I'd be lying if I said I read every post in this thread, but I just want to throw a couple thoughts out into this discussion (I'm not totally sure where they fit, so I'm not making them in response to any particular post)
1. There is a certain type of pundit, exemplified in the sports media by guys like Michael Felger, that recognizes how embarrassing unadulterated homerism is and, in an attempt to avoid ever being considered a homer and demonstrate their objectivity, totally overcompensate and become unbearably contrarian. This annoys people. Nobody hates senseless homerism more than I do, but sometimes I feel like the positions taken by the Michael Felgers on this board (like, for instance, the idea that ND is not a legit top-25 team) are so consumed with guarding against homerism that they exhibit an inability to be objective themselves.
2. Certainly, beating Maryland is not the highlight of anybody's season. They aren't good. And did we learn anything we didn't know before as a result of beating a not-good Maryland team? No, probably not. But that seems to imply that any time we don't beat a top team and nothing happens in the game that teaches us something new about the team, the whole endeavor was a waste of time. And I disagree with that idea. From the that perspective, we are not allowed to analyze the game. Because if you win by a lot, there are probably some positives to discuss. That they came against an inferior team doesn't make them less good. They still happened. Winning itself is important. It feels good to win. And when you are supposed to win big and you do, it reconfirms that your team is what you thought it was. Many, many teams have failed to do that. People should be allowed to discuss positives after the game, even if the opponent was bad.
3. J Pham, you should post more, man. Agree with all of your stuff and your perspective on what should go on here.
