WebFire;1287622 wrote:Remember when ND had a tough schedule this year? That seems to be going down the shitter each week.

I still think there schedule is pretty tough.

Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan aren't bad. They still have Miami (4-1), Stanford (3-1), BYU (3-2), @Oklahoma (2-1), Pittsburgh (2-2), @Boston College (1-3), Wake Forest (3-2) and @USC (4-1)

Pitt, BC and Wake Forest might not be tough, but Stanford, @Oklahoma and @USC will not be easy.

WebFire;1287622 wrote:Remember when ND had a tough schedule this year? That seems to be going down the shitter each week.

I agree. Purdue > Sparty > Michigan

FatHobbit;1287625 wrote:I still think there schedule is pretty tough.

Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan aren't bad. They still have Miami (4-1), Stanford (3-1), BYU (3-2), @Oklahoma (2-1), Pittsburgh (2-2), @Boston College (1-3), Wake Forest (3-2) and @USC (4-1)

Pitt, BC and Wake Forest might not be tough, but Stanford, @Oklahoma and @USC will not be easy.

No doubt it's still a good schedule. Just some of the teams haven't lived up to the preaseason hype (ahem, USC). Oklahoma maybe not as tough as many thought, and I would say MSU as well. Purdue...eh.

karen lotz;1287627 wrote:I agree. Purdue > Sparty > Michigan

Weird how you came up with that equation when Michigan hasn't played either of those teams, and ND beat all 3.

karen lotz;1287627 wrote:I agree. Purdue > Sparty > Michigan

Oh, I know how you came up with it. You can't handle one bit of criticism about your beloved Irish.

WebFire;1287630 wrote:Weird how you came up with that equation when Michigan hasn't played either of those teams, and ND beat all 3.

You said the schedule is going down the shitter each week. I agree. The teams they have played have gotten progressively worse. There is my equation.

karen lotz;1287633 wrote:You said the schedule is going down the shitter each week. I agree. The teams they have played have gotten progressively worse. There is my equation.

Which has nothing to do with comparing those 3 teams.

WebFire;1287645 wrote:Which has nothing to do with comparing those 3 teams.

ok, have a nice day

Great. You too.

WebFire;1287622 wrote:Remember when ND had a tough schedule this year? That seems to be going down the ****ter each week.

Still a better schedule than 95% all of college football

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/20462037/hed-notre-dames-revival-can-be-traced-to-arrival-of-humble-hawaiian-teo

Crimson streak;1287694 wrote:Still a better schedule than 95% all of college football

Disagree. It was more a point of the team's on their schedule crumbling, not ND themselves.

karen lotz;1278788 wrote:Yup. I'll be in Chicago that weekend, hoping to be able to find some cheap tickets.

How in the hell did you find a hotel? With the marathon that place is a zoo.

WebFire;1287630 wrote:Weird how you came up with that equation when Michigan hasn't played either of those teams, and ND beat all 3.

To be fair, I remember after the ND-UM game this year that you said that you thought it was a shame that Notre Dame, Michigan State and Ohio State would all be ranked ahead of Michigan the next day because you though UM was a better team than all three of them even though Michigan had not (and obviously still hasn't) played two of those three and just lost to ND.

Anyways, the schedule definitely looks more manageable than it did but it's still a little early to discount some teams just yet. USC could win out and they'd look about as good as people thought they'd be. Same goes for Oklahoma and a few other teams on the schedule. Basically, there's a lot of football left to play and thing can change drastically in a couple weeks in college football.

This obviously isn't the matchup it used to be but an undefeated ranked in the top 10 ND team taking on a 4-1 Miami(FL) squad isn't that bad of a setup.

killer_ewok;1287824 wrote:To be fair, I remember after the ND-UM game this year that you said that you thought it was a shame that Notre Dame, Michigan State and Ohio State would all be ranked ahead of Michigan the next day because you though UM was a better team than all three of them even though Michigan had not (and obviously still hasn't) played two of those three and just lost to ND.

Point taken, but nowhere did I say Michigan > ND > MSU. Nor was it unrelated to the topic at the time.

killer_ewok;1287824 wrote:Anyways, the schedule definitely looks more manageable than it did but it's still a little early to discount some teams just yet. USC could win out and they'd look about as good as people thought they'd be. Same goes for Oklahoma and a few other teams on the schedule. Basically, there's a lot of football left to play and thing can change drastically in a couple weeks in college football.

Not sure people still think USC is #2 in the land, do they? But I agree, college football is a week-to-week game. If I were an ND fan, I would be feeling a little giddy at the possibilities for the remainder of the season. It certainly looks better than it did at the beginning of the season.

killer_ewok;1287824 wrote:This obviously isn't the matchup it used to be but an undefeated ranked in the top 10 ND team taking on a 4-1 Miami(FL) squad isn't that bad of a setup.

We'll find out out if Miami is a good 4-1 or bad 4-1.

WebFire;1287805 wrote:Disagree. It was more a point of the team's on their schedule crumbling, not ND themselves.

I know that but their schedule is still better than 95% percent of college football. At the end of the year bad could have played 5-6 ranked teams. To me that's a pretty damn good schedule

WebFire;1287861 wrote:Point taken, but nowhere did I say Michigan > ND > MSU. Nor was it unrelated to the topic at the time.



Not sure people still think USC is #2 in the land, do they? But I agree, college football is a week-to-week game. If I were an ND fan, I would be feeling a little giddy at the possibilities for the remainder of the season. It certainly looks better than it did at the beginning of the season.



We'll find out out if Miami is a good 4-1 or bad 4-1.

Fair enough on your first point.

No, I don't think and I don't believe that others think that USC is the #2 in the land. My point was (and maybe I did not state it clearly) that if USC runs the table from this point on they will basically be what people thought they would be when it's all said and done.

And agree about Miami.

Crimson streak;1287952 wrote:I know that but their schedule is still better than 95% percent of college football. At the end of the year bad could have played 5-6 ranked teams. To me that's a pretty damn good schedule

Don't disagree. One thing you can't fault ND on is scheduling.

killer_ewok;1287953 wrote:Fair enough on your first point.

No, I don't think and I don't believe that others think that USC is the #2 in the land. My point was (and maybe I did not state it clearly) that if USC runs the table from this point on they will basically be what people thought they would be when it's all said and done.

And agree about Miami.

Got it. Agree all around.

WebFire;1287962 wrote:Don't disagree. One thing you can't fault ND on is scheduling.

I agree. Looking at the schedule at the beginning of the year I was expecting 4 losses now I look at it and u can't help but think 12-0 really isn't out of the question. I still think they lose 1 or 2 but if things fall there way 12-0 is definitely not out of the question

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287823 wrote:How in the hell did you find a hotel? With the marathon that place is a zoo.

Booked it in February. Three night minimum at like 300 a night.

And yes, driving in on Lakeshore was a zoo.

Rees will start. Violation of team rules by Golson. Wow. Golson will play though.

Late for a team meeting

I will be drinking all of the pitchers of bud light in Chicago now

karen lotz;1288605 wrote:I will be drinking all of the pitchers of bud light in Chicago now

Peasant beer. You're better than that.