Grantland Article

[PatrickBateman]

Brian Kelly, Ara Parseghian, and the old glory and messy future of Notre Dame football - Grantland

Article seems pretty spot on. I think most (some) IE regulars feel Kelly "gets ND", but to the outside looking in, I can see why Weinreb questions it. Needless to say this is a big year for BK.

Thoughts?

 

[ChiRish]

What you would expect from an outsider's perspective, someone who doesn't really follow the program. A lot of his stuff may be somewhat true, but it's all regurgitated stuff that we've heard and talked about on this board several times.

I agree about his statement that Notre Dame success comes in waves, though, because of the requirement that the head coach be a special coaching personality. I agree with this; for me, undoubtedly ND is the hardest head coaching position in college football. That is why seemingly great candidates have failed at the job many times while succeeding elsewhere. The coach has to balance the interests of the massive fanbase, the alumni, the academic requirements of the university, and prospective student-athletes. At the same time, the coach must make sure to stay relevant and competitive in an ever shifting college football landscape.

While I do think that Brian Kelly is the man for the job, I don't surmise, like the article implicates, that there isn't anyone who could do it anymore. The author glosses over the past seasons, not stopping at all to talk about what could be the root of those problems or proffer any real analysis as to whether BK is the man. It's been 2 years. Time will tell.

 

[Redbar]

I totally agree that Ara Parseghian embodied what Notre Dame is all about. The greatest Notre Dame Football coach of my lifetime, one of the greatest college football coaches of all times, and one of the greatest men anyone could ever hope to be. I also agree that Coach Holtz was prickly (to say the least) but gifted, and any time spent around him was well spent time. I think the verdict is still out on Coach Kelly, but I think the potential is certainly there. He has not put it all together but I think he is very smart and if he proves to be adaptable greatness is within his reach.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Ohio State went from 1968 to 2002 with a national championship.

Michigan went from 1948 to 1997 without one.

Texas went from 1970 to 2005 without one.

Shall I continue?

This **** gets old. EVERY TEAM HAS A SLUMP.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's well-written, but intellectually lazy. Anyone who's been following realignment knows that ND won't be "[hanging] around Saturday afternoons on a third-place network desperate for a foothold in the sporting universe." And if the author can't imagine Kelly succeeding because he "couldn't prevent his own quarterback from allegedly plowing over a police officer," that's only because he doesn't recall all of the stupid sh!t Holtz's players did, which was no different from earlier regimes.

 

[NDinMich]

Brian Kelly, Ara Parseghian, and the old glory and messy future of Notre Dame football - Grantland

What you would expect from an outsider's perspective, someone who doesn't really follow the program. A lot of his stuff may be somewhat true, but it's all regurgitated stuff that we've heard and talked about on this board several times.

I agree about his statement that Notre Dame success comes in waves, though, because of the requirement that the head coach be a special coaching personality. I agree with this; for me, undoubtedly ND is the hardest head coaching position in college football. That is why seemingly great candidates have failed at the job many times while succeeding elsewhere. The coach has to balance the interests of the massive fanbase, the alumni, the academic requirements of the university, and prospective student-athletes. At the same time, the coach must make sure to stay relevant and competitive in an ever shifting college football landscape.

While I do think that Brian Kelly is the man for the job, I don't surmise, like the article implicates, that there isn't anyone who could do it anymore. The author glosses over the past seasons, not stopping at all to talk about what could be the root of those problems or proffer any real analysis as to whether BK is the man. It's been 2 years. Time will tell.

Thoughts?

Good find.

Seems to me this article is pretty much regurgitated stories he heard while he worked at ESPN and other cheeky tidbits he uses in an attempt to be funny. About as good an article as one could hope for from a PSU grad.

Dude does have a rockin beard though!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Okay I just read that piece of **** article. What a **** sucker.

"But to get to 11 or 12 or 13, he'll have to change the perception of who he is."

The perception of whom YOU think he is. I just watched some ESPN analyst say that one of his favorite coaches in history, and one he'd desperately want to play for, is Woody Hayes. He said he "liked when guys got in my face." Plus the ******* punched a opposing player! Which way is it gunna be?!?!? Guys who get in your face...good or bad?

**** Grantland. **** ESPN. And **** the over-analyzing offseason bullshit.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

**** Grantland. **** ESPN. And **** the over-analyzing offseason bullshit.

That's the fairest article Grantland has yet produced about ND (which sadly isn't saying much). There's little in the way of serious analysis on that site. They all subscribe to the Bill Simmons school of sports writing, which is more focused on making witty connections between sports and pop culture than providing real insight.

Unless I'm in the mood for some light sports-related humor, I don't bother visiting Grantland anymore.

@DanWolken:

Don't agree with all of that piece - I view Kelly more as the embodiment of Notre Dame's modernization than a reach backwards. We will see.

In other words, I'm not sure there's some magical connection that needs to happen. ND just hasn't been very good for a lot of reasons.

People were saying the same things about Alabama a few years ago. But I think that piece has good points and is well written.

If you're not following Wolken yet, you should be.

 

[Buster Bluth]

They all subscribe to the Bill Simmons school of sports writing, which is more focused on making witty connections between sports and pop culture than providing real insight.

My best friends are all practically in love with Bill Simmons. It's weird. He's a fine writer and all, and I enjoy reading his stuff for the most part. But it's not analysis, not even close.

Some writers are very good because they shed light on the humanity of sports. Some are great for their fair analysis. And 98% of them are just trying to get hits in a dying business and resort to extremism and attacks. Those men need to quit their day jobs and work construction.

 

[ACamp1900]

Eh Maybe notre dame will get back and maybe they won't. I'll be rooting for them regardless of what grantland or whoever the he'll has to say about it.

 

[TDHeysus]

Okay I just read that piece of **** article. What a **** sucker.

**** Grantland. **** ESPN. And **** the over-analyzing offseason bullshit.

agreed

My best friends are all practically in love with Bill Simmons. It's weird. He's a fine writer and all, and I enjoy reading his stuff for the most part. But it's not analysis, not even close.

I like Bill Simmons when he writes about basketball, even thought he gushes about the celtics, and always talks about his father and the celtics, and he has a not-so-subtle disdain for Kobe Bryant. I can see past that stuff, usually, and I enjoy reading his basketball breakdowns. that being said, I cant stand to hear his voice. I can read his takes on basketball, but for the life of me, I dont want to hear his voice in a podcast or something. He is a Boston guy(lives in LA), with what I describe as a 'surfer-bro' voice. its almost as if he purposely, slightly slurs certain syllables, its annoying.

/endofmehatingonbillsimmons

 

[ChiRish]

Ohio State went from 1968 to 2002 with a national championship.

Michigan went from 1948 to 1997 without one.

Texas went from 1970 to 2005 without one.

Shall I continue?

This **** gets old. EVERY TEAM HAS A SLUMP.

That's the fairest article Grantland has yet produced about ND (which sadly isn't saying much). There's little in the way of serious analysis on that site. They all subscribe to the Bill Simmons school of sports writing, which is more focused on making witty connections between sports and pop culture than providing real insight.

Unless I'm in the mood for some light sports-related humor, I don't bother visiting Grantland anymore.

@DanWolken:



If you're not following Wolken yet, you should be.

This. ND, like all traditional powers, has been in a slide THAT ALL MAJOR PROGRAMS GO THROUGH. Sure, it's much more difficult to make things work at ND, but those same things that make it difficult make it special at the same time. The right coach, who I believe we have, will link the two of these with success.

The issues with ND's success, and this article, reminds me of the nonsensical, hopefully tongue in cheek article in the WSJ a couple weeks ago stating that Wrigley needed to be razed for the Cubs to be successful. No- the field or a curse are not the reasons the cubs suck; it's their bad leadership, bad coaching, and for the most part, bad players. ND, for whatever reason, has gone through similar issues. Right now, I feel that we have all the right things in place at the right time: good university support and leadership, a great coach, and an influx of truly talented players.

Just like ND has endured this stretch of rough times, they'll enjoy another stretch of success in the future. Those are the times that are most rewarding; knowing we've gone through all the tough years makes those times all the more sweet. The vast majority of history tells us that this is just a down period. For this article to suggest, even if it's only implying as much, that in this era ND cannot be successful, is simply preposterous.

 

[Rudy89]

Ohio State went from 1968 to 2002 with a national championship.

Michigan went from 1948 to 1997 without one.

Texas went from 1970 to 2005 without one.

Shall I continue?

This **** gets old. EVERY TEAM HAS A SLUMP.

Not trying to be a douche here but while that is true didnt those teams in the big gaps have major bowl wins in between thier national titles. The biggest bowl we won during our NC slump was the 94 Cotton Bowl (a lot of people feel we shouldve got the title that year as well but we can think a lucky break from the B@stard College for messing that up in a game that made a 4 year old rudy cry but I digress) its been 17 years since we won a major postseason game. Also since then everytime we have made it to a major bowl we have had the crap beaten out of us. Ill be the first to admit I dont know the bowl history of the three programs you mentioned but Id be surprised if any of them went that long without having some kind of major bowl win. Stanford has proven you can never say never in college football but im just not too sure. You never know maybe Golson and a few other recruits are the lightning in a bottle Kelly can capture to bring one more home.

 

[Buster Bluth]

My personal feelings are that postseason bowl victories are a moronic way of measuring a program's success.

Regardless, the huge programs like Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Penn State, etc have all had "down decades."

The success in a program almost solely depends on the coach (the wherewithal within a program determines the ability to get a coach). When the legends retire, schools have typically fallen off. The man after the man is rarely as good. The only program, off the top of my head, that has really never been "down" is Ohio State. And with Urban Meyer, they could be rollin' for another two decades.

The only thing preventing Notre Dame from being Notre Dame was a guy named Kevin White. Jack Swarbrick and Brian Kelly "get it."