Blame Charlie? Blame Ty? Blame Canada?

Her Loyal Sons on the Irish offensive line's, well, offensiveness -- and who's to blame for it:

Obviously, the crackling, eroding foundation to all of our offensive problems is the offensive line play. That’s just about all that ND fans can agree upon right now. The cause, however, seems to be dividing ND fans into two camps: Those who blame Charlie and those who blame Willingham. They’re both right. They’re both wrong. I do know one thing, if you argue “in 3 seasons, Charlie has never had a good offensive line,” and then think that, in and of itself, shows that Weis and Company can’t coach an offensive line, you’re failing to look at the cause of our symptoms. The previous 2 years, we had almost no depth at offensive line thanks to Willingham’s mistaken belief that offensive linemen don’t need recruiting. Good luck coaching that up. Rumors abound about how “entrenched” a few offensive linemen felt last year. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that every ND player gives a “Rudy effort,” every day in practice. It just doesn’t happen. Now, this year, we’ve got some real talent at OL, not just with the starters, but with the back-ups. But the starters are all very inexperienced, and the backups are even more inexperienced, not to mention even younger. So our offensive line traded one set of big problems for a new set of big problems. I expected Charlie to do a better job of overcoming this new set of problems. To be sure, I’ve been very disappointed, but I also think I understand it. Mental errors will happen with this squad. I can sort of live with that. What I can’t live with is guys on the OLine not making hustle plays, not going out and hitting someone in the mouth when they do know which guy they’re supposed to hit. Still, even that may play into a tentativeness resulting from lack of experience. Still, there are 2 guys on that offensive line with more than a dozen starts and a lot of talent. They, at least, need to start looking like it. And that plays into the coaching we have today. I expect this coaching staff to take that set of big problems and overcome them with a few bumps and scratches. Thus far, however, there’s been almost no overcoming of anything.

The really funny thing about problematic offensive line play is that it often involves really big guys making small mistakes that add up to huge problems. And that’s what we’ve seen a lot of in these first 2 games. Things like picking up a double team when you should be picking up a blitzer, or failing to realize that the DE on the TE side is going to use a speed technique if the TE releases without challenging the DE, or just failing to have your head on a swivel. Those are correctable, but it’s about time for this coaching staff to correct it or bench someone.

Comments

[David K.]

Weis had three recruiting seasons to build up his O-Line if he felt it was lacking, blaming this years problems on Willingham because of recruiting is pretty weak. He could have recruited J.C.'s if he needed someone to step up sooner than a freshman.

[Wobbly H]

No, he could not have. JUCOs and transfers are not per se forbidden from ND, but it is almost impossible for them to meet the academic requirements. Your suggestion is not a valid option.

I'm currently in the "partnership of suckitude" theory--Ty's lack of recruiting effort later in his tenure severely hamstrung us, but I don't care who you are and what you have, 8 straight three-and-outs is hardly possible under the law of averages, and completely inexcusable with the work Weis has done in the past.

[David K.]

Even with NO Ju-Co's, he could still have third year lineman.

[Brendan Loy]

Second year, David. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the timing of Weis's arrival meant he basically missed a recruiting year because of the Patriots' Super Bowl run. So in his second year of coaching, he basically had his first batch of recruits; and now, in his third year of coaching, those recruits are in their second year.

I'm basically agnostic on this question, but I know that much.

[NDLauren]

Indeed. The recruits can no longer be blamed solely on Ty, but it is well known that Charlie's commitment to ND was that he would finish the season strong with the Patriots, thus limiting his recruiting for the 2005 class. Based on recruiting, ND is getting some OL talent, but they seem poorly coached and poorly prepared.
Yet, you also have to begin to question some of Charlie's playcalling. There were several instances in third and long that Charlie ran short routes rather than giving Claused the option to throw and he seems insistent on using Travis Thomas in some form or capacity, and the reality is that Thomas is just not that good. Charlie always promised that he would play his best players, and right now I just don't feel like that is happening all the time.
The good news is a. that next year's recruiting class is a pretty good (on paper) and holds promise for future years and b. someone has to win next weekend's 0-2 matchup at Michigan. The bad news is that even with Michigan starting a freshman QB, I'm still not confident that the OL can block for a full series or long enough to provide a touchdown, so here's to hoping that Walls, Lambert and Zbikowski can at least bring some havoc on D to return a fumble or interception or two.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Maybe ND has dropped its first two games because it actually played two good teams. It seems to me ND under Weis typically has problems against teams that are ranked, or should be ranked.

[Jim Hu]

Weis may have not had a full recruiting season (neither did Ty in his first year - most coaches replacing ones who were fired have the same problem), but he was recruiting while the Pats were in the 2005 playoffs.

One of my friends thinks that ND will have bimodal recruiting unless you ever join a conference. His theory is that you'll get your share of the very top players based on the TV contract, but you won't get your share of the players who would be all-conference but not all-American... because they can't be all-conference. Not sure that I agree, but it's food for thought.

[BK]

I wonder if Clausen is still more hurt (or "un-recovered") than anyone led on. I only remember seeing one throw of 20+ yards. If you don't stretch the D, you'll never open up the running game and short throws.

[Sandy Underpants]

The Racists of Notre Dame want to have it both ways all the time, and it makes me absolutely sick. Ty coached 3 seasons and got fired, nobody tried to excuse his failures in his 3rd season by blaming Davey for bad recruits, they lynched the guy instead because he was black and he was an easy scapegoat. It's simple.

While Notre Dame was impressing throughout 05 and 06 people hailed Charlie as a genius, while ignoring the glaring facts that Ty is the one who recruited those players. Well here's your fake genius now:

Worst home blow out in Notre Dame history (M vs. ND (2006)). Worst opening game blow out in schoool history (GT vs. ND (2007)). First 3 game losing streak by 20+ points in school history (LSU,GT,PSU).

Let the excuse making continue. CW is an over-rated hack, even if he was worth a damn he could put together a bunch of crappy players and coach them, but he's got 3 years with the team. And if Notre Dame isn't run by racists and Weis ends up with a worse showing than Ty after this season and keeps his job, they'll be exposed for exactly that.

[Rational ND Fan]

I am so sick of hearing about the Ty/Charlie comparisons and blame/excuses being thrown at each's direction. A perfect example of that is Sandy's statement at 4:05.

Ty was fired after his third year. Charlie is in his third year. Okay, now it makes perfect sense to compare them to each other, because nothing else is at play. As if wins/losses, statistics, skin color or even recruiting were the only things that figure into an administration's actions. How about personnel decisions, the quality of opponents, how games were won/lost, winning games you were supposed to win, the coach's relationship with the University, fundraising, national exposure, etc. Of course, the above items don't fall favorably on one coach's side or the other.

I look at it this way: if CEO X worked at Corporation from years 2000-02, and CEO Y worked from 2003-05, would it be fair to judge them based on their profit alone? The general public might say yes, that's how businesses are judged, the bottom line. However, the more educated investor may look to share price (as an indicator of future performance), or some other figure such as quality of managers attracted under each's regime or performance relative to key competitors. However, I think the most saavy investor would probably take all these things into consideration, in addition to remaining aware that there is information out there that they are not aware of.

My point is you can't rationally compare the performance of two coaches by wins/losses alone and expect anyone to take you seriously. I don't pretend to know everything about ND, and I don't think anyone else posting here does either. To make such blanket accusations is just ignorant. I guess this stuff goes with the territory of being an ND fan (or a fan in general), but damn, this gets old fast.

[David K.]

Ratinoal ND Fan you make good points, but Sandy has made some good points as well. I don't really see much evidence for the racism argument so i can't comment on it, but I didn't hear anyone at ND defending Ty with the same vehemence using Davey's recruiting as an excuse. People blamed Ty's bad recruiting as a reason for his firing, yet he hadn't even played most of his recruits yet, Weis used them. People claimed that Ty was holding back Quinn and yet under Weis Quinn actually took a step back last season.

ND Fans were comparing Ty to Weis in Weis' first season and telling the rest of the football world he was so much better, but frankly I have yet to see that bear any fruit.

Coaches are always going to be compared, sometimes unfairly, but what bothers me most is not accusations of racism, but the double standard that is being applied in the criticisms. I think the ND administration has invested too much in Weis to fire him after 3 seasons, its going to set up a dangerous precedent if they don't give him longer. I hate to say it but I think ND is going to backslide this year and possibly the next couple, I just don't see that Weis has what it takes to be a succesful college coach. Which is not to say he's not a talented football guy, he may be very succesful again at the pro level. But just as Pete Caroll was a bad fit for the pros, Weis seems to be a bad fit for college.

[Wobbly H]

David,
Here's a hint: Instead of attempting to draw inferences and analogies to explain something you admittedly know very little about--the relative recruiting of Davie and Ty--perhaps you could seek out objective evidence and compare it that way. To point you further in the right direction, maybe people didn't blame Davie for Ty's failures because Davie was an okay recruiter.

[Admiral Halsey]

David,

It doesn't sound like you know much about the Notre Dame football team. First, you chided Coach Weis for failing to bring in JUCOs, something that ND does not do. Also, there is a transfer OL on the team, from Northwestern. In any event, that comment alone is a warning sign that we are dealing with someone who doesn't have an idea of what's going on at ND.

Also, most knowledgeable fans expected a backslide this year, because of the lack of experience. The degree of backslide is what's troubling, though the difficult schedule combined with the inexperience is a factor in the lopsided results so far.

And Brady Quinn did not regress. The offense regressed, because (shocker) the line was substandard, ND replaced a third round draft pick who could stretch the field(Stovall) with a guy who will now be lucky to be practice fodder (McKnight). That team would have been lucky to be .500 without Brady Quinn.

It seems that folks have split into two camps on this (Weis' coaching is the only reason the team is struggling v. Willingham's recruting is killing this team). The real answer is that it's a combination of the two, as rightly pointed out in the linked blog entry.

I don't know which camp you fall into, because I can't understand what you are trying to say.

The ND coaches need to do a better job getting the young OL to produce. That doesn't absolve Mr. Willingham of his recruiting sins. There are exactly two offensive linemen in the junior and senior classes who were recruited by Ty. If the team doesn't improve, I think Weis will rightly be the subject of criticism.

[David K.]

Admiral Halsey, the camp I am in is that Willingham is being unfairly criticized and used as a scapegoat when most of the responsibility lies at the feet of the current coach, I'm also of the camp that ND was INSANE to give him the contract extension it did based on his unproven abilities at that point, and further than he has been overhyped as a Coach as evidenced by continuing performance (or lack there of by his team).

I want to be very clear here, I have no problem with ND being a succesful team, I in fact wouldn't mind if they WERE succesful (as long as its not against USC). My problem has never been with ND as a team, only the fans who annointed Weis as the second coming before any proof was evident, and what I felt as the unfair shake that Willingham got. I think it would be equally unfair to fire Weis after this season, I think 4-5 years is a good barometer barring an extreme failures of the Coach or his staff. If Notre Dame wins on Saturday I'll be happy for you and other ND fans, i'd much rather they win than Michigan. Heck I'm Catholic, more often than not i'd rather have the Irish winning.

But as you say there are things I don't understand about the Notre Dame football team, something which is probably entirely true. Regarding the JUCO thing, I didn't know ND didn't recruit any, but whatever reason they might have, to then turn around and place the blame entirely on Ty Willingham for handling recruiting differently is unfair. If the current Coach comes in and then does not take every reasonable step to correct a flaw he detects from the very beggining he is a poor coach. If the O-line was this bad of a situation waiting ot happen, the first recruits Weis should have been after were O-linemen. If he couldn't get them in time as freshman to be ready by this year, he should have been willing to go with JUCO's, i highly doubt that there weren't competent JUCO's who could have met ND's academic standards, especially since you'd only need one or two to make a signifiant difference to the current o-line. And if its a tradition thing, well ND was perfectly willing to ignore tradition when they decided to fire Willingham after 3 years instead of the traditional 5, nominally in order to improve the team, why not change this "tradition" too, if thats all thats stopping Weis from recruiting more O-Line.

Question, are all the O-line starters currently upper classman? If so where are the freshman and sophomres and even Juniors that Weis has brought in? Has HE recruited any lineman?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

To those criticizing Weis for not letting Clausen throw deep, Clausen went back several times in shotgun formation to go deep. The PSU defensive line came with him. That's why Clausen didn't throw many, if any, deep passes. The kid was getting creamed. If a less prepared QB had been there, PSU would have gutted ND from turnovers.

[Wobbly H]

Davie,
Quit talking about the JUCOs. We can't accept them because our academic standards are too high and they haven't taken the required course that ND expects from all of its students. Bringing in players who have no chance to graduate is something Michigan does, not us. And this is not coming from the coach, it is coming from the administration and the trustees. Ty didn't recruit any JUCOs here, either.

[Andrew]

Brendan, is there any way to search your archives? I remember clearly going through Ty's recruiting classes at Notre Dame and comparing them to Weis' recruiting classes. I think that data might be pertinent here.

[Andrew]

I went back and looked at Ty's recruiting classes in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and without looking at defensive linemen and tight ends (which are often converted to OL) I agree that he seemed to not bring in enough offensive linemen (only four total in 2003 and 2004). That said, Weis brought in two OL in 2005, six in 2006, and four in 2007. Not counting the 2007 class, that's enough recruited lineman to field a starting squad (not counting walk-ons), and Weis had plenty of opportunities to cycle in guys last year to get them experience before this year. Notre Dame's OL is young but plenty deep, and for comparison's sake, let me point out that USC is starting a true freshman at Center, so it's not like other good teams don't have the same issues from time to time with young depth. Also, if the OL is short in depth, many teams convert defensive linemen and tight ends, so that also was an option for Charlie Weis.

The bottom line is, three years is enough that while you can blame Ty for not recruiting enough offensive linemen, by year three, when the last of Ty's guys would be seniors, Charlie has very little excuse. At best, Ty takes 20% of the blame, as Weis has had three years to mitigate the problem and develop replacements.

I should also point out a couple of comparisons. Ty is in his third year at Washington, starting a redshirt freshman at QB, and he inherited even worse talent and depth than Weis did. And yet in his third year, Ty's Washington team is shining brightly in 2007. Or going back to USC, Paul Hackett was a much worse coach than Ty and also didn't recruit enough linemen (on either side of the ball), and led USC to its first ever last-place finish in the Pac-10 the year he got fired. Pete Carroll inherited Paul Hackett's talent, and in his third year opener, he pitched a shutout at Auburn, and went on to win a split national title. PC started much lower in the dregs than did Charlie Weis, as did Ty Willingham at Washington, so Notre Dame has no excuse for their piss-poor performance. Remember, Charlie Weis is an "offensive genius".

[David K.]

Quit talking about the JUCOs. We can't accept them because our academic standards are too high and they haven't taken the required course that ND expects from all of its students. Bringing in players who have no chance to graduate is something Michigan does, not us.

I wish there was just one famous JUCO transfer who played at Notre Dame, just one, then I could point out how stupid your argument comes across.

1) If you are so sure that no person who attends a junior college could possibly meet your lofty standards than you are more arrogant than I thought you were.

2) Whats to keep them from taking required courses once they transfer to ND? Freshman seem to be able to handle it, why can't a JUCO?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew makes a good point. ND is running a 3-4 defense this year. Seems to me there should be some exra tackles that could be recruited for the O-Line.

That said, I would be interested in seeing how junior/senior the defensive line is for Georgia Tech. I imagine GT did not have the cream of the crop to pick from, yet they managed to f-up a legendary college program with - in his mind anyway - a legendary coach at the helm.

[treybien]

"Worst home blow out in Notre Dame history (M vs. ND (2006))"

Off the top of my head without looking at any past results I can think of 2 home losses under Ty that were by a greater margin than that. USC and the absolute shellacking a VERY mediocre FSU team laid on him. So try and get basic facts right before you post. Add this to going 0-3 against awful BC teams and getting absolutely smoked by SYRACUSE, freaking SYRACUSE!!!! Add that home game against Pitt his last year and it was just rough under Ty with absolutely no improvement (in fact, it got way worse) from year to year or hope it would get better do to his awful recruiting. I wish I knew how to go back and find old message board and blog posts from ND fan sites, b/c even in the midst of the great start to the '05 season, every ND fan was pointing to '07 as a possible disaster of a season. ND only has one offensive player in the senior class. That is absurd. Every ND fan knew this was coming. Willingham's last two years he was only bringing in 14-15 players per class and they were horrible players. If you don't care for the star system that the recruiting services use, then just look at the other schools that offered scholarships to these kids. Most were being offered only by MAC schools and some (Tregg Duerson is one I can think of) did not have a single D1 offer. I don't care who his father was, if not even some directional MAC school thought he was worthy of a schollie, why did Ty? Oh, and as bad as Davie was, he was a fine recruiter and left Ty with very solid talent. For once, I want to hear a Ty apologist tell me what in his record at ND would warrant him being given more time?? In-game coaching ability?? No way. Ability to adapt and shed terrible coaches?? Absolutely refused (and he would have gotten another year had he dumped the offensive assistants). Recruiting?? Easily the worst part of his absolutely terrible coaching record.

Now I have definitely been very disappointed with the offense's performance so far this year and Weis definitely bears much of the blame for the maligned OLine. I had high hopes and thought increased depth from the freshman and sophomore classes would be a kick in the rear and provide a quality line. Obviously, I was severely mistaken thus far.

But I have two reasons for hope. One is the stellar recruiting Weis has done in his first two years and the monster class he is putting together right now. In the past couple of years he has upgraded the depth and quality in almost all areas (Defensive front seven being one exception). This year's class has upped the ante with unbelievable recruiting, especially in the defensive front seven. ND's gone up against UM and the entire SEC to land one of the best DTs in the country in Omar Hunter out of Georgia. They also added speed guys for DE/OLB Ethan Johnson and Darius Fleming who were both coveted by USC. Along with Weis' traditionally strong offensive recruiting (including the second straight year he's taken the best QB in CA right out of USC's backyard) and there is reason for hope in that respect.

The next reason for hope is his ability to see what is not working and make changes. Everyone knew the D was a big problem. He went out and made a change. It seems like no big deal, but to re-iterate from above, Ty's failure to do this was one of the biggest reasons he was let go. CB has been a tear as a recruiter and the D has been performing admirably with a very undermanned unit that doesn't really even have the personnel to run the scheme, but it seems to be working (all the more reason the OL problems are so confusing). I definitely feel if the OL play doesn't improve during the year, a change will be made. I kept waiting for changes under Ty and none happened.

I am still not convinced that Weis will be a great college coach, but I certainly hope so. If I don't see improvement for the rest of the season, then I will certainly be concerned. However, comparing him to Ty is laughable. Just look at the '04 season and then look at the '05 season. Everyone says Weis only won with Ty's players, well then why don't they also point out that Ty was 11-13 with Ty's players (03-04)? And why didn't I hear that Ty won in his first year with all of Davie's players??

And finally, to answer a couple of ridiculous statements made by some people here. David, where did Rudy go?? He didn't go to some 3rd rate football producing JC, he went to Holy Cross, across the street from ND, w/a pretty strong relationship to the university. Andrew, I'd like to see some stats backing up the talk of Hackett being "much" worse than Ty. Especially some recruiting numbers. I doubt the number of players brought in and the quality of such players was anywhere near as bad as Ty. But I invite you to prove me wrong, I am no expert on USC football, and while they weren't great in the late 90's, I hardly remember them getting routinely thumped ala the entire Ty reign. And I also invite you to come back and respond at the end of UW's season, as I have a sneaking suspicion it won't end nearly as well as it started.

Finally, the most ridiculous of all the posts referring to ND as racist for firing Ty. So a school that is one of only around 5 (I'm pretty sure, don't quote exact number) in all of Div. 1 that has African-Americans as both offensive and defensive coordinators and graduates over 90% of its AA players is racist?? Interesting argument, I'd like to hear it played out a little more.

[Wobbly H]

I don't agree with everything that Andrew has ever said about Notre Dame, especially their recruiting, but his comment (less the calculating blame as a percentage) is in line with my "shared suckitude" theory. Ty did not recruit enough O-Line later in his term here, but to then blame him for the lack of cognizable development of highly recruited young players with experience (Sam Young, cough) makes little sense. Overall, though, Andrew did go ahead and look at the recruiting, and while we arrive at different conclusions (mine being that Ty's 2004 recruiting class was inexusable on its face, his being that it wasn't as bad as everyone said as part of his larger argument that Notre Dame's talent gap wasn't as bad as we tend to claim), he makes a well-reasoned argument.

Davie, some of what you said brings up points that should be talked about. But the JUCO thing is something you know absolutely nothing about--Notre Dame's admissions standards and their practices in admitting football players to the school. Seriously, you're saying that Rudy as a walk-on proves that Notre Dame takes JUCO transfers? You're going to say that that's not what you're arguing, but I don't see what you are arguing if you're using that to refute my entire claim.

If you read up, I'm not sure that ND has a per se restriction on JUCO players. But they wouldn't tend to work out. Football players here are supposed to graduate in four years (indeed, they can't come back for a fifth year if they haven't graduated yet), and I don't know how the school handles non-football transfers from junior colleges, but they are certainly rare because of the curriculum of required courses here and the extensive high school prerequisites required. That's why it's important to have stability in freshman recruiting, because we can't have a class with 15 players and then fill it in with JUCO transfers in a year or two.

You've made some points that are worthy of discussion, but here, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[David K.]

Wobbly, Rudy WAS a JUCO. Read the link.

And yes, i admit there might be more to the JUCO thing, but what I am saying is that the attitude that a JUCO isn't good enough academically is arrogant in the extreme, and the idea that there are NO JUCO's out there who can't A) play football and B) meet Notre Dame's standards is simply, to me, unbelieveable. As I said, if its a tradition thing, its no different than the Coach given 5 years tradition that was broken arguably to improve the team, why not break this 'tradition'? I've got nothing against high academic standards, but artificial limitations are just stupid. And if ND is going to limit itself by not even considering JUCO's then its hardly Ty's fault. Especially given that Weis has had three years of recruits, you'd think he would have sought out some top tier highschool recruits at line and thrown them in rather than struggle with what you've got.

[treybien]

Rudy was a mid-70s walk-on from Holy Cross, not a high school stud that failed to academically qualify and forced to pursue the JUCO route. I don't know the specifics now regarding admissions and required courses etc., but I can't ever imagine ND taking JUCO football players. Usually, there is a reason that a guy is playing JUCO and probably 99% of the time, especially in football, it is academic or behavior related. Those type of players are going to get a ton of scrutiny from an already picky admissions staff and it is very unlikely they would ever be admitted.

David, I wish if you were going to post about the intricacies of the ND program, you would be just a tad more familiar with what is actually going on. If there is one area that Weis recruited a lot of numbers since he's been there, it is the OL. His first abbreviated recruiting campaign, when he was still OC for the Pats included Paul Duncan and Mike Turkovich. Both verballed after Weis was named coach and were so-called 4 stars, Duncan's other offers were LSU, Oklahoma, Duke, and UCLA, while Turkovich's were BC, LSU, NC St., and Wisconsin.

In his next class he brought in 6 OLs including pretty much the consensus #2 OL in the country in Sam Young, who had offers from everyone. The other guys were all so-called 4 stars, with 2 getting offers from lots of major schools.

Last years recruiting class (freshman) brought in 4 OLs, 2 of which I would call "highly" recruited, although all boasted impressive offer lists.

So obviously he wasn't sitting with his thumb up his ass like Ty and he went out and got some players. The development has been the part that hasn't been as great. There is no excuse for the poor development, especially of Young, who started the entire year last season. I would also criticize Weis for really only playing 6 OLs all last year and not getting any experience for the young guys. If the development doesn't get any better this year, then I would highly expect Latina (OL coach) to be treading dangerously close to Rick Minter territory.

All that being said, OLs are built around veteran leadership. When Ty was fired he had gotten 0 OL commitments that year. The previous year he signed 2, both very low ranked. One's complete offer sheet was Arizona, Northwestern, and ND. The other's offer list was comprised of Pittsburgh. Neither of those players are still with the team. The previous year he brought in 2, Harris and Sullivan who have turned into pretty good players. So that makes 4 OLs in pretty much 3 years b/c when he was fired they were pretty much not in on any OLs. It is hard to develop strong veteran leadership when you are bringing in so few OLs.

Once again, Weis should have gotten younger guys more time and done a better job of developing the unit. But this should be an illustration of just how bad Ty's recruiting was and what an impact it had on the program.

To try and give all of you Ty backers one final illustration of how bad his recruiting was: If Ty's lack of recruiting numbers had been a penalty imposed by the NCAA, it would be the most severe penalty ever levied by the organization against a football program, outside of the SMU death penalty.

[Admiral Halsey]

Well said, treybien. I don't mind talking ND football with non-fans, but I do expect people to form opinions based on facts, not uninformed speculation and improper assumptions.

David, I didn't see anyone unilaterally bash Willingham before you posted on this thread. Rather than lashing out at supposed ND fans who have espoused opinions in the past, why not talk discuss the points actually made in the post and the comments?

I can't have a discussion with you if you are railing against some guy who said something two years ago that I may not even agree with.

There are two problems with this offensive line - Willingham's poor recruiting and Weis/Latina's development of the sophomores and the two juniors. Count me among those who wish Turkovich and Duncan got a lot more playing time last year. We could have put them in for a majority of the navy game, the air force game, and the army game to get valuable experience. Hell, we could have thrown them in against Michigan, USC, and LSU when things got out of hand.

[Admiral Halsey]

also, with respect to Andrew's comments. Brendan Loy conclusively established that you can't slag off Weis for the '05 recruiting. He did well just to bring two guys in very late.

[treybien]

So everyone bashes ND and Weis saying Ty didn't get a fair chance and is unfairly criticized. Those claims are responded to with well documented facts and where are all the Ty apologists now? Strangely silent. I wonder why that is?

The funny thing is I'm sure that all of these people saying how great Ty was now were absolutely reveling in the poundings he took on the field and in recruiting battles (when he left the golf course long enough to get in a recruiting battle) while at ND.

[Sandy Underpants]

People on the losing side of this discussion want to bring in irrelevant information like comparing recruiting classes and the like. First off, if Weis had such superior recruiting classes then he really shouldn't be setting such dubious records at ND like biggest home blow out in ND history, most consecutive blow-out losses in ND history and worst start in ND history.. Now lets compare Ice Cream to Horse Manure.

The real facts that matter: Ty was the first ND head coach in HISTORY to win 10 games in a single season and won coach of the year, and he started his ND career at 8-0.

After starting his ND career, 5-2, Notre Dame offered Charlie Weis the biggest college contract extension in history worth about 40 million dollars over 10 years. 8-0, 5-2? Get it?

27 games into each ND coach's respective careers, Weis has 3 more wins than Ty. Weis has never beaten a team that finished ranked, only beaten 4 teams that finished with a winning record and never won a bowl game.

The more I think about it, the more I think Ty Willingham should be offended by being compared to a loser like Charlie Weis. Ty just ended #22 Boise St.'s 15 game winning streak and is about to start his 3rd season at 3-0 against the most difficult schedule in college football 2007, with wins over Boise. St., Syracuse, and Ohio St. The last time Charlie saw Ohio St. he was getting blown out of a bowl ND had no business being in, in the first place.

Anyone with a football IQ over 20 could tell the difference between Ty's 8-0 squad and Charlie's 5-2 team.

Congrats, Sandy. You've set the bar lower than I thought you ever could.

[treybien]

"First off, if Weis had such superior recruiting classes then he really shouldn't be setting such dubious records at ND like biggest home blow out in ND history."

For the third time, off the top of my head I can think of at least 2 games that Ty lost by more at home than CW did to Michigan last year. Having basic facts right would be a start to creating an intelligent argument.

"Ty was the first ND head coach in HISTORY to win 10 games in a single season."

Umm....no. Without even looking I can guarantee Parseghian, Holtz, Devine, and Leahy won 10 games in a season, not to mention Weis also did it in his first season with players that Ty couldn't even get to .500 with. Oh, and what happened after that initial season??

Here are some questions for Sandy: What was Ty's record after the 8-0 start?? How did ND win those first 8 games (Hint: through the first two games of that season, they scored just as many offensive TDs as they did this season with a full complement of seniors and juniors)?? Claiming that beating Syracuse is some kind of accomplishment shows your lack of any college football knowledge, but why then don't you talk about Ty's trip to Syracuse when he was at ND?? Or that game at home against Pitt?? Or the 0-3 record against terrible BC teams?? Or the embarrassing shellacking laid on him by the mighty BYU Cougars (a team Weis simply annihilated the folowing year)?? How many bowl games did Ty win?? And when he was in bowl games was he playing teams the likes of OSU (with Troy Smith or Ted Ginn) or LSU?? Also, I'd like to see the documentation confirming that the contract is for $40 million, can you provide that?? Probably not, b/c its a bullshit number. If Ty was so great why did he go 11-13 with the exact same players that CW took to a 19-6 record?? And if Weis is such a loser what happened in their head-to-head meeting??

But the most important thing you have failed to mention is how terribly inept Ty was at recruiting, which absolutely makes a college football program. Why do you think USC is so damn good?? B/c they have unbelievable talent and depth in all of their classes. ND's senior class is an abomination to any halfway decent college football program. What class are all good teams built around?? Do you have a response to how if Ty's recruiting were a NCAA penalty, it would be the worst handed down in college football history sans SMU??? The morning after the USC game in 2004, Ty's last at ND, what optimism was there in the program for anything??

And you earlier claimed that ND was a racist institution and I pointed to two African-American coordinators and a 90% graduation rate for African American players, any response for that either?? Yea, I doubt it.

I look forward to hearing from you after UW's game this weekend and at the end of their season. And next year when they travel to South Bend.

[treybien]

Scratch one comment, Weis made it to 10 wins in his second season. I want my facts to be right, unlike some other people on this thread.

[Admiral Halsey]

I think Sandy Underpants is a hairpuller, treybien, and I wouldn't bother engaging in dialogue with him/her.

I now see that the ever credible Pat Forde from ESPN.com has jumped on this story like. Oh to be a fanciful journalist with no accountability.

[treybien]

Agreed Halsey, shouldn't waste my time, but oh well.

And your take on ESPN couldn't be more true. I mean the lack of any knowledge about any background of the program is startling. And notice how Forde used the Sagarin ratings of teams beaten, but left out the Sagarin ratings of the teams each lost against, which would be quite telling.

This is a different topic for a different day, but every part of the Bristol operation is permeated with this lack of standards or knowing anything about the sports they are covering. Last night on Baseball Tonight, the regular group of nimrods is talking about the AL Cy Young Race and proclaim it is btw Beckett and Wang (notice what 2 teams they play for) and dismissed Sabathia, b/c the first two have 1 more win than C.C. This despite the fact that C.C. has a better ERA and WHIP than the other 2, more strikeouts, more innings pitched, and gets way less run support and has lost 4 decisions where he went 8 innings and gave up less than 2 ER. I know I shouldn't care, but the fact that those jagbags get paid for not knowing shit about the game makes me want to pull my f'ing hair out.

Admiral Halsey,

Actually the blame of willingham comes from the top of this post, and while it was not meant to blame one or the other, I simply was arguing that by the third year its getting old to keep blaming Willingham when things go bad and Weis when they go well. Now atleast we are seeing the blame of Willingham AND Weis when things go bad, but no one gives credit for Willingham about bringing in good players. You may not have been around for past discussions, but just about every ND fan who has posted on this blog has given Willingham ZERO credit for any success the Irish had under Weis first two seasons. Well you can't have it both ways, eitehr they both share blame AND credit, or one gets it all.

[treybien]

"but no one gives credit for Willingham about bringing in good players"

Ty didn't even know who Brady Quinn was until Duke's father gave him tape and said he had to recruit this kid. BQ was also a die-hard fan his whole life. Samardzija was on-campus for a baseball visit and the baseball coach sent him over to talk to Ty went he said he would also like to play football. Samardzija hardly ever saw the field under Ty. Zibby is a Polish Catholic kid who grew up a huge ND fan and almost didn't go there, which is just insane, he should have accepted the second he was offered a scholarship. I'll give Ty some credit for Darius, Ryan Harris, Sullivan. Stovall was mainly recruited by Davie. McKnight was also one Ty pulled out of his hat. The story that sums up Ty's recruiting fiascos is when a top recruit (I wish I could remember name, but can't) paid his own way to visit the campus and not a single freaking member of the coaching staff was there. NOT ONE!!!!

Fact is most of these guys fell into Ty's lap, his lack of work effort being notorious. And when he had them, they were all terrible. Quinn went from a 50% passer with a near equal TD to interception ratio to something like 65%, 3,800 yards, 35 TDs and 7 INTs in one freaking season. Oh, and when Weis came in he stopped squatting under center like he was about to take a shit in the woods. Everyone, non-ND fan and ND fan alike, should thank Weis for that. Samardzija never saw the field. Stovall was a fat WR who couldn't catch. On top of that when he did have good players like Julius Jones (Davie recruit) he insisted on giving more carries to Ryan Grant, who sucked.

The other thing about these guys is they are all from 1 class. Ty had 2 more classes at ND. Where are the players from those classes??

If you point to me the work that Ty did to help that team win in 2005, I'll give him the credit, but I don't see a whole lot there. He stumbled ass backwards into a few players and then didn't do shit with them when they were on campus.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ty recruited a fine class in February '03 (the Quinn/Zibby/Harris class). I don't think we need to get into the issue of how Quinn and Samardzija fell into his lap. I will stipulate that he did his job in recruiting that year, despite such good fortune. He also did a nice job grabbing McKnight and Stovall late in the February '02 cycle after he took over for Davie.

The problem with Ty was his spotty coaching throughout his tenure (particularly from about the halfway point of the '02 season forward) and his failure to recruit diligently after February '03.

I don't care what other ND fans have said about Ty Willingham's foibles in the past. Let's deal with the discussion at hand. Otherwise, it's just a straw man.

[Sandy Underpants]

Treybien, I'm glad you admitted to not even bothering to look up "facts". Check this link on Ty Willingham's bio that states he was the first ND coach to get to 10 wins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Willingham

>>How many bowl games did Ty win??<<

As ND head coach he won the same amount as Charlie Weis has. If you want to compare careers, Ty has won more Bowl games than Charlie.

>>the most important thing you have failed to mention is how terribly inept Ty was at recruiting, which absolutely makes a college football program<<

You can celebrate CW's recruiting national championship, but he's 0-2 as a coach, and the most important thing is winning football games. Ty is undefeated.

>>What was Ty's record after the 8-0 start??<<

What's Charlie's record today? 0-2, and CW got the contract extension after a 5-2 start. I don't know how you are at math, but 8-0 is better than a 5-2, a lot better like 28% better. and 2-0 is 100% better than 0-2.

>>Why do you think USC is so damn good?<<

Good point. Pete Carroll won his 1st national championship in his 3rd season and didn't blame Paul Hackett for sucky recruits. That's the difference between a good coach and Charlie Weis.

>>Claiming that beating Syracuse is some kind of accomplishment shows your lack of any college football knowledge<<

I don't think beating Syracuse is impressive, but winning is always more impressive than losing. I could see where a Charlie Weis fan would be confused here.

>>I'd like to see the documentation confirming that the contract is for $40 million, can you provide that?? Probably not, b/c its a bullshit number<<

You should really do research before making all your assumptions and making up things you just can't accept as truth. Here's the details of the contract from ESPN.COM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/051101

and another one from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Weis

If there's anything else you want me to educate you on, keep posting bullcrap, I'll correct you. I've never seen a fan so excited about getting their butt kicked by 20+ points 3 games in a row (...and counting). Go Charlie Go!! Go Charlie Go!!

[Admiral Halsey]

This blog could use an "ignore commenter" feature. :)

[treybien]

Facts looked up on wikipedia and ESPN Page 2. Oh my God. The lack of intelligence from such cites is beyond mindboggling. Go look up Leahy, then Parseghian, then Devine, then Holtz. All had 10 wins multiple times. That one is pretty easy to negate. Off the top of my head ND won 10 games or more in '93, '89, and '88. All before Ty.

Still no reliable documentation on the $40 million figure, that is b/c it's not true. The fact that you quote Jason Whitlock just demonstrates ignorance and idiocy of the highest degree. He has no facts in that article and does not cite one piece of documentation. Neither does the wikipedia piece. All 2nd hand ESPN crap.

Once again, if winning is more impressive than losing, why was Ty impressive at ND, especially the BYU, Pitt, Syracuse, and (multiple) BC debacles?? He won two games against probably one of the 5 worst Div. 1 teams and one against a horribly overrated mid-major that lost most of its major pieces, save Ian Johnson. Not terribly impressed. Am I impressed with ND's 2 games? Of course not, very disappointed, but I do know that both teams they lost to are vastly superior to either Syracuse or Boise State.

Bowl games: how many years has Weis coached college? 2. 2 BCS games against absolutely loaded teams. Am I happy they lost? No. Do I expect better in the future? Yes. But who did Ty play in bowl games when he was at ND?? And did they win?? And who actually did he beat in a bowl game?? And what is his record the last two years?? And he is a good coach because...

Hackett recruited well at USC and left Carroll with players in every class, Ty did not. Disprove it. (Note: start with senior class on this team).

What about your racist argument?? Where did that one go??

Also, explain to me the optimism at end of year 3 for Ty at ND. Where was it?? Why should anyone have been excited for his teams?? Did they play well?? No Did he recruit well?? LOL. Did he fire inept coaches and bring in new offensive minds?? No. I have pointed to multiple reasons for excitement around the program for Weis, predicated on the fact that he shows improvement this season, which I hope he does. Not 100% convinced of it.

I expect to see you back here Saturday after the OSU game, and at the end of the year, and next year when UW travels to South Bend. If Weis fails at ND, so be it, he wasn't as good as I thought he'd be, but I know one thing for sure, he's light years better than Ty.

[Sandy Underpants]

Jason Whitlock proved beyond a doubt the Racist angle. Two 1st year coaches, one with a record of 8-0, the other a record of 5-2. One gets a 10 year contract worth 40 million (or whatever). The other gets fired. One is black, the other white. Clearly the blackness knocks 8-0 down low enough to be at least even, but a 10 year contract extension when the biggest accomplishment is losing to USC at home, but keeping it close?

I don't know how optomistic Irish fans were suppose to be after Ty's 3rd season, but I guarantee you (there goes that word again), When Charlie's 3rd season is over, Ty will be the one who had a better 3rd season not only this year, but when he was coaching Notre Dame.

>>who did Ty play in bowl games when he was at ND?? And did they win??<<

It's not fair of you to continually bring up Bowl games, when you know Notre Dame has a rich and proud tradition of losing them. I think it's up to 9 in a row and 14 years without a Bowl win. I'm sure that Ty will offer Charlie a ticket to whatever early December bowl game he leads his team to so Charlie can't say he didn't get to ANY bowl game this season. Because Ty doesn't hold a grudge.

>>I know one thing for sure, Weis is light years better than Ty.<<

You meant, "White Years" right? Because there's no legitimate stats that support your point of view. Ty had a better first year than Weis. He has wins over teams that actually made it to bowl games. He beat Michigan, something Charlie has never done. And he's 2-0 today and Charlie is 0-2. What more do you need to know? I'd say hang in there and maybe things will change, because that's true. Unfortunately for you, things are going to only get worse for Charlie from here and prove everything that I say is absolutely true.

I'll see you back on this very board after next Saturday's game, under whatever gay article Brendan puts up on how bad we Irish fans feel about our fat hero embarrassing the University... again.

[Sandy Underpants]

Okay, I caught it before you. CW, like Ty, beat Michigan in his rookie year, but that was a 7-5 Michigan team, so it really doesn't count.

[treybien]

How about this...ND had already gotten contact from NFL teams and wanted to lock down a coach that was performing on the field and beating teams with solid plans, not smoke and mirrors like Ty. Just look at point differential from their two inaugural seasons, where Ty finished 10-3 and Weis finished 9-3. Not to mention it took the hand of God for Ty to win that Michigan game (clearly bad call won the game for ND that would have been reversed in today's age with instant replay), the Michigan State game, heck, even the Navy game took a desperation heave in the last minute to win. And then look at the teams each lost to in that season. Weis clearly had the better team. So if ND is so racist why do they have 3 Af.-Amer. assistant coaches and graduate over 90% of their black players?? Man, do those ND people really hate blacks. Once again, quoting Jason Whitlock is not exactly a strong source.

I can't wait to see the fruits of your guarantee, in fact I'm licking my chops. How about if your prediction doesn't come to fruition you make a long post detailing your lack of knowledge on college football and then you agree to never post on the subject again. That means if ND finishes 6-6 or better, you lose, or if ND finishes with a better record than Washington, you lose.

[treybien]

BTW...I count 6 bowl teams Charlie beat in the first year that went to bowl games. And once again, if Ty was so great, why was he 11-13 with players that Weis was 19-6 with. Another argument not answered. You have provided no stats to say Ty is better, only stupid cherry picked pieces of data, and half of those are wrong. And you have to love the comparison of 0-2 v. 2-0 this year. Nevermind the fact that it is 2 games into the season, there is no way on God's green earth that UW would have beaten either GT or PSU, so another comparison that does not hold water. I am very much look forward to UW's rest of the season, I expect you will be quite disappointed.

[ND JD 07]

Jason Whitlock couldn't prove that shit stinks.

[Wobbly H]

Actually, Notre Dame travels to Washington in 2008.

[treybien]

Even better.

[Andrew]

Anyone who thinks Ty is a worse coach that Paul Hackett doesn't know his ass from the hole in the ground. While Ty was taking Stanford -- Stanford -- to the Rose Bowl, PH was running USC into last place in the Pac-10. I will grant that Ty is a sub-standard recruiter, but he is a solid head coach. PH was both a sub-standard recruiter and a horrible coach. I'd link to the recruiting classes, but Scout.com only goes back to 2002 and I don't have time to Google the data. I know for a fact, though, that USC consistently finished in the high teens and twenties in the recruiting rankings, and was beaten in recruiting by fUTLA every year PH was coach. Getting the 20th-best recruiting class in the country as coach of Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Purdue, Texas A&M, or Oregon is solid work; getting the 20th-best recruiting class in the country as coach of Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Texas, or USC is crap.

I have conceded before that Charlie Weis is, overall, a better coach than Ty Willingham. What I've never conceded, and never will concede, is that the way Notre Dame treated Ty was remotely respectful or fair given the history of how they've treated previous coaches (and -- ahem -- those that have followed). For now, I am merely satisfied over the relatively minor victory that so many Domers are finally jumping off the "Charlie Weis is a genius!" bandwagon and coming back down to reality. CW is a good coach, maybe a bit better than Ty, but he will never lead Notre Dame back to a national title.

[Wobbly H]

Andrew,
How could you possibly know that? Ditch the ESPN-speak, will you?

[treybien]

Thats a fair response Andrew and I can handle that. I'd agree that Hackett definitely sucked ass and is right up there with Ty in that respect. But 20th rated recruiting classes are superb compared to Ty's last 2. The next to last one was in the 40's with him battling many MAC schools for recruits. The last one was also shaping up for similar results and was still a disaster after he was fired. I also dispute the Ty being a good coach. That Stanford team that made the Rose Bowl was not good and the Pac 10 was terrible then, absolutely awful. I always hear that Weis only won b/c of Ty's recruits. Well, if Ty's a solid head coach, then why didn't he win with these great players?

Just answer me this, what did Ty deserve?? ND came to him and said get rid of your offensive assistants. He refused to replace one. What choice do they have?? Did they have some great young recruit they were waiting on to blossom?? Nope. Did they have even a good recruiting class?? Nope. Did he show them even moderate improvement with a more veteran team in his 3rd year? How about this: if Ty was head coach at USC and did there what he did for 3 years at ND and had the same recruiting classes where he was battling Bowling Green and Western Michigan for recruits, would you have been yelling and screaming that he deserved one more year to prove himself?? Don't say Davie was treated differently b/c he came up with a 9 win season every time he was on hot seat to buy himself one more year. As a matter of fact, he was fired the year he was given an extension. According to tax returns filed by the university, Ty was the highest paid person on ND's payroll LAST year. More than Weis.

I don't know what they could have done to treat him with respect. Giving him 2 more years to bring in dreadful recruiting classes and refuse to fire bottom feeder assistants like Bill Diedrick just didn't make sense.

[David K.]

BTW...I count 6 bowl teams Charlie beat in the first year that went to bowl games. And once again, if Ty was so great, why was he 11-13 with players that Weis was 19-6 with. Another argument not answered. You have provided no stats to say Ty is better, only stupid cherry picked pieces of data, and half of those are wrong. And you have to love the comparison of 0-2 v. 2-0 this year. Nevermind the fact that it is 2 games into the season, there is no way on God's green earth that UW would have beaten either GT or PSU, so another comparison that does not hold water. I am very much look forward to UW's rest of the season, I expect you will be quite disappointed.

Well other than the obvious difference a YEAR MAKES gee I wonder why Ty's players improved...meanwhile Weis's teams have gotten progressively worse. Then you bring up this years schedule? Its not just that the UW has won its first two games (and yes Boise State is no slouch team), but how about the fact that Notre Dame has yet to score an offensive touch down. But the clincher for me, the clincher for how classless fans like you are is that you are cheering for Washington to lose just so you can validate your belief in Ty. You'd rather be right than another team do well. How pathetic.

[Jim Hu]

I think the 10 wins thing refers to ND coaches in their first year at ND, not whether ND coaches ever got 10 wins during their time there. Given the Irish's history, the idea that Ty would be the first to 10 wins in a season at ND is silly.

On the other side, the argument that Ty had an inferior record with the players Weis did well with in 2005-2006 is also silly. CW had them as juniors and seniors, TW had them as freshmen and sophomores.

Regardless of the Pac-10 being down when Ty took Stanford to the Rose Bowl (where one of my almae matres demolished the other), anyone who can get Stanford into any bowl in any year is a decent coach. Not a great one, but certainly not in the suckiness category treybien et al want to put him in. This is from something I blogged back when ND fired him:

I'm a Stanford alum, and I try to watch the Cardinal when I can. Let's remember the context. Before that 1999 Rose Bowl, what kind of record did Stanford have? Well, their previous Rose Bowl appearances were in 1902, 1925, 1927,1928, 1934-36, 1941, 1952, 1971 and 1972. Bill Walsh didn't get Stanford to a Rose Bowl and I think there's general agreement that Walsh was a great coach. Dennis Green didn't get to a Rose Bowl.

With respect to recruiting, Willingham only had two classes. The one that just graduated was top 5, and the ones that are this year's seniors were not so hot. But two points don't make a trendline in my line of work. Maybe he was doomed to recruit poorly for two more years. I think it would have depended a lot on how they did in 2005 and 2006. After all, winning matters in recruiting. But you'll never know now, will you?

Disclaimer: I'm among those who felt that there was an element of "soft" racism in how Ty was treated, and I feel like the effort to paint him as the worst coach ever - whose malign influence still explains how really, really badly your team has played in the first two games* - is in no small part an effort to rationalize the shabby way he was treated. I confess that I don't follow the Irish like you guys do. But I think this guy did.

*I'll grant you that his second recruiting class is to blame for why ND isn't a top team...but we're talking about why they aren't even a team playing up to the ranking of Ty's bad recruiting year.

[Jim Hu]

p.s. I also think how Stanford fired Walt Harris after only two years was worse!!

[David K.]

Maybe Domer's don't care what I think, don't like my credibility, and some even question my football knowledge. Of course given that ESPN's Pat Forde is saying the EXACT SAME THINGS I have been, I wonder how long they will keep giving Weis a pass...

[Brendan Loy]

Do you think they like what Pat Forde is saying, David?

http://www.herloyalsons.com/blog/2007/09/11/pat-forde-your-credibilty-is-deader-than-bo-schembechler/

Before you start on how that just PROVES that Domers can't take criticism, blah blah blah... surely you don't think they are required to agree with everything the sports media says about their team? After all, you don't adhere to that rule yourself, what with your beliefs about "East Coast Bias" and so forth.

Anyway, I've mostly stayed out of this fight, but I do want to point out how absolutely, undeniably wrong the following statement is, as a categorical matter:

"you can't have it both ways, eitehr they both share blame AND credit, or one gets it all."

As a general statement, that is simply false, David, and if you think about it some more, you'll realize that. It MIGHT be true in this particular case that Ty and Charlie ought to share blame and credit, but it does not HAVE to be true, not as a general matter, not in the way you stated it. It is certainly not always true that two people in a discussion of a broad topic with multiple potential causes & effects (e.g., the successes and failures of a football team) must always share both blame and credit in equal measure.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I could prove that the federal government deserves no credit for the relief effort from the hurricanes in Florida, that it was the Florida state government which led the effort and the feds didn't really do anything. Suppose I could also prove that the federal government deserves a significant amount of the blame for the relief effort post-Katrina in Louisiana. Mind you, I'm not saying I can prove those things, but certainly you'd agree that it's CONCEPTUALLY POSSIBLE, no? That it MIGHT be possible, with the right evidence and arguments, to prove that the federal government a) deserves the blame for a poor job of hurricane relief in some instances (because it really was largely the feds' fault), and b) deserves no credit for a good job of hurricane relief in some other instances (because really, somebody else is responsible, and deserves the credit). You can't deny that, can you?

But your above-quoted statement DOES deny it. "You can't have it both ways, either they both share blame AND credit, or one gets it all."

Again, this is simply 100% false as a categorical statement of how blame and credit are apportioned. Blame and credit should be apportioned on the basis of who deserves blame and credit according to the specific facts of the specific situation(s). In this case, those facts revolve around a variety of things: recruiting, coaching, etc. It MIGHT be true that Ty and Charlie deserve credit and blame in equal measure, but it doesn't not necessarily HAVE to be true. It depends on the exact facts of each situation. Therefore, if you want to prove that the Domer belief is incorrect, you absolutely cannot rely on simplistic logical fallacies like "either they both share blame AND credit, or one gets it all." You actually have to ENGAGE THE FACTS that Domers have raised.

And frankly, David, you do an absolutely terrible job of this. I say this as someone who doesn't have extremely strong feelings, intrinsically, about the merits of Charlie and Ty. I mean, I do think Weis is a better coach, but I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong; it's not like I'm some sort of Weis Worshipper. (Now, a Pete Carroll Worshipper, that's another story. :) But I've read a bunch of these discussions over the years, participated in a few of them but read many more, and the reality, David, is that you have tended to dismiss out-of-hand, without any serious attempt at rebuttal, even the most thoughtful and logical of Domer arguments on this point. I am well aware that some Domers are zealous and illogical in their love of Notre Dame -- believe me, I know all about that -- but that is not true of ALL Domers, and yet from your commentary, you'd think that every Domer who has ever engaged this topic on the blog (or at least 90% of them) is just some sort of die-hard who cannot see reason. Any objective analysis of the discussion proves otherwise. Again, there are SOME Domers, here and elsewhere, whose opinions have no apparent connection to the facts. But there are many others, both here and elsewhere, who marshal pretty decent logical arguments in favor of their position... and yet you lump them in with your general belief that all Domer arguments are crap. Time and time again, you dismiss even the most reasonable pro-Weis comments as the product of Blind Domer Homerism rather than actually engaging the factual and logical points they raise.

The fact that some Domers are beginning to come around to "your position" about Weis does not prove that you were right all along; on the contrary, it suggests that you were wrong about Domers, that they are not as inflexible and ridiculous as you consistently paint them, that their opinions can and do change as the FACTS reveal new information. The EVIDENCE that Weis deserves some significant blame for ND's failures is much stronger now than it was in 2005 or 2006, as more time has elapsed and he has more of his own recruits etc., and thus you see a number of Domers finally beginning to blame him! That makes perfect sense! You, on the other hand, wanted to blame him and absolve Ty way back in 2005. You now claim that your position is based in part on the fact that three years is enough time that blaming Ty is now totally ridiculous, but you were already saying that blaming Ty was ridiculous BACK IN 2005, and your position hasn't changed. Yet you've never adequately rebutted some of the factual and logical arguments that have been made against your position: the arguments based on recruiting numbers, the arguments about who really recruited Ty's "good players," the arguments that debunk faulty comparisons between the two coaches, etc. David, with all due respect, you are actually just as inflexible and illogical on this point as the worst of the Domers whom who you criticize.

I want to end this comment by beseeching you not to take this comment as a personal attack, or reading some sort of ill intent into it, because in fact I haven't called you any names, insulted your intelligence, or anything else of the sort. We've tended to get into really nasty fights in the past on threads about sports, for some reason, and I want to avoid that if possible, because I have no desire to get into a personal argument with you over this. My argument is limited entirely to your comments on these threads, not to anything about you personally (and I deplore those who feel the necessity to engage in personal attacks).

[Admiral Halsey]

Brendan,

I haven't been here long enough to witness David's commentary over the years on Charlie Weis and Ty Willingham, but I think you are spot on as far as this post. I attempted to be reasonable with him, and three posts down the road, he is effectively cursing at Notre Dame fans, calling them pathetic, and accusing them all of rooting against UW.

Everybody has their topics that they can't be rational about. It appears that David has a blind spot when it comes to this issue, and no longer engages in dialogue, but rather tilts against windmills that may or may not be there.

For that reason, David, I suggest you stop posting about it. You're not going to change your mind, and your arguments are not going to change anyone's mind who would be susceptible to change if persuaded by a well reasoned, dispassionate argument.

[Joe Mama]

Heh.

[Ricky Venezuela]

Now that's funny right there.

[Wobbly H]

That's a home run

[treybien]

Jim,

Excellent point on the fact that the good class Ty recruited was then freshmen and sophomores when he had them and juniors and seniors in CW's first two years. They should definitely improve. The only thing is if you watched all of the games in Ty's last season, then watched them in CW's first season, the difference was beyond just the typical get stronger and more experienced in one year. It was astronomical. I'm sure Brendan could attest to the difference in play between his first year in law school and the second. As a fan of college sports for about 20 years, I have a hard time coming up with a group of players that looked completely different from one year to the next the way the 04-05 Irish did.

Also, taking Stanford to a bowl is a very good thing and quite an impressive feat. I don't think Ty is the worst coach in the world and it makes me upset to have to argue against him as, normally, I could care less. But everyone says that ND was racist for firing him and I just want to point out that he just was not a very good coach at ND and wasn't exactly Knute Rockne everywhere else.

You are a much more patient man than I if you felt Harris should have gotten more time at Stanford as I felt he did not have any upward momentum in that program. I personally feel that Harbaugh will be a big improvement, or he'll at least get Stanford in the news:) Or I could just have a soft spot in my heart for a man that so publicly trashes Michigan, even though he went there.

Another thing is typical scientific treadlines can't be applied to recruiting. It is all about momentum in the program and the ability to get out there and sell your product and do it aggressively. Especially after a losing season, a bad recruiting coach isn't going to get a lot better all of a sudden. Recruiting is a years long process that means making relationships with sophomores so you can sign them when they're seniors, it doesn't suddenly improve. Showing up on campus when a top recruit visit also helps.

Also, David, I really could care less how Washington does. My only problem is people like Sandy and you throwing 2 victories in my face to say that conclusively proves that Ty is a better coach. My pointing out that the rest of UW's season probably won't be quite as magical makes me classless?? So be it.

I know ND hasn't scored an offensive touchdown and I have said more than once that I would need to see significant improvement on the OL or I would question if Weis is the right person for the job. Or at least I would want to see a change at OL coach. I also pointed out that ND has played 2 of the top defenses in all of college football from last season that returned pretty much their entire unit (minus a player or two), so I'm not ready to write the season off just yet. I think if ND played Syracuse in the Carrier Dome and Boise State at home, they'd be in a much different position right now. Not 100% sure and there is no way to know, but I think it would be quite different.

[David K.]

You, on the other hand, wanted to blame him and absolve Ty way back in 2005. You now claim that your position is based in part on the fact that three years is enough time that blaming Ty is now totally ridiculous, but you were already saying that blaming Ty was ridiculous BACK IN 2005, and your position hasn't changed.

Which would be true if it was what I actually had argued, except, well its not.

Here's what I HAVE argued:

1) During his first year it was ridiculous to call Weis a genius and ridiculous to give him the contract extension, he had done nothing yet to prove he was the first or deserving of the second. I said repeatedly then that he might very well COME to deserve those titles but AT THAT POINT he had yet to do so.

2) Firing Willingham after 3 seasons was unfair. Baring gross incompetence, which I'm sorry Domer's have never proven, a coach deserves atleast four years, and beyond that Notre Dame's established tradition was to give a coach FIVE years.

3) Blaming Willinghams recruiting for the struggles in Weis third year, when no one (at least no one here) gave credence to that same defense of Willingham in HIS third year is highly hypocritical

4) Blaming Willinghams recruiting but failing to give him credit for the players he did bring in that Weis had success with in his first two years is also hypocritical. And this, Brendan is where I stand by my argument that you can't have it both ways. Weis certainly deserves credit for the wins he coached the team to in years one and two, but Willinghams deserves some credit for providing him with the tools to do so. How much goes to each is certainly up for debate, but that is true for ANY coach in the same position. Unless you want me to believe that Weis took in a bunch of underachieving misfits and miraculous turned them into winners, Willingham shares both in the credit AND the blame. It can not be one or the other in this situation. Your analogy is innacurate because it relates two entirely seperate though similar incidents, where as in this case its one related set of circumstances. If that theory, of Weis being a miracle worker had been true, I don't see how now, with MORE of his own players and being able to miraculously fix Willinghams previous recruits he would be struggling as much as he is now.

For the record one last time, i've said it above but I will say it again, i do NOT think because Willingham was fired that Weis should be fired should he struggle this season. I don't think it was fair for one and I don't think it was fair for the other. I don't dismiss the idea that Willingham might share some of the blame for recruiting, however I do think that by the third year Weis should be held accountable for the majority of those problems. I also don't have a problem with the idea that, as some Domer's have asserted, Willingham was just not a good fit for the Irish. Pete Caroll was a bad fit at the pro level, Willingham may have been a bad fit in South Bend.

What I would like to see is more people admitting that the current irish struggles are not ALL Willinghams fault. Some, you, and others, are definitely holding Weis accountable, but some are still breathlessly blaming Willingham. Perhaps if they had blamed Davie during Willinghams third season with the same zeal that could be excused, but i never saw that, and i think its entirely hypocritical.

So if you and Admiral Halsey and others think thats an "irrational" set of statements to hold to fine, i can't change that, but for the love of all thats holy, when you are going to criticize what I'm saying I'd appreciate it if you actually criticized WHAT I'VE SAID.

[David K.]

Also, David, I really could care less how Washington does. My only problem is people like Sandy and you throwing 2 victories in my face to say that conclusively proves that Ty is a better coach. My pointing out that the rest of UW's season probably won't be quite as magical makes me classless?? So be it.

It would be really really nice if people spent the time reading what I actually wrote and THEN criticizing me on it. If they did that it wouldn't bother me so much.

I have not once said that the two wins the UW has had so far this season mean anything in relation to Weis. I think its far to early to declare victory for the UW, we have a tough schedule ahead of us. I believe that whether Weis or Willingham is the better coach is something that will take a few more years to have reasonable ammo for. My criticism of Weis has never been that the man is an abject failure as a coach. My criticism at the beggining was that he was given the "genius" label without anything to back it up, and since then he has done nothing to earn him that title. I certainly think the inauspicious start to the season bodes ill for the Irish and for Weis, but I certainly don't WISH him ill or the team ill. I would have no problem with Weis turning it around and being a succesful coach or the Irish being a succesful team (so long as they keep losing to SC ;-). Please don't lump me in with Sandy for his extreme take on the racism angle or trying to compare Weis and Willingham based on these first two games. I have not done so.

[treybien]

The only thing I will respond to David, is that while Davie was a horrible coach, and an idiot in general, the man could recruit and there was serious talent when Ty took over. And there certainly were not 2 classes where there were barely even Div. 1 caliber players like Ty's last 2. I think most ND fans would have been happy to give Ty a 4th year to do it with his players. The only problem was, after 2003, he wasn't bringing in any players. Ty's third year did not have the personnel problems that this year currently has, that is why it is not hypocritical. I've said it before and I'll say it one more time: If Ty's recruiting had been a penalty imposed by the NCAA, it would have been the most severe penalty the organization ever handed down to a football program outside of the SMU death penalty.

P.S. Once again, even if the OL is made up of so many young people like it is this year, Weis and Latina should be getting way more production than what they are currently. If that doesn't improve this season, I expect serious changes. Just like I expected when Ty's offenses did not improve from seasons 1-3.

treybien, According to scout.com ND's class of 2004 was 30th, certainly not spectacular, but also not terrible. Given that the Irish refuse to consider JUCO players, its unreasonable to accuse Ty of poor recruiting based on one year out of three. Again I think its ok to say his recruiting in the third year led to a potentially limited situation at line for Weis during his third season, but I think Weis deserves the most blame here, as you yourself admited. As for the Davie thing, i'll admit I'm not familiar with the recruiting classes Davie brought in, and Scout.com doesn't go back that far, but I am familiar enough with the difference in style between Davie and Willingham, and Willingham and Weis to know that Willingham was taking players recruited for a vastly different style of football and Weis was taking players recruited for a much similiar style of football. That plays a part too.

[treybien]

If the rating was 30th, that was really pushing it. There is one offensive player from that class on the team. ONE. Not a single offensive or defensive lineman. That is a terrible class. That is a program destroying class. The only thing that saved that class was Darius Walker and, while good, he was no Reggie Bush or even a Julius Jones. He could not change the outcome of a game by himself. His last class before he got fired was shaping up in exactly the same way as the previous one as well. No offensive lineman, no defensive lineman. Weis, only communicating via phone, recruited the only linemen in that class.

ND has never recruited JUCOs and never will. If Ty had done a good job recruiting any class but his first, that wouldn't even be an issue. Weis certainly hasn't had to rely on JUCOs to fill his classes. He's been taking as many high-school kids as the NCAA allows in each class and even turning away good players that want to come.

I said that Weis does bear a lot of the blame for the OL problems this year and I expect them to perform better, but at the same time, even if he was fucking Merlin he was put in a position where the success of the last two years was virtually unattainable. Imagine how the landscape of college football would change if you eliminated every team's senior offensive and defensive linemen.

Once again, Ty's recruiting numbers, the sheer number of bodies alone, was worse than any NCAA imposed reduction in scholarships. Think about how Miami and Alabama suffered when they were penalized for their transgressions. Everyone remembers Butch Davis' last couple of years at Miami, but do they remember some of his earliest teams that were routinely trounced by halfway decent competition? That is b/c he was suffering personnel problems due to NCAA imposed reduction of scholarships.

And Davie was not running Lou Holtz's option offense at ND. His OC was Kevin Rogers, who (sucked) was McNabb's OC at Syracuse. There was some running, but it definitely passed quite a bit. He certainly ran more with the QB than ND does now, but we're not talking about Nebraska under Tom Osborne now. And even if the styles were different, OLs are OLs, DLs are DLs, LBs are LBs, DBs are DBs. Having big guys in the trenches is the same for any team. Having LBs and DBs that can make plays are the same for any defense. Ty had them. He also had a full complement of players, close to what the NCAA would allow. And also, hypothetically, maybe allowing him to get more of his guys into the system would have been wise if he was making such a drastic change to the offense, but he wasn't even bringing in players to make changes. How can you wait for his guys when there are no his guys?

[Andrew]

I don't know how you can disagree with the Forde column. His conclusion is blindingly spot-on:

But the criticism of Willingham was as excessive as the praise (and compensation) accorded Weis. That's the double standard Notre Dame has set in place, and the double standard it must live with.

Reasonable Domers should put forth a mea culpa and admit they were A. too hard on Ty, and B. too excessively in love with CW.

[Admiral Halsey]

How about we wait and see how the season turns out before we start apologizing and admitting that Ty was a good coach and Charlie is just a little bit better, or the same?

In the alternative, what if we thought in 2005 that CW was a marked improvement over TW, but weren't excessively in love with CW and didn't hate TW? How should we react in that case?

While you're at it, can you tell me what to have for dinner? Caveat: I avoid complex carbohydrates, and I don't eat raw fish.

[Angrier and Angrier]

All I can say is I see a service academy like Navy with less talented players than ND playing better than ND has done so far this year. Navy - with its limited talent pool and vanilla offense - was respectable against a ranked force like Rutgers, while Notre Dame completely buckled under GT. The difference between the two teams was a focus on fundamentals - and that is the result of coaching.

Maybe if Weis hadn't spent his summer suing doctors who hadn't done anything wrong his team would be better now.

[Sandy Underpants]

David K,

Treybien is simplifying everything to diminish the validity of his critics. I'm not just comparing Ty's record this year to CW's record this year. After 27 games as ND's head coach, CW only has 3 more wins than Ty had at this same point in HIS ND coaching career. Same bowl wins/losses. Charlie has the worst home opening blow-out in ND history, the first 3 game losing streak by 20+ points. And when you compare the overall college coaching stats, Ty blows Charlie to pieces.

I don't care about Washington football either. I don't care about Ty Willingham. I don't even care that ND has acted in a racist fashion. But how the heck else can you look at it? The facts are glaringly obvious, not only then, but now. ND always gave a coach 5 years and they may have only fired one coach in their entire history other than Ty. Ty had 10 wins his first season, Charlie had 9. Ty won his first 8 straight games and Charlie went 6-2 and got a 10 year contract extension. Ty was fired in his third season after a better start than Charlie's had so far and people are STILL blaming him? Is there anyone who even thinks CW may get fired this season? It's bullcrap and it's racist, there is no other explanation because the only difference is that Ty is black.

Yeah fine, Notre Dame has black people in attendance and there's black assistants great, they must be a paragon of affirmative action, it doesn't change the fact that Ty was treated differently then ALL of their previous (white) head coaches and Charlie.

I've never NEVER heard any fans blame a prior head coach THREE YEARS after he got fired for having a bad season. To tell ya the truth I can't even think of an instance where fans blame the previous head coach after he's replaced. And there's people on this board that are so damned racist they won't even give Ty credit for recruiting players like Brady Quinn. They say that Rhema McKnight's dad or some BS story had a sleep-over and actually recruited Brady to ND. People, you're friggin sick in the head.

Regarding "the bet" proposed to me, here's what I'll do. If Charlie Weis has a better 3rd year than Ty Willingham had in his 3rd year at ND, I'll admit that ND did the right thing, wasn't racist and I won't criticize the over-rated fat bastard ever again.

[Brendan Loy]

Caveat: I haven't read any of the comments after David's reply to me.

David, I'm fairly certain you're fudging a wee bit on what you've said before, but I'm not going to go dig through my archives to prove it, so for the sake of argument I'll concede that you only said what you claim you said, and I'll drop that point. However, you still haven't answered my biggest gripe, which is your unwillingness to grapple with the FACTS that Weis's defenders have laid out in defense of their position.

For instance, actual specific evidence of Davie's recruiting superiority over Willingham has been repeatedly offered, but you continue to repeat this idea that Anyone Who Criticizes Ty For Bad Recruiting Must Also Criticize Davie For Bad Recruiting. To use a bit of legal terminology (sorry, I just got home from work), that might be a reasonable presumption, but it's a rebuttable presumption, and if a Domer responds with FACTS that purport to show that Davie was a better recruiter than Ty (which has happened repeatedly on these various threads when you've made that point), then you need to either respond to those facts with opposing facts, or else drop the argument, because the presumption falls away once it's rebutted.

Same thing goes for the argument that Ty deserves credit for all of the recruits who helped Weis through his first two years, which you continue to assert over and over again, without caveat, even though Domers have repeatedly made factual assertions, backed up by evidence, that Quinn, Samardzjia, etc., were recruited almost in spite of Ty, not because of him.

And the same thing goes for the arguments over whether Ty was really a bad recruiter, and what impact it's had, when people offer stats on X number of players per position per year, X number of stars on the recruits, they were being recruited by X other schools, it is having X tangible impact on the program, etc. When someone responds to your arguments with objective data, you can't just dismiss it with a wave of your hand and continue repeating the same old tripe that you were saying before they offered the data!!

Now, I'm not saying you necessarily have to accept these alleged facts as true, but if you think they're wrong, you need to respond to them with other facts -- you can't just keep repeating the same generalized arguments you've been making all along, without even acknowledging the existence of the counterarguments. That, above all, is what frustrates me about your take on this. (Well, that, and the fact that, in the process of being inflexible in the way I've just described, you then accuse others of being inflexible.)

[Admiral Halsey]

Brendan,

If this comment string was a thoroughbread it would be dead on the backstretch at Santa Anita.

In any event, well said.

I have seen it asserted that Davie was a better recruiter, but have been presented with no evidence. Andrew has presented evidence disputing the claim that Ty was a somehow woefully inadequate recruiter.

I have also seen the claims that Ty only sort of recruited Quinn and Samardzjia, but at best its second hand, and in the end he still brought them in and helped them develop.

I've also seen the argument that Weis made them significantly better players. In the case of Brady Quinn the growth he made from Sophmore to Junior year was not dramatically different than what other quarterbacks had made, and not dramatically different than the growth he had from his Freshman to his Sophmore year. Given that he took a step backward from Junior to Senior year that calls into question how much of an influence Weis had on them.

The only factual evidence that has been presented was for one of Ty's recruiting years, ignoring the first two years completely.

I'll gladly acknoweldge that there is a case to be made that the last year of recruiting by Ty didn't provide what woudl be a good class of senior line men this year. But again, Weis has had the past three years to bring in recruits, something even Domers acknowledge he has done, and yet they still can't perform. They may be young, but even young players can do well with practice and coaching. When you can't even score a single offensive TD, that to me, seems to place the majority of the burden on Weis, not Ty.

[David K.]

Previous comment was me, sorry about that, TP is terrible at the whole "keep you signed in thing".

I do have one question, if Notre Dame loses to Michigan and the Huskies beat Ohio State, then can we say one coach is better than the other :)

[David K.]

Oh ok, one MORE thing, I'd like to thank Treybien for his reasonable and sane discussion. I may not agree with all your points but I do appreciate that you are arguing the facts and not resorting to sad personal attacks. I think if more ND fans on this blog were like you it would be much easier to discuss these sorts of things.

[Andrew]

Okay, now I quote Stewart Mandel:

...As was discussed last week, and as any Notre Dame fan will tell you, Weis' current predicament is due in large part to recruiting shortcomings during the end of Willingham's tenure. What those fans would never admit to, however, but what I absolutely believe, is that they themselves contributed to Willingham's failures. The class that causes the most retrospective angst among Domers is Willingham's 2004 crop, which was ranked inordinately low and, as expected, has largely been a bust. However, Willingham, who had only just finished his second season at that point, was already facing rampant criticism and job-security questions. In fact, shortly before Signing Day that year, a group of alumni from across the country sent a letter to the school's board of trustees denouncing the "pronounced and persistent deterioration of the Notre Dame football program," which included the line, "Although we continue to support [Willingham] and hope he succeeds ... absent significant progress in 2004, a coaching change will become necessary." Gee ... do you think that helped recruiting? Do you think Weis would currently be assembling the No. 1 class in the country if they'd written a similar letter this past January?

I bring this up not to completely absolve Willingham of his shortcomings, but to point out that perhaps there were extenuating circumstances that contributed to his performance. After all, he had no such trouble assembling his vaunted 2003 class -- nor does he seem to be having any similar troubles at Washington. Believe me, the program he took over in Seattle was in far worse shape than the one Weis inherited in South Bend. At the time of Willingham's arrival, UW was only 18 months removed from Rick Neuheisel's ugly ouster and had spent the past two seasons under the direction of an obvious lame duck, Keith Gilbertson. The Huskies had gone 1-10 the year before he arrived, not 6-6. For Washington to be in a position where it is now beating teams like Boise State and possibly contending for a bowl berth is a direct testament to Willingham's ability to restock the talent there and coach it up. I'm not saying he's automatically the better coach than Weis if he finishes with a better record this season -- that would not be a fair comparison and would discount Weis' previous two seasons. What I'm saying is, we already know Willingham was a good coach who had some bumps in the road. This is our first time seeing Weis handle adversity. We'll learn a lot more about him by how much the Irish improve over the course of this year.

Insert Admiral Halsey and treybien's Notre Lame excuses here.

[Jim Hu]

You are a much more patient man than I if you felt Harris should have gotten more time at Stanford as I felt he did not have any upward momentum in that program. I personally feel that Harbaugh will be a big improvement, or he'll at least get Stanford in the news:) Or I could just have a soft spot in my heart for a man that so publicly trashes Michigan, even though he went there.
I don't think I'm particularly patient, but Harris was at Stanford for only two years. Two! His track record at Pitt was pretty good.

Last year, he had a team that had middling talent at best at the start. Combine that with an absolutely dreadful series of injuries. Both starting WRs, an NFL-prospect QB, the starting fullback and several linemen were out for large parts of the season. Harris was a much needed disciplinarian for a Stanford team that was out of control by the last Big Game of the Teevens era... I don't expect Stanford to be dynastic. I expect them to win with guile and lose with class. When I heard that Stanford players were getting chippy at Berkeley, I felt that firing Teevens was justified.

But when you bring in a coach who has to instill some discipline, the AD has to back him up. Unfortunately for Harris, the long-time Stanford AD who had built the Cardinal into an overall sports dynasty (just not in football) retired, and his replacement didn't back up the coach. Stanford's alleged defensive leader quit the team for a few games in mid season, and instead of being ridiculed as a pathetic quitter, the area papers were full of "poor babies, Harris is too tough on his players".

I was at Stanford on sabbatical through the debacle of last year. To me, the height of Bowlsby's cluelessness came when he criticized Harris for not getting Stanford fans to come to the home game against Oregon State. I'm pretty sure Stanford-Oregon State didn't fill the stadium when Jim Plunkett and John Elway were on the Farm. In this case, there was not only the decimated team, but also, the Band was banned, the game was on local TV, and it was at the same time slot as Michigan-Ohio State.

Harris went 2-9 in his second year at Pitt, and only improved to 5-6 in 1999, his third year. You would have fired him after year two. But from 2000-2005 he had Pitt in bowl games every year, including the Big East co-championship that led to getting blown out by Urban Meyer's Utah team.

Harbaugh may turn out to be a better coach, but there's no track record to base that on. There just isn't enough data on Harbaugh as a coach at all. He's had a grand total of 3 good years at 1-AA non-scholarship Univ. of San Diego and was quarterbacks coach for one year with the Raiders in 2003. He's assembled a staff with very little large conference experience. I'm worried that we're talking about a guy who may be less qualified to be coach of Stanford than Gerry Faust was for you guys.