<p>After ND's heartbreaking loss to Michigan, can anything keep Charlie in South Bend besides winning-out the rest of the season (incl. USC)?</p>
<p>I was at the game yesterday, if Charlie had run the ball to eat up more time at ND’s last drive, I don’t think UM would have had enough time to score a TD, maybe UM could have still kicked a FG and tied it up, but it was poor coaching at the end that hurt ND.</p>
<p>Honestly, did ND make any big plays at the end of the game? Weiss’s rush defenses were exactly correct…no ND player could catch the QB behind the line and ND pass defense couldn’t make any plays. Blame the coach all you want but the players have to make the plays.</p>
<p>It was extremely stupid to throw that long pass during the last drive instead of going for an easy first down and slowly working down the field, almost as bad as that horrible decision to go for the fourth down at the end of the Navy game last year, instead of an easy field goal.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Weis was completely to blame for losing this game, but this was his big-chance season to land a BCS bid, and ND’s chances became a LOT smaller having lost that game.</p>
<p>Personally, I want to see him coaching at ND next year. Next year’s team will be national-championship worthy, and I would hate to see their chances spoiled by a new coach with a new system.</p>
<p>Aristoph - I agree; that’s just Charlie being Charlie, though. A lot of times the potential reward outweighs the risk, but in the case of the Michigan game, there was really no reason to air it out. A couple solid runs would have given us the first down we needed to suck out enough remaining time.</p>
<p>Charlie is lucky Serena Williams isn’t an ND fan.</p>
<p>Easy on the coach for a minute. Remember, top running back was injured and on the bench for the final series and the back-up was getting stuffed. Passing made the day as positive as it was. I hate to blame a “kid” but take a look again at the passes that Tate dropped. Also - final play of the game, Tate dances around thinking he can score from mid-field, rather than running directly to the sidelines to keep a few seconds on the clock for a Hail Mary.</p>
<p>BCS is still in the future. Michigan State is critical. BC and USC will follow in due time. Perhaps a refresher at [YouTube</a> - ND vs. Michigan State - 2006 - Notre Dame Football](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlHzjbIR6Rw]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlHzjbIR6Rw) would help!</p>
<p>^ With MSU coming off a loss to Central Michigan, ND won’t get much of a boost in the polls next week with a win.</p>
<p>The only thing that will make any difference for Notre Dame would be a win over USC. (and what a difference that would be). The rest of the schedule is simply non-serious football against non-serious unranked teams outside the top 25 or maybe top 40 for that matter. If Notre Dame went 10-2 they should not be in a BCS game lest there be a total mismatch that would bore a nation in early January. I think this scheduling kills the Irish, by the way, since top recruits want top competition and will choose to go elsewhere. I used to love the Irish when they were the Catholic team that could stand up to the FSUs, Oklahomas, Alabamas and Texases of the world. Now they let me down each year and the schedule-making only makes it worse and compounds the spiral.</p>
<p>It would be nice if there was a BYU or a Penn State or even a Cincinatti (if we have to go Big East) on the calendar.</p>
<p>Not looking to make excuses for ND, but as I reside in a football capital state, I can attest that 3/4 of the players most likely would not gain admission to ND with regards to academic ability, much less would they even graduate. It appears to be night and day with regards to football when I watch ND and our state U football capital. My perception to some degree is that ND has a much higher level of academic standard, and the state U has a much lower standard-thus producing a top football team. Of course, it also helps that they have a coach that is close to no. 1 as well. Seems to me that ND just has higher standards academically these days–whereas the state U has always wanted the football emphasis. It is indeed sad to see…but, I am still glad that my child chose ND!</p>
<p>^^^Blah, blah, blah. Trust me, the vast majority of recruits at ND would never be admitted there if it weren’t for their ability to play football. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Students are admitted to schools with special talents all the time, whether it be musical, fine arts, or sports. Either you compete in football at the highest levels or you don’t. Somehow, I think ND still thinks they can compete at the highest levels, so no excuses are acceptable.</p>
<p>^^^ Like I said, not looking to make excuses–just my perception in comparing two schools!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ND really cannot play the “academics card” when you have had three top ten recruiting classes in the last four years. But this is exactly the kind of “holier than thou” attitude that makes you the object of mockery and derision in college football. </p>
<p>I could very well say that 3/4 of the ND football players wouldn’t be able to play for Stanford “with regards to academic ability” and use that as an excuse for why we haven’t been to a bowl game since 2001. But what’s the point?</p>
<p>Now I cannot speak for Alabama, but some state U’s football programs have comparable academic standards to ND’s. I know for a fact that the SAT scores of Michigan football players are virtually identical to those of ND football players. So the reason you choked against them had nothing to do with academics.</p>
<p>Well, see you in Palo Alto. Love to knock you out of BCS contention!</p>
<p>^^Excuse me, but I don’t have a holier than thou attitude. Just callin it like I see it, in other words, MY opinion. And, as I stated from the start, “not looking to make excuses”–just making an observation. But then, I guess if you attend Stanford, you aren’t allowed to have a personal opinion–or, then again, not allowed to voice it? Your tone of the message speaks volumes, by the way. </p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At Stanford, we’re encouraged to freely voice whatever opinions we wish. Unlike at certain Catholic-affiliated schools, free speech is (consciously or not) limited insofar as it contradicts or at least disagrees with religious beliefs.</p>
<p>Well, he obviously knows a lot about Catholic schools and Notre Dame’s ‘limited freedom of speech’.</p>
<p>What precise, well-informed, and colorful commentary. Is it common practice at Stanford or just your own personal hobby to make unfounded claims and hasty generalizations ? And specifically as it pertains to Catholics, no less. Truly a tasteful showing.</p>
<p>Can someone get Condi Rice to mediate this</p>
<p>Notre Dame actually is by no means constrictive towards free speech. The ideals which you are harping on are the views of a consensus of the student and faculty bodies on campus. It’s hard for a small group of, for example, pro-abortion, pro-execution, etc, etc, to have as visible of a voice as the pro-life, etc. groups. And most of this has to do with the ideologies of the University itself. As you said, it is a catholic institution, if someone had these views and feels uncomfortable or that their views are threatened, then they shouldn’t have gone their to begin with or should transfer. You can’t blame a school which has had ~160 years of these views just because it basis it fundamental teachings on a faith which has been around for nearly 2000 years.</p>
<p>For instance, when the obamanator came to speak at commencement - the U never quelled student input or disallowed criticism from alumni. They opened it and allowed dialogue on campus for it. Father Jenkins addressed some of the matters personally writing letters to alumni, including my parents/grandparents. they did as widely shown on Fox News, disrupt potential protest from radicals, as would any Prestigious university - including your all mighty and high stanford.</p>
<p>“As you said, it is a catholic institution, if someone had these views and feels uncomfortable or that their views are threatened, then they shouldn’t have gone their to begin with or should transfer.”</p>
<p>Statements like this are actually exactly what the student from Stanford are talking about. Filtering out anybody who disagrees with any University (or student body/alumni albeit) policy or viewpoint is definitely a definition of censorship. I would reconsider this sentiment…</p>