karen lotz;526176 wrote:I agree. They should play more MAC/I-AA/teams full of cripples and then get exposed by the first team with a pulse they play. That wouldn't be shitty at all.

tcarrier32;527302 wrote:that actually doesnt bother me that much. you'd have a point if notre dame was a relevant team. but they're not, scheduling teams like that just puts numbers in the loss column.

tcarrier32;527302 wrote:that actually doesnt bother me that much. you'd have a point if notre dame was a relevant team. but they're not, scheduling teams like that just puts numbers in the loss column.

rock_knutne;527368 wrote:LMAO.......another dumbass hater post. You clowns can't knock the fact that ND has stepped up their scheduling so you resort to the standard bullshit. There's only a handful of teams who are willing to play anyone, anywhere and ND is one of them.

tcarrier32;527531 wrote:so what exactly does that prove? just because you are willing to play anyone does not make you a good team. its "standard" bullshit because its true. I'm sorry that Notre Dame hasn't been a good team as of the past 5 years but thats the truth. They play a rather unimpressive schedule this year and thus far are 1 game above .500. So what part of me assuming that since their scheduling is getting tougher they will lose more games makes me a dumbass?

karen lotz;527452 wrote:Yes you are correct. They are completely irrelevant. That's why ND fans and alums are the only ones to talk about them/watch their games. Solid post.

krambman;527570 wrote:When people talk about Notre Dame being irrelevant, they don't mean irrelevant to college football culture. They mean irrelevant from a championship standpoint. Notre Dame hasn't been a legitimate national championship contender in over a decade. So considering their schedule doesn't matter much because until they are back to the level of competing for championships they are essentially "irrelevant" in the landscape of college football.

krambman;527570 wrote:When people talk about Notre Dame being irrelevant, they don't mean irrelevant to college football culture. They mean irrelevant from a championship standpoint. Notre Dame hasn't been a legitimate national championship contender in over a decade. So considering their schedule doesn't matter much because until they are back to the level of competing for championships they are essentially "irrelevant" in the landscape of college football.

karen lotz;527633 wrote:A lot of teams are irrelevant then.

rock_knutne;527559 wrote:Tell us Nostradamus.......you can see the future? BTW, ND's current schedule is ranked in the top 10 as far as difficulty goes. Keep reaching pal!

tcarrier32;527785 wrote:can i see into the future? no, but what i can do is make inferences based on what a team has done in its recent past. Granted Notre Dame normally gets a pretty good recruiting class, but we all know that never guarantees future wins. Since 2007 Notre Dame has a winning percentage of 45% , so its not a reach to say that they will continue along those lines in the near future.

yes i understand 2007 is rather arbitrary, but thats a good 4 years of statistics too look at.

krambman;527647 wrote:Correct. There are only a handful of teams that are annually relevant when it comes to the national title (Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Virginia Tech). There are others that make it into the conversation occasionally, but aren't there every year (Nebraska, Florida State, West Virginia, Oregon, Miami, Georgia, Michigan, Boise State). Obviously the top tier teams will occasionally have a down year or two and you'll always have teams that come out of nowhere and finish high and make some noise (Rutgers, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and South Florida in recent years come to mind). Notre Dame certainly hasn't been in the top category and really hasn't even been in the second category in the past decade (since 2002 ND has only finished in the top 25 three times and never in the top 10).

rock_knutne;527830 wrote:Nice spin, where's the "unimpressive schedule bullshit at now? At least you admit that you don't know what's going to happen in the future.

vball10set;527889 wrote:FRAUD: In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

with all due respect, how can anyone call OSU & Oklahoma "frauds"? IMO, it's hard to call any intercollegiate football team a "fraud"...sorry, but this just ain't right.

tcarrier32;527857 wrote:oh dont worry the schedule is still unimpressive course i dont "know" the future but ive got a pretty good idea. whether or not you agree is a different story but im not too worried about that.

rock_knutne;527898 wrote:Yep.......frauds, both of them! Their track records in title games have not been very good. And vball, spare me the "atleast the got there" crap, both of them have backed in to title games and their performances showed it.

slingshot4ever;527910 wrote:OSU was undefeated in 2002 and 2006.
OSU was the only BCS school in the country with just one loss in 2007.

So which NC game did they back into it? I am curious as to your answer on this one...

slingshot4ever;527913 wrote:So OSU is 1-2 in title games. What is ND record in just BCS bowls? I don't think you have any wins....Then look at the fact that OSU has the most BCS bowl wins of ANY school (or tied)....Hardly frauds unless you were talking about ND....

rock_knutne;527915 wrote:They backed in to that 2007 game and don't deny it!

rock_knutne;527918 wrote:What's ND have to do with it? My response was to krambman's post. Yes, OSU in title games have been a fraud! Deal with reality and go worry about those three MAC schools you play next year, I'm sure they'll prepare you for another NC:rolleyes:!