Is it too soon to start mentioning "Hot Seat" and "Brian Kelly" in the same sentence...?

College Football Domino Effect -- Week 2

Not at all.

They wont fire him this year, unless they do something crazy like go 0-12.

Kelly is a good coach, I'm beginning to think its impossible to succeed at ND now.

(09-11-2011 04:47 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  They wont fire him this year, unless they do something crazy like go 0-12.

Kelly is a good coach, I'm beginning to think its impossible to succeed at ND now.

Earlier this week Colin Cowherd said something along the lines of 50-year-old men like tradition and Notre Dame. 18-year-old kids like Oregon and tacky uniforms. I think he's right.

(09-11-2011 04:52 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 04:47 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  They wont fire him this year, unless they do something crazy like go 0-12.

Kelly is a good coach, I'm beginning to think its impossible to succeed at ND now.

Earlier this week Colin Cowherd said something along the lines of 50-year-old men like tradition and Notre Dame. 18-year-old kids like Oregon and tacky uniforms. I think he's right.

My son says Notre Dame is an old man's team, and he wears a green Oregon Duck jersey.

It appears you and Colin are on to something ....

Notre Dame doesn't have any magic, either good or bad. They've lost two games they could have easily won because of red zone turnovers.

And that's the coach's fault.

quo: BK's fault and also the spread offense sux in the redzone.....always has, always will

(09-11-2011 04:52 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 04:47 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  They wont fire him this year, unless they do something crazy like go 0-12.

Kelly is a good coach, I'm beginning to think its impossible to succeed at ND now.

Earlier this week Colin Cowherd said something along the lines of 50-year-old men like tradition and Notre Dame. 18-year-old kids like Oregon and tacky uniforms. I think he's right.

And that is a damn shame (and not because I am a Notre Dame fan).

I think that college football was better before it was ESPN'ized and Nike'ized....

I enjoyed the tradition and intersectional rivaries of college football in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

I am just another old guy, I guess....

(09-11-2011 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Notre Dame doesn't have any magic, either good or bad. They've lost two games they could have easily won because of red zone turnovers.

And that's the coach's fault.

ND has over 1000 yards in two games. I agree, ND should have won both by comfortable margins. They keep shooting their own foot off in the red zone.

10 turnovers in two games...jeez.

(09-11-2011 09:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 04:52 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 04:47 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  They wont fire him this year, unless they do something crazy like go 0-12.

Kelly is a good coach, I'm beginning to think its impossible to succeed at ND now.

Earlier this week Colin Cowherd said something along the lines of 50-year-old men like tradition and Notre Dame. 18-year-old kids like Oregon and tacky uniforms. I think he's right.

And that is a damn shame (and not because I am a Notre Dame fan).

I think that college football was better before it was ESPN'ized and Nike'ized....

I enjoyed the tradition and intersectional rivaries of college football in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

I am just another old guy, I guess....

As a young fan, I'm hoping that CBS, FOX, and NBC start siphoning some of that ESPN audience. I am watching my school build its tradition before my very eyes, however, M.S.M. is perverting the sport by outright bending over and taking it from the schools with prestige and traditional background instead of giving balanced coverage.

I understand that as national media organizations, you pretty much should cover the "good" teams, but those teams are only in the position they are in because they get positive attention they do not deserve. History only matters when you are proving a point that's in the past. If ANY TEAM starts 0-2, that reality should make that team irrelevant in conversation until such time as they start winning and become relevant again.

Do Akron fans wonder why their team isn't being talked about right now as a contender or a relevant team? No, because they aren't winning right now. But how is it that New Mexico State received zero attention when they beat Minnesota, a team ESPN touted as a team on the verge of upsetting USC in Week 1?

(09-11-2011 09:14 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Notre Dame doesn't have any magic, either good or bad. They've lost two games they could have easily won because of red zone turnovers.

And that's the coach's fault.

ND has over 1000 yards in two games. I agree, ND should have won both by comfortable margins. They keep shooting their own foot off in the red zone.

10 turnovers in two games...jeez.

Get used to it.

Every touchdown Cincinnati scored under Brian Kelly was through a big, break-away play. We had more yards than every team we played, win or lose.

I'm confused why a university so tradition heavy, hired a coach that doesn't know how to line his team up and fight for short yards.

nm

I don't think he's in the hout seat. Even though they are 0-2 ND looked better on the field than they have in years.

That is not what I am talking about (ND on TV and recruits staying home).

What I am talking about is the garish Nike uniforms, blue and red colored playing fields, ESPNionics (KMac, JMac, etc..), more trash talking, Jumbotron piped in music and cheesy "NOISE" messages, recruits who feel they are rock stars, lack of interesting intersectional matchups, etc.

I hate ESPN and Nike. It had nothing to do with who is on TV and what recruit goes where.

(09-11-2011 10:50 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  I am watching my school build its tradition before my very eyes, however, M.S.M. is perverting the sport by outright bending over and taking it from the schools with prestige and traditional background instead of giving balanced coverage.

I understand that as national media organizations, you pretty much should cover the "good" teams, but those teams are only in the position they are in because they get positive attention they do not deserve. History only matters when you are proving a point that's in the past. If ANY TEAM starts 0-2, that reality should make that team irrelevant in conversation until such time as they start winning and become relevant again.

Do Akron fans wonder why their team isn't being talked about right now as a contender or a relevant team? No, because they aren't winning right now. But how is it that New Mexico State received zero attention when they beat Minnesota, a team ESPN touted as a team on the verge of upsetting USC in Week 1?

Come on Now. ND played USF and MIchigan. Both may be ranked this week.
ND is 0-2 but they have a national following and not because TV is nice to them, TV is nice to them because they have a national following. This season ND will play USC, Stanford and a host of higher profile colleges. Frankly they're worth watching. Their two games may have been more entertaining than a lot of teams that started off 2-0 (including Syracuse).

Here's one easy, sure fire way to get on national TV--- schedule ND.

(09-12-2011 08:45 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 10:50 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  I am watching my school build its tradition before my very eyes, however, M.S.M. is perverting the sport by outright bending over and taking it from the schools with prestige and traditional background instead of giving balanced coverage.

I understand that as national media organizations, you pretty much should cover the "good" teams, but those teams are only in the position they are in because they get positive attention they do not deserve. History only matters when you are proving a point that's in the past. If ANY TEAM starts 0-2, that reality should make that team irrelevant in conversation until such time as they start winning and become relevant again.

Do Akron fans wonder why their team isn't being talked about right now as a contender or a relevant team? No, because they aren't winning right now. But how is it that New Mexico State received zero attention when they beat Minnesota, a team ESPN touted as a team on the verge of upsetting USC in Week 1?

Come on Now. ND played USF and MIchigan. Both may be ranked this week.
ND is 0-2 but they have a national following and not because TV is nice to them, TV is nice to them because they have a national following. This season ND will play USC, Stanford and a host of higher profile colleges. Frankly they're worth watching. Their two games may have been more entertaining than a lot of teams that started off 2-0 (including Syracuse).

Here's one easy, sure fire way to get on national TV--- schedule ND.

I will admit, I thoroughly enjoyed the Notre Dame-Michgan game, but I think the same can be said for East Carolina or Florida Atlantic. Two very exciting first games for all those schools, but never could pull out a win.

Kelly and ND in a whole mess of trouble this year:

Schedule:

vsSouth Florida L23-20 0-1
@Michigan L35-31 0-2
vs#15 Michigan State
@Pittsburgh
@Purdue
vsAir Force
vsUSC
vsNavy
@Wake Forest
vsMaryland*
vsBoston College
@#6 Stanford

This won't be easy. I see them 0-4. I don't think they get six wins.
And why do they schedule three ACC teams and three BIG teams and only two BE teams? We'd like to get some of that too.

Notre Dame should beat Purdue. Rice did...

(09-12-2011 10:37 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  Kelly and ND in a whole mess of trouble this year:

Schedule:

vsSouth Florida L23-20 0-1
@Michigan L35-31 0-2
vs#15 Michigan State
@Pittsburgh
@Purdue
vsAir Force
vsUSC
vsNavy
@Wake Forest
vsMaryland*
vsBoston College
@#6 Stanford

This won't be easy. I see them 0-4. I don't think they get six wins.
And why do they schedule three ACC teams and three BIG teams and only two BE teams? We'd like to get some of that too.

I can appreciate Notre Dame scheduling Michigan, M-State and Purdue. They've been playing them forever. Same with Army and Navy.

But Wake? Maryland? Air Force? Boston College (yah, both Catholics, but hardly rivals like ND and the B1G teams)?

I hope the Big East can persuade ND to play more of our teams, and announce the scheduling soon if not NOW. Big East teams scheduling ND would likely tamp down some of the gossip and damaging speculation about our teams leaving for places like the half-dead Big Twelve-X? or even the ACC with its relatively disadvantageous TV contract. Doesn't ND want the BE to have enough success to hold together, for the sake of ND basketball? I though I read that somewhere.

(09-11-2011 09:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that college football was better before it was ESPN'ized and Nike'ized....

Agree and disagree.

I agree that Nike and ESPN are hurting college football by taking what should be an amateur event and completely monetizing it. TV contracts and the pursue of revenues are killing the traditions and pageantry of the sport and only furthering the point that college athletics is becoming little more than a non-profit farm team system for the pro-leagues.

On the other hand, college football has never really been a great sport IMO. Why? Because college football, at least at the highest level, has always been more about excluding teams than it has been about competition. Instead of having playoffs like in every other sporting event in the NCAA, we are level with a tiered system of bowls. Some conference automatically get certain conferences while other teams are locked out completely. There are now AQ and non-AQ designations that provide numerous financial and recruiting advantages to some teams while other suffer because of it others.

So I agree that those companies are hurting the sport in general, but college football has been a sickly (from a viewpoint of allowing all teams an equal as possible shot at competing) beat for a long time.