In reply to: Your opinion is not popular here. But it is 100% correct. posted by NDQuebec
shows it, that Kelly left ND in a much better position than when he took it over. It is clearly demonstrated by the wins and losses during the last five years and the level of overall talent. Weis stocked up on skill position talent but overall, his teams were lacking in the other positions. Just ask Clausen what he thought of his oline. Like him or not (and I do not), he left the team in a better place than when he joined it.
Kelly left the program in better shape than it was when he came in. You're entitled to it, but it's just, like, your opinion, man.
up with objective facts.
The only information that you have presented is the composite rankings, which others have pointed out to you is flawed. As far as I can tell, you have not to responded to those points.
I will remind you that it has been demonstrated that the talent level Kelly left was at best on par with what he inherited. I would argue - note, this is my *opinion*, I am not not trying to present it as a *fact*, that our talent deficiency at critical spots such as QB, receiver, and linebacker makes this year's team worse than 2010's. It's difficult to succeed at the highest level when none of your QBs is much better than average. That's on Kelly.
The fact is, and the record shows it, that:
* Kelly had a full season vacated under his watch. That was over 5 years ago, but it is a mark against the program that never can be removed.
* A student manager died on Kelly's watch. He should have been fired on the spot. Swarbrick as well. That Notre Dame did not do so will forever be a point of shame for the university.
* The schedule at the end of Kelly's tenure was watered down, inflating his win percentage. Ref: here https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/notre-dame/index.html. Others may have better links, that's what I found with a quick search. My *opinion* is that the ACC is a weaker football conference than the Big 10.
* Kelly's team in 2012 was led by players that he inherited.
In 2005 ND took a national-champion runner-up Southern Cal team to the wire. Kelly got curb-stomped every time he encountered an elite team. That's not leaving the team in better shape.
So, I find the following statement made by you to be flawed. One might even say that the fact is, and the record shows, that it is objectively false:
"I get what you are saying but the fact is, and the record shows it, that Kelly left ND in a much better position than when he took it over. It is clearly demonstrated by the wins and losses during the last five years and the level of overall talent. Weis stocked up on skill position talent but overall, his teams were lacking in the other positions. Just ask Clausen what he thought of his oline. Like him or not (and I do not), he left the team in a better place than when he joined it."
It's your opinion, you're welcome to it. Please don't insult the collective intelligence of the board by trying to present your opinion as indisputable fact. Have a good evening.
recruiting under Weis vs under Kelly. If you see flaws in the composite rankings, maybe you will find this article more enlightening.
As for the rest, I'll just say that this year's team is much better than Weis's last team. Kelly inherited a team that was 6-6. Freeman inherited a team that was 11-2. This year's team was a QB away from being in the hunt for a national championship. Getting a good QB through the portal would have done the job. Freeman chose not to.
Finally, the rest of your points (vacated wins, etc.), have nothing to do with the question, which is: Did Kelly leave the Notre Dame football program in a better place than it was when he inherited it.
shape that what he inherited.
My opinion is that he did not. In my opinion the 11-2 record was the result of a puffball schedule. The state of the program that Kelly left was one that was incapable of winning a national championship. If you think for one second that adding a good QB - not a Heisman candidate, just a good one, would result in a non-trivial chance to win the national championship, then there's really nothing more to discuss. Even more than there already is little to discuss.
Record isn't everything. Faust's final year was 5-6. But he left a Heisman candidate and a lot of talent when he left. Likewise Weis. Weis had plenty of gaps, but he left the core of the 2012 championship run team, about which Kelly only could complain.
Kelly left the state of the larger _program_ worse than what he inherited. To me, the program is more than just the on-field results. Freeman, to his credit, is undoing some of Kelly's misdeeds.
You hold a different opinion, and that's fine. I'm heading out, so I won't be able to spend any more time debating it with you, thank goodness.
Again, have a good evening.
...You have adduced some facts, but they don't support your point.
The fact that Kelly got ND to the playoffs in 2012 and 2018 does not bear on the state of the roster when he took a powder from us in late 2021. We're not talking about NFL teams where you often have roster continuity over several years--keeping the college roster well-stocked takes very assiduous effort every single year, something that Kelly evidently did not exert.
This also is true to the extent that you consider Kelly's win-loss record as proof to support your point. What he did 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago on the field of play is a red herring, or at best distantly related to the issue of the roster coming into 2022 versus what he came into in 2010. Take a look, again, at what KeoughCharles05 posted (at the link below); your reply to him indicated some agreement, but then you cited the playoffs, which as I said are not to the point.