Can Irish Win It All?

[gman2]

diapers --
personally, i think notre dame is a very good team. you wont see me put them down or devalue what theyve accomplished to this point. that said -- i simply dont think theyre better than any of those teams right now. hopefully they do get to play one of those teams and we can see for sure. im no expert. none of us are. but ive played the game at a high level and have enough ties within college circles to offer an informed opinion. i dont mind going back and forth in a point-counterpoint debate on these teams. my only problem is that youre using the word "we". unless i missed you on the sidelines in the tennessee game, you dont play for the irish. im definitely up for a point-counterpoint debate on why notre dame would beat those teams. but you have to leave your bias out of it. because i call it like i see it. i dont have favorite teams or team flags or foam #1 fingers. like i said, notre dame is back in the national picture. and thats a good thing for collge football. but even the notre dame media people have said to temper the entusiasm because theyre still lacking in certain areas.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Come on GMan..........

Didnt you used to post as "Foam-Finger Man?"

 

[gman2]

scott:

you said notre dame would be undefeated with texas' schedule.

notre dame is beating ohio state in the horseshoe?

and you can make a case for notre dame having a world of trouble with texas tech because tech's passing game would annihilate an irish secondary that is ranked 110th out of 117 against the pass. keep in mind, notre dame allowed 353 yards to freakin isaiah stanback of washington, which was far and away his best performance against anyone this year.

im not saying tech beats notre dame.

what im saying is that its incredibly presumptuous to say that notre dame is undefeated with texas' schedule. personally, i think theyre in the same position as theyre in now -- 2 losses.

 

[pt1gard]

I will say this, at pick em vs Hokies in a bowl game--I'll go with Minny Fats vs BMW

 

[TouchdownJesus]

HOW CAN I HATE THE SYSTEM? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

First of all, a win is a win is a win. It shouldn't matter if I win by 50 or by 1. Plus, you have 100 teams each playing 11 games. How can you possibly just pick the best team. You have a system where USC and Texas begin ahead of everyone else this year. Alabama is unbeaten. If all 3 end up unbeaten, they can do no better than that. Its perfection.

But, you can keep your system. I myself prefer ONE champion per year. When I tell someone who the BEST team is, I don't use the word AND.

Who won the Super Bowl last year? Wasn't it New England and Philadelphia?

By the way, I don't vote. Look what voting gets you. More than one champion and shitty politicians. I either have to vote for a shitty republican or a shitty democrat...or I can throw my vote away by voting for another party.

The current BCS is pure shit. It may be worse than what was before it.

 

[Sun Tzu]

You mean like in 1966 when Notre Dame pussed out for a tie against Michigan State and still won the title over defending champion and undefeated Alabama?

 

[INtheBLUE]

You mean like in 1966 when Notre Dame pussed out for a tie against Michigan State and still won the title over defending champion and undefeated Alabama?

Didnt Bama finish 3rd that year behind Notre Dame and Michigan State?

I think they finished 3rd because they won with Defense not offense.

 

[Dice34]

I am a huge Irish fan...but this post, and why I picked it back up again, is more about the polls. Notre Dame is actually now 7th. Penn State jumped them.
I hate the system, period.
But, I really hate teams leapfrogging teams after the halfway point of the season. Its supposed to be that you lose, you drop. You win, you move up...if teams in front of you lose. Its not an exact science but its pretty consistent.
So, if your 7th now. And teams gradually start losing. Like I say, I think they could get to about 3rd or 4th. But, lets say some weird stuff happened.
What if they are 3rd and Texas loses? Does Texas stay 2nd? Does the 4th ranked team jump them and move into 2nd?
They have no chance at BCS, but if they did get to 2nd, and #1 loses in Rose Bowl. Do they win AP's version of nat'l title?
Of course, I know they don't. But its just bullshit piled onto more bullshit.
Imagine a tourney with USC, Texas, Miami, Notre Dame, Alabama, Penn State, LSU, and Va. Tech. It would be AWESOME!!!

Put Grandpa's cough medicine down....

 

[TouchdownJesus]

"You mean like in 1966 when Notre Dame pussed out for a tie against Michigan State and still won the title over defending champion and undefeated Alabama?"


Thats exactly what I meant. What a dumb system. I think back then they even voted before the bowls. Seems like I read one year Alabama and Notre Dame shared the nat'l title, and ND beat them 24-23 in a bowl game. Ridiculous.

By the way, Grandpa's cough medicine tastes a lot like Jim Carrey's piss.

Give me a playoff and either have ties or a man's OT system...sudden death.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Used to be that titles were handed out before the bowls. I believe primarily because Notre Dame refused to play in bowls for so long. Texas won its 3rd National title in 1970 despite losing their bowl game.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

I will say that, with that system, if Notre Dame was #1 and MSU #2, then Notre Dame could play for the tie while MSU could not. See how ridiculous it is. If ND ties, they stay #1. Yes, hilarious.

Also, I remember being very young watching Neb/Miami in 1983. Great game. I saw it a couple years ago on ESPN Classic. I am completely beside myself why Tom Osbourne went for 2. For several reasons. First of all they were unbeaten and ranked #1. I think Miami was 5th and that #'s 2, 3, and 4 lost. Not sure, but it seems like SMU was up there.
Anyway, they had come back from 14 down. If they tie, they win a nat'l championship. Osbourne later got his titles but those players did not.
And, Miami HAD TO WIN. There was about a minute left to play. Miami would have had to keep playing, trying to score If Neb. wanted to win they should have used that strategy and not gone for 2. Even if they got the 2-pt conversion, Miami still had time to get into FG range.

I almost liked the system better before the BCS. With all the conference tie-ins. At least back then New Years Day meant something. There might be 3 games to determine the nat'l championship. The BCS making it one title game is great, but all the other bowls are just extra games and you still have just as much controversy, no true champion, and a lot of times, more than one champion.

Its 2005. I think we can find a way to crown a true champion.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Depends who you are and when the game happens. In 1984 Texas was ranked #1, tied #2 OU, and next week fell to #3 in the polls.

Osborne just plain blew it in that game. #2 Texas had lost to Georgia, as had #3 and #4. He gets the title with the tie - probably. But you know those media folks who would raise a stink. But it was pre-internet and poll out the next morning - he would have gotten it.

A playoff is long ways away unfortunately. It would help in so many ways - Sanity! But also get better non-conference match-ups and see a more real national title. But no matter whether it is 4 or 8 or 16 there will be a problem in picking and seeding teams.

But look at the counter - say Texas or USC ends up the only unbeaten team this year. Should they have to win 3 more games to get a title, and if they lose some other team with 1 or more losses is called champion? If so, then it probably needs to be like pro sports - HOME games for the seeded teams. Man what a controversy seeding would be. And the bowls will never allow it.

Best we are gonna get is the "Plus 1" and that to me is a joke. What are we gonna do, rig 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 in bowl games to then get a "championship game." Or , this yeaqr for example, are we gonna have USC play Texas then say that team has to win another game? Might as well just do the playoff then.

The good news is there havent been many years it mattered much. In 2001 Colorado had 2 losses and Oregon neither was beating Miami. Miami got jobbed in 2000 - but I dont think they beat OU. Auburn was stuck in the cold last year, but they dont beat USC. Michigan getting half the title in 1997 was absurd - Huskers would ahve drilled them. That and 1994 Penn State probably the two times plus one would have been good. In 1990 Miami lost its first two games and ran the table -they would have beaten Colorado or Washington.

 

[ROCKHARD]

I am also a big ND fan but theres no way they play for the national title.UCLA has a loss now so that leaves USC,TEXAS,AND ALABAMA,not to mention Miami.I do not forsee USC or TEXAS losing a game this year.so theres your national title.I do believe however,that ND will go to a BCS bowl game,guessing probably against Flordia State or perhaps UCLA. Oh yea, and by the way.the polls always favor ND because of there tough schedule they play. How many other teams out there play as many top 25 teams as ND does.yhey usuallu have one mediocore team they play,usually a academy for the navy,air force or army.

 

[DerekNJND]

diapers --
personally, i think notre dame is a very good team. you wont see me put them down or devalue what theyve accomplished to this point. that said -- i simply dont think theyre better than any of those teams right now. hopefully they do get to play one of those teams and we can see for sure. im no expert. none of us are. but ive played the game at a high level and have enough ties within college circles to offer an informed opinion. i dont mind going back and forth in a point-counterpoint debate on these teams. my only problem is that youre using the word "we". unless i missed you on the sidelines in the tennessee game, you dont play for the irish. im definitely up for a point-counterpoint debate on why notre dame would beat those teams. but you have to leave your bias out of it. because i call it like i see it. i dont have favorite teams or team flags or foam #1 fingers. like i said, notre dame is back in the national picture. and thats a good thing for collge football. but even the notre dame media people have said to temper the entusiasm because theyre still lacking in certain areas.

Im not saying who Notre Dame can or can not beat, but I wouldnt consider your position objective Gmen. I read your post in the ND/TENN thread (notre Lamers) and your discussion of how it wouldnt have been an upset for Tennessee to win that game. This is not the Irish squad from 2000 or 2002 that put up 9-2 records only to get stomped in bowl competition. You could certainly make the argument that those teams were completely unbalanced and lacked great athletes.

That is NOT the case this year, Notre Dame has GREAT athletes that are physically sound. Notre Dame has team speed, big physical playmakers, and tall, prototypical type NFL receivers that make plays down the field. Wait, I didnt even mention Brady Quinn or Walker yet? Hmmm. You are a Notre Dame hater, plain and simple, and that is why you DONT call it as you see it.

Dont get me wrong, maybe Alabama and Penn state would wipe the floor with us. But we dont know until we play. Notre Dame went blow for blow with one of the greatest teams of all time, and barely lost in OT. They have 2 losses by 6 total points. What does that say? That says that it is UNLIKELY that we will go into a bowl game against ANYONE this year and get blown out bad enough for anyone to say we didnt belong there.
Like I said, not the ND team of 2002 that was 9-1 before getting SMEARRRRRRRED all over the collisium in November.

BTW, I will say WE when I refer to NOTRE DAME. I spent 5 years there at undergrad, and even though I'm in Law school now somewhere else, that school has a community spirit and sense of family that exist nowhere else in this country. You dont understand becase you arent a part of it. Maybe diapers didnt go there or anything like that, but how do you know?? Im just saying that alot of people use the term WE because they went to school there. GO IRISH

 

[DerekNJND]

Yea..exceptP Notre Dame lost...at home........to that fabulous Michigan State squad that yesterday lost to 2-6 Purdue, and got drilled by 30 at home to Northwestern.

ND has lost 2 games by 6 combined points. Period. This is what is SO impressive that people like you are neglecting to see. Besides these two losses, but actually thoughout MOST of the USC game, ND has been ahead of every opponent ALMOST THE ENTIRE GAME!!! How many other teams have played like that?? A few come to mind. virginia Tech, Texas, PSU, now im just guessing but maybe 'Bama, though I know theyve played some close ones. But even USC and one loss Miami have been trailing at the half several times, and had to engineer 4th quarter comebacks just to win. Hmm 4th quarter comeback? That sounds familiar, the only time ND came up short besides USC was a BRILLIANT 4th quarter comeback. My point is forget stats and theoretical who beats who arguments, because we will never know unless they play. ND has done ON the field what VT, OSU, PSU, Texas, USC, BAMA, have done to opponents all year, they belong right where they are and would matchup well, if NOT WIN, against any of them.

 

[DerekNJND]

and when MSU takes out its frustration on Penn State this weekend and ruins PSU's dream season, maybe people will realize that while not a GREAT team, they certainly are dangerous, especially considering how ND's defense was playing in September.

 

[DerekNJND]

one final shot here, cuz im fired up. Teams like VT are the ones that DONT BELONG in the BCS. Just like ND didnt belong in 2002 because the USC game proved they were capable of "not showing up" one weekend, which repeated itself in the big game against NC STATE. Teams that dont have good leadership will "not show up" for the big game. That was VT's first big game of the year. Didnt show up. They dont belong. ND has showed up to play EVERY WEEK and outplayed opponents for 95% of every second of every game they were on the field so far. You cant look back at the schedule and say, WOW, ND really didnt show up that week, can you? No you cant. Thats why they belong, and puts them in a higher class than teams like VT.

Same argument applies to Ohio State with 2 losses. Yea they have 2 losses, but I would rather see them play in the BCS than Florida or VT, who each took a week off this season. OSU is two plays away from being undefeated just like ND is. Yet I see people giving OSU props while dissing ND. Strange indeed. Only difference is OSU stood straight up to Texas, while ND's stand came against USC instead.
Of course the next argument is our other loss was to MSU at home while OSU's other loss was AT PSU. Well, at least ND looked impressive in coming back and showed poise while OSU just plain looked like crap, and really showed us that they might "not show up" one week too. Case closed.

 

[gman2]

the top 10 teams in the country, in no particular order, have defenses ranked:

1st
2nd
3rd
6th
7th
8th
12th
14th
41st

......and 86th

care to guess whose defense ranks 86th?
incidentally, their ranking at 86th puts them behind lockdown defenses such as:

buffalo
unlv
east carolina
utah state
minnesota
louisiana-monroe

 

[Sun Tzu]

Call me old fashioned. I still think actually winning a game counts for something.

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

Yeah - Having a high powered defense really matters. :mj07:

What happened to that "great" defense of Tennessee last Saturday... ? :mj07: