'14 NJ CB Jabrill Peppers (Michigan Verbal)

[EddytoNow]

I think Michigan fans grossly overstate Michigan's important when it comes to ND. USC is the clear cut #1 rival, Michigan is in an amorphous blob with about 4-5 other schools for the #2 spot...

Notre Dame vs. Navy has historical significance dating back to World War II and the mutual respect shared by the two programs. And as others have said, both Purdue and Michigan State have played Notre Dame more frequently than Michigan. If we are talking continuing a tradition, it makes sense to play both Purdue and Michgan State before adding Michigan.

It is fruitless to base your future schedule on the present strength of an opponent anyway. By the time the games are actually played, no one can predict the relative strength of any football program. Stanford was supposed to be a cupcake game on the ND schedule, but it has been one of our hardest fought games in recent history. Since ND and Stanford share a focus on education and high admission standards as well as a quality football program, it seems logical to continue this series.

Notre Dame is a national university, not a regional institution like Michigan. We like to play in all areas of the country, even sacrificing a home game to play in Ireland, Texas, New York or elsewhere. Playing nationally enables us to recruit nationally, and that is the crux of Hoke's dilemma.

East Coast/Southeast - 5 ACC Games and Navy = 6 games
West Coast - Stanford and USC = 2 games
Midwest - Michigan State and Purdue = 2 games
Southwest/Rocky Mountain Area - Opportunity to play Oklahoma, Texas, ASU, BYU = 2 games that are open to play different opponents rather than keep playing the same teams year after year.

Where does Michigan fit? If schools should drop opponents who are no threat to beat them, then Ohio State should have dropped Michigan from its schedule during the Tressel years and Michigan should have dropped Ohio State during the Cooper years.

Hoke has shown his inexperience in speaking before the public. He has been a head coach for how many years? He has had two very good seasons (one at Ball State, one at Michigan) and a bunch of average seasons. In a comparison of his record with that of Bob Davie and Ty Willingham, he is comparable to Bob Davie and a little better than Ty Willingham, both of whom were fired by ND. Hoke has a lot more to prove before he has credibility as a top-notch coach.

Hoke = Won 66 Lost 57
Willingham = Won 76 Lost 88 Tied 1
Davie = Won 39 Lost 34

 

[IrishLax]

I wanna agree with you, but I just can't. Who would the other 3-4 schools be IYO? I'm thinking scUM is clear #2, but that it could fade over the next few years once we stop playing them on the reg.

1. Navy. There isn't a "hate" factor on our end because they're rarely a threat to beat us... but almost everyone would say that historically and for tradition's sake they are far more important to keep on the schedule than Michigan.

2. MSU. There are many people I've seen make a compelling case for MSU being more of a rival and more important to keep than Michigan.

3. Purdue. I've met a lot of Indiana fans who would put Purdue over Michigan on the scale of importance.

4+. I've seen people make cases for Boston College and Stanford being more important rivals than Michigan. And as much as I want to argue against that... here's something interesting to think about.

Notre Dame plays for SIX rivalry trophies. Six. Not a single one of the them is with Michigan. Navy, Purdue, Stanford, MSU, BC, and USC. What does that say about the historical importance of the rivalry?

Yes, the ND-Michigan game is undoubtedly a big game every year. Lots of talent, lots of fans, lots of TV ratings. There is no debating that at all. But it's quite debatable that they're our #2 rival. And more than that, it's quite debatable that we should consider dropping Purdue/MSU over Michigan in the first place when we have much more history with those schools.

 

[magogian]

Thought experiment. If ND and OSU don't play Michigan, does anyone outside the state of Michigan give a crap about UM?

Nope.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Was that needed? This is why you had so many red dots under your name up until recently.

The guy had a take, just debate it if you don't agree, like many others did. No need to be a douche about it.

Agreed!

Thought experiment. If ND and OSU don't play Michigan, does anyone outside the state of Michigan give a crap about UM?

Nope.

Pretty interesting. But in my attempt a bunch of second tier PAC12 and SEC teams did, because they needed someone to knock the helmets offa! LOL!

 

[ThePiombino]

1. Navy. There isn't a "hate" factor on our end because they're rarely a threat to beat us... but almost everyone would say that historically and for tradition's sake they are far more important to keep on the schedule than Michigan.

2. MSU. There are many people I've seen make a compelling case for MSU being more of a rival and more important to keep than Michigan.

3. Purdue. I've met a lot of Indiana fans who would put Purdue over Michigan on the scale of importance.

4+. I've seen people make cases for Boston College and Stanford being more important rivals than Michigan. And as much as I want to argue against that... here's something interesting to think about.

Notre Dame plays for SIX rivalry trophies. Six. Not a single one of the them is with Michigan. Navy, Purdue, Stanford, MSU, BC, and USC. What does that say about the historical importance of the rivalry?

Yes, the ND-Michigan game is undoubtedly a big game every year. Lots of talent, lots of fans, lots of TV ratings. There is no debating that at all. But it's quite debatable that they're our #2 rival. And more than that, it's quite debatable that we should consider dropping Purdue/MSU over Michigan in the first place when we have much more history with those schools.

I can see Navy and Stanford. Can't convince me MSU or Purdue is a bigger rivalry game - but maybe that's just me. That said, you make valid points otherwsie.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I can see Navy and Stanford. Can't convince me MSU or Purdue is a bigger rivalry game - but maybe that's just me. That said, you make valid points otherwsie.

MSU was an ag school and a lot of resourses from ND and others went in to developing them in to a state University. Michigan fought it tooth and nail. Then when they wanted to develop a first rate athletic program, Michigan tried to block them from the Big 10, just like Michigan tried to block ND. Notre Dame scheduled them to give them games, and credibility, and the blockade was broken. This is one case where I can definitely say FUK MICHIGAN! Or as WHISKEY taught me MEA[T]CHI-gan! I always wondered why guys typed that!!

I believe Purdue and ND have a pre-Big 10 rivalry, if you can believe that!

 

[peoriairish]

I can see Navy and Stanford. Can't convince me MSU or Purdue is a bigger rivalry game - but maybe that's just me. That said, you make valid points otherwsie.

That's cause you live in Jersey. It's maybe 1.5 hours from SB to Purdue. That in of itself merits a high rivalry.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

And back to Peppers, and the lack of recruiting connection with the Irish, two words; Max Redfield

 

[md_bennett]

I can see Navy and Stanford. Can't convince me MSU or Purdue is a bigger rivalry game - but maybe that's just me. That said, you make valid points otherwsie.

I can only partly disagree because I have grown up with Michigan hate in my bones. I think part of that is built off of the rivalry for most wins, best fight song, longevity of the program, etc. And while the actual game is almost always fantastic to watch, I cannot say that there is any actual RIVALRY other than wanting to be the best in the Midwest. This pains me to say but the ones we kept will help us year in and year out in recruiting. And if Hoke continues to put together great classes it might just be that we still face them yearly.........in the final four. For that reason alone I am good with this decision.

 

[Cackalacky]

This is some 11W-sounding stuff right here.

LOLOLOLOLOLO!

 

[Cackalacky]

I do not understand the butthurt about not getting a Don Bosco Prep kid. When I hear Don Bosco, I do not think ND.

My personal life experiences make me conflicted about the UM game. Other than the U$C (because I loathe them) and Pitt (because for the life of me I cant figure out why they play us so well every year) games, there is no other game that I get more psyched up and utterly drunk for. I will miss this game because I hate them more than I do U$C.

I could not care less about Purdue.

I love the MSU and Stanford games. Recently they have been some great slugfests (just good football)

As far as everyone else...., we are going to be playing multiple games in the three hotbed areas of recruiting every year (Texas, California, and the south). I don't care who we play after that. The move to the ACC was super smart. The B1G ( I still don't know what this is or what to call them) has no identity and no relevance outside of the great lakes.

Anyway. Good luck to Peppers at UM. I am sure we will get the guys we want.

I think I am back up to speed with the thread now.

 

[Ironman8]

He left Don Bosco a couple years ago.

 

[pumpdog20]

1. Navy. There isn't a "hate" factor on our end because they're rarely a threat to beat us... but almost everyone would say that historically and for tradition's sake they are far more important to keep on the schedule than Michigan.

2. MSU. There are many people I've seen make a compelling case for MSU being more of a rival and more important to keep than Michigan.

3. Purdue. I've met a lot of Indiana fans who would put Purdue over Michigan on the scale of importance.

4+. I've seen people make cases for Boston College and Stanford being more important rivals than Michigan. And as much as I want to argue against that... here's something interesting to think about.

Notre Dame plays for SIX rivalry trophies. Six. Not a single one of the them is with Michigan. Navy, Purdue, Stanford, MSU, BC, and USC. What does that say about the historical importance of the rivalry?

Yes, the ND-Michigan game is undoubtedly a big game every year. Lots of talent, lots of fans, lots of TV ratings. There is no debating that at all. But it's quite debatable that they're our #2 rival. And more than that, it's quite debatable that we should consider dropping Purdue/MSU over Michigan in the first place when we have much more history with those schools.

The secondary market prices for any Michigan game is a good indication that people value that game (and the rivalry) more highly than the teams above. To me there was only one game I wanted to see in person, and it was the Michigan/ND game. Sure, USC is our biggest rival, but other than them, there's no one else I'd rather keep on the schedule.

 

[OCIrish]

Well my thought process was that Michigan is much more hated by the ND fanbase than Stanford. Am I correct in making that assumption? I'd say many ND fans hate Michigan almost as much as they do USC. Some probably even hate Michigan more than they hate USC.

I do hate Michigan more than Southern Cal.....but I genuinely hate them all on game day, and yes, that goes for the Naval Academy as well.......

 

[IrishLax]

The secondary market prices for any Michigan game is a good indication that people value that game (and the rivalry) more highly than the teams above. To me there was only one game I wanted to see in person, and it was the Michigan/ND game. Sure, USC is our biggest rival, but other than them, there's no one else I'd rather keep on the schedule.

You're kinda making the point. It's a big game. And you (being from Chicago or somewhere generally near Michigan?) value it a lot.

But the game against Oklahoma had a crazy secondary market. So did the games against Ohio State and Nebraska years ago. That doesn't make them rivalries in and of its own right, it makes them games people want to watch.

At the end of the day, it's really hard to make the case for Michigan being our clear cut #2. For some people they're #1, for some people they're much lower. It's quite subjective. And that's what makes them very expendable. If we want a big game, we can go schedule Texas or whoever else we want and it's the same effect as Michigan with much more recruiting upside.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1. Navy. There isn't a "hate" factor on our end because they're rarely a threat to beat us... but almost everyone would say that historically and for tradition's sake they are far more important to keep on the schedule than Michigan.

2. MSU. There are many people I've seen make a compelling case for MSU being more of a rival and more important to keep than Michigan.

3. Purdue. I've met a lot of Indiana fans who would put Purdue over Michigan on the scale of importance.

4+. I've seen people make cases for Boston College and Stanford being more important rivals than Michigan. And as much as I want to argue against that... here's something interesting to think about.

Notre Dame plays for SIX rivalry trophies. Six. Not a single one of the them is with Michigan. Navy, Purdue, Stanford, MSU, BC, and USC. What does that say about the historical importance of the rivalry?

Yes, the ND-Michigan game is undoubtedly a big game every year. Lots of talent, lots of fans, lots of TV ratings. There is no debating that at all. But it's quite debatable that they're our #2 rival. And more than that, it's quite debatable that we should consider dropping Purdue/MSU over Michigan in the first place when we have much more history with those schools.

I'm sure it's debatable, but at the end of the day I don't see how you could pick any other team as Notre Dame's second most-hated rival. It has just got to be Michigan.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm sure it's debatable, but at the end of the day I don't see how you could pick any other team as Notre Dame's second most-hated rival. It has just got to be Michigan.

For "hate", sure... for importance? Very, very debatable.

 

[IrishLax]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pxG0MgLsh4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Who's missing?

 

[koonja]

IDK how you measure 'importance' in a rivalry. Rivalries that both fan bases are into and has recruiting ramifications are how I'd quantify 'important'.

In reality, we will be just fine because almost all of our games are big games and are already on national TV.

I hate Michigan, so I guess I'd call it important.

 

[IrishLax]

IDK how you measure 'importance' in a rivalry. Rivalries that both fan bases are into and has recruiting ramifications are how I'd quantify 'important'.

In reality, we will be just fine because almost all of our games are big games and are already on national TV.

I hate Michigan, so I guess I'd call it important.

1. Length.
2. History.
3. Uniqueness.
4. Competitiveness.
5. Fan investment.

That's how I'd "rank" rivalries... it's hard for ND, because unlike most schools that have 1 or 2 rivals... almost every team we play regularly considers us a chief rival of some sort. For most teams there is no "ranking of importance" required.

 

[koonja]

1. Length.
2. History.
3. Uniqueness.4. Competitiveness.
5. Fan investment.

That's how I'd "rank" rivalries... it's hard for ND, because unlike most schools that have 1 or 2 rivals... almost every team we play regularly considers us a chief rival of some sort. For most teams there is no "ranking of importance" required.

Honestly, unless you're a traditionalist (which doesn't matter to most recruits or current fans), I don't think those first 3 really matter. If we play Purdue for 100 more years, no one is really going to care. Every year we play Michigan, everyone cares.

I agree 4 and 5 do matter.

 

[greyhammer90]

Honestly, unless you're a traditionalist (which doesn't matter to most recruits or current fans), I don't think those first 3 really matter. If we play Purdue for 100 more years, no one is really going to care. Every year we play Michigan, everyone cares.

I agree 4 and 5 do matter.

Well they have to matter somewhat. Otherwise what the hell are we doing here? I mean if history and tradition were non-factors to the average fan, then a top 25 battle between Rutgers and Baylor would mean more than an unranked game between UM and ND.

Length of time playing, history, and tradition matter a ton. It's why rivalries are rivalries.

 

[koonja]

Well they have to matter somewhat. Otherwise what the hell are we doing here? I mean if history and tradition were non-factors to the average fan, then a top 25 battle between Rutgers and Baylor would mean more than an unranked game between UM and ND.

Length of time playing, history, and tradition matter a ton. It's why rivalries are rivalries.

You could replace Purdue who we've played since the dinosaur era with Clemson and instantly Clemson is a bigger game with more hype, more interest, generating more revenue and way more important for recruiting. Everyone would forget about Purdue instantly. Playing someone 50 years ago doesn't really matter (my opinion). Current relevance is what matters.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You could replace Purdue who we've played since the dinosaur era with Clemson and instantly Clemson is a bigger game with more hype, more interest, generating more revenue and way more important for recruiting. Everyone would forget about Purdue instantly. Playing someone 50 years ago doesn't really matter (my opinion). Current relevance is what matters.

You could have done the same thing with Auburn 3 years ago. Today? Not so much. So dropping our history with Purdue for some team that's currently hot could easily backfire down the road.

Tradition takes time to build, and it adds relevance to a game regardless of each team's ups and downs. Navy v. Army is always a big game, and it's not because those are talented and elite football teams.

 

[greyhammer90]

You could replace Purdue who we've played since the dinosaur era with Clemson and instantly Clemson is a bigger game with more hype, more interest, generating more revenue and way more important for recruiting. Everyone would forget about Purdue instantly. Playing someone 50 years ago doesn't really matter (my opinion). Current relevance is what matters.

2 reasons why that hypo wouldn't be a good move.

1) What you are suggesting is taking the best game possible for us all the time and essentially playing bully. That works for awhile but it would doom the program in the long run. Swarbrick is doing a great job because he's flexing our muscle when it is really important, but understands that CFB is a small world made of "haves and have-nots" that is ostensibly getting smaller by the decade. Alienating your fanbase and pissing off other members of this small community is not good business for ND's brand. Besides, Clemson will only be good for so long, and if we chase off every friend we have for the shiny new teams ND will end up being in a much weaker position than it would have been.

It reminds me of one of my favorite Don Draper quotes: "Advertising is a very small world and when you ...(act like a jerk)... you make it even smaller. Keep it up, and even if you do get my job, you'll never run this place. You'll die in that corner office, a mid-level executive with a little bit of hair who women go home with out of pity. Want to know why? Cause no one will like you."

Notre Dame is never going to be weak in the CFB world, but we would be unwise to think we can do whatever we want with no future repercussions. We'll always have the corner office, but if we play it smart we could eventually run the place.

2) You know what else helps build the fanbase, recruiting, and momentum for your program? Being undefeated through September. Purdue helps that cause, playing 2 or 3 top 25 teams doesn't.

 

[ThePiombino]

That's cause you live in Jersey. It's maybe 1.5 hours from SB to Purdue. That in of itself merits a high rivalry.

I hear ya, but I don't believe proximity makes for enough of a reason here. I mean, let's be honest- this series is pretty one-sided so I wouldn't call it a rivalry in the traditional sense. Longevity is accounted for, but that's about it. There's hardly any back and forth which, IMO, accounts for the majority of a true rivalry.

 

[stlnd01]

2 reasons why that hypo wouldn't be a good move.

1) What you are suggesting is taking the best game possible for us all the time and essentially playing bully. That works for awhile but it would doom the program in the long run. Swarbrick is doing a great job because he's flexing our muscle when it is really important, but understands that CFB is a small world made of "haves and have-nots" that is ostensibly getting smaller by the decade. Alienating your fanbase and pissing off other members of this small community is not good business for ND's brand. Besides, Clemson will only be good for so long, and if we chase off every friend we have for the shiny new teams ND will end up being in a much weaker position than it would have been.

2) You know what else helps build the fanbase, recruiting, and momentum for your program? Being undefeated through September. Purdue helps that cause, playing 2 or 3 top 25 teams doesn't.

We shouldn't dump Purdue. But they're not as big a rival as Michigan. Not even close.
It's too bad we're dropping Michigan, but we can't have a BIG GAME every week. We'd burn out. So Purdue works.

 

[STLDomer]

Crystal Ball is now 95% Michigan, 5% Rutgers

Gerry Hamilton changed his prediction to Rutgers

 

[IrishLax]

Crystal Ball is now 95% Michigan, 5% Rutgers

Gerry Hamilton changed his prediction to Rutgers

?

 

[GBdomer]

Drake Harris and Speight aren't driving to jersey shore for nothing. Hamilton just wants to be different in case of a miracle.