The Rule of 3

[Old Man Mike]

Hmmm... I'm not much for "rules of three" unless we're talking about God, but that said, there is a reason that if you are in fact a great coach your third season should be pretty darn good. By year three you have finally had the time to get mostly your sorts of players ready to perform [year four is better yet], and the veterans you inherited aware [thoroughly and in detail] of what you're trying to do. In other words, it's pretty close to YOUR team now.

That said, you still need some breaks. Poor mouth him and the [in my opinion still rather good] records all you want, Coach has had the lousiest run of non-or-negative breaks I've seen. He created a pair of teams which were easily in BCS contention if they only had ball security control. If that missing ball-security-managing quarterback would be coming into his third season at the helm of the horses that are scattered all around our O and D lineups, every commentator in the country would be saying "Notre Dame is a threat for the Title".

Could Kelly work a miracle this year? It's not impossible. But it takes a startling emergence of that missing piece and no injuries. Even with our brutal schedule, the then-empowered Kelly offensive juggernaut would defeat everyone but Oklahoma and USC. Now the "added break": national commentators have noted that without his stud receiver Landry turned into "Mr. Average" as an offense-producer. If he doesn't find his stride without his security blanket, who says they are unbeatable?? That would leave USC. Big Problem. But we've climbed that mountain before, and the shadetree surfers have been known to take undisciplined games off. Not impossible.

But no... my intellect tells me that the scenario of not only a mere upgrade in ball-security but an eye-popping Wow emergence at QB [and minimal RB fumbles] is asking a bit much. If we're better but still just "good" there, somebody who shouldn't beat us on this grinding schedule will. And USC will.

 

[BobD]

Anybody calling wooly a troll is asking for an @ss whoopin. I'm not a great communicator with the written word, but I can hand out an @ss whoopin.

Would you like one?

 

[Rocket89]

How is playing the #1, #2 and #3 ranked teams in the country "lucky"? Name one other team in recent memory that had to beat the top three teams in the country to get their championship? I don't care if we played Rice every other game, having to play the top three teams is extremely difficult to manage.

You also failed to mention that we played a #9 ranked Michigan team, an Elway led Stanford team, a decent Penn State team. Oh and by the way... the MSU team you said stunk, finished second in the Big10 and had Andre Rison on it.

I totally disagree with yuor premise, but still got love for you, homie....

For the final AP poll ND played the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th ranked teams. I already admitted that it was a very strong top four. However, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we could see something like that from the 2012 schedule with USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, MSU, or Stanford.

I didn't fail to mention Michigan.

John Elway was not on Stanford that year, he was in his 6th season in the NFL, and the Cardinal were the second worst team in the Pac-10 in 1988.

I didn't say MSU stunk, I said they had a down year. And while they did finish second in the Big 10, the conference was awful that year and State lost 4 games out of conference.

Yes, it was a hard schedule but we got lucky in the sense that it could have been absolutely brutal, which it was in 1989 and we dropped one game.

 

[woolybug25]

For the final AP poll ND played the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th ranked teams. I already admitted that it was a very strong top four. However, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we could see something like that from the 2012 schedule with USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, MSU, or Stanford.

They were ranked #1, #2, #3 and #9 when we played them. It's irrelevant where they finished up. If we beat USC, scUM, OU and Standford this year, would you look at it as where they were ranked when we played them or the ranking they finished with after we beat them? If we beat all of the teams you listed above, they would not finish #2, #4, #5 and #7. Not even close.

I didn't fail to mention Michigan.

You failed to mention that they were ranked #9 in the country when we played them and had Title hopes on the line.

John Elway was not on Stanford that year, he was in his 6th season in the NFL, and the Cardinal were the second worst team in the Pac-10 in 1988.

Touche'. I pulled that one out of my arse. Apologies on that.

I didn't say MSU stunk, I said they had a down year. And while they did finish second in the Big 10, the conference was awful that year and State lost 4 games out of conference.

How is finishing second in the Big10 a down year for MSU? You said that they were much better in 2012, but they finished both seasons second in the Big10 standings.

Yes, it was a hard schedule but we got lucky in the sense that it could have been absolutely brutal, which it was in 1989 and we dropped one game.

We can agree to disagree on that then I suppose.



PS Everyone: Just to clarify, I am by no means predicting a championship this year. What I am challenging you with though, is the premise that year three has been a make or break year for all Notre Dame coaches (good or bad). So if you think Kelly is going to win one here, you may want to consider the idea of him making a run at it this year or not at all.

If he had an 8-5 season this year and won a championship in year 5, he would be breaking 125 years of history. Winning a championship without excelling this year may be less likely than winning one this year according to over a century of history.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Wooly, I think this is a good post and a good thought. I do think there are some parallels between the situations of this 2012 team and some of the teams you highlighted in the OP. I guess in my mind I could see this team catching fire and greatly exceeding expectations (for reference, my expectations are probably 8-4/9-3; greatly exceeding those expectations would probably be 11-1).

More importantly, though, I think the Rule of 3 is more of an interesting historical anecdote than an actual rule. If this team does go 8-4, I don't think that spells doom for Kelly's tenure at ND. I still think that we are in good position in the big picture. If the "big jump" season happens in Y4 of the Kelly era, rather than in Y3, I will be able to live with that. If Y3 isn't a resounding, stunning success, it won't diminish my hope that Y4 will see us reemerge on the national stage.

So yeah, it would be a fascinating story that would only further cement ND football lore if this 2012 team set the CFB world on fire. The schedule presents some challenges, but the other side of that coin is that is presents some opportunities to make a major statement. But if that doesn't happen, I'll still be optimistic about 2013 unless we completely fall on our face this year (and I really don't see a 5-7 season coming, knock on wood).

 

[Rocket89]

They were ranked #1, #2, #3 and #9 when we played them. It's irrelevant where they finished up. If we beat USC, scUM, OU and Standford this year, would you look at it as where they were ranked when we played them or the ranking they finished with after we beat them? If we beat all of the teams you listed above, they would not finish #2, #4, #5 and #7. Not even close.

I think where a team ends up ranked is more important yes. See the 2005 Michigan game. In this case with 1988 it wasn't that big of a deal as those opponents stayed highly ranked.

It's possible those teams in 2012 could end up ranked that high after losing to Notre Dame, why couldn't they? What makes things different then to now for you to say something like that? Two national title contenders and two of the top teams in the Big 10 can't finish in the top 10? That doesn't strike me as outlandish even if they lose to ND.

You failed to mention that they were ranked #9 in the country when we played them and had Title hopes on the line.

I put them in the good/great/elite teams that started my post. That is sufficient enough.

How is finishing second in the Big10 a down year for MSU? You said that they were much better in 2012, but they finished both seasons second in the Big10 standings.

Because they were one game over .500? One team went 11-3 and the other 6-5-1. One team went unranked and the other finished 17th.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

VERY mad right now. Wooly just made Rick Mirer cry......where's the love? Haha.

 

[IrishFBfanatic]

I personally love this post! It doesn't say to me "we WILL win a NC this year or bust" it is just pointing out some really cool, really interesting info. Looking at the history of the program, year 3 seems to make or break a coach's career...how will Kelly fare?

I think Kelly will fare quite well in his third season. It is very tough to look at this schedule and this season and say we will win a national championship, if Kelly takes us to a BCS bowl I think you're looking at a guy in the upswing of his coaching career.

Really this thread is pointing out that in year 3, we can't make many excuses for a coach anymore. History tells us that once a coach hits his third season he very well should have a grasp on his team and should be ready to show the team's full potential under his direction. If Kelly does this, he will be great. If he doesn't...we all know how ND reacts to coaches like that.
Is Kelly an Ara or a Lou? or is he a Weis or a Willingham? Let's see how year 3 plays out. My guess is Kelly out does expectations in '12...we will be talking about this season for a long time. Just an optimistic guess, though...we'll find out this fall

Again, props on the thread. Very interesting and good discussion topic

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

I'm guessing (ie, too lazy to do any research) that the "rule of 3" applies to pretty much every major program. By year 3 you have your system in place, the majority of the players are yours. It would be interesting to see say, the top 50 programs all time in terms of wins - how each did in the 3rd year of a new regime... Sounds like a thesis....

 

[goldandblue]

I fully believe in the 3 year "rule". It has been to consistent up to this point to not believe in it.

I do think that Brian Kelly and our Fighting Irish will surprise us all this year with a 10-2 regular season record paving the way to a National Championship in the future.

 

[BobD]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about this year? What are your expectations of Coach Kelly in hs third year? At what point might you want his head? Will you stick with him through thick and thin or 8-4 etc.? Can a Notre Dame coach last more than 3 or 4 years anymore? Do they want to stick around? We are a tough, tough fan base.

Is it ok to ask this here wooly? I think its relevant to the "Rule of 3".

 

[IrishSteelhead]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about this year? What are your expectations of Coach Kelly in hs third year? At what point might you want his head? Will you stick with him through thick and thin or 8-4 etc.? Can a Notre Dame coach last more than 3 or 4 years anymore? Do they want to stick aroud? We are a tough, tough fan base.

Is it ok to ask this here wooly? I think its relevant to the "Rule of 3".

I think it's obvious 13-0 is imminent. Anything less, BK should be fired. How's that for tough?

 

[woolybug25]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about this year? What are your expectations of Coach Kelly in hs third year? At what point might you want his head? Will you stick with him through thick and thin or 8-4 etc.? Can a Notre Dame coach last more than 3 or 4 years anymore? Do they want to stick aroud? We are a tough, tough fan base.

Is it ok to ask this here wooly? I think its relevant to the "Rule of 3".

Indeed, Bob.

If the rule truly exists, then can he really be successful without doing it now? If not, keeping him for two more years is only delaying the inevitable. I used to believe that he should get 5 years, regardless of records. But now, i'm not sure.

If you look at the only coach in college football to break this rule since 2000, what is different about him than all of the other coaches that this rule did apply to? Was the recruiting advantage of Texas (the fact that any blue chip player in Texas goes to UT if offered, regardless of how good the team is) enough for them to overcome a subpar year 3? Or was the 9-3 record and 2nd place finish in the Big12 a predictor of things to come? Does Notre Dame have any of these advantages?

I'm not sure we do. I think that if Kelly went 8-5 again this year, there would be several decommits that we didn't expect in this class. We would also have guys that may have stayed in a good year (CWood, Nix, etc) decide to go to the NFL. We would also probably falter in the '14 class and by year five, our increasing lack of depth would be apparent.

I also don't think a 9-3 season like MBrown's would result in future success for Notre Dame like it did for Texas. We would have to put together a season where it looked like we were very close to a championship. 11-1 with a loss to USC with us both ranked in the top 5.

 

[nd21irish]

If we are going to get superstitious. The last time we won a national title it was during one of the worst droughts this country has seen 1988. From a farmers prospective we are in a worse drought in 2012. Maybe the stars are aligning.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about this year? What are your expectations of Coach Kelly in hs third year? At what point might you want his head? Will you stick with him through thick and thin or 8-4 etc.? Can a Notre Dame coach last more than 3 or 4 years anymore? Do they want to stick around? We are a tough, tough fan base.

Is it ok to ask this here wooly? I think its relevant to the "Rule of 3".

If you completely buy in to the Rule of 3 theory, then anything worse than 10-2 or even 11-1 should lead you to want to see BK fired. If you believe that Y3 success is required in order to have future success and we only tread water this year, why would you want to keep BK around if you were convinced he would never win?

 

[BobD]

If you completely buy in to the Rule of 3 theory, then anything worse than 10-2 or even 11-1 should lead you to want to see BK fired. If you believe that Y3 success is required in order to have future success and we only tread water this year, why would you want to keep BK around if you were convinced he would never win?

I think we've created the Rule of 3.

Year three shows momentum or the lack there of.

 

[IrishLion]

Yeah, I'm with those that think BK sort of "breaks" the Rule of 3. I understand where Wooly comes from with his comparison to Texas, and how after 5 seasons ND would be hurting, but I disagree.

BK is building a foundation that you still will not fully see in this third season. I'm young, so Willingham and Weis were the first two coaches I really got to watch, and they did not build a foundation like BK is. We have seen flashes (the offensive line has been great for the most part, and the defensive line is upgraded already), but we still won't get the full picture, not until the 2013 season when everyone on the field is someone BK recruited specifically for his system.

Obviously there are holes in my argument. It's the third year, and even the guys that BK didn't recruit should be just fine in his system with their experience. A good QB and lack of turnovers could result in a truly special season. And the biggest reason I struggle with my argument is the success that BK had at UC in his third year.

But BK did not face a terribly rough schedule in his 3rd year at UC (12-0), nor was UC a place where he was restocking a thin roster. Mark Dantonio had actually left a great amount of talent on that UC roster before bolting to MSU, allowing BK to show how good he is at developing players.

Ultimately BK will break the Rule of 3 by getting anywhere between 7-9 wins this season, neither making nor breaking his tenure (as the rule of three does), and then showing in year 4 or 5 what it looks like when a coach is actually given more than just 3 seasons to rebuild a program that previously lacked depth in many areas.

 

[jdailey1981]

In BCS football, IMO, you either have to have the silver spoon syndrome, schools you expect to win year in and out, like Alabama, or a strike of luck, like Boise State had.

ND has always had to fight hard to maintain its place in football, and obviously, have not had a silver spoon or strike of luck in the BCS era. As the rule of 3, I believe this to be the make or break year for Kelly, and knowing the heat is on him, I expect to see some different results this year, as he won't tolerate the mistakes of last year.

Even a 9-3 season would be a huge step compared to seasons of the recent past, when ND was the laughing stalk of college football. I can remember hearing people last year calling for Kelly to be fired, and wanting Urban Meyer before he went to OSU.

As far as a record this season, I can't throw out numbers, but I can tell you that the losses to UM, USC and FSU left a bad taste in his mouth, and he will be seeking to show the ND will once again be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I was going to leave this numerology alone, foolishly thinking that it was just going to be some good clean "you-can't-really-be-taking-this-seriously" fun. But then some tone got into this like if Kelly doesn't win the national championship this year he's not the man for the job and never will. Good Lord Almighty!! How our brains overheat!

As stated Mack Brown won his NC in year 10. He's far from alone. Saban at LSU won in year 4. Fulmer at Tennessee won in year 7. Tom Osborne [obviously a real bonehead of a coach] won in year 12. Spurrier won in year 7. Bobby Bowden won in year ---- wait for it ---- !8. Don James won in year 17. McCartney [BAMA] won in year 9. Jimmy Johnson won in year 9. Joe Paterno --- ooops, you guessed it --- year 17. Lavell Edwards won in year 13. Even Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, and Bud Wilkinson won in year 4. Yeh, I've got your Rule of Three for you, right here.

There is no complaining that my examples are somehow largely "old" either, as the alleged rule of three claims to go back to Rockne!!.

Holy Crap! Doubt Kelly if he doesn't win the NC in his third year due to some invented "pattern" based on a few data points? Statisticians are groaning in their graves the world over. Lets fire Schembechler and Beamer too --- they never won it.

 

[Patulski]

One of the reasons Kelly was hired was because of his attention to detail as the coach of other teams. He had detail, the players just didn't execute last year. Think about the pace of the practices and how they are constantly yelling about attention to detail. It's one of the staples of Kelly's coaching philosphy. Also, Lou Holtz's 1987 team was not a team known for their execution. They lost 5 games mainly because of poor execution and a ton of turnovers. They had a QB get hurt and a completely green Tony Rice breaking in. They were not a well executing squad by any means. The games they won, they out-talented their opponents. It was a team that mirrored last years pretty well. I'm not niave on how the '87 team went down. I challenge you to go back and look at the season and tell me i'm wrong on this.

I don't care what Kelly did before he came to ND. I'm going off what he's done here. If he's trying to coach pace, he's doing a lousy job. We constantly had to call timeouts last year, because we couldn't get the plays in on time, burning valuable timeouts. So, not only did we play slow and sloppy, we also were one of the worst teams in ND history regarding turnovers.

Sorry, I'm not going to sugarcoat what I saw last year...

I don't have the statistics from 1987, but there's no way we were 110th in turnovers. In 1987 we may have been sloppy relative to Holtz's standard, I really don't recall, but nowhere near what I saw last year. I wish I could prove it, but I'll have to look for a source. I can't find one on the internet.

And I'm not just talking about turnovers.

Joe Moore's lines were incredibly disciplined. He'd bench players for holding, let alone jumping offsides. We were constantly jumping off sides last year.

Finally, after botching two punt returns against USF, Kelly stopped even trying to execute a punt return. That is inexcusable to me. I have never seen a team literally give up instead of executing any part of the game. As you well know Holtz's teams were one of the best special teams year in and year out. Can you imagine Holtz quitting working on the punt return team after Watters fumbled twice against Michigan? It's unthinkable. As Musberger said at the time, Watters giveth (his huge punt return) and he taketh away. But it was an anomaly when it comers to Holtz. His kick and punt return teams were special.

I really hope Kelly turns it around. He may be learning on the job and he may be making strides even though we did not see it last year. ND is like no other place when it comes to the demands of a Head Coach. Nonetheless, he's not at Cincy anymore. It's time to step up.

 

[jimmymac]

I don't care what Kelly did before he came to ND. I'm going off what he's done here. If he's trying to coach pace, he's doing a lousy job. We constantly had to call timeouts last year, because we couldn't get the plays in on time, burning valuable timeouts. So, not only did we play slow and sloppy, we also were one of the worst teams in ND history regarding turnovers.

Sorry, I'm not going to sugarcoat what I saw last year...

I don't have the statistics from 1987, but there's no way we were 110th in turnovers. In 1987 we may have been sloppy relative to Holtz's standard, I really don't recall, but nowhere near what I saw last year. I wish I could prove it, but I'll have to look for a source. I can't find one on the internet.

And I'm not just talking about turnovers.

Joe Moore's lines were incredibly disciplined. He'd bench players for holding, let alone jumping offsides. We were constantly jumping off sides last year.

Finally, after botching two punt returns against USF, Kelly stopped even trying to execute a punt return. That is inexcusable to me. I have never seen a team literally give up instead of executing any part of the game. As you well know Holtz's teams were one of the best special teams year in and year out. Can you imagine Holtz quitting working on the punt return team after Watters fumbled twice against Michigan? It's unthinkable. As Musberger said at the time, Watters giveth (his huge punt return) and he taketh away. But it was an anomaly when it comers to Holtz. His kick and punt return teams were special.

I really hope Kelly turns it around. He may be learning on the job and he may be making strides even though we did not see it last year. ND is like no other place when it comes to the demands of a Head Coach. Nonetheless, he's not at Cincy anymore. It's time to step up.

We were a fumble return for a touchdown (usf) and terrible defense lapse (Michigan) to winning 10 games. Did it happen? Yes. Is he perfect? No. But he's turned the team in a good direction.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't care what Kelly did before he came to ND. I'm going off what he's done here.

That's fine. Let's look at what he's done since he's been here.

Rushing Offense:
2009- 37th
2010- 35th
2011- 8th

Rushing Defense:
2009- 41st
2010- 13th
2011- 4th

ND hasn't dominated in the trenches like that since Holtz. I'd think an old-school guy like yourself would be able to recognize and appreciate the importance of such things.

Regarding the relevance of our 2012 W/L record to Kelly's long-term prospects for success at ND, I see no reason to believe it's more significant than any other year. The stats above prove that he's laid the foundation for sustained success in the future. We could easily go 8-4 this season and blow up in 2013 and 2014, as those schedules are far more manageable.

 

[chubler]

In my very own uninformed opinion,

I'm young. Ive never seen the glory days. But I am under the impression that it is statistically and anecdotally a fact that the years just before Kelly came in were literally our worst ever.

So maybe Kelley's just starting from a lower baseline?

With that said, I say get rid of Kelly after next year unless he does one of the following:

1. 9+ wins
2. Solid-to-dramatic improvement in turnovers and penalties

Those are reasonable expectations, no?

 

[jimmymac]

In my very own uninformed opinion,

I'm young. Ive never seen the glory days. But I am under the impression that it is statistically and anecdotally a fact that the years just before Kelly came in were literally our worst ever.

So maybe Kelley's just starting from a lower baseline?

With that said, I say get rid of Kelly after next year unless he does one of the following:

1. 9+ wins
2. Solid-to-dramatic improvement in turnovers and penalties

Those are reasonable expectations, no?

No... Have you seen our schedule??

1) Who do you want to replace him? Honestly, the grass is always greener.

2) Have you seen our schedule? 9 wins would be an accomplishment

3) The only way ND can get back IMO is consistency. We need a coach to be here a few year so he can develop his program. It bothers me when ppl say "if this happens hes gone..." No. The only way I see BK not coming back is if we win less than 6 games... and even then I think hell still be here.

 

[woolybug25]

I was going to leave this numerology alone, foolishly thinking that it was just going to be some good clean "you-can't-really-be-taking-this-seriously" fun. But then some tone got into this like if Kelly doesn't win the national championship this year he's not the man for the job and never will. Good Lord Almighty!! How our brains overheat!

As stated Mack Brown won his NC in year 10. He's far from alone. Saban at LSU won in year 4. Fulmer at Tennessee won in year 7. Tom Osborne [obviously a real bonehead of a coach] won in year 12. Spurrier won in year 7. Bobby Bowden won in year ---- wait for it ---- !8. Don James won in year 17. McCartney [BAMA] won in year 9. Jimmy Johnson won in year 9. Joe Paterno --- ooops, you guessed it --- year 17. Lavell Edwards won in year 13. Even Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, and Bud Wilkinson won in year 4. Yeh, I've got your Rule of Three for you, right here.

There is no complaining that my examples are somehow largely "old" either, as the alleged rule of three claims to go back to Rockne!!.

Holy Crap! Doubt Kelly if he doesn't win the NC in his third year due to some invented "pattern" based on a few data points? Statisticians are groaning in their graves the world over. Lets fire Schembechler and Beamer too --- they never won it.

Hi OMM, long time listener... first time devil's advocate.

If you read the original posts, you will see that the rule is pertaining to Notre Dame coaches, not all coaches. It also states that the coaches were HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL, not just winning a championship. Rockne for instance, while going undefeated, didn't win the National Title in his third season.

That being said, I made note of all college coaches since 2000 except MBrown fitting the profile by winning a championship before year three or achieving high success in their third year. So lets look at the coaches you mentioned.... for, you know... fun....

Mac Brown- I'll give you this one, but technically he went 9-3 and finished second in the Big12 in his third year. Furthermore, the only reason he didn't win it, was because Bob Stoops was busy bringing OU out of nowhere for his first National Title in.... you guessed it.... his third season.

Saban - Won it in his second year and was highly successful in his third. Fits the rule.

Fulmer - Phil Fulmer went 11-1 in his third FULL season. He took over and coached as an interim coach in '92, but technically, Fulmer was highly successful in his third year and fits the rule.

Osborne - Tom Osborne's third year found him chasing a National Title only to lose a heartbreaker to Oklahoma in the final game. They still technically won the Big12, but lost their chance in for the title. They later lost their meaningless bowl game one month later. Tom Osborne's third year is strikingly similar to Ara's first year. He fits the rule perfectly.

Spurrier - I guess that I will give you Spurrier, but it is only by a little. He did win the SEC in his third year and finished ranked #10 in the country. We would be ecstatic with that type of finish next year. That being said, it doesn't stack up with the others. So I will reluctantly put him in with Mack Brown. Oh.... by the way. In 1992 (Spurrier's 3rd year) the team that did win it was Bama..... In Gene Stallings third season as head coach.

Bowden - While going 8-3 during this season, they had a very good year. I'll give you this one too though. Since John Robinson at our beloved USC won the title in... once again.... his third season.

James - His third year UW team went 10-2 after years of terrible teams. They won the Pac12 and beat #5 USC. This was a huge year for UW and definetely fits the mold of "highly successful".

McCartney - You wrote [BAMA] next to him and I don't know of any Bama coach by that name. Am I missing something on this one?

Johnson - Jimmy went 11-1 and finished 2nd in the polls. I would definetely say that was a highly successful third season.

Paterno - Ol' Joe went 11-0 in a season just like Rockne's third year. While he didn't win the title, there wasn't anything else his team could do. They won every. single. game.

Ok... i'm tired of researching so, I will leave it at that. If someone else wanted to pick up the rest, go ahead. So while the "Rule of 3" was once again only pertaining to Notre Dame, it has a very high probability across the board. According to even the supposed outliers that you listed (again, sorry for not doing all of them, it took me an hour to look up the ones I did), they all were close to fitting the rule and ALL of them that didn't win the title, had a third year coache win a title in their third year instead.

While it's not 100% across football history, like it is at Notre Dame. It is probably north of 80% and I wouldn't be shocked if it applies to close to 90% of coaches.

I surprised myself even with that...

 

[woolybug25]

No... Have you seen our schedule??
1) Who do you want to replace him? Honestly, the grass is always greener.

2) Have you seen our schedule? 9 wins would be an accomplishment

3) The only way ND can get back IMO is consistency. We need a coach to be here a few year so he can develop his program. It bothers me when ppl say "if this happens hes gone..." No. The only way I see BK not coming back is if we win less than 6 games... and even then I think hell still be here.

D@mn it, Jimmy. I don't want to see "but... but... look at our schedule" again in this thread. It's a clear sign that you didn't read the original post and that you on a completely different page than the rest of the discussion.

Read the original post or argue the schedule in the "expectations" thread. This thread is about the Rule of 3 and our opinion of it.

 

[jimmymac]

D@mn it, Jimmy. I don't want to see "but... but... look at our schedule" again in this thread. It's a clear sign that you didn't read the original post and that you on a completely different page than the rest of the discussion.

Read the original post or argue the schedule in the "expectations" thread. This thread is about the Rule of 3 and our opinion of it.

Fair enough. I didn't read the whole thread. I was simply responding the most recent post. My apologies if it didn't apply to this thread.

 

[woolybug25]

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU HAVE READ THE FIRST POST

I added this message to the original post as well. I'm not trying to be a d!ck on this one, but if someone pops into the conversation without understanding the actual topic of the Rule of 3, then they assume that we are talking about our expectations for the season. There is an entirely different thread for that and comments regarding expectations instead of their thoughts on the theory, completely changes the topic.

Thanks for the cooperation, fellas.





@Jimmy - No worries, homie. I should have made it more clear from the get-go. You're still aces in my book.

 

[Irishbounty28]

I believe Les Miles won a National Title in year 3. Not sure if it was mentioned before, and thought I would throw it in here.

I understand the info you put out in the first post Wooly, and thought it was pretty interesting information. Year 3 seems to be the defining year for many coaches throughout the college football landscape.

 

[BobD]