PDB26

Didn't he resign while on administrative leave? Not saying that's an indication of malfeasance on his part, but, and maybe @Bobref has some insight, but what is the employer's liability if they didn't even terminate the employee? Also, I'm not sure I see the connection between a judgment for Barron and enlightenment for the tax payer regarding public education.

The CFP money is cake, but the new NBC deal combined with ND's cut of ACC money is the feather in ND's football independence cap. The CFP deal was good business for structurally preserving independence. I always thought the reporting on Stanford was incomplete. Consider that Stanford's reported revenues place it well outside the top 25––operating at a loss––yet only Michigan (29) and Ohio State (35) come anywhere close to offering the number of varsity sports as does Stanford. Most of the high-earning departments sponsor between 19-21 varsity sports. I wonder if, in a strange way, football and Title IX end up being sufficient to save many potentially at-risk programs. I think it will be hard for departments to offset for football and still cut the number of sponsored sports substantially while staying compliant with Title IX. The department went through staff reductions during COVID, but, after a glance at the athletics department directory, I think they've actually surpassed the number of pre-COVID staff. Notre Dame doesn't do anything off the cuff, so I imagine all department growth has taken place with an eye to the likely future of paying players as employees or engaging in revenue sharing. So far as the changes to the business side at IU go, Notre Dame has been playing that game for decades. I suspect the House settlement will have limited impact on Notre Dame.

On day 1 you learn the answer to almost any question is, “that depends.”

Except, if I’m correctly remembering an opinion I read two years ago, Indiana courts treat the IHSAA as a state actor in matters regarding student access to participation in sports—with sports being an extension of education—and do not afford the IHSAA the same deference that a private membership association would get in all matters. So, from the perspective of athletics as educational opportunities, it does not seem wildly out of the general assembly’s lane to consider legislation on the matter.

Ok, thanks. I thought by the angle from espn that the flag was coming across the field from even farther away. Glad they could overcome that one.

Went back and watched the all-22 on ESPN on Sunday morning, and you still can't see where it comes from although it's almost certainly the field judge––same guy you IDed. Brutal call.

The old format would have likely excluded Penn State and Texas. The conference championships create a strange set of circumstances in the new format. The losers in those games seem to get even more grace from the committee than they used to. I would guess the four-teamer would have been: Oregon, Georgia, Ohio State, and Notre Dame.

Sark is going to see that 1st and goal from the 1 possession in his nightmares.

One of the worst big-moment officiating decisions I can think of in recent memory. Not even sure who made the call. Can't see a flag on either angle from the tv copy. It felt very much like a call made based on the outcome of the play. Way under thrown ball, receiver jumps early and away from the ball.

They didn’t have a ton of trouble finding it on the next series.

A little, but I get what you mean. He was vital in turning the tide there at the end of the half, and he breathed life into the team. Still, too small of a sample for a polled game MVP. Wagner getting that ball away from Carter in the pile after the strip sack was equally significant. Leonard is a third down machine. Love’s touchdown run was one of the great individual efforts of the game. Nails.

I only mean that the limitations at receiver make it hard on both quarterback and the offensive line to have a traditionally successful passing attack.

For sure. Jack knew that the opportunity cost of losing Freeman's potential to LSU, then likely some other program, would vastly exceed the cost of Freeman potentially flaming out as a first time head coach because, if nothing else, the recruiting was expected to improve. There was a lot of overreaction from the fanbase to some of the losses through the first two years. Objectively, Notre Dame's offense was easy to defend, and Freeman had a lot to learn. I hated the loss to NIU, but the more concerning thing for me––what had me wondering if it was going to work out––was Freeman was clearly trying to figure out who to act like instead of just being himself. He made a lot of strange comments in pregame and postgame interviews, and I think the pressure of the job was getting to him. In a funny way, that loss to NIU might have given him the freedom to be himself since his back was all the way up against the wall.

I was a supporter of the decision to make him head coach, knowing there would have to be growing pains along the way, but I found myself wondering if he would actually make it after the NIU loss and some public comments early in the season. Into year three, Freeman always seemed like he was trying to fit into the idea of what being the head coach at Notre Dame is. He seemed to be acting out what he thought the head coach at Notre Dame should be like. In the aftermath of losing to NIU, he seemed to become more certain in himself and what the program needed, and I think that's when he figured out who he would be as the head coach at Notre Dame––he's making the role fit him.

SEC and B1G are killing conference championship games tomorrow. Regular season still matters. Just more potential elimination games now.

Yeah, I thought the offenses mostly looked clunky, although Michigan really leaned on them on that last scoring drive. The Alabama offense looked in disarray, but I thought the defense mostly acquitted itself. Michigan's defense is the story of the game. A real nice result for the maize and blue going into next year.

Well, I guess we now know who would win the hypothetical game between Alabama and IU.

Ok, we’re derailing this thread. In an effort to make it relate to IU, I’d love for Surratt to enter the portal and go to ND—he’s a dawg. I believe Dabo, but Clemson has had more five-star quarterbacks in the past ten years than ND has had in my lifetime. His argument has always been, in part, one that seeks to protect the recruiting advantage he had built up—and that’s ok, too. Dabo has done a great job at Clemson and I can’t think of the last time I heard something bad about a Clemson player—while they were at Clemson, anyway. Transfers have always been a way to improve a specific position, it just required looking ahead one year in the past. I love the idea of loyalty and think it’s great for teams to develop players over time, but I also have a tough time believing that college football, as a whole, was necessarily more loyal or moral in the past. I’m not being harsh on Angeli or Carr—interesting that nobody ever mentions Minchey. All three of those guys are probably better passers than Leonard. I wanted Angeli to be the guy this year, but I think the gains for the offense would have been modest—at best—even if the quarterback play definitely would have been more consistent because ND would be much easier to defend without Leonard’s improv ability and his capacity to carry the ball on designed runs. Without Leonard, ND’s offense would often look like IU did against the Irish defense except ND doesn’t have a Surratt to take a chance with on a few 50/50 balls. Leonard’s deficiencies as a passer almost certainly mean there have been completions left on the field either through missed throws or no-throws. ND’s receivers might look better if that wasn’t the case. We know he’s missed chances to hit guys downfield on the scramble, too. Still this year’s group of receivers is no better at defeating press coverage or separating from coverage in general, and the only guy who kind of threatens as a deep contested ball catcher is Faison. ND has fared better throwing against teams that are heavy zone teams (IU) because the receivers don’t need to take the top off to be effective enough and Leonard is able to evade pressure to avoid a lot of sacks. Sorry IU thread.

1. But if you’re recruiting players to come in out of high school every year, and you could get a player at any position to come in and play immediately and better ahead of a guy who has been in the program is that doing the wrong thing or is that ok because it feels different than waiver-free transfers? 2. I don’t want to keep derailing the IU thread with ND talk, but Leonard’s athletic ability, experience, and instincts have allowed him to make positives out of many negative plays in the pass game that I don’t think anyone else on the roster has. Leonard has also thrown the two worst interceptions I’ve ever seen on downfield passes, but the young offensive line and generally poor receiver play would have been a lot for the other guys to overcome with how that would allow defenses to attack ND.

That's ok, but I don't know what Navy beating half of Oklahoma's roster by 1 in a bowl game is supposed to tell us about a hypothetical game between Alabama and IU.

What's Cignetti supposed to do, play a guy who he didn't recruit, and obviously isn't impressed with, or one of two true sophomores with no experience––especially after raising expectations and dollar signs in year 1––on the verge of a season where they go to Oregon, Iowa, and Penn State? I don't think any of these coaches really want to get into the portal QB pipeline. You mentioned ND, but there's no way ND is in the playoff this season if any of the other QBs on the roster had been the starter given how bad ND has been at receiver, and I say that with the understanding of Leonard's own limitations as a passer. I don't like how coaches use the portal to remake large parts, or the entirety, of their rosters, but limited use isn't all that different than recruiting a guy out of high school who comes in and immediately overtakes an upperclassman. Nothing really does justice to the kids who were committed from the beginning other than each player being a strong performer in the eyes of their coaches although it is easier to get passed by someone else now. Athletes in every sport except for men's and women's basketball, football, baseball, and men's hockey have been able to play immediately after transferring without a waiver from the NCAA since at least 2002, so long as they were academically eligible, and the portal is just a clearinghouse for athletes that was created when they no longer had to ask permission to leave starting in like 2018 and then 2021 for football. All the rules for initial and transfer eligibility were supposed to be based on academics and staying on track to graduate anyway.

I get that IU had a great season, but if you think any of those three defenses would have had an appreciably more difficult time than Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio State did slowing down IU's offense, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Just a comment on the idea that highly rated qbs should or would even consider going to a mid-major or lower tier P4 when they have offers from big time programs. That was the overreaction. Mendoza was a three star out of high school, but that’s meaningless now. I’m sure he’ll be a fine player for IU in the fall.

This seems like an overreaction. Mendoza was a three star not some top-flight guy. The only mid-major QBs who ever get talked about in the portal are guys from sling-it-around offenses who will be in their 5th/6th year of eligibility. I'm not sure why an elite incoming freshman would see the need to go to a mid-major, pass on oodles of NIL money, and burn a year of eligibility while risking injury. Indiana is going to need an experienced guy next year just like they did this year.

Not if IU came out with––and stayed in––a clunker of a game plan like they did against ND. All that noise just to come out with the plan to RPO, with a stationary QB, and back shoulder ND's defense to death, I think, has brought a lot of scorn upon IU from more than just the Finebaum's of the world. One has to think IU has about as big a target on its back as any team does next season and just in time to have to go to Oregon, Iowa, and Penn State. Credit to IU for navigating their schedule, but they only played two teams with a pulse on the road and lost both. For what it's worth, especially under the current format, IU should have been in over Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, but I think all three of those teams would have wiped the floor with them in a playoff game, even on the road. I felt SMU was the least deserving of the at large teams. Still, there was no grave injustice committed against any at large teams that were left out since they all found ways to lose games late in the season.