Meh. I'm pretty over the June "is Notre Dame relevant?" shit. They are, and will be forever. Move on.

sjmvsfscs08;1193660 wrote:Meh. I'm pretty over the June "is Notre Dame relevant?" shit. They are, and will be forever. Move on.

I disagree

DeyDurkie5;1193713 wrote:I disagree

They still are, but it's simply because of the number of Catholics in the country and the history of the program stuck in the minds of said Catholics. It has nothing to do with anything recent (obviously)

Did you guys read the Feldman blog? I think he made some good points. Let's not confuse "relevant" with "great" or even "very good." ND hasn't been an elite team for some time now. However, the haters keep ND as relevant as their fans do. Well, and the conference commissioners/those in power in college football. And it's not a "that's what I'm gonna hang my hat on and be proud of" type of thing. Just agreeing with Feldman here.

It does come up a lot....and if you're looking at the very definition of relevant....ND is. If you think of good or elite program when relevant is mentioned....then I agree that they currently are not and have not truly been for some time. And I'm not arguing that it's a good or bad thing...simply that it is for the reasons Feldman stated.

killer_ewok;1193811 wrote:Did you guys read the Feldman blog? I think he made some good points. Let's not confuse "relevant" with "great" or even "very good." ND hasn't been an elite team for some time now. However, the haters keep ND as relevant as their fans do. Well, and the conference commissioners/those in power in college football. And it's not a "that's what I'm gonna hang my hat on and be proud of" type of thing. Just agreeing with Feldman here.

It does come up a lot....and if you're looking at the very definition of relevant....ND is. If you think of good or elite program when relevant is mentioned....then I agree that they currently are not and have not truly been for some time. And I'm not arguing that it's a good or bad thing...simply that it is for the reasons Feldman stated.

I think this is a fair thought. ND hasn't enjoyed much success as of late, especially by their own standard. But ND is relevant to college football because of its fan base and it's rich history.

DeyDurkie5;1193713 wrote:I disagree

That's because you're an idiot. Every conference commissioner and university President disagrees with you.

killer_ewok;1193811 wrote:It does come up a lot....

It comes up every June because there's nothing to talk/write about and they know people are starting to think about football again. The haters love to comment "no!" and the fans love to scream back "yes!"

Notre Dame, since its last national championship, still ranks between 15-25 in almost every way to rank a program (e.g. wins, NFL draft picks, players in the NFL, BCS bowl appearances, etc).

Nebraska went from 1971 to 1994 (23 seasons)
Southern Cal went from 1978 to 2003 (25 seasons)
Ohio State went from 1968 to 2002 (34 seasons)
Texas went from 1970 to 2005 (35 seasons)
LSU went form 1958 to 2003 (45 seasons)
Michigan went from 1948 to 1997 (49 seasons)
Auburn went from 1957 to 2010 (53 seasons)

Penn State is currently on a 1986-Pres drought (26 seasons)
Notre Dame is currently on a 1988-Pres drought (24 seasons)

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that even the elite programs still go on droughts for championships that last entire lifetimes.

"Programs" do not become irrelevant. Teams can be irrelevant for a season's play (or a stretch of season's play) but as long as a program has the cash-flow and recruiting potential, they cannot be irrelevant. They go into "sleeping giant" mode a la Notre Dame currently and continually step on their own dicks until a proper coach comes around. It's that simple: coaching.

Southern Cal - Pete Carroll
Ohio State - Jim Tressel
Texas - Mac Brown
LSU - Nick Saban
Michigan - Lloyd Carr

Eventually a great coach comes a long and restores the program. It happens several times a decade. None of the programs stopped being irrelevant, they simply didn't win and there's a huge difference.

Now of course any logical football fan would say "yeah but they don't even compete these days," and you'd be wrong. Your point of not having success outside of an NC is very true, but even with the likes of Ty Willingham, Bob Davie, and Charlie Weis they went to BCS bowls or had 10-win seasons. Kevin White, the AD with those hires/extensions, is the guy people look at when they say "who kept Notre Dame down for so long?" Every conference commissioner in the country looks at Notre Dame's success the last two decades and says "holy shit can you imagine if they actually had a good coach?"

Yeah, and when is that coach coming for Notre Dame? You guys aren't relevant today. Any relevance you have is with that TV contract. That's it.

I think they hired a coach a year or two ago who has a top ten winning percentage over twenty years of coaching. He's done something like "win everywhere," or something.

sjmvsfscs08;1193905 wrote:I think they hired a coach a year or two ago who has a top ten winning percentage over twenty years of coaching. He's done something like "win everywhere," or something.

LOL everywhere but ND.

I had a feeling a shit fest was inevitable. Although I must say, this is pretty mild.

killer_ewok;1193915 wrote:I had a feeling a shit fest was inevitable. Although I must say, this is pretty mild.

When people make false claims, i.e. "notre dame is relevant" then they will get called out on it.

DeyDurkie5;1193921 wrote:When people make false claims, i.e. "notre dame is relevant" then they will get called out on it.

I wouldn't call it a false claim if there is a well thought out argument to attempt to back it up, Durkie. Saying Notre Dame isn't relevant could also be considered a false claim. I guess it depends on your definition of relevant. If you're actually going by the meaning of the word...they are in fact relevant. I don't see how that's a false claim or really all that debatable.

killer_ewok;1193922 wrote:I wouldn't call it a false claim if there is a well thought out argument to attempt to back it up, Durkie. Saying Notre Dame isn't relevant could also be considered a false claim. I guess it depends on your definition of relevant. If you're actually going by the meaning of the word...they are in fact relevant. I don't see how that's a false claim or really all that debatable.

In college football, notre dame is average at best. The only reason they are relevant is because of their TV deal. They have an average team, they don't win big games, and they don't win bowl games. The only BCS game they went too, they got destroyed by OSU. They are, in the realm of college football, not relevant.

Even if they are "average" that makes them part of the college football landscape and therefore relevant.

Con_Alma;1193926 wrote:Even if they are "average" that makes them part of the college football landscape and therefore relevant.

Yes, notre dame and washington are powerhouses in the college football landscape of average teams.

DeyDurkie5;1193924 wrote:In college football, notre dame is average at best. The only reason they are relevant is because of their TV deal. They have an average team, they don't win big games, and they don't win bowl games. The only BCS game they went too, they got destroyed by OSU. They are, in the realm of college football, not relevant.

I guess the issue is that here...you equate "relevant" with being a "good" team. In that case, I can't disagree with you. However, when conference comissioners have a hard-on to woo the Irish to their league and ND gets a good deal with the BCS set-up and almost as many people tune into their games to see them lose as there are who watch to cheer them on....I'd say the love and hate undoubtedly means there is interest/caring there, the potential $$$/ratings a conference stands to gain from adding them means there is interest there and the BCS wants ND to remain in their mix to the point that they make a sort of exception for them....I'd say that speaks to their relevancy if, again, you're talking about relevant in the actual definition of the word.

Basically, if you're using relevant the way I think you are....your claim makes sense and if you're going by the book definition of the word...our claim is true.

Also, they've been to more than just one BCS game but (sadly) they got worked in those too.

DeyDurkie5;1193927 wrote:Yes, notre dame and washington are powerhouses in the college football landscape of average teams.

Who are you arguing/debating with? No one is saying Notre Dame is a current powerhouse on the field.

killer_ewok;1193930 wrote:Basically, if you're using relevant the way I think you are....your claim makes sense

bingo

killer_ewok;1193932 wrote:Who are you arguing/debating with? No one is saying Notre Dame is a current powerhouse on the field.

I'm not arguing/debating with anyone. Just responding in a jackass way to con alma.

DeyDurkie5;1193935 wrote:bingo

Fair enough then.

The flip side is the way we are using the word relevant also makes sense and so neither sides claims are false. Enjoy the Euro and your Sierra Nevada's. I'll start drinking sometime this afternoon. Gotta pace myself for Game 7 and the Pacquiao-Bradley fight tonight.

DeyDurkie5;1193924 wrote:In college football, notre dame is average at best. The only reason they are relevant is because of their TV deal. They have an average team, they don't win big games, and they don't win bowl games. The only BCS game they went too, they got destroyed by OSU. They are, in the realm of college football, not relevant.

They've actually been to three BCS games. Why can't you guys get your facts right, ever?

They aren't, "in the realm of college football," irrelevant. In fact the larger the scope under which you judge relevancy, the more relevant they become.

I'm talking about PROGRAMS. You're talking about the recent product on the field. The sad irony of this situation is that no Notre Dame fan on here has ever said that they were still a powerhouse team. No Notre Dame fan has said that they were an elite team.

We're talking about programs, you fucking idiot.

DeyDurkie5;1193927 wrote:Yes, notre dame and washington are powerhouses in the college football landscape of average teams.

????

I don't know about that. Maybe they are. I only stated that being an "average" team as you have defined them makes them part of the college football landscape and that is relevant.

Enough with the "you aren't relevant" bullshit.

It's obvious that the program will always be "relevant" in a way due to the history and being the first name that comes to mind for Catholic schools. We all know the current on the field product isn't why, no reason to bring it up once a week. Stop beating a dead horse and talk about this season,.

ts1227;1194311 wrote:Stop beating a dead horse and talk about this season,.

Notre Dame will still suck.