hypothetically, if this year Michigan beat PSU, Bama beat Auburn, and Baylor lost any one of the several close games they played, we'd probably luck into a #11 ranking just like the 2006 team did. And similarly some other teams' results could have left the 2006 Irish ranked lower than #12. It has nothing to do with equity in my opinion, it has more to do with attrition by other teams, or lack thereof.
More evidence that we don't have any more or less equity with pollsters is that the 2006 Michigan loss dropped ND 10 spots while the 2019 Michigan loss dropped them "only" 8 spots. These drops have more to do with how early/late in the season it happens and what other teams' records are.
but perhaps. I think the bigger reason is we have more than a decade long list of failures on the big stage. There have been exceptions, Oklahoma for instance, but i don't think polls and bowls want to take a chance on a bad game.
Plus, if the attitude on this board is an indication of the fan base as a whole, we won't travel well enough to overcome the blow-out risk
It’s the coach.
Interest in the program has slipped and continues to do so (attendance, TV ratings). When will the admin and/or BOD recognize that winning creates interest in the program and interest in the program creates revenue?
Alabama was dead. Then they got Saban.
Clemson was dead. Then they got Dabo.
ND is on life support.
It’s always interesting to see comparison graphs. Google offers that by comparing interest in a search over time.
- Check out google trends (trends.google.com) for interest in the program over time.
- Type in Notre Dame. It will suggest Notre Dame Fighting Irish Football. Select that.
- Select time frame 2004-present from the drop-down menu at the top
- Now, back at the top select Add Comparison and type in Alabama Crimson Tide Football
- You will see that interest in ND football was higher than interest in Alabama football in 2004, 2005 (Weis’ 1st year), and 2006.
- 2007 (Saban’s 1st year) ND still leads, by a nose.
- 2008-2010 interest in the programs was about the same.
- 2011 Alabama had significant gain.
- 2012 equal interest (ND undefeated and played in BCS title against Alabama).
- 2013 to present Alabama interest is generally 2x the interest in ND.
- Try it with Clemson. Interest in Clemson began to exceed that of ND once their team became very good in 2015.
- Try it with Michigan. ND and Michigan interest was similar until 2015 when Harbaugh started. Michigan has since outpaced ND by a large margin.
- Try it with Ohio State. ND and Ohio State interest was similar until 2013 (Meyer’s 2nd year, probation over). Then interest in OSU began outpacing ND by a large margin.
The committee is putting some emphasis on big wins (of which Bama had zero).
Top 5 competitiveness: When Lou left.
The Golden Dome effect: the Joe Moore saga, Declan, Shembo.
Luck of the Irish: 2005 against USC
I could go on with the now-familiar litany--Disneyfication, Jacktron, fake field, fake smoke, etc.
It's over. Great run while it lasted, but it's over.
a couple of tough games and a home heavy slate. Now there is nothing special about ND and 10-2 doesnt look that good anymore, and everyone knows it.
Sellout streak officially ended, sparse crowds at last 2 away games, TV ratings down, getting shut out of a NY6 bid...It's a long list.
We have an AD & HC who wanted all along to make ND more like other programs. They clearly have achieved that goal. ND is now being treated like just another program.
But, hey, we have Garth Brooks and Billy Joel in the stadium, and US Senior Open using our locker room. It all evens out.
I'd guess a lot of voters would look at the team similarly. I think the perception is that if ND gets to a big bowl against a top team, it will be embarrassed. I think this year's team is a little stronger than 2006. The quality of teams we narrowly beat (USC, Va. Tech) is a bit better than Ga. Tech, MSU, UCLA. And I think our margin of victory over overmatched teams is better this year. Beating Stanford, NC, Navy, and Air Force by only 21, 19, 24, and 22 is not as impressive as beating Louisville, Navy, Duke, and BC by 18, 31, 31, and 33. Nevertheless, think the perception is generally fair.
Michigan 2006 (11-1, only loss by 3 points to No. 1 OSU) was a lot better loss than Michigan 2019 (9-3, with losses by 4 touchdowns to OSU and by 3 touchdowns to 10-2 Wisconsin).
The USC loss [EDIT-typo] was to a team then ranked No. 3 (and No. 2 after the game).
Timing also matters. Losing to Michigan by a ton in the middle of the season threw ND way back, and there just haven't been a lot of teams that have lost such that they would fall behind ND.
Also, ND was ranked No. 12 at this point in 2006. So it really isn't *that* different.
First, I will certainly agree that this year's Michigan loss was worse. But I think it's a little messy comparing the relative "quality" of losses there. One was by 31, one was by 26. One was at home, one was on the road. And yes the 2006 UM team was clearly much better.
But ultimately I think they both proved the same thing that we couldn't compete with the top end of our schedule. I don't think losing by essentially four touchdowns at home (to anyone) is much less damning that what happened this October.
Two, USC was #8 at the end of the regular season. So we have a 26 point loss to #3 and 20 point loss to #8 vs. a 6 point loss to #4 and a 31 point loss to #14. I'd have trouble deciding how to rank that.
And I guess, ultimately, perhaps my point should have been more about how I (we) feel rather than the numbers (which are admittedly not that disparate). Maybe ThreeD has it right that I was still optimistic about Weis. But while I don't really like Kelly, I'd certainly say I'm higher on him than most here. And yet I'm really okay with ND being relegated to what I feel they deserve this year, and in 2006, with a worse resume, I saw it in a very different way. And I just wondered if I were alone or in the minority there and what that might mean.
It was number 2 at the end of the regular season.
Also, the Michigan game in 2006 was bad, but not as bad as the game this year. Brady played extremely poorly -- but ND could actually move the ball at times. And the Grimes fumble on the kickoff was basically the backbreaker. Michigan scored 20 points in 7.5 minutes between the end of the first quarter and the beginning of the second.
They lost to a 7-6 UCLA team to blow their chance at the title game.
There are two main differences between 2006 and 2019. First, Weis was in his second year and Kelly was in his 10th. Second, Weis had a perceived track-record of success in "Big Games"; Kelly does not.
Kelly has burned through his equity, moreso than the ND brand, such that at 11-1, a Kelly-led ND team would likely be outside the playoff spots, even after the conference championship games. They'll consistently be the lowest ranked N-loss team, perhaps not the lowest but near the bottom.
Nobody believes Kelly can pull off a victory against an elite opponent, rightly so.
In 2006, Weis was riding the perception coattails of Super Bowl wins, Patriots, Inc., and the turn-around 2005 season. While the two losses were definite beatdowns, the perception and luster hadn't yet caught up to reality. Easier to spot in hindsight.
If you put a proven-winner at the helm, the perception and equity will revert to similar to 2005/6. When that coach wins a major bowl it'll momentum will soar.
reasons I don't understand.
The linked article (from CBS Sports) was written in May and listed BK as the 7th-best P5 coach in college football.
Athlon rated him #11 overall in June: https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-130-college-football-head-coaches-2019
The Sporting News ranked him #7 overall, also in June: https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-130-college-football-head-coaches-2019
It's articles like these that give the enabler segment of the ND fan base what it needs to support its "who could we get that's better?!?" BS.
Like you, I don't understand the rationale for propping him up, such as in articles like you cite. There are probably a couple of things happening there, but both are beyond what I was really meaning.
My post was more directed at the perception of the ND team led by Kelly vis a vis its ranking among top teams rather than than Kelly's ranking among coaching peers.
Doesn't seem crazy. The reality is that the top has been dominated by a few coaches - Saban, Meyer, Dabo. Chryst seems awfully low, but I see that have Dantonio above Kelly and I assume that would change now.
The lists may not give a enough weight to the advantages of coaching at one of the top football schools and therefore give too much credit for a coach simply being at a football school.
In any event, as I have said here in the past, BK's specific level doesn't matter to me. Is he average, above average, good, very good? 5-15, 10-20, 15-25? I don't really care.
There is only one question on the results side of things - has he or can you reasonably expect that he will win an NC? That's it. No need to parse any farther.
In 2006 going into bowl season we were ranked #11. No 2-loss big 10, SEC, B12 or Pac12 team was behind us.
I know that doesn't answer your question about internal psychology, but at least as it relates to polls and bowl games, it doesn't seem like our stature was too different.
at Michigan and couldn't move back up when other teams lost because that memory was fresh in the committee's mind. Had we lost by a single score on the road we would have dropped 4 or 5 places instead of 8 and we could have moved back up with our wins down the stretch. Getting demolished in that game ruined the season.
Had we won that game (I still think we're better than them, just not on that monsoon day) we'd be #5 right now and when Georgia loses to LSU it would be us or Utah and they'd take us I believe.
So to answer your question, we haven't lost the equity, we just got blown out at the worst time and couldn't recover.
UGA- even if Smart went overly conservative at home, we played a very good team that may well make the playoff right down to the wire, and I think we only dropped 3-4 spots, much like the Bush Push game where even friends who hate ND came away impressed.
We are on a family friendly board, so I'll just leave the Michigan game as unacceptable. They were somehow picked over OSU in the preseason, yet ended up being thumped by Wisconsin and dominated by PSU (I think this is the one game Patterson looked like the hype) for much of the game before, and then crushed by OSU last week, so this is far from our losses to very good teams like Alabama '12 or Clemson '19.
Your analysis is dead-on IMO, and it also didn't help to have UF with close losses to LSU/UGA but a quality win over Auburn, Michigan rightfully leveraging their win over us until last week's loss, Penn State & Wisconsin IMO leveraging their common opponent in Michigan over us, Utah and Oregon going on late runs, and USC/Stanford not being quality wins for us.
I agree that the earlier the loss the better, but would not getting blown out at very last game of the year be just as bad if not worse?
That's what happened in 2006. Got our butts kicked in LA, bringing our resume to:
0-2 (both 20+ point losses, one at home) vs. elite teams
1-0 vs ranked teams (Penn State #25)
Come from behind wins vs MSU (4-8) and UCLA (7-5)
And whole lot of nothing else
I'd say that is a worse resume than this year by more than a hair including the freshest of impressions of final game blowout.
I don't disagree with your overall point. I just don't see how it serves to differentiate the seasons.
up throughout the year. I predicted with my nd friends that we'd be 10-2 and ranked around 9-11 at the end of the year because other teams would lose and we'd keep creeping back up. Instead we got sent way down the rankings and were about 2-3 spots from doing that climb. Michigan being a dog team didn't help much either because they were going to keep us below them.
The other argument with regards to equity is that in 2006 while it's probably a similar season, the bowl process was different and those big bowls could just grab ND and we'd get waxed but sell tickets. Now we're ending up slotted where we probably belong and I hope we blow out whatever Big12 team comes and tries to score against what I feel is a pretty darn good defense relatively in college football.
that's tough to prove either way; but, I object, no strenuously object, to the idea that we'd be sitting at #5 if we'd lost 28-24 or something.
gone into the tank and maybe lost to Indiana or MSU making that win yet another mediocre win but I still think we'd be sitting there at #5 hoping for a Georgia loss.