Bobref

The problem is some people believe that the need to marginally increase their playoff chances by upgrading the schedule in that way trumps honor and loyalty. Thankfully, Notre Dame has never taken that position. If that makes them naive, so be it.

I’d say it slightly differently. “The teams that Notre Dame needs on their schedule no longer need Notre Dame on their schedule.”

It’s because USC finds it no longer convenient, now that they are playing in a big boy league where they have to show up every week. Can’t say that I blame them.

They are playing them instead of USC, as that great series is suspended until at least 2030.

And 2 roughing the passer penalties, including the hit on Jordan Love that knocked him out of the game.

I presumed an undefeated regular season for ND would lead to a #1 seed. Here’s why: Ask yourself “When was the last season in which the FBS had more than one team with an undefeated regular season record?” Hint: Not in this century.

I don’t disagree. But in the NIL/portal era, teams can change literally overnight. So, we shall see. But having said that, show up ready to play in Week 1, and they’ll be fine. What do you call a Notre Dame team that runs the table with this schedule? You call them a #1 seed in the playoffs.

You heard it here first. It’s going to snow in South Bend next Nov. 7. Revenge is a dish best served cold. - Ancient Klingon proverb 09/06 - vs Wisconsin (in Green Bay, WI) 09/12 - Rice 09/19 - Michigan State 09/26 - at Purdue 10/03 - at North Carolina 10/31 - vs Navy (in Foxborough, MA) 11/07 - Miami (FL) 11/21 - Boston College TBA - SMU TBA - Stanford TBA - at Syracuse TBA - vs USC

The physics say the reverse should be true if NFL players wear the same Guardian caps as high school players. But they don’t. As the article points out, the differences in the caps prevent you from extrapolating NFL results to the high school situation. I’m not a neurologist, but I speculate that it is also possible a teenager’s brain is not able to protect itself from impact as well as a fully mature adult brain. Just a guess.

This didn’t age particularly well.

The laboratory data show a reduction in certain impact forces with the use of the caps. However, the studies show that, in the real world, that doesn’t translate to fewer concussions.

You have got to be kidding me!

Not surprisingly, after the NFL declared that their experiment with Guardian caps showed a significant reduction in concussions, some real scientists decided to employ some real scientific testing to check the accuracy of the claims. Turns out that large scale studies have shown no reduction in concussion rates through the use of Guardian Caps. In addition to the study cited below, other large studies at the University of Wisconsin, and at Ball State, reached the same conclusion. https://www.concussionalliance.org/blog/guardian-caps-do-not-reduce-the-risk-of-srcs-in-high-school-football-players XT Guardian Caps do not reduce the risk of sport-related concussions in high school football players By Anni Yurcisin. This article was initially published in the 11/6/25 edition of our Concussion Update newsletter; please consider subscribing. In the East Bay in California, several high school football players sustained a concussion in one Friday night game, with one player having to be wheeled off on a stretcher, according to an NBC Bay Area article by Pete Suratos. Parents struggled with watching their kids get injured, looked for a lifeline to prevent concussions, and decided on Guardian Caps. Although they haven’t been proven to reduce concussions in high school football players, parents have been raising money to buy one for every player. A recent study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that Guardian Caps (GCs), an add-on padded “shell device” that goes atop a helmet, do not reduce the risk of sport-related concussions (SRCs) in high school football players. Across more than 2600 high school football players, GC use during practice was not associated with decreased SRC risk in practices or in games, including when accounting for the increased risk factor of having sustained an SRC in the past. While laboratory experiments have shown that extra padding, such as GCs, can limit simulated head impact forces, and previous data from the NFL have shown a decrease in preseason concussions with GC use, no previous studies have looked at the real-world efficacy of high school GCs, which, notably, are a different model from those used in the NFL. The GCs worn in the NFL (the NXT model) weigh approximately 357 grams and are approximately 2.5 cm thick, while those worn by high schoolers (the XT model) weigh approximately 220 grams and are approximately 1.5 cm thick. Because of this difference, NFL studies cannot be extrapolated to high school athletes. This study illustrates that there is no evidence to suggest that the XT model GCs used by high school athletes reduce SRCs. Importantly, as Dr. Erin Hammer told the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, “... using these devices may provide false reassurance to players and their parents who are hoping to reduce their kids’ risk of concussion.” Of the 180 SRCs recorded throughout the year by athletic trainers, 64 occurred during practice and 116 occurred during games. The number of SRCs occurring in practice was remarkably similar between GC-wearing and non-GC-wearing athletes; 33 of the practice-related concussions were in athletes wearing GCs, while 31 practice-related concussions were in athletes not wearing GCs. In what is standard practice among football players who wear GCs, athletes who wore GCs during practices did not wear them during games. Of the 116 game-related concussions, 68 occurred in athletes who wear GCs at practice, and 48 occurred in those who do not. The authors urge sport-related institutions to implement evidence-based changes to reduce SRCs rather than pursuing new technologies that haven’t been proven to reduce SRCs in non-laboratory settings, such as GCs. They highlight three changes that have been connected to a reduction in SRCs: policies aimed at limiting contact in football practices (which reduced the rate of practice-related SRCs by 64%), coach participation in a comprehensive football safety training program (which reduced the rate of practice and game-related SRCs by 50%), and modifications to helmets with increased padding in targeted areas (which were associated with a 31% lower rate of SRC). These changes, while less flashy than technologies like GCs, have been proven to decrease the risk of SRC and should be the targets for high school leagues to improve the cognitive health of their athletes

Exactly.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have no issue with Notre Dame not making the playoff. I’ve described it many times as a “self-inflicted wound.” Watching that debacle in College Station just drives it home deeper. But not wrong.

Need help with any of the words? 🤣😂

And depressing.

Watching the first half of the Miami -Texas A & M game. Are you serious? Today, Notre Dame would beat either of these two like a red-headed stepchild. Woulda, coulda, shoulda… SMH

@temptation was right. The trademark of a true hater: unable to concede that Michigan is doing the right thing, if belatedly. Credibility = 0 as a result.

Whatever. But my question remains unanswered: What would you have them do now, other than exactly what they are doing?

I still don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. What would you have them do now, other than exactly what they’re doing?

I take back every negative thing I ever said about you. 😂🤣😅

EDIT: The better question is what will happen to their report? Will Michigan make it public? I have no idea if the Michigan equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act applies to something like that. But, just for comparison purposes, Notre Dame hired independent experts to investigate the Declan Sullivan tragedy back in 2010. The entire unredacted report was immediately made publicly available, and you can still access it today at https://www.nd.edu/assets/docs/notre-dame-investigation-report.pdf I would expect Michigan would do the same.

What’s the alternative? Do the investigation in house? I can just imagine your comments if they had gone that route. They hired Jenner & Block, an outstanding law firm with a lot of experience in this sort of thing. It will be very expensive, but they will get their money’s worth.

Bobby Petrino says “hold my beer…”