It was even worse last year. I think he's developing quickly in this regard.
As for the bigger picture issues in the program, i know it's the elephant in the room that people REFUSE to acknowledge, but Notre Dame just doesn't have good enough players--and as a result, isn't a good enough team--to put decent teams like Duke away efficiently/smoothly/consistently/etc. so there are problems.
It's funny because I basically post about this and provide a laundry list of evidence on the daily, yet people refuse to accept this very simple explanation for NDs CONSISTENT issues. It's a simple problem but not an easy one to fix without serious changes at the highest level of the institution.
"It's funny because I basically post about this and provide a laundry list of evidence on the daily, yet people refuse to accept this very simple explanation for NDs CONSISTENT issues. It's a simple problem but not an easy one to fix without serious changes at the highest level of the institution."
You will NEVER convince certain people of ND's "CONSISTENT ISSUES" -- or what I call STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE -- as it's simply ANATHEMA to them. They simply don't want to hear it.
They'd rather WISH ON A STAR for something largely UNATTAINABLE, get FRUSTRATED, plug in either IMPOSSIBLE or LESS THAN OPTIMAL "solutions," get frustrated again and then WISH ON A STAR again as though it's now a CLEAN SLATE -- when in fact ZERO has changed fundamentally.
Has this not been a YEARLY OCCURENCE since, say, 1993?
Nor do they wish to acknowledge ND's self-imposed CEILING despite ND's unequivocal AUTHORSHIP of such a policy, SIDESTEPPING the issue instead by retreating behind the "ND DOESN'T DO CERTAIN SORTS OF THINGS/WE'RE NOT THAT KIND OF PLACE" defense. Which while totally backing the university on MISSION GROUNDS offers NO CRITIQUE as to how that does NOTHING to help the football program.
In other words, the argument initially asserts -- USUALLY VIA SOME MAGICAL RECRUITING FORMULA -- that things can be changed enough so that an NC can be won, but then
when it doesn't happen and OUTSIDE SOLUTIONS are suggested, those are immediately DISQUALIFIED on the grounds of their being NON-ND-LIKE.
It's similar to what's been happening in politcal discourse where if you argue with one side or the other's ideology, you can be disqualified SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF YOUR MAKING
YOUR KIND OF ARGUMENT. In other words, you're guilty by association WITH YOUR OWN IDEA.
So, someone like YOU -- or ME for that matter -- can NEVER win this argument because when the ND WAY is shown to be fruitless THE GOAL POSTS ARE MOVED so that anything too UN-ND-LIKE is looked upon as heretical and anyone who promotes it as some sort of SELF-EVIDENT DOPE from outside the lines.
When you have this umatched ONE-TIME-ONLY pre-1956 football legacy colliding with post-1952 IVY LEAGUE WANNABE ASPIRATIONS -- SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE and it winds up being LOGIC, allowing in all sorts of excuses and RATIONALIZATIONS by which those WISHING ON A STAR continue to DELUDE THEMSELVES.
I don't mean to be HARSH, but I've been watching this KABUKI DANCE since Holtz's last years and, frankly, you're simply PISSING UP A ROPE trying to persuade people of what's going on if they simply refuse to see it. Tritely put, THEY WANT THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT. Harvard in the classroom. Alabama on the gridiron.
Talk about the ultimate LOW PERCENTAGE SHOT.
No, what ND seems to be about is PERPETUALLY MENDING its own self-inflicted gunshot wound, while a) never working out some sort of compromise solution to the ACADEMICS vs. ATHLETICS STALEMATE and b) denying that ND could ever be accused of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the first place as it simply operates on a HIGHER PLANE where such things as respects ITSELF are simply UNTHINKABLE.
Listen, if the last THIRTY YEARS have taught us anything, it's that
WE AIN'T GOING BACK TO 1946 to 1949.
Not NOW. Not EVER.