What about the dozens of football players that played during that time? You happy to take the wins away from them too? And if the new AD does that voluntarily, we would be the first to ask for his firing, and rightly so.

the whole concept is nuts, when the NCA A refunds money, I'll stop counting em, of course the games were played

Mick" or something? We're going to Men in Black these guys with some kind of nueralyzer until they forget they participated in the games?

What a foolish thing to say/write.

Hoping the new AD will fight to maintain the vacated games is just plain dumb for the sake of petty revenge. I'm pretty sure Bevacqua feels the same way. Some people just need to move on from their hatred of Kelly and Swarbick. If you really want your AD to fight to maintain vacated wins if such a fight ever comes to fruition, then you better look at yourself in the mirror and decide if you are a true ND fan.

It's following through on what we said we'd do from the beginning.

And the punishment. One of the requirements was that ND not recognize the wins in any official way at all. We ignored that. We know why.

You need to accept that your blind support of Swarbrick and Kelly was wrong-headed and stupid.

The NCAA vacated the 21 wins. And ND acknowledges that the NCAA vacated the 21 wins.

Yet ND credits Brian Kelly with 113 victories. Those 113 victories include the 21 vacated victories.

Do we agree on the facts?

I do not understand your description of ND honestly crediting Brian Kelly with his 92 victories rather than a dishonest total of 113 wins as “fighting to maintain the vacated wins”?

My phrasing wasn't the best. But imo, its rather silly to hope the new AD will remove them (the vacated games) That's what you said, isn't it? They are already vacated. Maybe you mean the * besides the win. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that sanction, hoping that the new AD will "remove them" is going to extremes to spite a coach you detest.

No AD in the world is dumb enough to contradict Notre Dame's official stance on this matter. It's Notre Dame's stance, not Kelly's as you keep repeating.

I am fine with the Irish * besides the games. Notre Dame disputes the NCAA ruling and I am fine with that too.

To call out Notre Dame's bullshit on this (not Kelly or Swarbrick).

Our dispute is based on some faulty and nonsensical logic.

The idea that if we hadn't applied our honor code, they wouldn't have been ineligible, is quite honestly a lie at worst, dishonest at best. There were ineligible players that weren't impacted or part of the honor code process. They were ineligible because they received improper benefits. There is nothing to dispute.

We need to be adults and accept the consequences for what we did, instead of being cute about it. I'd prefer our new AD and President act like adults and accept the consequences for our actions.

I certainly wouldn't be one of them.

We played with ineligible players. We violated the rules.

The ND I attended taught me if you violate the rules, you deal with the consequences.

maintain the ban? That is what the OP said.

we're just not acknowledging the ruling.

Do you think Notre Dame broke the rules?

to the wrist, and we can't even take that.

So yes, the many players suffer for the conduct of their teammates, as has been the case time in memoriam.

the guilty but the innocent.

Neither you or I make the rules. It's pretty standard procedure as far as punishments go when you use ineligible players.

Entire teams have suffered the consequences (including the innocent) for the actions of a few as long as there have been sports teams.

You may or may not like it, that doesn't change the rules and punishments. It wasn't arbitrary. It's even what Fr. Jenkins said we'd do if it was found we used ineligible players.

perhaps there should have been some accountability.

Some of the players were ineligible? Yes, we should "take" those wins away from Brian Kelly, and we should "take" them from the student-athletes who participated in the games. It's unfortunate for student-athletes who did nothing wrong. But we can't claim wins for games where players were ineligible.

And, for the record, we always knew that to be true. We volunteered to vacate those wins if players were ineligible. Then we agreed they were ineligible. And we appealed the NCAA's order to vacate the wins anyway. Predictably, we lost.

In any event, the new AD would not be acknowledging the NCAA's order "voluntarily." The order says the games shouldn't be counted in any win totals, which is why ND invented the shamrock-asterisk to note that it was, in fact, counting vacated victories in win totals. The new AD should just stop that silly practice.

We don't need a shamrock-asterisk. We shouldn't count the wins.

fight to keep the wins vacated? The point of my post is that it is a silly thing to say. And I like the * thingy and hope that Bevacqua keeps it, which I am sure he will. Some act like they are holier than thou.

Of discussing people acting holier than thou, but then pointing to the * is hilarious.

The * is textbook holier than thou, I know better behavior.