I said under.

New coaching staff, new QB, not a whole lot of improvements.

ccrunner609 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: Over. Kelly's offense works against any team that doesn't have excellent defensive talent, so they will light up the scoreboard until they play USC. They might score 100 on Michigan. They will outscore Purdue, Boston College, Western Michigan, Navy, Tulsa, and Army. Michigan State and Utah will be toss ups. Pittsburgh should beat them. Stanford will put 50 on them, and they have no chance against USC. 7 or 8 wins.

Did you forget that he is coaching a team that plays shitty defense and he will likely not make it better?

He had a shitty defense at UC as well and they outscored everyone until they ran into Florida. Now UC didn't play a schedule like Notre Dame has, but I didn't say Notre Dame would go 12-0 either.

I'll go over. I'm not near as optimistic as a lot of ND fans I talk to, but 7-5 with the talent they have is not unreasonable at all. I know talent doesn't equal wins. I think Kelly teaches these kids how to play the college game as oposed to weis who thought these kids were NFL veterans.

slingshot4ever wrote: Because I hear too many ND fnas that say they can finish top 3 in the Big Ten every year which is laughable. I am not saying you are like the fans I know, but I was interested to see how confident you really were.

I think ND loses to Michigan.

Beat Purdue...

Beat Navy...

Teabagger wrote:I think Kelly teaches these kids how to play the college game as oposed to weis who thought these kids were NFL veterans.

I'm counting on Kelly getting these kids fired up tp play!

athlete37 wrote: Beat Purdue...

Cleveland Buck wrote: Beat Navy...

Call it even?

I expect a lot of improvement on defense. They really have no where to go but up. Jon Tenuta was out-coached constantly and the 4-3 didn't suit the skills of the defense. I think the 3-4 will benefit them greatly. Returning all of the front seven can't be bad either.

I honestly don't see defensive skill being a problem. If they can coach they will be fine. I don't know anything about the new defensive coordinator, so I won't predict that.

Offensively they're loaded at receiver and running back in my opinion. I can't remember the last time Notre Dame had a running back group as complete and experienced as this. Allen, Hughes, and Riddick are all capable of being the #1 guy. The receiving corp is absolutely loaded with talent. Replacing Tate will be far easier than replacing Clausen.

If Crist can carry the load, there's no saying what they can't do.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:I can't remember the last time Notre Dame had a running back group as complete and experienced as this.

Not since Holtz.

Considering I was born in 1989, I don't remember the Holtz years. Perhaps I'm a curse?

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

athlete37 wrote: Beat Purdue...

Cleveland Buck wrote: Beat Navy...
Beat Michigan...

Call it even?

Well, I forgot something, so I fixed my quote.

So no, not quite even. Almost though.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Considering I was born in 1989, I don't remember the Holtz years. Perhaps I'm a curse?

Lou recruited nothing but running backs. Of course, he ran the option but went five deep at the position. The ones that couldn't cut it he turned in to linebackers.

Cleveland Buck wrote: Well, I forgot something, so I fixed my quote.

So no, not quite even. Almost though.

You know we can go back and forth with this all day, right? It ends with me pointing out Notre Dame has more national championships and wins than Ohio State, and you mentioning how futile they'd been in the last fifteen years; then me saying well they're both fine programs, why the hell are we splitting hairs?

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: Well, I forgot something, so I fixed my quote.

So no, not quite even. Almost though.

You know we can go back and forth with this all day, right? It ends with me pointing out Notre Dame has more national championships and wins than Ohio State, and you mentioning how futile they'd been in the last fifteen years; then me saying well they're both fine programs, why the hell are we splitting hairs?

I never have any intention of taking it that far. I have no problems with Notre Dame, and you are correct that it would be a complete waste of time.

I have no skin in this game. I will say they will go over. Five out of the last six games will be very winnable for ND and I think they take two out of three from Purdue, Michigan and MSU. I would guess between 7-8 wins for the Irish. If they finish 8-4 they go to the Champs Sports Bowl to play an ACC opponent.

Sept. 4 PURDUE -----------
Sept. 11 MICHIGAN ---------
Sept. 18 at Michigan State -------
Sept. 25 STANFORD --------
Oct. 2 at Boston College ---------
Oct. 9 PITTSBURGH -------
Oct. 16 WESTERN MICHIGAN--------
Oct. 23 at Navy (E. Rutherford, NJ) -------
Oct. 30 TULSA ---------
Nov. 13 UTAH ----------
Nov. 20 Army (at Bronx, NY)---------
Nov. 27 at USC ---------

Cleveland Buck wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

athlete37 wrote: Beat Purdue...

Cleveland Buck wrote: Beat Navy...
Beat Michigan...

Call it even?

Well, I forgot something, so I fixed my quote.

So no, not quite even. Almost though.

You see we know Notre Dame is terrible and OSU is not. Teams that Notre Dame lost to, OSU should beat. That's why there is humor in the fact that ND beat Purdue while OSU did not.

Runner, I'm curious as to why you have Notre Dame losing to all 3 Big 10 teams (which I very much doubt) but have Notre Dame beating USC. Did you throw that in there for shock value like you usually do, or are you serious?

one good thing about next year is that there really isnt any hype to live up to...anything above 8 wins will be a huge accomplishment for a first year head coach.

I agree completely. I just want a quality bowl win.

People do need to understand 2010 was supposed to be Notre Dame's year. ccrunner is absolutely wrong in saying Notre Dame says the same thing every year. I have always said 2010 should be when Notre Dame makes a run for a championship (the difference is I was saying they could in 2009 because their schedule look so bad). Will that happen? Hell no. But my point is there is more talent and experience at Notre Dame right now than some people realize. I really think Notre Dame will turn some heads if Crist can play well.

Over.

8-4

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I agree completely. I just want a quality bowl win.

People do need to understand 2010 was supposed to be Notre Dame's year. ccrunner is absolutely wrong in saying Notre Dame says the same thing every year. I have always said 2010 should be when Notre Dame makes a run for a championship (the difference is I was saying they could in 2009 because their schedule look so bad). Will that happen? Hell no. But my point is there is more talent and experience at Notre Dame right now than some people realize. I really think Notre Dame will turn some heads if Crist can play well.

When's the last time you've heard ND was suppose to have a down year?

Looks like 7-5 give or take a game, so "over", but I wouldn't bet the rent money.

sleeper wrote: When's the last time you've heard ND was suppose to have a down year?

Since I've started following football: 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007.

2002: Ty was our fourth choice, this may be mediocre.
2003: National Champions? Southern Cal lost Palmer so we're set.
2004: Maybe Ty isn't so great? This could get ugly.
2005: Ty left Weis too depleted, good luck with the tough schedule fatty.
2006: Buy your National Champions shirt in September.
2007: This could be bumpy, but Weis is a good coach.
2008: Must be better than the dismal 2007, please win a bowl.
2009: Schedule is so easy and they return everyone. They could actually win out and play for the title.

Yeah that's right firing a coach and letting the interim guy coach the bowl game worked out well last time... :s

Yes, those overhyped (which I'm not convinced is actually a word; and do you know the meaning of mythical?) classes contain a lot of talent. You see, I'm taking the advice of people who are actually paid to evaluate talent over some gym-teaching asshole.

Dayne Crist isn't any good? Yeah, only ranked the #3 (Scout.com) and #2 (Rivals.com) quarterback in the country coming out high school. Overrated (see, that's an actual word) is hard to believe because he was offered by Southern California. I'd take an offer by the school that produces the best quarterbacks nearly every year over your opinion.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: Well, I forgot something, so I fixed my quote.

So no, not quite even. Almost though.

You know we can go back and forth with this all day, right? It ends with me pointing out Notre Dame has more national championships and wins than Ohio State, and you mentioning how futile they'd been in the last fifteen years; then me saying well they're both fine programs, why the hell are we splitting hairs?

You forgot the drunken, sloppy make-up sex after the conclusion of the argument.

rocket31 wrote: one good thing about next year is that there really isnt any hype to live up to...anything above 8 wins will be a huge accomplishment for a first year head coach.

This.