Charlie Weis vs top 25

[solo]

I think that my whole point about quality wins during the season versus the top 25 is about the analysis that goes on during the process of the season. If I had to wait to the end of the season to talk about ND's quality wins, what would be the point? College football is a week-to-week based roller-coaster.

I talk about the wins that matter when they matter, but I also reflect on them after the season as being truly GREAT wins if the team we beat finished with a great record. However, I will NEVER discount a win over a ranked team during or after the season is over because on that given day, we beat a RANKED team that was ranked at that time for a good reason (because they had a quality win-loss record).

As for how the college football writers view it, I believe they look at the wins when the teams played and not after the season is over as you have discussed.

Does your line of thinking apply in both directions? For example, when ND was ranked #2 in the nation early on this past season and Michigan was ranked #11, do you count that as a game that Weis WAY underperformed. I mean, we were #2 in the nation, shouldn't we have soundly defeated Michigan who was ranked 9 spots behind us? They pounded us. They also finished the season ranked 8th and we finished the season 17th. They were simply a better team than us. But by your rationale, we should look back at that game and think that we should have won handily, correct? I look back at that game and think that we should have competed a little better. But ultimatrely, we got beat by a better team with more talent. No shame in that.

 

[Satans Little Helper]

I would put more stock into wins over teams that finished the season in the top 10. Outside the top 10, it can get hairy to differentiate among teams. But I would challenge you to go back for the last decade and name me one bad team that finished the season in the AP top 10. Michigan might be good like this year or mediocre like last year. USC might be good like this year or bad like during the Holtz era. You can't count on your rivals as being a good measuring stick. But year in and year out, the final AP top 10 consists of 10 good teams. So when evaluating how a coach is doing I would look at:

1. Overall record
2. Record versus final top 10
3. Bowl record
4. Record versus rivals

And of course, at ND, you must factor in NC's. If Weis fails to in a title in the next 10 years, I would consider him a disappointement at some level, even if he finishes in the top 5 every year.

i dont really care about a measuring stick. Any way you slice it it will be biased. it is just the way the system is set up. I also dont care how bad USC and Um are, i want to beat them. If the coach beats the rivals and has a good winning percentage ( >.800) i will be happy.

 

[nshope]

Does your line of thinking apply in both directions? For example, when ND was ranked #2 in the nation early on this past season and Michigan was ranked #11, do you count that as a game that Weis WAY underperformed. I mean, we were #2 in the nation, shouldn't we have soundly defeated Michigan who was ranked 9 spots behind us? They pounded us. They also finished the season ranked 8th and we finished the season 17th. They were simply a better team than us. But by your rationale, we should look back at that game and think that we should have won handily, correct? I look back at that game and think that we should have competed a little better. But ultimatrely, we got beat by a better team with more talent. No shame in that.

YES, I think we should've won HANDILY. We played the worst game possible and turned the ball over and let Michigan plow over us. I had huge expectations from the team this year based on what we did last year. I think ND performed under their capabilities. In addition, I'll go one further to say that I'm disappointed it happened multiple times. Having a coach like Charlie, we should not be getting blown out the way we do. Teams with much lesser talent are competing and winning the games we've lost.

However, I digress from the point. I think the rankings are put in place during the season to gauge how your team is doing in relation to all football teams. When you beat a team on that given day and they're ranked higher/lower than you, there is a statement that comes out of that result. "ND played down to their opponent" with a lower ranking or "ND upset their opponent" with a higher ranking. I've always viewed rankings as a time-dependent gauge. It depends on what time you look at the rankings.

I agree that looking at the rankings after the season is obviously the best way to look at which quality wins ND has pulled off, but the "VS top 25" gauge is used during the season to compare two teams on the day of the game or season. There is no way to know how teams will finish and as a result, you have to use the "VS top 25" measurement to size teams up.

We could run around this topic all day. I choose to see the "VS top 25" measurement as a valid statistic to measure how good both teams were on a specific day during the season. It is the same this as discounting Quinn throwing for 4 TD's against a weaker opponent. 4 TD's in any game is impressive just like a win against any top 25 team is impressive...in my eyes.

 

[nshope]

Very good topic of discussion and this is what the forum is all about. I am by no means forcing my thoughts on someone else and I don't want anyone to think I'm being a jerk. I'm going to stick by this statistic because that's the way I like to look it. I like to look at more quality wins in a season rather than less because I'm a positive football fan (and every win is actually a big one).

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

YES, I think we should've won HANDILY. We played the worst game possible and turned the ball over and let Michigan plow over us.

It could have been worse...it just felt like it was.

But not once this season did we play well enough to beat UM. Not one single game... Ugh.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

We could run around this topic all day. I choose to see the "VS top 25" measurement as a valid statistic to measure how good both teams were on a specific day during the season. It is the same this as discounting Quinn throwing for 4 TD's against a weaker opponent. 4 TD's in any game is impressive just like a win against any top 25 team is impressive...in my eyes.

See that's the problem. If you look at it as an "on any given day" then it does not make sense. Some teams are good, some are not so good. If people IMAGINE they are good when they really blow, then the comparison is not valid.

When UM beat us, did they really beat the #2 team in the country? Oh please...no way in hell did they beat the #2 team. We were not even close...not on any given day in 2006 did ND play like the #2 team in the country.

As for throwing 4 TDs...it's not impressive against truly bad teams. It's really not. Quinn could have thrown 8 TD passes against Army had Weis told him too.

 

[nshope]

See that's the problem. If you look at it as an "on any given day" then it does not make sense. Some teams are good, some are not so good. If people IMAGINE they are good when they really blow, then the comparison is not valid.

When UM beat us, did they really beat the #2 team in the country? Oh please...no way in hell did they beat the #2 team. We were not even close...not on any given day in 2006 did ND play like the #2 team in the country.

As for throwing 4 TDs...it's not impressive against truly bad teams. It's really not. Quinn could have thrown 8 TD passes against Army had Weis told him too.

It's an opinion thing and I'll never agree with anyone that discounts beating a ranked opponent. I refuse to do it. That's the difference between college football and pro football. Rankings are utilized in college football for comparison purposes. In pro football, standings, head-to-head match-ups, and tie-breakers determine everything (the way it should be). If college football wants to discount in-season rankings, every team would have to be in a conference and they'd utilize the pro-football methodology.

They don't force teams to be in a conference and the weekly rankings will always be used until they do.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It's an opinion thing and I'll never agree with anyone that discounts beating a ranked opponent. I refuse to do it. That's the difference between college football and pro football. Rankings are utilized in college football for comparison purposes.

But when a pre-season ranked team goes 3-8, then the comparison is moot...it is worthless and makes no sense.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It's an opinion thing and I'll never agree with anyone that discounts beating a ranked opponent. I refuse to do it.

You do realize that Duke gets a Top25 vote every year right? Thus the are DE FACTO in the Top40 starting every season.. Do you REALLY think that they are a Top40 team EVER????

Does the first team to beat Duke get credit for taking out a Top40 team? (and yes Top40 matters as some computer rankings use it)

 

[solo]

It's an opinion thing and I'll never agree with anyone that discounts beating a ranked opponent. I refuse to do it. That's the difference between college football and pro football. Rankings are utilized in college football for comparison purposes. In pro football, standings, head-to-head match-ups, and tie-breakers determine everything (the way it should be). If college football wants to discount in-season rankings, every team would have to be in a conference and they'd utilize the pro-football methodology.

They don't force teams to be in a conference and the weekly rankings will always be used until they do.

Here's the thing, we were the same team all year. When you evaluate "how good" ND was, we had the same coach and the same players all season long. We weren't the #2 team one week and the #17 team another. No matter when we lined up to play USC, Michigan and LSU we were going to lose because those teams were simply better than us. So even if we were rated higher than USC at one point in the year, we were never better than them and the final season rankings reflect that.

Final season rankings = based on fact

Preseason and early season rankings = based on fiction

Yet somehow you put stock in the fictional rankings?

If you just happen to be the first team of 8 teams to beat a team that goes 3-8, but they were ranked in the top 10 preseason, you really count that victory over a 3-8 team as a quality win?

 

[Timugen]

It could have been worse...it just felt like it was.

But not once this season did we play well enough to beat UM. Not one single game... Ugh.

Umm.....Penn State? (a top-25 team in the final polls to whom we delivered a good old-fashioned ass-whipping)

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Face- it, Weis hasn't done what people thought that he would do...

He hasn't done what the press hyped him up to do. Even most ND fans wouldn't have believed he'd go 9-2 in his 1st regular season. After going 6-6 in '04, if you would have told me Weis & co. would go 9-2 I would have said you were high. We were so ecstatic & the press so quick to return ND to glory that it took no time making them a preseason favorite for the '06 NC. In hindsight, this was a ridiculous prediction. I, for one, was guilty of getting swept up in the hype...until the Michigan debacle, that is.

So Weis may not have done what people (esp. the press) thought he would do in '06, but he sure as hell exceeded expectations in '05 w/ practically the identical group of starters from the '04 squad. That comes w/ the territory at ND. As Holtz said when 9-2 is a valley rather than a peak, you know you've been successful. Only then, you have to feed the monster.

 

[Timugen]

Face- it, Weis hasn't done what people thought that he would do...

You're right; he hasn't done what "people" thought he would do. The braintrust at ESPN were 100% certain that they would go 0-6 or 1-5 (depending on which of the geniuses you asked) to start the '05 season. Then after ND's offense came out and lit up Pitt, they changed their tune......all the way to 1-5.

People like you take what CW has done for granted because your memory of what the expectations were before his first game has magically disappeared.

The fact of the matter is that had he not so greatly exceeded expectations, then there would not be people like you who ironically (and ridiculously) say that he hasn't lived up to them.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Umm.....Penn State? (a top-25 team in the final polls to whom we delivered a good old-fashioned ass-whipping)

PSU was in their what...SECOND game with a new QB???

They got better with every game and by the end of the season managed to squeak into the polls.

But let's be serious, in no way was PSU vaguely comparable to UM at that point. We gave them a butt-kicking big time...but they were not that good yet.

I worry about them next year. They have confidence and experience this time around.

 

[Timugen]

PSU was in their what...SECOND game with a new QB???

They got better with every game and by the end of the season managed to squeak into the polls.

But let's be serious, in no way was PSU vaguely comparable to UM at that point. We gave them a butt-kicking big time...but they were not that good yet.

I worry about them next year. They have confidence and experience this time around.

Well, but apparently the most accurate measure of a team is where it ends up in the polls at the end of the season. One can't have it both ways. PSU may have lost a few games this year, but every loss was to a ranked team, and among those losses nobody handed their ass to them like ND did.

If you're going to say that ND's win agianst PSU early in the season doesn't mean that much based on what that team was at the time then all this final poll rankings stuff needs to be thrown out the window.

Once again, you can't have it both ways. Just as you could argue that PSU got better over the '06 season, one could argue that UM '05 and MSU '06 regressed after suffering devastating losses in games they expected to win (UM pre-game and MSU 4th quarter.) If you're going to argue for judgement based on the final rankings of the teams (as you have throughout this thread,) you need to do so universally.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Well, but apparently the most accurate measure of a team is where it ends up in the polls at the end of the season. One can't have it both ways. PSU may have lost a few games this year, but every loss was to a ranked team, and among those losses nobody handed their ass to them like ND did.

If you're going to say that ND's win agianst PSU early in the season doesn't mean that much based on what that team was at the time then all this final poll rankings stuff needs to be thrown out the window.

Once again, you can't have it both ways. Just as you could argue that PSU got better over the '06 season, one could argue that UM '05 and MSU '06 regressed after suffering devastating losses in games they expected to win (UM pre-game and MSU 4th quarter.) If you're going to argue for judgement based on the final rankings of the teams you need to do so universally.

I agree it means something. I do NOT agree that it means we played well enough to beat Michigan that day. That was my statement.

I am not saying that beating PSU was not good, I AM SAYING that it was not a day when we would have beaten UM. We beat UM because they were probably a #40-type team at the time. But that's fine, I will count it as a quality win.

But I am not deluded enough to admit that we played well enough to beat UM that day.

 

[Timugen]

I agree it means something. I do NOT agree that it means we played well enough to beat Michigan that day. That was my statement.

I am not saying that beating PSU was not good, I AM SAYING that it was not a day when we would have beaten UM. We beat UM because they were probably a #40-type team at the time. But that's fine, I will count it as a quality win.

But I am not deluded enough to admit that we played well enough to beat UM that day.

Really? Was UM really as good as you seem to think they were? UM and OSU played pretty much nobody throughout the season. UM's claim to legitimacy was that they came within 3 of OSU at the horseshoe (in a game that was not nearly as close as the score would suggest.)

Then, both UM and OSU went on to have their asses handed to them in their bowl games. Oh, but UM kept it close with OSU, so they must be great. Well, who exactly did OSU beat to prove that they weren't just cruising through an easy schedule? Texas? Oh, wait.....who was their QB at the the time? A freshman in his second start of his career. Sounds familiar; similar to your argument as to why ND's win over PSU didn't mean much. Neither team really proved themselves against legitimate top-5 (or even top-10) competition and everyone went on assuming that they were the 2 best teams in the country. Then came the bowl games and both were lit up.

So exactly why do you think UM was that good?

And just to get back to the heart of the matter (ND vs. UM game,) it's pretty hard to lose a game when you are the beneficiary of 5(?) turnovers. ND had a nightmare of a game where everything that could have possibly went wrong did. Had they executed as they had against PSU they would have not only been competitive, they would have won.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Really? Was UM really as good as you seem to think they were? UM and OSU played pretty much nobody throughout the season. UM's claim to legitimacy was that they came within 3 of OSU at the horseshoe (in a game that was not nearly as close as the score would suggest.)

They pounded us. Period. We did not give up the game through a few mistakes. They POUNDED us.

Then, both UM and OSU went on to have their asses handed to them in their bowl games. Oh, but UM kept it close with OSU, so they must be great. Well, who exactly did OSU beat to prove that they weren't just cruising through an easy schedule? Texas? Oh, wait.....who was their QB at the the time? A true freshman in his second start of his career. Sounds familiar; similar to your argument as to why ND's win over PSU didn't mean much. Neither team really proved themselves against legitimate top-5 (or even top-10) competition and everyone went on assuming that they were the 2 best teams in the country. Then came the bowl games and both were lit up.

I am not arguing that UM and OSU were "legit" contenders for a top5 spot or something. But yet again, UM pounded the crap out of us...just the same way USC and LSU did. It was not a fluke...it was a team that played well and played better than ND had all year.

So exactly why do you think UM was that good?

47-21 comes to mind...
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?confId=&gameId=262590087

And just to get back to the heart of the matter (ND vs. UM game,) it's pretty hard to lose a game when you are the beneficiary of 5(?) turnovers. ND had a nightmare of a game where everything that could have possibly went wrong did. Had they executed as they had against PSU they would have not only been competitive, they would have won.

Tough D forced Turnovers...maybe 2 of the turnovers were truly unforced (like Quinn's dropping the ball).

However, they DOMINATED ND.

4 yards rushing on 17 attempts??? That had NOTHING to do with turnovers. 4.9 yards per pass? That had NOTHING to do with turnovers.

UM Dominated ND in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE GAME.
1st downs
3rd down conversions
Passing game
Rushing game
Defense
Penalties
Turnovers

It was not mistakes that lost the game, it was called BEING BEATEN BADLY. Had ND not given up 3 of the Turnovers the game would have only been lost by 14 or 17.

You do realize that in the 4th quarter Lloyd Carr made NO ATTEMPT to throw the ball once. He was NOT trying to score, he was only burning clock. If not for that, it would have been WORSE!!!

 

[solo]

i dont really care about a measuring stick. Any way you slice it it will be biased. it is just the way the system is set up. I also dont care how bad USC and Um are, i want to beat them. If the coach beats the rivals and has a good winning percentage ( >.800) i will be happy.

I will also be fairly happy with that. But if we lose all the big games (ranked teams, bowl games) I won't be completely happy. If we never win another NC in my lifetime, the legend that is ND football will only be a memory.

 

[onenybrother]

It doesn't matter, Weis gonna have to win a big game.

 

[Freeman Ara]

Wow, love this site...two years ago were 6-6 and barely even matter in the landscape of college football outside of Notre Dame nation, and now we have people saying Weis hasn't done anything proven anything or done anything he said he would do? What a joke!! Yeah we all had high expectations for this team coming into the year because of what we saw last year. But was anyone really surprised when we gave up points and yards to better teams with better depth and talent when we were returning 9 starters from an average at best defense? Not me, look its going to take time to rebuild its not a 1 or 2 year gig, thats why Weis has a long term deal. To be honest I think its year 5 or beyond before we win a title, but will we be comptetive in the near future? you bet. Will we we win some big games? certainly. Will Charlie continue to build this program and develop fine young men into leaders and quality people and leave ND better off then when he got there? I guarantee it. Everyone show some patience.

 

[njuneardave]

shouldnt it read...

Charlie Weis: 1-0 (vs teams ranked 6-25) and 0-5 (vs teams ranked 1-5)

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Wow, love this site...two years ago were 6-6 and barely even matter in the landscape of college football outside of Notre Dame nation, and now we have people saying Weis hasn't done anything proven anything or done anything he said he would do? What a joke!! Yeah we all had high expectations for this team coming into the year because of what we saw last year. But was anyone really surprised when we gave up points and yards to better teams with better depth and talent when we were returning 9 starters from an average at best defense? Not me, look its going to take time to rebuild its not a 1 or 2 year gig, thats why Weis has a long term deal. To be honest I think its year 5 or beyond before we win a title, but will we be comptetive in the near future? you bet. Will we we win some big games? certainly. Will Charlie continue to build this program and develop fine young men into leaders and quality people and leave ND better off then when he got there? I guarantee it. Everyone show some patience.

Great summary. reps for you!

While I agree he has not won a BIG game, I also don't think that reflects badly on him. He has done a lot with what he has...more so than the last coach we had. He won 19 games in two years...that's one helluva a great start.

Next year we will be lucky as hell to win 8, but that's due to all the graduating players. I can understand and accept that.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

shouldnt it read...

Charlie Weis: 1-0 (vs teams ranked 6-25) and 0-5 (vs teams ranked 1-5)

Yup...but he's living in his own world.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Really? Was UM really as good as you seem to think they were? UM and OSU played pretty much nobody throughout the season. UM's claim to legitimacy was that they came within 3 of OSU at the horseshoe (in a game that was not nearly as close as the score would suggest.)

Then, both UM and OSU went on to have their asses handed to them in their bowl games. Oh, but UM kept it close with OSU, so they must be great. Well, who exactly did OSU beat to prove that they weren't just cruising through an easy schedule? Texas? Oh, wait.....who was their QB at the the time? A true freshman in his second start of his career. Sounds familiar; similar to your argument as to why ND's win over PSU didn't mean much. Neither team really proved themselves against legitimate top-5 (or even top-10) competition and everyone went on assuming that they were the 2 best teams in the country. Then came the bowl games and both were lit up.

So exactly why do you think UM was that good?

Great points but some of these naggy posters are rubbing off on me, so forgive my correction of the fact that Colt McCoy was actually a red-shirt freshman. However, that being said, it does nothing to weaken your agrument of RS Frosh McCoy's early season misstep vs. Morelli (who I believe was a 4th yr Jr) who looked like a true freshman vs. Notre Dame.

And just to get back to the heart of the matter (ND vs. UM game,) it's pretty hard to lose a game when you are the beneficiary of 5(?) turnovers. ND had a nightmare of a game where everything that could have possibly went wrong did. Had they executed as they had against PSU they would have not only been competitive, they would have won.

Great points, but some of these naggy posters are rubbing off on me, so forgive my correction of the fact that Colt McCoy was actually a red-shirt freshman. That being said, it does nothing to weaken your argument of RS Frosh McCoy's early season setback vs. Morelli (who I believe was a 4th yr JR?) who looked like a true freshman vs. ND.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Great points, but some of these naggy posters are rubbing off on me, so forgive my correction of the fact that Colt McCoy was actually a red-shirt freshman. That being said, it does nothing to weaken your argument of RS Frosh McCoy's early season setback vs. Morelli (who I believe was a 4th yr JR?) who looked like a true freshman vs. ND.

Morelli's best game in his first 4 was against us...LOL

The next week he threw for 40.7% against Youngstown State!!! The game before us he threw for 50% against Akron. hahahahahahaha

Penn State did not really hit stride until sometime just after mid-season. They are a much better team now, but that is due to experience. It's probably a good reflection of what ND will look like next year.

 

[nshope]

It doesn't matter, Weis gonna have to win a big game.

That really is the root of my justifying the "VS Top 25" statistic. In an utter LACK of a signature win in 2 years against a top opponent, I choose to acknowledge what we've done during the season against teams that were ranked at the time we beat them. It's a positive way to look at 2 years where we didn't have a BIG win when looking back on the season.

Also, a point I mentioned earlier, I had high expectations because of what we did last year. I didn't see ND get any better (got worse actually) this year. Coaching is winning games with what you got and not waiting to win the big ones until you have ALL the tools.

I understand we may not have the best athletes in college football yet, but I expect the coach we have (being paid what he is) to be more competitive in the big games a-la USC last year. After being competitive in that game, against one of the best teams, we've been man-handled 4 times.

However, I am completely happy with what Charlie has done after the most recent season. Axed the D-coordinator and he's bringing in what appears to be a Top 5 class. Maybe then I'll go along with ditching the relevance of the "VS Top 25" stat when we win a big game that shows it was a big game at the end of the season. Until then, I've got to acknowledge Charlie's wins against the Top 25.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Morelli's best game in his first 4 was against us...LOL

The next week he threw for 40.7% against Youngstown State!!! The game before us he threw for 50% against Akron. hahahahahahaha

Penn State did not really hit stride until sometime just after mid-season. They are a much better team now, but that is due to experience. It's probably a good reflection of what ND will look like next year.

I would hope that Morelli is better next year. Won't he be 10th yr Sr? The point that I liked was that OSU didn't exactly play the toughest schedule in the nation. And we fans as a whole were duped into believing that college f'ball in '06 consisted of OSU & Michigan at the top w/ everyone else in the distance. Florida proved that to be false & looking back the OSU & Michigan schedules were cupcake vs. some of the other top teams.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I would hope that Morelli is better next year. Won't he be 10th yr Sr? The point that I liked was that OSU didn't exactly play the toughest schedule in the nation. And we fans as a whole were duped into believing that college f'ball in '06 consisted of OSU & Michigan at the top w/ everyone else in the distance. Florida proved that to be false & looking back the OSU & Michigan schedules were cupcake vs. some of the other top teams.

Yeah, I mostly agree.

Although, like Oklahoma in 2004, I see that OSU-UF game as a joke. One team literally did not come to play.

Every team Florida played did better than OSU...all except Western Carolina...

The Bowl game did not prove anything, but I do agree OSU's schedule was NOT a strong one.

 

[solo]

That really is the root of my justifying the "VS Top 25" statistic. In an utter LACK of a signature win in 2 years against a top opponent, I choose to acknowledge what we've done during the season against teams that were ranked at the time we beat them. It's a positive way to look at 2 years where we didn't have a BIG win when looking back on the season.

Why candy coat it? Weis doesn't have a big win. So what? He's still done a good job (not great) and is positioning nicely for the future. Why do you feel compelled to look back at the last 2 seasons through rose colored glasses?