I've never understood what the term "signature win" means, however...
Would board members consider the USC win last year as a signature win?
USC was undefeated, coming off a win over #11 at the time Arizona, had the leading Heisman candidate, an offensive wizard as a coach, etc. And Marcus and co beat the shit out of them. It was so bad that "Mahomes-esque" all world QB who painted his fingernails for the event didn't even finish the game.
To me, if the term means anything, that was it.
Replies to: I've never understood what the term "signature win" means, however...
It was our best win in 2023, but not a signature win
USC had beaten up on mostly cupcakes (except for Arizona), and with the leading candidate for the Heisman being front and center, of course the media was going to hype them up.
They were a good team, but the combination of a horrible defense, along with Lady Luck being ever so fickle, basically deflated what was a promising start. Keep in mind, they had a legitimate chance of knocking off Washington, Utah, and Oregon, but came up a bit short.
Had they won those three games, then I think it could have been one of Marcus Freeman's signature wins, but beating out a team that finished 8-5 isn't going to be worthy of being called as such.
I could see someone calling the 2022 Clemson win a signature win for Marcus Freeman, but that's being generous, since Clemson finished #12 that year.
The last time we had a indisputable signature win was 2020 against #1 Clemson, since they were also a playoff team and finished #3. Even then, we weren't facing Clemson at their full strength, since the bulk of their front seven (all of whom were NFL draft picks, if I recall correctly) were out due to COVID. When they came back in the ACC Championship game, they took us to the woodshed, and we essentially became their signature win that year...
Clemson 2022 was absolutely a signature win.Clemson was still considered in the "Elite 3" beforehand
Not afterwards though.
That's actually the other one I was thinking about.
(no message)
Bite your tongue, SC sucked ass last year.
They barely beat Colorado and Arizona, then followed the ass-kicking by ND with losses to Utah, Washington, Oregon, and UCLA. They also beat CAL by 1 point.
wasn't SC like 6-0 + ranked top 10? when they played at ND? ND broke them + ruined their year IMO
payback for the prior year SC won, Williams flourished and we all saw his painted finger nails...
GO IRISH GO
I'm actually reconsidering my original response to this factoring in Hensou's input below...
There is some element of what he said and information you provided where maybe USC was a Signature Win, not necessarily because of how good USC was/wasn't, but because we were the only defense that made Williams look that bad and have kinda become known for that.
I heard he still gets asked by people what happened in that game, so this may be one of those ones still haunting him when he's 70.
Thanks for seeing my point.
(no message)
its something you see but tough to define,
for example a win over OSU last year would have been a signature win but. not Usc.
Signature Wins are like "pornography"...you know them when you see them...
(no message)
USC last year not signature. They sucked. We just exposed them.
It's the kind of thing that ND was often on the wrong end of in the past, so it's easy to recognize.
Signature or not, it was the most enjoyable game I've ever attended in person.
(no message)
It WAS fun...
(no message)
A "signature win" is made up ESPN rhetoric to lean mass opinion to the SEC. It was misinformation &
mainstream meadia, fake news. They shape whatever they want the national sports narrative to be. That's what a "signature win" was. It was easy to see then. Now, hopefully people have pulled their heads out of the sand enough to recognize it, and hopefully they will have the confidence to willingly call it for what it was/is.
Absolutely. It’s an invented verbal meme to generate hype.
What matters is season record and last game. Tell me one “signature win” from more than five years ago and a team other than ND that you remember. And don’t Google it - be honest. There aren’t any.
"All words are made up." -Thor
(no message)
I would not consider that a Signature Win because we've beaten them plenty of times recently and
They crumbled after that.
But keep in mind that a Signature Win is in context to that program...Marshall beating ND in '22 was a Signature Win for them, but USC beating ND in '22 was not a Signature Win for them.
Considering our current standing in the College Football landscape, Signature Wins for us would definitely be like Georgia, Bama, Tosu, Oregon, maybe FSU if they come to South Bend undefeated, maybe Clemson if they rebound to show they are elite again.
We are in that Very Good but not Elite range...beating a team that propels us to being considered among the Elite would be a Signature Win for us.
Generally agree with this assessment. I still believe the notion of the topic was fabricated by ESPN
to stir arguments and generate attention, or provide ESPN with a level of authority in the debates of, "my team is better than your team because...". With the default answer being, because ESPN said my team has a signature win and yours does not. Here's proof, more ESPN stuff. They are no different than CNN.
None of that makes any sense to me, but it's okay.
I'll go back to not caring about the term.
Signature means something that one has become famous or known for.
That's the dictionary definition. In sports, great players or teams can have more than one signature moment. Notre Dame has had several.
See, now that is actually a well stated input, worthy of
cordial debate.
Where was this yesterday..all jokes aside, does more than one person use this account to post?
So the question to ask yourself (and answer honestly) is will #7 Notre Dame become famous or known for beating #20 Texas A&M?
My answer would be no, because you can almost set your watch to it that as soon as we beat them, it will just instantly become 'A&M was overrated'.
ie, if we lose to them it will be made into a big deal and used to shit on us, while they get their glow from it all season...but we beat them and no one will remember it by the end of the season unless they win the SEC.
So... A&M has an opportunity for a "signature win" but we do not.
Even though they are favored, at home, in the heat, with their D-Line strength vs our O-Line weakness. If they win and go 7-5 they will at least have a signature win against (hypothetically) an 11-1 ND. But if we win, and they go 7-5, so what?
Yeah, that's kinda how it works...
Regarding odds, they are favored by 3 which is the amount given for being the home team, so from an odds perspective it's like a pick em.
But we are ranked #7 with NC aspirations while they are #20 and hoping to not finish 9th in the SEC.
Let the game unfold. Amen. Peace Chrisb.
(no message)
It doesn't make sense to you that Marshall beating ND would be a Signature win for them
but USC beating ND wouldn't?
No, it seems like an ill-defined and ultimately unattainable goal.
If the definition is Marshall or (and I'm guessing here) Boston College in '93, does that mean that we'd all feel better if we had Marshall's coach because of his signature win?
What is un-signature about dethroning a Heisman trophy winner who was the #1 draft pick? And while I am still struggling to understand what the term means, it's notable at least.