January 04, 2007

What is the country's fascination with seeing Notre Dame in the spotlight? That team had no business being in that bowl game, not just because they were destroyed, but because they just weren't that good. And as a Raiders fan, I'm hoping Brady Quinn is not the first pick. That guy reminds me too much of Rex Grossman. Ugh.

posted by forrestv at 05:15 PM on January 04, 2007

I agree with forrestv....I certainly haven't understood why in the world Notre Dame is and has been so beloved by the media. All three of the "bluechip" teams that they played this past season, hung a 40 spot on them, not to mention that they needed a furious and luck-filled rally to beat the Michigan State juggernaut this year (and if memory serves...MS put up 37 on them.) Maybe now (but I doubt it!), the media goofs will figure out that a Gold Helmet and a PAST TRADITION of excellance, should mean very little in the determination of whether a team should be considered as top ten team.

posted by R_A_Mason at 06:20 PM on January 04, 2007

Notre Dame had no business in a BCS game considering its ranking and this showed. Wisconsin would have at least given LSU a game. The rule stated in the BCS that no conference can have more than two teams is a sham when an existing rule states ND is eligible if ranked in the top 25. What makes such an ordinary team eligible when a good team is exempt is beyond me!

posted by brownindian at 07:12 PM on January 04, 2007

I was embarrassed for the Irish and myself for watching. They have a great past, but you can't play in the past. I thought Weis could really pull the Irish up and into a powerhouse again. I guess I'll just have to wait a couple of years. How long will Charlie last at ND, anyone?

posted by lil'red at 08:17 PM on January 04, 2007

Notre Dame had no business in a BCS game considering its ranking and this showed. Wisconsin would have at least given LSU a game. The rule stated in the BCS that no conference can have more than two teams is a sham when an existing rule states ND is eligible if ranked in the top 25. What makes such an ordinary team eligible when a good team is exempt is beyond me! It is beyond me as well! Why doesn't Notre Dame just have their own bowl game every year? They could call it the Corporate Greed Bowl.

posted by danjel at 08:22 PM on January 04, 2007

If anyone in this thread seriously doesn't know why ND has lost 9 straight bowl games and finds themselves in bowl games they don't belong in, here's an answer: $. If that's too subtle: $$$. It has 0 to do with the media's love. This, in spades. (Notre Dame fans) + (Notre Dame haters) >> (People who will watch any other team) Which is why ND has been invited to all of these bowls where they are typically underdogs. However, if you were ND, would you honestly say "No thanks, Sugar Bowl committee- we'd rather go to the Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl and play danjel's Alma Mater: Southwest South Dakota State Beautician's Academy." (I'm terribly sorry, but I couldn't help myself. Sarcasm is balm to my domer wounds.)

posted by avogadro at 10:09 PM on January 04, 2007

The only reason ND made a BCS bowl this year was because the BCS added a bowl game, which added two more teams. This put Boise State in (which showed it deserved it) and instead of another deserving team ND. With the current BCS rules, it is not unlikely that ND will make a BCS bowl almost every year that it is bowl eligible. Of course with its undeserved following (the Catholics where I work are ND crazy though they never went to the school), virtually any other bowl would love to have them. I would like to see them go back to the Ara era when they sometimes refused bowl invitations because they simply did not believe they deserved to go to a bowl. But money rules.

posted by graymatters at 11:02 PM on January 04, 2007

With the current BCS rules, it is not unlikely that ND will make a BCS bowl almost every year that it is bowl eligible. Of course with its undeserved following (the Catholics where I work are ND crazy though they never went to the school) Given Notre Dame's admission into a BCS bowl is basically written into the rules, it is "not unlikely". Can you explain to me what is wrong with Catholics who didn't go to ND rooting for the team?

posted by yerfatma at 06:51 AM on January 05, 2007

There are other schools that Catholics could root for like BC and Georgetown, you know.

posted by bperk at 07:57 AM on January 05, 2007

Baylor and it's Baptist following, are in an uproar, too. And The Disciples of Christ that did not attend TCU are pissed as well! And lets not mention those troublemakin' Methodists of SMU!

posted by mjkredliner at 08:25 AM on January 05, 2007

Notre Dame, at the very least, should be mandated to join a conference. This independent crap has run it's course. If they can make it through a bonafide conference schedule, then maybe everyone would have a bit more of a handle on how they really stack up. I realize everything Notre Dame does revolves around money, and changing their current schedule, and whatever, is not easily done. But it needs to happen. All these SEC teams having to beat each other's brains in to either rise up the rankings or qualify for the conference championship, while the Irish can still basically name their schedule. It's crap in this BCS era we're living in.

posted by dyams at 09:59 AM on January 05, 2007

Rooting for Georgetown football?? Hahahahhaahhaahahahhhaaa..... whew. That was a good one. Thanks for that. Maybe if we can get a handle on the Patriot League competition down in 1-AA we might pick up a few Catholic fans. Until then, I'll be supporting Charlie Weis along with the rest of the Papists.

posted by Venicemenace at 10:50 AM on January 05, 2007

They have very little incentive to join and lots of revenue that would have to be shared. It shouldn't be their choice. I can't believe all the other schools, conferences, etc., don't complain about it. Screw N.D.'s money-making enterprise. When they get selected to go into a big-time bowl game, playing as the marquee (only) event of that evening, in a game they had no business whatsoever being in, it's like the rest of the BCS is being manipulated, big time!

posted by dyams at 11:13 AM on January 05, 2007

I just wonder if anyone knows the graduation rate on the "OTHER" teams, such as FSU, LSU, Alabama etc. I do believe Duke and Notre Dame are right up there in the percentages. I'm talking about the graduation rate of the athletes! And lets not count the degrees in Ceramics and under water basket weaving.

posted by Senior33 at 01:59 PM on January 05, 2007

They like to play certain teams every year (U of M, MSU, Navy, USC) and playing in a conference wouldn't allow that. Oh wouldn't it? USC, MSU & UofM get to play Notre Dame don't they? And the Big Ten had been in negotiations with ND to admit them to the Big Ten, which would have taken care of MSU and UofM. There's four non-conf games available now, so USC, Navy are not a problem. You could probably add Boston College in there too if you really wanted. What I don't understand is why any ND fans would rather see ND stay independent. It'd be better for the team and fans if they dumped their BCS priveleges and joined a conference. They'd end up in better bowl matchups and would probably improve the quality of their football too, not only ending their streak of futility by winning a lower tier bowl, but also improving such that they might actually earn a higher tier bowl shot that they would actually have a chance of winning.

posted by ursus_comiter at 03:25 PM on January 05, 2007

If anyone in this thread seriously doesn't know why ND has lost 9 straight bowl games and finds themselves in bowl games they don't belong in, here's an answer: $. If that's too subtle: $$$. It has 0 to do with the media's love. Thank you yerfatma, simple, eloquent, and accurate. However, i think that it might be possible for Charlie Weiss to make this team a "legitimate" contender. That assuming that a) he stays long enough, and b) he gets a defense. I am curious to see what they look like in a few years. Probably overrated still, but hopefully not. If they are going to be on my screen every week, hopefully they'll be worth watching.

posted by brainofdtrain at 03:34 PM on January 05, 2007

I apologize about my "Catholic" comment. It was really a reaction to some of my co-workers. They can root for whomever they want and support whichever school they want. And continue to get drubbed year after year after year.

posted by graymatters at 04:27 PM on January 05, 2007

Notre Dame, at the very least, should be mandated to join a conference. It shouldn't be their choice. *stares* Anyways, there is no fiscal reason for Notre Dame to drop its independent status. Notre Dame is one of the very few schools where football revenues are a net positive contributor to the general fund. Most Div 1-A schools lose money on football (with the false assumption that increased alumni giving will make football programs pay for themselves.) Because ND makes money through the football team, she's able to field a full complement of varsity sports, despite having fewer than 10,000 undergraduates. I was there when the NBC contract was signed, and one could immediately see "Olympic sport" facility improvements that came about because of the influx of cash. That contract is probably the biggest reason that the men's and women's soccer and basketball programs increased their competitiveness, the hockey program went from a club sport to the CCHA, interhall sports became more robust, etc. An independent ND football team is good for ND athletics overall. This doesn't negate the fact that the current BCS system is irredeemably broken, but it does explain why ND has no reason to lobby for the system to be changed. And, as long as the other BCS conferences remain satisfied with the status quo (as evidenced by the profound silence from the Big Ten, Southeast Conference, etc.), nothing is going to change.

posted by avogadro at 10:57 PM on January 05, 2007

their followers will blindly support them until the end of time And, what, exactly, are a team's fans supposed to do? I have no illusions about what this year's squad was capable of, and their performance against good teams was embarrassing, but I support them because I always have and always will. Do you just decide to stop supporting the Nittany Lions because they suck once in a while, or because the Irish handed them their asses earlier this year? If you've got any loyalty at all, no, you don't. Notre Dame should never again have the opportunity to play for the national championship. Yeah, and until he can get the hell out of the way of the players, Joe Paterno should never again be allowed to coach. What do both of these statements have in common? They're both completely asinine.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:24 AM on January 07, 2007

because their football talent is poor, overall. Definitely, at least compared to less than 10 other schools in the country. And not the same ten every year. would have proven once and for all Notre Dame should never again have the opportunity to play for the national championship The question we need to ask here is, are you blinded by your dislike or just poorly informed?

posted by yerfatma at 01:55 PM on January 07, 2007

Regardless of my allegiance, what exactly could prove a team never again belongs in a championship?

posted by yerfatma at 02:42 PM on January 07, 2007

Maybe that was a bit of a strong statement, but regardless of how much cash the program generates, on the field they're not an elite program anymore (on the field). The only thing that really bothers me about Irish football is their being independent, and being their own little island in the entire BCS only adds to the joke the system has become. I think the other teams the schools field being aligned with the Big East is wrong, and the Irish should be part of the Big Ten. If they continually dominate a particular division, year in year out, I think that gives them a legitimacy they've sort of lacked the past several years. As for Michigan, if they can't get through the Big 10 (as well as their non-conference schedule), then of course they shouldn't compete for the championship. I can't comment on that, though, because I honesty can't stand Michigan.

posted by dyams at 04:46 PM on January 07, 2007

Winning a bowl game since 1993 would be one of the initial criteria.

posted by dyams at 05:35 PM on January 07, 2007

I suggest the NCAA or the BCS have Notre Dame and Michigan play each other in the Losers Bowl so that one of them is assured a bowl victory. It would end in a tie.

posted by NoSpin at 10:07 PM on January 07, 2007

I admitted above the "Never be eligible for a national championship" comment was too harsh. Whether it's the Gator Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Insight Bowl, or one of the bigger ones, they've found a way to lose them, often by a large margin. With a recent history of coaching changes (and failures), padding their winning percentage against mediocre teams (and yes, Penn State this year was mediocre, at best), and losing bowl games so many straight seasons, the evidence seems to be mainly on the side of what I'm saying. For a team that brings in money in a Brinks truck, and has NBC in it's pocket, I just expected more. As for avogadro's comment, I guess I can pretty much decide which part of his post he aligns himself with. He's apparently another Golden Domer. I appreciate the Notre Dame fans' loyalty. Also, "Rudy" is honestly one of my all-time favorite movies. Their tradition is unmatched, so it would be good to see them enjoy future success (in the Big Ten, if I had my way). It wasn't too long ago when I posted that Charley Weis should be Sportsman of the Year for going from helping the Pats win another championship, to experiencing some initial success with the Irish. It's not a personal attack on the program, just my own higher expectations for them. I don't have to be a die-hard Domer to feel that way.

posted by dyams at 07:15 AM on January 08, 2007

All of the top programs in college football pad their winning percentage against mediocre teams. Absolutely. But you expect the top teams to be able to beat at least one (or more) of the really good teams on the schedule, too.

posted by dyams at 11:35 AM on January 08, 2007

dyams, I'm not at all "blinded" by my own affiliation. If you paid any attention to what I said in this thread and in the past, you would see that I am in favor of a playoff system and for the abolishment of the BCS system as we know it. Also, you would understand why any college in ND's position would be absolutely negligent if they passed up opportunities to bring additional funding to their athletics programs. I doubt that if Penn State were in ND's position that you would support passing up on the lucrative contracts. My frustration with you is that all of your arguments are either based in fictions (Notre Dame plays such an easy schedule compared to other teams) or are contradictory to your own assertions, namely that teams like Boise State should have a greater chance to play in prestigious bowl games than Notre Dame and... uh... Notre Dame. If the BCS partners followed your recommendations, namely that teams that have recently lost numerous bowl games, play inferior schedules, and have a record of losing to top-ranked teams , then we would end up with... the exact same system we had before mid-major conferences could compete in BCS bowls.

posted by avogadro at 07:02 AM on January 09, 2007