We agree, Kelly built the program and *fully* "turned it around". This means talent and wins were going in a positive direction at the same time.
What I'm saying is that when Weis showed up ND was a dumpster fire. We had no talent + couldn't win. Both talent and wins were going in the wrong direction, a negative direction. Notre Dame could not bring in a quality class, nor could we back to back. We also could not win on the field. There were fits and starts be mostly a 6 to 7 win team (much like Auburn the last 8 years; big name, sparse talent, can't win consistently). We were struggling just to get bowl eligible and had QBs like Gary Godsey, Pat Dillingham, Carlyle Holiday, etc. No skill generally across the board. Yes, we had a player or two: Tuck, Quinn (Samardja wasn't even a thought until Weis showed up). The talent was as low as it had been in two decades and the on-field product was horrible.
Enter Weis, and he was able to recruit. A DRASTIC change (as shown in the previous data). Recruiting is HALF the battle. Winning is the other half (winning starts with coaching). Weis had early success 9-2 and 10-2 (#6) but back to 6-6. ND's ability to *attract* talent did a 360 under Weis. There's no denying that unless you just have a vendetta. It changed in a positive direction (rudder turned). Wins were still a 50/50. Mostly absent, but for the first time in a while we actually competed with a team like Bush-led USC. At the same time, we lost to teams like Syracuse and Navy.
So, Talent direction changed. Check.
Ability to win consistently, No. X.
That is a turning of the rudder on a ship. We did not do a full program direction change or complete "rebuild" until Kelly showed up (I stated this several times) and made the fully sweeping overhaul as you pointed out too. AND, Kelly could actually coach, which Weis could not (see overall record ND/Kansas - I think you posted). I hit on all these points and in your rebuttles you are essentially restating it, but saying it's wrong at the same time. I can only assume for 1 or 2 reasons. 1. It wasn't your idea. 2. You don't like the words but then say the exact same things.
The only other possibility is you are talking about a program fully going in the right direction: gaining talent + winning. I haven't ever stated that and is the exact opposite of my point. We all know Kelly fully rebuilt the program, but Weis got the momentum changed, "rudder turning a ship". In a game where there is a comeback, momentum shift is always referred to. The time you score and change the direction of the game. At that point you are not winning (rebuilt), but "the direction has changed" (rudder turn).
I am saying a turn happened but the program was not complete: gaining talent - winning. It was as clear in the first post as in this one.