On the lines of another thread I started, consider this: Dabo Swinney went 6-6 his third year (second full year) and more than a few were calling him "in over his head" and asked why did Clemson not hire an experience head coach. In another sport, Sandy Koufax went 36-40 with an ERA over 4.00 before becoming one of the most dominating pitchers in baseball history. Frank Beamer basically sucked his first six years at Virginia Tech and then then became a top 10 power. Sports history is replete with athletes/coaches who took a little while to find their stride before becoming great.
Look. I'm not saying definitively Freeman will turn out to be a great coach, although I think he may well be. What I'm saying is it's ridiculous, after three games, to say "he's in over his head" and "we made a mistake," "You have to have head coaching experience before being successful at Notre Dame," etc. And let's look at his first three games. He lost close games to two top-5 teams and Notre Dame was still in both games until deep into the fourth quarter. As far as Marshall goes, I could argue that last year's squeaker against Toledo was a worse game for the Irish, as Marshall looks as if they might turn out to have a good team this year.
So again, let's pump the breaks on "Freeman is not the guy." You might be right. But there's zero way to tell at this point.