And I get the visceral appeal of it as a motivational story. I just disagree with you about the wisdom of Kelly actually holding up Buster Douglas as motivation. I think it is the wrong approach. Not because ND isn’t an underdog, . . . it is. And not because the public doesn’t think ND is a long shot, they do. I think it’s a mistake because Buster’s upset win over Tyson is widely considered to be something of a miracle. And because Douglas flopped after that big upset, making it look like it was just a fluke. I think using Buster as motivation sends the message that, like Buster, ND is outclassed by the likes of Clemson, and therefore needs a “Tokyo miracle” like Buster to win. Kelly should be countering the narrative that ND is outclassed by the likes of Clemson, not embracing it. There also is the sticky matter of touting Douglas as you approach Clemson, and then having to play ‘Bama if/when you win. How do “turn off” the Buster story at that point . . . or do you just ignore that Buster shit the bed after his big win? It’s problematic, to say the least. You want to hold up Buster as an example for ND. I get it. But I think that is selling ND short, and is sending the wrong message. So I get your point about ND being an underdog, and Buster being the ultimate underdog story. Maybe you can see my points too. Either way, I don’t mean to insult or anything. And I did enjoy the “30 for 30.” Those are hit and miss for me, but that was a good one. Go Irish.