Recruiting is not good at ND (can we get past this idea that recruiting has been good here?)

[munson15]

Not to mention the academic rigors of ND mean the players can't spend nearly the time on football that Bama players can.

Every team in the NCAA has the same 20 hour per week limit on football activities.

 

[RTLH]

I want to start this off with saying that coaches have a big impact on recruiting. I'm not absolving Kelly of his failures at ND by making this article. In fact, if you read many of my posts I'm on the 'fire' Kelly band wagon. Not simply because of poor coaching/on the field decision making (those things are actually rather difficult to evaluate given the limited access/insight we have to the team), but by and large, because of lack luster recruiting/personnel results.

I do also believe that university administration (AD, university president, etc.) has a HUGE impact on recruiting as well based on policies relating to restrictions, budget, admissions, etc. This is clearly an area of the program/team/university that REQUIRES addressing.

ND DOES NOT RECRUIT "WELL", RECRUITING IS NOT "GOOD".

And nobody in the media seems to care/talk about it/ or report on it (there's just a seemingly awkward agreement among professionals/analysts that cover the team that the recruiting is 'good'). I don't know any sport where talent is virtually ignored or looked at as an afterthought. TALENT IS EVERYTHING. And it can be quantified thanks to a growing billion dollar recruiting industry that covers it extensively and keeps a database going back a decade ... like the one here on Rivals for instance.

The programs winning national championships on the football field are the programs winning national championships in recruiting leading up to them and its been that way since the ESPN/BCS era. This is an unarguable fact.

Here are national championship winners over the last 10+ years:

2005: Texas
2006: Florida
2007: LSU
2008: Florida
2009: Alabama
2010: Auburn
2011: Alabama
2012: Alabama
2013: Florida State
2014: Ohio State
2015: Alabama

What is the common denominator between all of these programs? If you haven't guessed it: They are recruiting powerhouses who dominate the recruiting rankings every year, have rosters full of consensus Top100 nationally rated recruits, and did so leading up to their national championships. Nobody recruits better than these programs and nobody wins more national championships/plays in more national championships than they do in the modern era.

Prior to 2005 it was USC dominating the recruiting rankings and also winning multiple national championships/playing in multiple national championship games.

NDs competition is no longer just the 12 teams on their schedule -- with the new playoff system -- NDs true competition is the top 5% of the 128 FBS programs in college football. Getting 4 star players at ND (which people often cite when defending NDs recruiting) isn't enough when the real playoff national championship contending programs are hording high 4 star and 5 star national bluechip talent.

Below is NDs recruiting class rank during the BK era

Year : ND rivals recruiting rank
2010: 14th
2011: 10th
2012: 20th
2013: 3rd
2014: 11th
2015: 11th
2016: 13th

These are not good enough results for a program with NDs money, prestige, history, fan suppport, etc. more importantly they are not good enough results to put the program in a prime position to win national championships.

These results don't even take into account into account all of the defections / suspensions / academic issues that lead to many of NDs best recruits leaving. Yes, all teams suffer from defections/academic issues/etc. but by ANY standard ND has been hit VERY hard (abnormally so) during the BK era.

These rankings also don't take into account that ND really only recruits well at a few position groups (mostly on the offensive side of the ball) thus providing depth at a few positions but largely leaving major talent gaps/talent drop off at the majority of others (mostly defense).

Also, ND does a terrible job maximizing its 85 scholarship allotment. Yes we can list off 3 or 4 star players 2 deep at many positions .. but if we lose a starter at ND we lose ANY rotation at the position because we don't have a capable 3rd and 4th guy ready in the wings. THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE THAT GOES VIRTUALLY UNTALKED ABOUT.

Rivals breaks it down like this (these are the players the top contending teams are competing for):
6.1 Rivals Rating (5 star)
6.0 Rivals Rating (high 4 star top 50 type national talent)
5.9 Rivals Rating (middle 4 star -- top 100ish national talent)
5.8 Rivals Rating (low 4 star)
5.7 Rivals Rating (high 3 star)

ND does extremely well with the two lowest tiers here (low 4 star, high 3 star) while the top 5% of programs are pulling in the 5.9, 6.0, 6.1s in mass quantity.

Until the talent gap is closed ND will always be a huge underdog to make the playoff, let alone win the playoff if they get there. And that's regardless of who is coaching the team. The program's results over the last 20+ years only further proves this fact.

This 2017 class is more of the same ... 80% of the roster will be high 3 star, low 4 star, only perpetuating the mediocrity another season further. Why are people surprised about another likely 8 or 9 win season when ND recruits like an 8 or 9 win program?

Why sample size matters, why MSU winning despite their mediocre talent has no relevance to NDs program, etc.

Why does Alabama and OSU lose to lesser opponents sometimes despite their talent advantage? Because variance/luck plays a significant role over a small sample size/a single game (4 quarters). There's a much stronger correlation between recruiting rankings AND winning percentage when expanding the sample size to more games/multiple seasons.

There's nothing more important/conducive to winning than the quality of athlete a program can obtain on the recruiting trail. Nothing more. This is something that should just be intuitively obvious. People like to cite very rare exceptions to this rule. Program's like MSU, or Oregon during the Chip Kelly era, or even Stanford. "how come these program's win despite their bad recruiting" ... these program's are both an exception to the rule and they haven't actually won anything worthy of Notre Dame (like a national championship for instance -- or even gotten there).

Here is where you may go wrong . Not being disrespectful. No matter how well you recruit you need to know how to nurture and develop players.
If you dont know how to do that I don't care if you have 85 5 star players . You are not going to win.

The amount of talent on this roster is not = to 2-5.

 

[GOUNUII]

Could recruiting be better of course. We need an admin that will allow for exceptions , better pay for coaches and better coaches

Exceptions to what standard for the admission of football players? ND has been admitting C students with 900 Math/Verbal SAT scores for some time now. Like elsewhere, the football program also has more than a few players with better HS academic records. But the notion that ND is handcuffed by academic admissions standards has been false for many years now. Only Stanford and Northwestern among Power 5 programs significantly self limit their football recruiting pools by admission standards. Places like Duke and Vandy and ND do not.

This is, by the way, a great thread on an interesting topic. I agree that ND's recruiting has been plenty good enough to win more games under Kelly. So coaching plays a significant role as well. We will continue to see lower rated recruiting programs do well. And in some cases, consistently well. That's what great coaching can do with a roster of many good and a few elite recruits. What we are not likely to see is lower rated (consistently outside the top 5 , on average, over a 5 year period) recruiting programs win a national championship ... not with just 4 schools selected to play for all the marbles. So unless a USC or Texas or ND or Michigan or LSU or Florida/FSU gets back to consistent elite recruiting ...AND HAS A GREAT COACH AT THE HELM ... OSU and Bama should dominate the NC scene with their recruiting and the coaches that have been there and done that over and over.

GOUNUII

 

[Harpo Marxist]

I'm with you in the first paragraph of this statement, but then you lose me.

Fact - There is units within special teams that have been below average each year (which is on him) but Notre Dame has also enjoyed some fine specialists under BK's watch. I'd say CJ Sanders is pretty damn dynamic in the return game. When he got to ND, his first few years, ND's coverage units were among the best in the nation. Kyle Brindza had a really special year kicking and left here with ND records... You obviously discredit the inconsistencies, but as a coach, I thoroughly appreciate some of the accomplishments they've had on special teams as well. For the record, I'm all for replacing Scott Booker. I've been vocal about the fact that I think he's weakest link on the coaching staff now that BVG is gone.

Fact- His play calling does indeed drive me insane sometimes, especially in the red zone. But look around college football, tons of teams have questionable play calling according to fans. Basically, what is in question is the result, and what could have been done differently, anytime something fails to work. Did you catch the quote "Ass chewing" Nick Saban gave Lane Kiffen on the sidelines a couple weeks back over redzone play calling? Do I wish Kelly thought more like Saban and basically crucified his coaches for another attacking vertically, on the ground and through the air in the redzone? Yes I do. However, I'd come on here and have to listen to people cry about Kelly not "being nice" to his coordinators, especially on national tv. The catch 22 there is ridiculous.

Fact- His in game decision making is definitely strange at times. You and I are on the same page there. Look at any of my "excuse" filled posts about Kelly and you will see the same trend. I routinely applaud him for his big picture work with the program. Where I question his ability is in his game management and on field decisions. They have been suspect throughout his tenure. But you're not proving anything to me with this point, or countering any of my arguments. You're simply reinforcing something I've been saying all along... So hey, we're on same page here.

Fact- Saying his offensive scheme "is not good", IMO, is such an ignorant statement. To make that statement would be to ignore the dozens of other teams around college football running virtually the exact same scheme. Each coach uses their wrinkles, but there is nothing wrong with ND's offensive scheme. Or are 40+ coaches around college football all wrong, and you're right?... Now, what you may have been trying to talk about is play calling within the scheme (which we touched on above) or the ability to execute and sustain the scheme at a school like Notre Dame. If so, that's another conversation. But the Big 12 schools use many identical scheme principals to what Kelly does and many of them put up video game numbers doing it. Also, this scheme has produced a plethora of high end (1st and 2nd round picks) NFL talent during Kelly's tenure. That tells me that they are teaching a lot of things correctly and scheming to get their best players the ball, in order to showcase their talent, but at times they struggling with play calling and execution... Re-watch the Stanford game. Was there any issue with Kelly's scheme when they marched down the field running the ball North-South and walked in for a touchdown in the first quarter? It looked great to me. Thought I was watching Baylor or Ohio State. The problems came when Denbrock (through Kelly) reverted back to passing the ball all over the field with Kizer, instead of staying with what worked, until Stanford stopped it. That's a play calling issue, not a scheme issue.

Fact- He does burn through timeouts and it enrages me (like I'm sure it does most ND fans). If you're going to run a "check with me" system, you have to get plays in extremely quickly and get lined up on the LOS with a sense of urgency, so the defense can be surveyed and an adjustment can be made... Again, Kelly makes critical on field blunders at times. I've admitted to this time-and-again. I don't know how many more times I can be excused of defending this fact, when in fact, I don't. My personal opinion is that you have to limit personnel package substitutions if you want to run a check-with-me system, because they waste a lot of time changing personnel on the fly, which takes away from the time they have to call (and potentially change) a play. The tempo offenses that run "check-with-me" limit their substitution patterns in series so they can get lined up and focus on any adjustments they would like to make.

Fact- Under Bob Diaco, Notre Dame had the 2nd best scoring defense in the nation in 2012. Tuitt, Te'o, Shembo, Nix, Lewis-Moore, Jackson, Russell all became NFL draft picks (most of them high picks) out of that defense. But of course you won't give Kelly credit for the Diaco years, because that doesn't fit your agenda or the angle of your argument, right? That defense carried ND to it's first title game since 20 something years, but that was Diaco's defense, not Kelly's, right?... Now the VanGorder defense, that one is Brian Kelly's fault, correct?... Newsflash, they're both on Brian Kelly. The buck stops with him. When ND played fantastic defense, he deserved the credit. When they played poor defense, he deserved the blame. That's the nature of being a head coach. Fans want to obsess with the negative and completely ignore the positive, as if they occurred under two different regimes... For the record, in the 3 weeks since Kelly has taken the defense over and has essentially become the co-coordinator along with Mike Elston, the defense has shown substantial signs of improvement. They shut an explosive Syracuse down in the 2nd half, securing that win. They surrendered 10 points and played more than well enough to beat NC State in the monsoon and they held Stanford to 9 points last weekend. Kelly, of course, gets no credit for their turnaround, however, because ND is still losing and the offense (which was scoring 40ppg) is tanking since his attention has been diverted to the defense. That's fare. Again, the pressures of being a head coach, who must oversee an entire program.

The most egregious point you made what that the "good coaches" have none of those problems. Stanford and Michigan State fans and media often crucify their offensive playcallers (through their head coaches) for their "boring", "predictable", "non-creative" schemes. When you're winning, people say nothing. But as soon as you lose, everybody wants to rip apart what you do. Or how about in game decision making? Did you watch Michigan vs Michigan State game last year? Did you see the punt formation they were in and their lack of protection in an obvious punt block scenario?... No, good coaches (unless you don't think Dantonio or Harbaugh are good coaches) never have anything like that happen to them.

Strange playcalling....indeed. To us...but not to Kelly? IIO...peel off a layer if you can...why are the Tulsa Moments normal to Kelly? I have surmised this...and it appears that he developed an edge in "trickeration" on the Div II scene that was very successful, given the talent level whose job it was to stop it. But at this level...the physical talent overcomes that trickeration quite easily....Thoughts?

 

[dagimpper1]

Zona,

I'm not rude to Americans. That's a hypersensitive statement. I've lived in both countries and have a variety of friends, that live on both sides of the 49th, and that come from both left and right extremes of the political spectrum, as well as the middle. Both of my degrees are in political science and my thesis (don't want to waste your time on the particulars, email me if you're interested) centred on comparative politics between USA and Canada. I thoroughly enjoy the topic and can generally discuss it without emotion, as I'm genuinely interested in the great aspects of both nations, as well as each of our faults. Am I undoubtedly biased because of of my upbringing? Of course. But no more so than you or anybody else would be by their own? So does that mean no discussion can be had, or attempt be made because we come from two different schools of thought? Personally I think that's silly. The exchange of ideas is what keeps us learning and improving. Doesn't mean you have to like them, or adopt them, but to ignore that there are things that others may do better, is to be intentionally ignorant. I would venture to say that intentional ignorance is among the least desirable characteristics that a person can possess (but that's just my opinion on the matter).

With that said, I actually sit pretty far on the "right" relative to my political views. There is a reason why I chose Notre Dame as my destination for exchange while in University. I admittedly did my undergrad at a relatively liberal university, but I've always Notre Dame's conservative ways. I was raised in a military family. Very tough, very conservative. The grandson of a highly conservative Scottish World War II spitfire pilot, and the nephew of an uncle who flew helicopters through the streets of Belfast during the IRA crisis. Nephew to an uncle who is a dual U.S. / Canadian citizen, living in Texas, who served (by choice) in the U.S. military, rather than the Canadian military because he had better opportunity in his field of choice.

For the record, I did not vote for our Prime Minister, as I disagree with him on a number of political ideas. I disagree with many of his primary concerns and I cringe at what Canadians may pay in taxes because of his regime and the liberal desire to spend. Canadians already pay a crazy amount of taxes, not looking forward to more. With that said, I would not classify Justin Trudeau (who I actually know, just a little, through a close friend who was the President of Liberal McGill when Trudeau was just starting to gain support for a run towards the PM's office) as an elitist. Maybe in his appearance, or background, but the guy is likely to fight more Canadian rights, liberties and young people's futures than a lot of PM's before him. He's also going to take huge steps towards fixing Canada's problems with our Native People and their treatment, which I am embarrassed to say has been the subject of some of the worst racism in North America over the past 300+ years. The Native People have a lot of problems they need to work on within their own tribes, but my God do we need some federal intervention to help them get started. If I have to pay a little bit more in taxes for that to happen, I'm all for it. If you think that makes me a leftist. Oh well. I think it makes me a humanist. I don't value a few dollars on my pay cheque over the lives of some children that barely had a chance...

Again, I'm a staunch supporter of Canada's conservative party. I know that's still fairly left on the American scale, but that's what we have here. I thought Harper did a brilliant job of navigating Canada through the housing crash in the United States (obviously our economies are fairly tied) and I liked his support for the War in Afghanistan, as well as his refusal to send Canadians to Iraq. America is our closest ally and friend. I appreciated that he your backs when we as Canadians felt the cause was just and I was equally impressed by his ability to restrain himself from sending more than aid (and special forces) in the Iraq War, a conflict we did not support. I fundamentally admired his steady "boring" leadership style. I felt his government was slow moving at times, but they were calculated and, overall, navigated us through some tough times, while keeping important relationships intact and growing others... Now, I wish his government had not spent billions of dollars replacing our CF-18's, with your inferior (relative to competition and cost) F-35's, so I'm glad that Trudeau cancelled that order. If you were selling us F-22's, sure!... But obviously, and for understandable reasons, you're not, so I'd much rather buy somewhere else, for cheaper. Outside of that, I was fairly happy with Harper.

As for your guy, Trump, who seems to be disassociating himself with the political party and the electorate that the fostered and legitimized his own candidacy, in favour of running as a quasi-independent, I'm curious about your thoughts on that? Do you still feel that he'll represent the wishes and the agenda of the people electorate and the delegates that won him the status Republican nominee? I find it troubling that you feel that the leftist media (which I agree is a fare statement) has had a major influence on my feelings towards Donald Trump the person. Do I know him personally? Nope. Do I know him any less than lets say CGVR knows Brian Kelly personally? Nope. Am I believing all of these people suddenly coming out of the wood work making scandalous claims about him. Not particularly. Do I think he's obviously a shrewd business man who has employed thousands of Americans and had a ton of success in his field? Of course. Is the work that he's done worth respecting? Of course. Especially if you are motivated by money. But does that change the fact that I think he has about as much compassion for people as Vlad Putin? No. Of course not. Are you going to argue that Trump isn't elitist? (as if me using the term elitist is an insult?). Are you going to argue that the media hype surrounding the allegations made against him are not swaying some of the moderate Republican voters against him... The same way Brian Kelly's actions and demeanour entice people to dislike him (regardless of what he does on the field), I think it's fare to say that people (how many, I do not know) have turned on Trump because they now think that his moral character is a concern, regardless of his potential leadership skills or business acumen... That was my point. Saban can act like that, because he's a winner and Americans forgive winners, do they not? Brian Kelly has not been as successful, so the media will crucify him for his behaviour, as if yelling at a kid is the reason he is losing, rather than because of some of the poor teaching, development and questionable scheming that has been a focal point during his tenure.

Anybody but Hillary.

 

[Howard Hall 74]

Exceptions to what standard for the admission of football players? ND has been admitting C students with 900 Math/Verbal SAT scores for some time now. Like elsewhere, the football program also has more than a few players with better HS academic records. But the notion that ND is handcuffed by academic admissions standards has been false for many years now. Only Stanford and Northwestern among Power 5 programs significantly self limit their football recruiting pools by admission standards. Places like Duke and Vandy and ND do not.

This is, by the way, a great thread on an interesting topic. I agree that ND's recruiting has been plenty good enough to win more games under Kelly. So coaching plays a significant role as well. We will continue to see lower rated recruiting programs do well. And in some cases, consistently well. That's what great coaching can do with a roster of many good and a few elite recruits. What we are not likely to see is lower rated (consistently outside the top 5 , on average, over a 5 year period) recruiting programs win a national championship ... not with just 4 schools selected to play for all the marbles. So unless a USC or Texas or ND or Michigan or LSU or Florida/FSU gets back to consistent elite recruiting ...AND HAS A GREAT COACH AT THE HELM ... OSU and Bama should dominate the NC scene with their recruiting and the coaches that have been there and done that over and over.

Its not the test scores or the grades that is prohibiting getting great players, it's the core course HS minimums that are needed. 4 years of a language, 3 years of math, etc. that's the problem. These kids might be short a year or two and have 20-30 offers from schools who don't care if they only have 2 years of a language. That's the competition and the essence of the problem.

 

[perseverare]

seems like just the decommits on DL this go around were painfull teases.
Jeter expected to commit to UM this week.
Beal and Jeter are future opponents. Add that to the problem the OL (LT) recruiting is having in '17 repersent real setbacks. In fact the for top tier ND targets look to have almost all soured on ND. A miss with this recruiting class is almost certainty that only an incredibly weak schedule can result in a remote chance of a major bowl possibility for the next 2-3 seasons. If 17,18,19 do not produce 1 major bowl visit and a W, then Kelly goes 0-10! That brings the big question facing ND: do you give him another 6 year extension?

 

[dagimpper1]

I get more depressed by the day. The fact that their are so called fans that don't care about the state of the program. Then again I should not be surprised HC will probably be the next president. Time to move to Belize. ND fb and the USA have seen better days. Never thought I'd see it.

 

[IrishBlessings]

I get more depressed by the day. The fact that their are so called fans that don't care about the state of the program. Then again I should not be surprised HC will probably be the next president. Time to move to Belize. ND fb and the USA have seen better days. Never thought I'd see it.

Spot on. What a wasted season of dog shit ND football. But, I will say they actually have a chance to maybe win this week. Miami has had a rash of injuries to their D line - I think most of their D line starters are hurt. And their Oline is not very good. They cant run the ball.

Their QB is very inconsistent - ND actually has a great chance to win this Sat believe it or not.

 

[perseverare]

but, it used to be ND wanted the opponents best shot!

 

[twalsh]

I get more depressed by the day. The fact that their are so called fans that don't care about the state of the program. Then again I should not be surprised HC will probably be the next president. Time to move to Belize. ND fb and the USA have seen better days. Never thought I'd see it.

What would give you the impression that anyone who would take the time to even be on this board doesn't care about the state of the program?

 

[IrishInOntario]

Anybody but Hillary.

No argument there. Can't stand either candidate given the magnitude of issues currently facing North America. While your President may be a representative of the United States, their political decisions largely impact my country as well, which is why I'm following the election so closely. I actually much prefer a great of Tump's platform on economics and how it will positively affect the United States (and Canada as well). What I worry about is his ability to deal with the many other sensitive subjects facing the United States today, both domestically and abroad.

You're talking to a pretty right wing guy (especially for a Canadian). I applaud Trump's tough stance on some issues and his economic acumen. I love the idea of scrapping NAFTA, because we use to routinely sell raw materials into the United States (massive industry) and buy back finished products, making both parties wealthy both at the private and provincial / state level. Now those same raw materials are sent to Mexico instead, and bought back for cheaper. A lot less Canadians / Americans benefiting from that arrangement. I'm all for us protecting our trade, or better yet, keeping jobs at home, something we're starting to do again.

Can't stand Clinton's "it will take care of itself" approach to economics, but in terms of doing what it takes to be elected, the witch certainly understands the concerns of many Americans (even if she won't do anything about it) and is doing her best to appeal to women young voters and everyone in America who isn't white... Do I think her campaign is completely fraudulent in many respects. Absolutely. But I also think it's genius because she knows the media is on her side and she knows the vast majority of Americans get their information through the media. She also knows how to tug on the heart strings of the average American, who isn't worried about trade tariffs and deficits, but will vote for the person who is trumpeting women's rights, equality, etc, etc. Whether we like it, or not, we live in a time when many people are extremely progressive in their thinking, especially as it relates to individual rights. CLinton appeals to those people more so than Trump.

I'd love an honest answer to the question "are you voting for Clinton because you like her better?"...

 

[cgvr]

I want to start this off with saying that coaches have a big impact on recruiting. I'm not absolving Kelly of his failures at ND by making this article. In fact, if you read many of my posts I'm on the 'fire' Kelly band wagon. Not simply because of poor coaching/on the field decision making (those things are actually rather difficult to evaluate given the limited access/insight we have to the team), but by and large, because of lack luster recruiting/personnel results.

I do also believe that university administration (AD, university president, etc.) has a HUGE impact on recruiting as well based on policies relating to restrictions, budget, admissions, etc. This is clearly an area of the program/team/university that REQUIRES addressing.

ND DOES NOT RECRUIT "WELL", RECRUITING IS NOT "GOOD".

And nobody in the media seems to care/talk about it/ or report on it (there's just a seemingly awkward agreement among professionals/analysts that cover the team that the recruiting is 'good'). I don't know any sport where talent is virtually ignored or looked at as an afterthought. TALENT IS EVERYTHING. And it can be quantified thanks to a growing billion dollar recruiting industry that covers it extensively and keeps a database going back a decade ... like the one here on Rivals for instance.

The programs winning national championships on the football field are the programs winning national championships in recruiting leading up to them and its been that way since the ESPN/BCS era. This is an unarguable fact.

Here are national championship winners over the last 10+ years:

2005: Texas
2006: Florida
2007: LSU
2008: Florida
2009: Alabama
2010: Auburn
2011: Alabama
2012: Alabama
2013: Florida State
2014: Ohio State
2015: Alabama

What is the common denominator between all of these programs? If you haven't guessed it: They are recruiting powerhouses who dominate the recruiting rankings every year, have rosters full of consensus Top100 nationally rated recruits, and did so leading up to their national championships. Nobody recruits better than these programs and nobody wins more national championships/plays in more national championships than they do in the modern era.

Prior to 2005 it was USC dominating the recruiting rankings and also winning multiple national championships/playing in multiple national championship games.

NDs competition is no longer just the 12 teams on their schedule -- with the new playoff system -- NDs true competition is the top 5% of the 128 FBS programs in college football. Getting 4 star players at ND (which people often cite when defending NDs recruiting) isn't enough when the real playoff national championship contending programs are hording high 4 star and 5 star national bluechip talent.

Below is NDs recruiting class rank during the BK era

Year : ND rivals recruiting rank
2010: 14th
2011: 10th
2012: 20th
2013: 3rd
2014: 11th
2015: 11th
2016: 13th

These are not good enough results for a program with NDs money, prestige, history, fan suppport, etc. more importantly they are not good enough results to put the program in a prime position to win national championships.

These results don't even take into account into account all of the defections / suspensions / academic issues that lead to many of NDs best recruits leaving. Yes, all teams suffer from defections/academic issues/etc. but by ANY standard ND has been hit VERY hard (abnormally so) during the BK era.

These rankings also don't take into account that ND really only recruits well at a few position groups (mostly on the offensive side of the ball) thus providing depth at a few positions but largely leaving major talent gaps/talent drop off at the majority of others (mostly defense).

Also, ND does a terrible job maximizing its 85 scholarship allotment. Yes we can list off 3 or 4 star players 2 deep at many positions .. but if we lose a starter at ND we lose ANY rotation at the position because we don't have a capable 3rd and 4th guy ready in the wings. THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE THAT GOES VIRTUALLY UNTALKED ABOUT.

Rivals breaks it down like this (these are the players the top contending teams are competing for):
6.1 Rivals Rating (5 star)
6.0 Rivals Rating (high 4 star top 50 type national talent)
5.9 Rivals Rating (middle 4 star -- top 100ish national talent)
5.8 Rivals Rating (low 4 star)
5.7 Rivals Rating (high 3 star)

ND does extremely well with the two lowest tiers here (low 4 star, high 3 star) while the top 5% of programs are pulling in the 5.9, 6.0, 6.1s in mass quantity.

Until the talent gap is closed ND will always be a huge underdog to make the playoff, let alone win the playoff if they get there. And that's regardless of who is coaching the team. The program's results over the last 20+ years only further proves this fact.

This 2017 class is more of the same ... 80% of the roster will be high 3 star, low 4 star, only perpetuating the mediocrity another season further. Why are people surprised about another likely 8 or 9 win season when ND recruits like an 8 or 9 win program?

Why sample size matters, why MSU winning despite their mediocre talent has no relevance to NDs program, etc.

Why does Alabama and OSU lose to lesser opponents sometimes despite their talent advantage? Because variance/luck plays a significant role over a small sample size/a single game (4 quarters). There's a much stronger correlation between recruiting rankings AND winning percentage when expanding the sample size to more games/multiple seasons.

There's nothing more important/conducive to winning than the quality of athlete a program can obtain on the recruiting trail. Nothing more. This is something that should just be intuitively obvious. People like to cite very rare exceptions to this rule. Program's like MSU, or Oregon during the Chip Kelly era, or even Stanford. "how come these program's win despite their bad recruiting" ... these program's are both an exception to the rule and they haven't actually won anything worthy of Notre Dame (like a national championship for instance -- or even gotten there).

You did a wonderful job of avoiding the fact that weis had 3 top 10 recruiting classes in his last 4 years including a number 2 class. Fatso, got within a "bushpush" of NC game consideration and I view that '05 team as the best in recent years. Also, tubby left the cupboard full for Porky who road the crest of "not his guys" to a NC game appearance.... Our coaching stinks.

Rivals recruiting rankings ND ’06-‘15
2006 ND 8
2007 ND 8
2008 ND 21
2009 ND 2
2010 ND 14
2011 ND 10
2012 ND 20
2013 ND 3

2014 ND 11
2015 ND 11
2016 ND 12

 

[IrishInOntario]

You did a wonderful job of avoiding the fact that weis had 3 top 10 recruiting classes in his last 4 years including a number 2 class. Fatso, got within a "bushpush" of NC game consideration and I view that '05 team as the best in recent years. Also, tubby left the cupboard full for Porky who road the crest of "not his guys" to a NC game appearance.... Our coaching stinks.

Rivals recruiting rankings ND ’06-‘15
2006 ND 8
2007 ND 8
2008 ND 21
2009 ND 2
2010 ND 14
2011 ND 10
2012 ND 20
2013 ND 3

2014 ND 11
2015 ND 11
2016 ND 12

Weis' 2005 team was comprised of Willingham's players, not Charlies. As was half the core of Kelly's 2012 team.... so what heck is your point?

Both inherited teams with upper classmen, who were recruited by somebody else, but thrived under new leadership, energy and schemes. Such is the impact of coaching.

For the record...

Weis did not recruit a single contributing player on his 2005 team... Not a single one.

Kelly, on the other hand, was responsible for

Starters
QB: Everett Golson (Soph)
WR: Davaris Daniels (Soph)
DE: Stephon Tuitt (Soph)
S: Matthias Farley (Soph)
KR: George Atkinson (Soph)
CB: Kei Russell (FR)
NB: Elijah Shumate (FR)

Key Reserves
DL: Sheldon Day (FR)
OLB: Ben Councell (Soph)
TE: Troy Niklas (Soph)
DL: Tony Springmann (soph)
WR: Chris Brown (FR)

What amazes me is that you'very lost your ability to be even the slightest bit objective.

2005 players in the 2-deep recruited by Charlie Weis. 0 of 22... on 10-3 football team.

2012 players in the 2-deep recruited by Brian Kelly... 11 of 22, plus the kick returner... on a 12-1 football team.

Kelly recruited half his own two-deep... Stop ****ing lying to spin your own stories. You're full of shit.

Explain 11 of 22 players, including 7 starters being from the 2011 and 2012 classes, but Weis being credited for them....

I can't wait to hear this.

 

[perseverare]

IIO, is now an unofficial spokesperson for BK.
and
Insomniacs of America have collected his top 100 lists to use in an experiment to treat sleep deprivation.

 

[IrishInOntario]

IIO, is now an unofficial spokesperson for BK.
and
Insomniacs of America have collected his top 100 lists to use in an experiment to treat sleep deprivation.

Lol, I'm certainly a night owl.

I'm not a spokesperson for BK, I just find it ridiculous that people do everything they can to railroad a coach and take any credit that coach deserves (even in the past), simply because he is struggling now. I'm 100% on board with with Kelly being blamed for the current debacle, but it's ludicrous to compare Weis' 2005 team, which had zero of his own players in the 2-deep, to Kelly's 2012 team, in which he recruited 11 of the 22 players, plus the kick returner in his 2-deep.

Crediting Weis for 2005 and refusing to credit Kelly for 2012 is simply ignorant.