Saying it sure is sweet off the lips considering it hasn’t happened in about 30 years. Then I realized that ND accomplished this feat by playing 11 regular season games in 92 and 93 (1991 ND played 12 regular season games). Moreover, ND arguably should have been national champs in 1993. I am happy about the total wins the last 3 years but it feels empty. Anyone else feel the same way?
game a year, because it can happen to anybody and still be in the hunt for the national title. After that beating the current top 4 teams is another matter until our recruiting matches theirs or we have a play maker that can win games by himself.
10-2 is certainly something not to feel depressed about or to be at all satisfied with.
Not saying we are better than them, but they laid it out for the taking that night, but we were too busy pissing down our legs because their crowd was loud to score that easy trim...we woulda got slaughtered again in the Playoff, but still, with this schedule (considering how GA played that night) we shoulda run the table.
I admit I'm a little more optimistic than most on this board (but I do get frustrated too - almost had to buy a new TV during the first quarter on Saturday). However, that statement is a big steaming pile of bovine excrement. Maybe Georgia played bad because we had a good game plan. Maybe we got criminally violated in Ann Arbor because we didn't - simple as that. Georgia is the #4 ranked team in the country. Yes, they look a little vulnerable at time and I fully expect LSU to beat them this weekend (but you never know until it's played). However, the ND Game was a Prime Time home game for them against a blue blood. They gave it everything they had and won a hard fought, close game. ND's defense played the best game I've seen in a LOONNG Time that night. Our tackling was phenomenal, our DB coverage was very solid, and our front seven was very stout. If our offense was able to put one scoring drive together in the late third quarter/early 4th quarter when Georgia started move the ball more and our defense got gassed, we very well may have won that game. The difference is we couldn't. But to claim Georgia "played badly" is ridiculous.
...remember, they lost two weeks later at home to South Carolina, because they were still playing poorly (by comparison to their ability). It was like the loss woke them up, because they didn't start playing really good until after that....them not looking good the night we played had nothing to do with something special we did, our defense did play well but I'm talking about the whole team....our team competed with them for who can play the poorest in prime time on that night. Its not me being an optimist, its just having football IQ and watching that game, there is a distinct difference in how they played vs us and South Carolina and how they've been playing since. Remember, they hadn't lost at home in a long time and I think they had maybe started taking that for granted.
That UGA is not in the same league as LSU, OSU and Clemson?
THose are the Tier One's now
UGA, OK, Utah...Tier II and it's a pretty good drop off between Tier I and II
Then there are the Tier III's which are an even larger, more disaparate drop off....Alabama, Wisconsin, Florida, Baylor, Penn State......
The Tier I's would kill the Tier III's......ND can compete and likely beat the Tier III's 4-5/10.....we could beat the Tier II's perhaps 2, maybe 3/10......
We would get our asses kicked against Tier I
There remains a significant disparity in college football.....I think it is down to 3 teams this year as UGA is not in the same league as the Top 3 and will lose by >14 against LSU
I think it is LSU and OSU.....Clemson is not as strong as last year but still heads and tails over the Tier II/III's
I think we are ranked where we should be based on our body of work.....I hope and pray we get Penn State in the Bronx on 12/27 to prove who we really are...neutral field, against a Tier III team......
Playing Texas proves nothing......just another crappy team like much of our 2019 schedule.....beat Texas and we wind up 12-13....beat Penn State and we have shot at Top Ten....
I'm not ready to declare Georgia not in the same league as LSU, OSU and Clemson until I see them play each other... certainly the early season Georgia that showed up against us and South Carolina isn't anywhere near that league, but the team we've seen since they took their loss just might be.
It reminds me of '89 when we had a dominant team, but we're just kinda going through the motions beating people, then after Miami kicked our ass the lads woke up and started playing to their potential the rest of the season.
Also, I think it's way off listing Bama as a Tier III...even with their star QB lost I'd say they are at minimum Tier II and maybe even a rare 2.5.
They played two ranked teams and gave up 45 and 48 pts
They are an unknown quite frankly
I saw every UGA game since I live down here.....even UGA fans are disappointed in Fromm.....to lose Justin Fields and Jacob Eason and keep Fromm.....not one of Smart's better moves
I dont think UGA is a Tier I......maybe a 1.5!
(no message)
(no message)
When we matched up with Clemson last year, the number one glaring difference was depth. Depth comes from sustained success (consistent 10+ win seasons)...when you have up and down success, you have up and down recruiting.
The 3 straight 10+ hasn't changed my view on Kelly overall, but it is a step in the right direction to having sustained success that will draw sustained high level recruits and give us talent in depth comparable to the big boys. My hope is at that point, even with Kelly, we'll be able to match up with the elite and have a legit shot at a title...this is my only way to stay positive with Kelly still here.
(no message)
All it takes is a look around college football landscape currently and in history to see the talent draw any team is that wins 10+ year in year out...sad thing is how many of Kelly's seasons 10 wins was there for the taking and imagining the difference in what our talent level/ depth would be right now if he just won the ones he shoulda: '10 (beat Navy and Tulsa = 10 wins), '11 (beat USF and a shitty michigan/or a shitty FSU in bowl = 10 wins), '13 (beat Pitt in game we controlled in 1st half while running ball and surrendered in 2nd half going Air Kelly = 10 wins), '14 (don't have epic meltdown after losing close to #2 FSU and lose only 2 of last 5 instead of 4 of last 5 = 10 wins)
Legitimately, every season he's been here except for '16 shoulda been a 10 win season and most likely, if he won the ones he shoulda from 10-15 his talent woulda prolly been much higher in '16 and we prolly win 10+ that year too...imagine the difference last years game vs Clemson woulda been if he was riding high on 9 straight 10+ win seasons with 'at least' one NC appearance in that span...? things coulda been very very different if he just won the ones he shoulda early on.
Clemson
Alabama
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma
Boise State
What do 5 of those schools have in common? They are competing for NCs year in and year out. Its not like lots of schools are out there doing it.
You can't compare it to times past. It has to be put in context of current times. You could argue that Rockne or Leahy's teams weren't as impressive as Holtz because they only had to win 8 or 9 games. A lot more teams over the last 3 years went 8-0.
What it tells me is that we are right there knocking on the door of the elite. No reasonable people are saying that it is the same as Holtz's run, but it doesn't deserve an asterisk. It stands on its own as an impressive accomplishment.
I will add also that Alabama, Oklahoma and Clemson all took ass beatings in the playoffs over the last 2 years (plus Ohio State in 2016). Georgia may get theirs this year.
true measure. In this regard the success over the past 3 years is more akin to a Boise State than the others in that it clearly does not denote "elite" status..
I love the “everybody takes an assbeating” argument. Yes, in football there are those games that get away from you for whatever reason. It does happen to everybody. It happens to Kelly with some regularity against non-elite teams however. There is also little capital on the other side of the scale for Kelly who can point to zero major bowl victories, with all of them being woodshed moments.
Any comparison to Holtz or other pre-2006 10 win teams most certainly deserves an asterisk or some type of explanation, as the difference is a significant one. It is fine to note the additional constraints that Kelly is subject to as well. I do not discount those either.
They play one (sometimes two) Power 5 schools per year and they typically lose those games (save FSU this year). Our “accomplishment” is far greater than theirs, but significantly less than Bama and Clemson.
in the present day, most would rank them as follows I believe:
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Boise State
Notre Dame is at the bottom next to Boise State with no real claim to being elite due to the numerous big stage flops (save for Oklahoma in 2012).
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma
I would think more than just these teams would be ahead of ND (even if only looking at last 3 years, and the list gets real big if you go back 6 years or 10 years)...
Wisc: '19 10-2, '18 8-5, '17 13-1, '16 11-3, '15 10-3, '14 11-3, '13 9-4, '12 8-6, '11 11-3, '10 11-2 (7 of last 10)
ND
PSU: '19 10-2, '18 9-4, '17 11-2, '16 11-3 (3 of last 4)
mich: '19 9-3, '18 10-3, '17 8-5, '16 10-3, '15 10-3 (3 of 5, potentially 4 of 5)
(no message)
(no message)
least a playoff game to start to really make any claim.
If they shouldn't be listed up with the elite then we shouldn't even be on the same page as the elite: 10-3 in '17 (#11), 12-1 in '18 (#5), 10-2 in '19 (#14)....they are clearly at a higher level than us the last 3 years and when you add that they were 11-2 in '16 (#5/#3) while we were going 4-8 and unranked, and they were 11-2 in '15 (#5) while we were 10-3 (#11/#12).
Actually while I agree with you in premise, I would think there would be more teams than the ones you listed above ND for elite levelness even if only using last 3 years, and if you go back 6 yrs, or 10 years then there would be a bunch.
(no message)
It is an accomplishment, of sorts, but without real success due to suffering bad beatings in each one of those seasons, it winds up being a nice statistic on paper. In real life it is kind of hollow.
Also with the weaker schedules and the additional game built in since 2006, the accomplishment is far different than 91 - 93. To present it without an asterisk is really misleading.
(no message)