BTF

Didn't figure I'd get much argument. And Michigan taught the game of football to Notre Dame, you can forever hold that over us if you'd like.

Nah. I think the post you shared a few minutes ago hits the nail on the head. I guess if you go back 30 years Notre Dame may fall out of the Top 10. They had some rough years under Willingham, Weis, and Davie. CPF era? Boom, I'll roll with #6. All time? Number two is hard to argue, I think Alabama could make a case. Past 30 years? You may have a point. I think our definition of iconic is pretty far apart.

You act like I'm alone in my opinion. https://tiptop25.com/topcolleges_all_time.html

You don't have to win a national championship to be iconic. Hell, you don't have to be a Top 50 program to attain a title like that. Relevance over the past 30 years is immaterial as well. You cant deny the Notre Dame brand on a national scale, I'm sorry, you just can't.

I'm really not in a fact checking mood at the moment. It seems like there's been some discussions in the past few years as to who the best programs are in the last decade. I feel like Notre Dame always popped up somewhere in that 5-7 range. It's hard to ignore all of the ten win seasons. I don't recall Penn State ever being brought into those conversations.

1. Seriously? Franklin? Penn State? Most overrated program of the last decade. 2. No one doubts that IU was the beneficiary of an easy schedule. The committee along with any other reasonalbe fan agrees that it was the fashion in which they managed the hand they were dealt. The way they beat teams was pretty impressive. No one expected the Michigan game to be as close as it was, but now I think we all realize that Michigan is a different team now than they were in the first half of the season.

1. No 2. Agree 3. Exactly. That's my point.

Opinion, I agree. But they make a pretty damn good case. Let's take some geek from the state of Washington that doesn't know anything about football. Question 1: Which univerisity is most widely known for it's football program? A: Notre Dame B: Michigan C Alabama He's probably going with A.

I'm just saying that losing to IU doesn't suggest the comical idea that Notre Dame isn't a Top 4 program in the Big Ten. That's ND derangement syndrome at it's finest. I believe that you don't believe that, just needed clarification.

I don't think you're up to speed as to why Notre Dame chose the ACC, but it had nothing to do with "ducking" the Big Ten. We're talking about the most iconic football program in America here. Notre Dame will continue their committment with Navy regardless of whether or noth the Midshipmen go on a 200 game losing streak. You do know why, correct? Let's compromise with 5/10. No way I'm giving you 2-3. That's laughable.

Certainly you're not suggesting that a loss to IU would somehow prove that ND wouldn't finish Top 4 in the Big Ten "most" years? It's comical that some actually think that ND isn't on the same level as Michigan, Oregon, and.............drumroll............Penn State over the last decade. The last one is pretty humorous. I'll take a back seat to the Ohio State going back ten years, but not the other three, sorry.

That pretty much equates to "afraid."

What island have you been living on the past 10 years? Ohio State is the only program that would regularly finish ahead of the Irish. I've gotta laugh Penn State most years. Granted, they're pretty solid this year. But this is their best season in a long time and I still have Notre Dame winning that game. Notre Dame goes 50/50 most years with Michigan and Oregon. "Yeah, ND isn't finishing top 4 most years" is 100% false. Over a ten year timespan, that may be true three times.

Coaches are evolving. At one time it was trendy to focus on skill players first, linemen second. That changed, and is the reason now you see more linemen being drafted in the top five positions more than ever before. The same now can be said for depth. And it's the reason some of your better coaches win year after year. An injury.............or two, three, or four, doesn't always change the trajectory of a national title. These coaches have depth and they know how to develop it and make sure they're prepared when it's that players turn to step up. The one caveat to this is the quarterback position. This position alone typically determines a head coach's long term position at a program where he's making millions per year.

So Notre Dame doesn't join a conference becasue they are afraid? Good Lord, not sure this is even worth a response.

Your prototypical 6'2", 200lb, dropback passing college level quarterback normally comes from those suburban schools whose families used to reside closer to the donut. You could say the same thing for offensive linemen. It's the type of kid Snider had in the 80's and 90's that Homestead and Carroll are now the beneficiaries of. I think Warren and Ben Davis are seeing that same thing.

I think I'm rolling with Warren if it's about winning titles. It's hard to overlook their enrollment numbers. Homestead and Carroll are about the same, I do think however that Carroll will outpace Homestead in terms of population growth.

Not that it's open, but which is the better opportunity in your opinion, Warren Central or Homestead?

One guy though? I would agree with that if we were talking about 3A, but I keep saying it, 6A is a beast. I don't think one guy makes much difference.

Figured you'd like that (did some editing for ya). Eighty percent of the posters on this forum seem to gravitate toward Sagarin, so why not use it for the sake of debate? I still think Sagarin is 30% pretend. At the end of the day, you're probably right. There might be a dozen teams that would go 11-1 with Notre Dame's schedule. But most of those teams wouldn't match Notre Dame's margin of victory.

Sagarin must like Notre Dame's margin of victory since they are #1 in his poll.

Does Freeman feel a bit indebted to Notre Dame? Giving a guy with no head coaching experience an opportunity to run arguably the most iconic college football program in the country? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I think he likes what he's doing in South Bend..............but you never know.

How does everyone see this going down? I think IU is better than what they showed against Ohio State. It was stated by Cignetti that IU didn't play very well. Normally that's a byproduct of playing a very good football team. In this case, I think think it was a little of that and a little of "uncharacteristic" execution or lack thereof. Mostly on special teams. And Rourke didn't look 100%, still nursing an injury. IU got that first major road game out of the way, therefore should be more prepared this time around. Notre Dame has pretty much dominated everyone on their schedule. The Northern Illinois game isn't even relevant after seeing what they did to the rest of their schedule. Going by the eye test, it appears that Notre Dame has as good of a shot to win the whole thing as anyone. I've got Oregon, Notre Dame, Georgia, and Texas dead locked as the favorites. I do think Cignetti is one of the best coaches in the country, so IU will be ready to go. Although I don't think the gap between the two teams is a major one, I've gotta take the home team by 14. Thoughts?

Toledo Witmer 20, Luers 3 Columbus Harley 40, Luers 6 (something like that) The Ritter game was never in doubt.

Zackery will have company in the backfield from another local kid.