ND Oversold on Kelly?

[ACamp1900]

We out recruit Stanford yearly so it is a fair comparison.

By alot.

 

[IrishFan4L]

Think more, post less.

ASU, MSU, and OU are all currently ranked. Likely ASU, MSU, and Stanford are all almost guaranteed to be ranked at the end of the year... it is more likely that ASU, MSU, Stanford, and two of USC/Oklahoma/BYU/Michigan finish the year in the top 25 than it is that somehow every team we've played basically folds down the stretch and there are only two ranked teams on our schedule.

Second, MSU is a top 15 1-loss team right now. Their only loss is to ND. But they would win by 5+ TDs? Yeah, that makes sense.

Just cut it with the hyperbole. It's annoying and stupid. No, Notre Dame is not "good" but the stuff you are espousing is completely ludicrous on every level.

1. You hope USC,Michigan, BYU & oklahoma in the top 25 if you have watched any of them you would no there not good.

2nd MSU is benefitting from playing **** teams soon as they play 1 team that's not complete & utter garbage they will lose. Fortunately for them Ohio State is the only respectable team in there conference & they probably don't belong in the top 10. Pretty sure you could come up with 10 other schools to beat OSU.

 

[irishog77]

1. You hope USC,Michigan, BYU & oklahoma in the top 25 if you have watched any of them you would no there not good.

2nd MSU is benefitting from playing **** teams soon as they play 1 team that's not complete & utter garbage they will lose. Fortunately for them Ohio State is the only respectable team in there conference & they probably don't belong in the top 10. Pretty sure you could come up with 10 other schools to beat OSU.

Not that your point is totally without merit, but you'll win over more people when they don't have to decipher your post.

Grammar can be your friend.

 

[kmoose]

1. You hope USC,Michigan, BYU & oklahoma in the top 25 if you have watched any of them you would no there not good.

2nd MSU is benefitting from playing **** teams soon as they play 1 team that's not complete & utter garbage they will lose. Fortunately for them Ohio State is the only respectable team in there conference & they probably don't belong in the top 10. Pretty sure you could come up with 10 other schools to beat OSU.

Lots of hyperbole and very little understanding of they're, their, and there.

Maybe you could come back when you have something of substance to offer?

 

[IrishFan4L]

Lots of hyperbole and very little understanding of they're, their, and there.

Maybe you could come back when you have something of substance to offer?

Sorry about the grammar but what not try & make a point rather then talk trash to whoever dont agree with you?

 

[IrishLax]

1. You hope USC,Michigan, BYU & oklahoma in the top 25 if you have watched any of them you would no there not good.

2nd MSU is benefitting from playing **** teams soon as they play 1 team that's not complete & utter garbage they will lose. Fortunately for them Ohio State is the only respectable team in there conference & they probably don't belong in the top 10. Pretty sure you could come up with 10 other schools to beat OSU.

Sorry, but Pittsburgh still has me grumpy, so I have very little tolerance for trollish behavior or stupid hyperbole.

1. You said only two teams we play this season will finish in the top 25. I'm pointing out that there are 4 teams on our schedule currently ranked in the top 25, and if any were to drop out (Oklahoma) it is very likely that others (USC, BYU, and in a stretch Michigan) in the receiving votes category would take their place. Ergo, your conjecture that "only two teams will be ranked" is incredibly improbable and downright foolish, whereas my statement of 3-5 teams likely being ranked is a well-reasoned supposition.

2. Basically, you made a statement, I pointed why it was wrong, and your response is "well that team sucks." So, in short, you're agreeing with me that ND wouldn't get blown out by 5+ TDs by every team in the top 10 and maybe top 15. Thank you for realizing how idiotic your statement was.

 

[kmoose]

Sorry about the grammar but what not try & make a point rather then talk trash to whoever dont agree with you?

Ok......... allow me to make the point that your post was almost completely hyperbole. No one claimed that USC, Michigan, BYU, and Oklahoma would all be ranked at the end of the year. The contention was made that it was more likely that 2 of those teams would finish ranked, along with the teams that seem a lock to be ranked at that time, than it is that the season would finish with only 2 teams on our schedule being ranked.

Why don't you try to stick to the argument being made, instead of showing your ignorance?

 

[IrishFan4L]

Ok......... allow me to make the point that your post was almost completely hyperbole. No one claimed that USC, Michigan, BYU, and Oklahoma would all be ranked at the end of the year. The contention was made that it was more likely that 2 of those teams would finish ranked, along with the teams that seem a lock to be ranked at that time, than it is that the season would finish with only 2 teams on our schedule being ranked.

Why don't you try to stick to the argument being made, instead of showing your ignorance?

My point was simply that only 2 of those teams would be ranked and the way it stands right now the only teams that are ranked that we've played are ASU, MSU,OU,Stanford. ASU still has UCLA which could knock them out of the Top 25. MSU still has Nebraska & Northwestern which they should win both of those games but stranger things have happened. Oklahoma still has K-State & Oklahoma St. left to play & could see them losing both games, past history says no way but OU isn't the OU they usually are. USC is not ranked and currently 7-3 & still have to play Stanford & Colorado. I think it's pretty likely that they will lose to Stanford & beat Colorado putting them @ 8-5 so it's possible depending on a bowl win or loss of being ranked but not likely. BYU is on the bubble id like to think we would win that game & if we do they won't be ranked but if we do there is that possibility.
With that being said I think you could see how there could only be 2 ranked opponents when it's all over. Not a guarantee but defiantly can see it falling that way.

 

[kmoose]

My point was simply that only 2 of those teams would be ranked and the way it stands right now the only teams that are ranked that we've played are ASU, MSU,OU,Stanford. ASU still has UCLA which could knock them out of the Top 25. MSU still has Nebraska & Northwestern which they should win both of those games but stranger things have happened. Oklahoma still has K-State & Oklahoma St. left to play & could see them losing both games, past history says no way but OU isn't the OU they usually are. USC is not ranked and currently 7-3 & still have to play Stanford & Colorado. I think it's pretty likely that they will lose to Stanford & beat Colorado putting them @ 8-5 so it's possible depending on a bowl win or loss of being ranked but not likely. BYU is on the bubble id like to think we would win that game & if we do they won't be ranked but if we do there is that possibility.
With that being said I think you could see how there could only be 2 ranked opponents when it's all over. Not a guarantee but defiantly can see it falling that way.

You see? NOW you are making a cogent argument, instead of dealing in pure hyperbole. Your scenario is certainly possible, but I think it is likely that we will have more than two opponents ranked, come the end of the season.

 

[Grahambo]

Sorry, but Pittsburgh still has me grumpy, so I have very little tolerance for trollish behavior or stupid hyperbole.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1. You hope USC,Michigan, BYU & oklahoma in the top 25 if you have watched any of them you would no there not good.

Ugh.

Southern Cal, BYU, and Oklahoma are pretty damn solid teams. Good is subjective; it could be top 10, it could be top 30. I think those teams are tough outs for teams though. Good coaches, good talent, and generally decent execution.

They certainly aren't bad teams.

 

[CarrollVermin]

Ugh.

Southern Cal, BYU, and Oklahoma are pretty damn solid teams. Good is subjective; it could be top 10, it could be top 30. I think those teams are tough outs for teams though. Good coaches, good talent, and generally decent execution.

They certainly aren't bad teams.

I doubt that Michigan is a Top 25 team at the end of the season. They are a road DOG this weekend at Northwestern, who has not won a game since September. Southern Cal has depth issues and had they had some of their offensive weapons, that game could have been different. Of course, had we had Rees, that game could have been different as well.

I don't buy OU. The two losses they have were drubbings, one to a team that got blown out by BYU and Ole Miss, and the other to Baylor. I don't know what to do about Baylor yet...are they the Oregon of the Big 12...time will tell.

BYU is solid, it will take our best defensive effort to beat them, especially given our inability to stop the run and deal with running QB.

To that end, we are a few plays away from beating OU, and had we had a few extra game films for UM, we could have won that as well. The bottom line is that we did not. In my opinion, that goes back to planning, scheme, and preparation, which goes back to coaching. Those are issues that should not be present in Year Four.

As for Pitt, for Kelly to say we failed to "execute"...well I just don't know what to make of that. Especially given his "let me get my guys in here" speech from a few years ago. These are largely his guys, and we are regressing in November.

 

[Buster Bluth]

had we had a few extra game films for UM, we could have won that as well. The bottom line is that we did not.

Agreed, and I think Notre Dame does the rest of the country a favor by playing a front-loaded schedule every year.

In my opinion, that goes back to planning, scheme, and preparation, which goes back to coaching. Those are issues that should not be present in Year Four.

Not sure how you're arriving to that conclusion outside of arbitrary requirements you are creating.

As for Pitt, for Kelly to say we failed to "execute"...well I just don't know what to make of that. Especially given his "let me get my guys in here" speech from a few years ago. These are largely his guys, and we are regressing in November.

How could it be anything other than players not executing? Consistency separates good teams from bad teams, good players from bad players, etc etc.... not so much the athleticism level. The offensive blunders lost the game, nothing else. Can other aspects be improved...yeah of course but they weren't the primary causes for the loss.

Besides, did you have expectations for Notre Dame to never have an off game in November? Brian Kelly's November record is nothing short of elite, and I get the sense that this is about a step shy of insinuating that this is "on" Brian Kelly or something like he failed us. He's gone 4-0, 3-1, 4-0, and now 1-1 in November. I'll take those records 100/100 years.

 

[CarrollVermin]

Agreed, and I think Notre Dame does the rest of the country a favor by playing a front-loaded schedule every year.



Not sure how you're arriving to that conclusion outside of arbitrary requirements you are creating.



How could it be anything other than players not executing? Consistency separates good teams from bad teams, good players from bad players, etc etc.... not so much the athleticism level. The offensive blunders lost the game, nothing else. Can other aspects be improve...yeah of course but they weren't the primary causes for the loss.

Besides, did you have expectations for Notre Dame to never have an off game in November? Brian Kelly's November record is nothing short of elite, and I get the sense that this is about a step shy of insinuating that this is "on" Brian Kelly or something like he failed us. He's gone 4-0, 3-1, 4-0, and now 1-1 in November. I'll take those records 100/100 years.

I guess the expectation is that at this point in the building you should have that consistency in execution and performance. We should be able to agree on that.

I would take that as well, but you also have to consider the level of competition that we play as a result of the front-loaded schedule. I get that winning is difficult, and especially after the toll that the season takes on a program, but it can be helped along by an easier schedule (I personally would like to see some of those games dispersed through the season and not all at the end). I did not expect, and you may agree, that a team that he has built would fail to execute with the level of consistency, after you have had an opportunity to recruit "your guys", have implemented your philosophy, and have established standards of performance.

 

[woolybug25]

Carroll… you seem like a dude that refuses to allow a situation to go without blame. Any reasoning, rationale or opinions that are voiced simply go unheard to you. Sounds like you have put that onus on BK, and that's fine.

But why do you continue to ask for everyone's opinions on why we are having the season we are, if you have already made up your mind?

 

[CarrollVermin]

Carroll… you seem like a dude that refuses to allow a situation to go without blame. Any reasoning, rationale or opinions that are voiced simply go unheard to you. Sounds like you have put that onus on BK, and that's fine.

But why do you continue to ask for everyone's opinions on why we are having the season we are, if you have already made up your mind?

By trade I guess that I am a high accountability guy. My work involves metrics and quantitative analysis of events to draw conclusions, the examinations of process to find efficiency ratios, and the integration of learning to help move an organization forward. So I guess that my brain never really shuts that part down.

The opinions are great on here...trust me, this has been a great dialogue and I have enjoyed it. I am not a Kelly hater, and have great expectations for him as he moves forward. He has an abundance of resources, and hopefully he can capitalize on those moving forward. But, I do have reservations about recruiting and attrition. I am not blind, we have a slew of injuries, are down to our #3 QB (could argue #4 if Malik was not a red-shirt), and the schedule did not present any favors to Kelly. However, I want to gauge/understand if those are a string of bad luck or a symptom of a larger underlying problem.

When I mentioned expectations and being "oversold" it had to do with the type of program I expected him to build. I did not foresee this sort of attrition, inconsistency in performance, and questionable coaching decisions. Winning is hard...I don't care if you win by 1 or 50 so style isn't important. But I do want to see consistency in how we prepare, perform, and approach the game. I think that is what has lacked for me this year. Those were things that I did not expect from Kelly. I can handle losing, especially when you have quality opponents across the field; however, I do take exception for the inconsistency in how the program has performed (on and off the field). I hope this makes sense.

In all of this, I don't think that there is another person (outside of Shaw) that could do what Kelly has done here (legally). But, now it is time to see the consistency in that performance, regardless of opponent. That was a trademark of most of the Holtz years, and hopefully a brand of football that we return to soon.

 

[koonja]

If you average our last 4 recruiting classes out, we finish with an average of the 17th best class. Based on that, I'd say we're barely under performing.

To me it's pretty simple. We need to recruit better if we ever want to win a championship. Stars usually matter whether we want to admit it or not , and it's hard to be the best when you're playing with the ~ 17th most talented team.


My other problem is the coaches are either A) slow to trust younger, more talented players, or B) they make it way too difficult to learn the plays/adjustments.

We pick on Bama, Auburn, SEC, for letting stupid kids in. Well why are their kids so ready to handle to playbook at a young age? I've heard a ton of 'experience' excuses on here.

Do we really think Folston couldn't have helped us beat Michigan? Should Redfield or Hardy have been starting against Pitt? You guys know my answer, and I know a lot of you disagree, but that's how I feel.

Make the game simple and let the best players play.

 

[IrishLax]

If you average our last 4 recruiting classes out, we finish with an average of the 17th best class. Based on that, I'd say we're barely under performing.

To me it's pretty simple. We need to recruit better if we ever want to win a championship. Stars usually matter whether we want to admit it or not , and it's hard to be the best when you're playing with the ~ 17th most talented team.

And always under the scholarship cap. And suffer injuries to 20+ players during the year. It's just a recipe for losses.

 

[ACamp1900]

If you average our last 4 recruiting classes out, we finish with an average of the 17th best class. Based on that, I'd say we're barely under performing.

To me it's pretty simple. We need to recruit better if we ever want to win a championship. Stars usually matter whether we want to admit it or not , and it's hard to be the best when you're playing with the ~ 17th most talented team.


My other problem is the coaches are either A) slow to trust younger, more talented players, or B) they make it way too difficult to learn the plays/adjustments.

We pick on Bama, Auburn, SEC, for letting stupid kids in. Well why are their kids so ready to handle to playbook at a young age? I've heard a ton of 'experience' excuses on here.

Do we really think Folston couldn't have helped us beat Michigan? Should Redfield or Hardy have been starting against Pitt? You guys know my answer, and I know a lot of you disagree, but that's how I feel. Make the game simple and let the best players play.

ND' AVERAGE class compared to the rest of the country over the past four years is 17... are you sure about that?? I would have assumed it was higher.

 

[IrishLion]

If you average our last 4 recruiting classes out, we finish with an average of the 17th best class. Based on that, I'd say we're barely under performing.

To me it's pretty simple. We need to recruit better if we ever want to win a championship. Stars usually matter whether we want to admit it or not , and it's hard to be the best when you're playing with the ~ 17th most talented team.

I'd like to know how other teams consistently around the top 5 compare... I know where Bama would be, but what about tOSU, Oregon, Stanford, and others?

EDIT: I looked at the final standings, and Oregon/Stanford were the clear mainstays around the top 5 for the past four seasons now.

 

[koonja]

ND' AVERAGE class compared to the rest of the country over the past four years is 17... are you sure about that?? I would have assumed it was higher.

I used 247 from between 2010-2013 and it came out to 16.7. IDK what it would be with other services, I didn't check.

 

[koonja]

I'd like to know how other teams consistently around the top 5 compare... I know where Bama would be, but what about tOSU, Oregon, Stanford, and others?

EDIT: I looked at the final standings, and Oregon/Stanford were the clear mainstays around the top 5 for the past four seasons now.

I was going to look into that, but it seemed to be so much work, lol. Becuase I didn't know who to all include. Like a team finishes #5 on year, and 22 the next. I didn't have time to do, say, top 30 all 4 years.

 

[gkIrish]

I used 247 from between 2010-2013 and it came out to 16.7. IDK what it would be with other services, I didn't check.

Does 247 remove players that transferred from their rankings? In other words, does Eddie Vanderdoes count towards our average rank of 17?

 

[IrishLion]

I was going to look into that, but it seemed to be so much work, lol. Becuase I didn't know who to all include. Like a team finishes #5 on year, and 22 the next. I didn't have time to do, say, top 30 all 4 years.

Oregon and Stanford were the two teams I was wondering about, because those two are the only teams that have consistently been around the top 5 since 2010.

EDIT: You could include Bama in my statement, but we know they are consistently close to no.1 in recruiting.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'd like to know how other teams consistently around the top 5 compare... I know where Bama would be, but what about tOSU, Oregon, Stanford, and others?

EDIT: I looked at the final standings, and Oregon/Stanford were the clear mainstays around the top 5 for the past four seasons now.

For recruiting??? This can't be right. when did Stanford have even one top five class??

EIDT: I looked into it, they had one top five class and it was just that, fifth. ND has had the 20th, 14th, 10th and 3rd ranked classes... that's what, the 11th ranked class over the last four years??... and here's the thing, to really find where we are at do the same math for every other program in the country and compare.

 

[IrishLion]

For recruiting??? This can't be right. when did Stanford have even one top five class??

I'm sorry I should clarify, I mean in terms of final standings on the field. I would like to see how their recruiting average compares to ND considering their consistent success in finishing ranked highly on the field.

Also, Stanford's 2012 class was absolutely ridiculous and consesus top 5 I believe.

 

[koonja]

Does 247 remove players that transferred from their rankings? In other words, does Eddie Vanderdoes count towards our average rank of 17?

No, they don't adjust it. It's dumb that they don't, but every school has transfers and I would argue it's the coaches job to keep the players he wants. Of course, somethings are out of your control, but if you can't keep a kid at the school, IDK if I give you credit for 'recruiting' him. I feel like keeping the kids you want should count towards how you're viewed as a 'recruiter'.

 

[gkIrish]

No, they don't adjust it. It's dumb that they don't, but every school has transfers and I would argue it's the coaches job to keep the players he wants. Of course, somethings are out of your control, but if you can't keep a kid at the school, IDK if I give you credit for 'recruiting' him. I feel like keeping the kids you want should count towards how you're viewed as a 'recruiter'.

So considering we had 2-3 Five Stars transfer (more than any other school probably), that means our #17 ranking is a lot worse in reality?

 

[koonja]

For recruiting??? This can't be right. when did Stanford have even one top five class??

EIDT: I looked into it, they had one top five class and it was just that, fifth. ND has had the 20th, 14th, 10th and 3rd ranked classes... that's what, the 11th ranked class over the last four years??... and here's the thing, to really find where we are at do the same math for every other program in the country and compare.

What site are you using? I used 247.

 

[koonja]

So considering we had 2-3 Five Stars transfer (more than any other school probably), that means our #17 ranking is a lot worse in reality?

Well probably, but IDK because almost every team that recruits well has a transfer or two, but we don't hear about it much because, well we don't care lol. OSU has transfers, Michigan has transfers, Alabama has kids kicked out, etc.

That's why I take the 17 at face value because I'll never have the time/information to compare while including transfers, dropouts, kicked outs, etc.