(09-06-2017 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 09:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:44 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Obviously they're a big draw. I still don't get it. They pretty much have been irrelevant for a generation, except a few seasons and a lot of unwarranted hype.

Ok ne could say that about a lot of state flagships but Texas is still Texas despite being irrelevant for over a decade.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A decade is not a generation ago and, oh yeah, wasn't Texas competing for a national title not that long ago? Texas never went as long without competing for a national title as Notre Dame did, not in recent history.

I know that we use hyperbole here and I'm far from a Notre Dame fan, but ND did play in the national championship game in 2012 (and I'd say playing in the championship game would inherently qualify as "competing" for a national title). I'm getting old, but 2012 isn't *that* long ago.

I've said this before about the difference between marquee programs (like ND, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, etc.) and standard programs: a marquee program can be down for many years, but as soon as it has one flicker of competing again, it's as if all of those down years are instantly erased. In contrast, it takes many years for a standard program to build up a reputation... and all it takes is one bad year for it to be totally erased. (See Oregon and Michigan State now.) The marquee programs have lot more margin for error and their history matters a lot more compared to recent performance, whereas standard programs have no margin for error and their history is irrelevant compared to recent performance. That's just the nature of college football (and it has been that way for the last 75 years).

(09-06-2017 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 09:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:44 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Obviously they're a big draw. I still don't get it. They pretty much have been irrelevant for a generation, except a few seasons and a lot of unwarranted hype.

Ok ne could say that about a lot of state flagships but Texas is still Texas despite being irrelevant for over a decade.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A decade is not a generation ago and, oh yeah, wasn't Texas competing for a national title not that long ago? Texas never went as long without competing for a national title as Notre Dame did, not in recent history.

I know that we use hyperbole here and I'm far from a Notre Dame fan, but ND did play in the national championship game in 2012 (and I'd say playing in the championship game would inherently qualify as "competing" for a national title). I'm getting old, but 2012 isn't *that* long ago.

I've said this before about the difference between marquee programs (like ND, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, etc.) and standard programs: a marquee program can be down for many years, but as soon as it has one flicker of competing again, it's as if all of those down years are instantly erased. In contrast, it takes many years for a standard program to build up a reputation... and all it takes is one bad year for it to be totally erased. (See Oregon and Michigan State now.) The marquee programs have lot more margin for error and their history matters a lot more compared to recent performance, whereas standard programs have no margin for error and their history is irrelevant compared to recent performance. That's just the nature of college football (and it has been that way for the last 75 years).

I said, they never went as long as Notre Dame did without competing for a title. When was the last time Notre Dame played for the national title or even close before then?

(09-06-2017 11:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ND was certainly regularly in contention in the early 1990s in the Lou Holtz years and then even had random flashes in the Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham and Charlie Weiss years in the 2000s with 3 BCS bowl appearances in 7 years (albeit they were not consistent year-to-year with any of those coaches). If you're arguing that ND wasn't consistent during that time period, then I'd agree... but even the very best programs during that same time period weren't consistent (including but not limited to Texas). ND is the biggest target, so it's understandable that they attract the most scrutiny, but their unique power in college football is unquestioned. There's no one else (not even Alabama or Ohio State) that could get the coast-to-coast national TV coverage that ND receives every week of every year for even the worst games on the schedule.

(09-06-2017 11:41 AM)YNot Wrote:  Notre Dame has 21 national championship recognized by the NCAA. #1 in college football history. Seven Heisman Trophy winners - tied with Ohio St. for #1.

May be the perception is that Notre Dame hasn't been consistent on the field recently (compared to Alabama?), but they have had excellent recruiting - which perpetuates the hype - and have played in six January bowl games - in addition to the BCS National Championship game after the 2012 season. The list of schools that have played in six January bowl games and a national championship game since 2000 isn't likely a very long list. Finished in the top-25 eight times in the last 20 seasons (40%).

Notre Dame easily has one of the most well-known brands and an iconic stadium. Despite the perception of on-field inconsistency and under-performance, Notre Dame is extremely consistent in getting over 80K butts in the seats and attracting elite-level TV ratings.

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:41 AM)YNot Wrote:  Notre Dame has 21 national championship recognized by the NCAA. #1 in college football history. Seven Heisman Trophy winners - tied with Ohio St. for #1.

May be the perception is that Notre Dame hasn't been consistent on the field recently (compared to Alabama?), but they have had excellent recruiting - which perpetuates the hype - and have played in six January bowl games - in addition to the BCS National Championship game after the 2012 season. The list of schools that have played in six January bowl games and a national championship game since 2000 isn't likely a very long list. Finished in the top-25 eight times in the last 20 seasons (40%).

Notre Dame easily has one of the most well-known brands and an iconic stadium. Despite the perception of on-field inconsistency and under-performance, Notre Dame is extremely consistent in getting over 80K butts in the seats and attracting elite-level TV ratings.

Wait, what?

Also, they play in so many BCS bowls because the bowls and TV literally do what they can to get them. It was literally written into the contracts. Had nothing to do with merit, except in 2012.

(09-06-2017 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:40 AM)billyjack Wrote:  Nate Silver put this together several years ago:

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0

This analysis has always made little sense to me. E.g., unless I'm reading it wrong, he's contending that Georgia Tech has (a) a lot more fans than Georgia, and (b) way more fans, almost twice as many, as FSU, and is thus presumably more valuable than both.

Anyone with the most cursory knowledge of college football knows that this is absurd, that in both comparisons the exact opposite is true.

That analysis is based on the Common Census for sports fans, which is a bit more biased (IMHO) compared to the Facebook-based charts because sports fans had to proactively seek out that particular site and vote for their favorite teams (which means they also had an underlying intent/hope in showing that their favorite team was the top one in a particular area).

The Facebook data is actually much more neutral and, from my vantage point, looks much closer to the truth. I believe it's better because the counting of "likes" was based on people voluntarily sharing their favorite teams without any prompting, which is a fairly good proxy for determining whether someone is a "fan" or not.

(09-06-2017 02:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:40 AM)billyjack Wrote:  Nate Silver put this together several years ago:

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0

This analysis has always made little sense to me. E.g., unless I'm reading it wrong, he's contending that Georgia Tech has (a) a lot more fans than Georgia, and (b) way more fans, almost twice as many, as FSU, and is thus presumably more valuable than both.

Anyone with the most cursory knowledge of college football knows that this is absurd, that in both comparisons the exact opposite is true.

That analysis is based on the Common Census for sports fans, which is a bit more biased (IMHO) compared to the Facebook-based charts because sports fans had to proactively seek out that particular site and vote for their favorite teams (which means they also had an underlying intent/hope in showing that their favorite team was the top one in a particular area).

The Facebook data is actually much more neutral and, from my vantage point, looks much closer to the truth. I believe it's better because the counting of "likes" was based on people voluntarily sharing their favorite teams without any prompting, which is a fairly good proxy for determining whether someone is a "fan" or not.

That makes sense. Bottom line is any 'analysis' that says Georgia Tech is more popular than FSU or Georgia is waste-basket worthy. Heck, I was in ATL last month and saw a lot more Georgia flags and stuff, I was staying about 3 blocks from the Tech stadium.

(09-06-2017 08:16 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:40 AM)billyjack Wrote:  Nate Silver put this together several years ago:

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0

This analysis has always made little sense to me. E.g., unless I'm reading it wrong, he's contending that Georgia Tech has (a) a lot more fans than Georgia, and (b) way more fans, almost twice as many, as FSU, and is thus presumably more valuable than both.

Anyone with the most cursory knowledge of college football knows that this is absurd, that in both comparisons the exact opposite is true.

Yeah this Silver study has been around for several years and has been debunked many times (for multiple reasons) on this forum. Invariably someone always seem to bring it up every year as if they found something new.

(09-06-2017 09:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:47 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I still don't get that Notre Dame mystique. What is this, 1970? At least BYU is the only sizable LDS institution. There are plenty of other Catholic schools, granted only one more at this level of D-I and media hype aside, Notre Dame hasn't even mattered for an entire generation minus a few seasons.

It's crazy, I would have figured the majority of their diehards would have died out by now. I guess not.

Current cheapest prices on Stubhub to get into two big games this weekend:

#5 Oklahoma @ #2 Ohio State .... $149

#15 Georgia @ #25 Notre Dame ..... $424

"Notre Dame ticket drama continues as desperate UGA fans anxiously await their arrival":

https://www.dawgnation.com/football/notre-dame-ticket-drama-continues-desperate-uga-fans-anxiously-await-arrival

If you don't understand Notre Dame's fame, you don't understand college football.

I clearly hinted that their time has passed, though apparently not. Of course they're immensely popular, that's what I don't understand. It's not like they're the only Catholic school in the country, there's plenty in the northeast even aside from "meh" Boston College. It's not as if they have a virtual monopoly like BYU.

(09-06-2017 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:40 AM)billyjack Wrote:  Nate Silver put this together several years ago:

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0

This analysis has always made little sense to me. E.g., unless I'm reading it wrong, he's contending that Georgia Tech has (a) a lot more fans than Georgia, and (b) way more fans, almost twice as many, as FSU, and is thus presumably more valuable than both.

Anyone with the most cursory knowledge of college football knows that this is absurd, that in both comparisons the exact opposite is true.

That analysis is based on the Common Census for sports fans, which is a bit more biased (IMHO) compared to the Facebook-based charts because sports fans had to proactively seek out that particular site and vote for their favorite teams (which means they also had an underlying intent/hope in showing that their favorite team was the top one in a particular area).

The Facebook data is actually much more neutral and, from my vantage point, looks much closer to the truth. I believe it's better because the counting of "likes" was based on people voluntarily sharing their favorite teams without any prompting, which is a fairly good proxy for determining whether someone is a "fan" or not. The problem with almost every other survey out there (even the good ones like the Pew Research Center) is that have questions that are either leading or provide binary or limited choices, so they do a poor job of measuring the *depth* of fandom. A person voluntarily "liking" a team on a Facebook page is a much better indicator of actual interest of that team compared to a pollster that will count a strong fan of a team and a weak fan of a team in the same manner. Is it perfect? No. However, it's as large of a relatively neutral data set that's out there (which is why Facebook also dominates digital advertising with Google since those are the two companies that have both the breadth and depth about its users far beyond anyone else).

(09-06-2017 01:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not quite true as Notre Dame still had to be a top 8 team in order to be automatically BCS bowl eligible under the BCS system. However, I think this statement in and of itself disproves your point: ND is obviously VERY relevant or else those bowls and TV networks wouldn't fall all over themselves to get them.

In another sport, the Cubs were the epitome of on-the-field irrelevance - they didn't win a championship for 108 years. Yet, for many years even before last year, every TV network with a MLB contract fell all over themselves to show the Cubs as much as possible along with the Yankees and Red Sox. They were very much relevant in terms of fandom regardless of on-the-field performance - in essence, interest in the Cubs has always been timeless whether they're good or bad. Notre Dame is in that same category - the very fact that they still get as much attention as they do even when they're bad *proves* how relevant they are to college football.

(09-06-2017 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  I've been to a couple of Georgia-Georgia Tech games in Atlanta and the stadium was close to half Bulldawgs. It was a lot like going to Rice-UT games in Houston.

(09-06-2017 10:58 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not quite true as Notre Dame still had to be a top 8 team in order to be automatically BCS bowl eligible under the BCS system. However, I think this statement in and of itself disproves your point: ND is obviously VERY relevant or else those bowls and TV networks wouldn't fall all over themselves to get them.

In another sport, the Cubs were the epitome of on-the-field irrelevance - they didn't win a championship for 108 years. Yet, for many years even before last year, every TV network with a MLB contract fell all over themselves to show the Cubs as much as possible along with the Yankees and Red Sox. They were very much relevant in terms of fandom regardless of on-the-field performance - in essence, interest in the Cubs has always been timeless whether they're good or bad. Notre Dame is in that same category - the very fact that they still get as much attention as they do even when they're bad *proves* how relevant they are to college football.

Yeah, obviously. For the millionth time I agree they're relevant. I don't understand how they have such a great pull still. I figured by now Notre Dame football would be a relic of a bygone era like St. John's basketball, basketball at the Garden in general and the NIT, and horse racing.

(09-07-2017 07:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm saying how are they as popular as they are? Why do they still get so much love and support from Catholics?

The questions are rhetorical anyways, I totally get it.

(09-07-2017 08:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 07:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm saying how are they as popular as they are? Why do they still get so much love and support from Catholics?

The questions are rhetorical anyways, I totally get it.

Notre Dame isn't just "a" Catholic university. Notre Dame is THE Catholic university. The popularity of Georgetown, St. John's and Boston College in the past in various sports had more to do with secular support from their local markets as opposed to anything regarding their Catholicism. They were simply local teams that people cheered for when they were playing well in the same way they'd cheer for State U. In contrast, Notre Dame's popularity is rooted in the early-20th century where there was still a fair amount of discrimination against Catholics (and Irish Catholics in particular), so the fact that ND was dominant in football at that time made the school into a very *specific* unifying point for Catholics nationally. That carried on for many Catholics fron generation to generation. Today, ND has transitioned from just a football school to one that's also the dream academic school for many Catholics. It's now one of the toughest schools to get into in the country and it's the very top unambiguous choice for a whole army of talented applicants. That feeds into a mystique that ND that literally only a handful of colleges have (like Harvard). It's a totally different ballgame there that's almost impossible to quantify because you just know it's different when you see it. I see it firsthand since I'm around a fair number of ND alums.

(09-07-2017 07:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm saying how are they as popular as they are? Why do they still get so much love and support from Catholics?

The questions are rhetorical anyways, I totally get it.