at Minn, his personality got him a lot of attention from the media. He's taking over a decent job where he has a chance to win. I'll be watching what Jeff Brohm is able to do at Purdue, he has a much bigger rebuilding job.
Both of those guys are candidates to move upward if they do good jobs and neither are tied to those schools so if they do great jobs that they'll want to stay.
They have a pretty lame schedule to be honest. I only see Michigan and Wisconsin as losses. 7 games should be wins, 2 will be losses and 3 games will be toss-ups.
Buffalo - Win
Oregon State - Win
MTSU - Win
UMD - Win
Purdue - Win
MSU - Toss up
Illinois - Win
Iowa - Toss up
Mich - Lose
Neb - Toss up
NW - Win
Wisc - Lose
without resorting to scheduling FCS teams.
Except usually it includes an FCS team too - 12 and 13 are really impressive
The only three schools left who haven't resorted to FCS scheduling (yet).
Those are the only two tough games on the schedule. Nebraska, Iowa and MSU could potentially be challenging but the rest of them should be automatic wins.
I think Power 5 teams should only be allowed to play one Group of 5 team each year. Unfortunately, the days of really challenging schedules are gone. There were years where USC would have Oklahoma, Ohio State and Notre Dame on the same schedule. That will never happen again.
I think it might have been someone on this board itself, but having a red and non-red division would have been a lot more balanced than the cockeyed situation they have now. OSU and UM are far and away the premier teams in the conference, yet will never face off in a title game - as someone who does not like the conference, I like seeing one left out, but if I were a conference fan I'd be pissed - and Wisconsin is currently the only West team that has been good the last decade or so.
Under the current system
-OSU, UM: historically elites
-PSU, MSU: historically top tier or very close to it
-IU: bottom feeder, but like Duke, basketball helps
-UMD, Rutgers: don't fit at all, but massive media markets
-Nebraska: historically elite, although recent years (sadly sounds too familiar) are closer to UW/Iowa than OSU
-Wisconsin, Iowa: pretty good school that has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the division system, and another one that has been decent. On balance, perhaps just behind PSU/MSU?
-Purdue, UMN, Illinois, Northwestern: meh
With the red & non-red:
-Nebraska, UW: pretty strong
-IU, Maryland, Rutgers, Minnesota: strong basketball for the first two, massive media market (it inexplicably brings in money even if no one in NYC actually cares) for the latter, and a flagship state school that has to be put somewhere (seems like UW-UMN could be a rivalry too?)
-PSU, MSU: top tier (also keep the UM-MSU rivalry)
-Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue: decent recent record; massive media markets (although Chicago is very split between ND and the other Big Ten schools too), and another school that has to be put somewhere.
OSU and UM would be split, both sides would have a flagship school balanced by at least 2 respectable programs, and you'd have a lot more balance than what they currently have.
East-West makes most sense. Moreover, geography is immutable, but competitive balance isn't always in that category.
I also see a major issue involving Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers in a Red/Black and Blue (I like that name better than non-red) division setup.
As an aside, I believe Wisconsin-Minnesota is currently the longest continuously played rivalry at the FBS level.
with both OU and ND coming on the road. They were 2-4 heading into ND, but won that game and wouldn't lose again until ND beat them in 1973. They finished 6-4-1 but were ranked 20th in the final AP poll. Both Alabama and Oklahoma lost only to national champion Nebraska that year, while ND went 8-2.
The previous year, Southern Cal opened the season with Alabama and Nebraska n consecutive weeks. USC again finished 6-4-1 but were ranked 15th in the final AP poll. They tied the team that finished No. 1 (Nebraska) and beat No. 2 (ND). Alabama had a down year, going 6-5-1 and out of the rankings, but USC trounced them in Birmingham, 42-21. The disappointing season prompted Bear Bryant to install the wishbone in the offseason, which they sprung on unsuspecting USC to win the 1971 opener.
The 1970 and 1971 USC-Alabama games were late additions to the schedule, and were arranged when the NCAA allowed schools to expand their regular season schedules from 10 games to 11, effective in 1970. ND was one of a few schools that waited to go to 11 games, not doing so until 1974 (I believe Georgia Tech was the 11th game scheduled that year). The Big Ten didn't allow 11 regular season games until 1971 (and only allowed 9 through 1964). Ohio State only played 9 regular season games in 1970, and 10 from 1971-1973 before adding an 11th game in 1974.
going forward. I'd rather see USC lose to Alabama than crush . . . Arkansas State.
Georgia should be playing Texas instead of Samford
Arizona State should be playing Florida instead of New Mexico State
Ohio State should be playing Louisville instead of UNLV
Washington should be playing Virginia Tech instead of Montana
All of these games would get massive viewership and generate a ton of excitement. They'd also provide a more accurate platform with which to determine which teams are truly the best at the end of the year. Some of the schedules I've seen this year should disqualify teams from the playoffs. There are enough patsies in each conference for the best teams to beat up on. They don't need to add Samford and Chattanooga.
...as long as it's Michigan.
Why do guys who are often the highest paid employees at the universities continue to get passes on their first year of recruiting?
National Signing Day was February 1, 2017. What are realistic expectations for him to accomplish in that time frame considering coach-recruit relationships are usually initiated 20+ months before National Signing Day.
and go with him to Minn?
God I hate that term.
a gROW-er, not a show-er.
And we'll still be stuck with our very own version of John Cooper.
Fleck has more in common with Harbaugh at San Diego than with Kelly at Cincinnati, imo.
I know I'm in the minority on this, but I would have really liked us to take a shot on him while we had the chance.
1) Success at a power conference school, above historical norms
2) Successful time as an assistant winning titles/competing for titles learning from a top D1 coach
If you don't have those things, Notre Dame shouldn't hire you. When we have stuck to that formula the past 60 years, we've done well, when we haven't, we've failed.
Fleck shouldn't be on our list at this point (I don't count his year as a GA under Tressel as meeting criteria #2)
What a football tradition they have there, with their 40-something thousand seat stadium and their string of national titles 80 years ago.
Kelly is not in the ballpark of Cooper's performance.
Second, our chance didn't go anywhere. Hiring from EMU is stupid. Going to Minnesota doesn't change the desirability of Notre Dame. It simply provides him an opportunity to see if he can beat real teams and merit getting a better job.
If wanted, ND didn't miss their chance with the guy
I dont have any reason to doubt he will
do well there. But, Lets wait until minny is a consistent B10 title
contender before we consider this guy.
That we will never pay top dollar for an elite coach.
Even if they would, it has also been proven, time and time again, that our administration has no idea how to conduct an actual executive search for a coach. Therefore, I truly believe that catching lightening in a bottle will be our only avenue to future success. That is, unless there is a monumental shakeup in leadership at ND (and we all know there won't be).
When Minnesota beats either OSU or Michigan, and they will (though I'm not sure what the rolling Big10 schedule looks like), Notre Dame won't even be in the conversation for Fleck. It will be Meyer 2.0.
Apologies for the hand-wringing.
Austin is a better city than Tuscaloosa by any objective metric (the Sabans are both from West Virginia and he started off playing and coaching in the Midwest, so no Bear Bryant "mama's calling" situation here), UT is in the same ballpark as Alabama for football and a lot more prestigious for everything else, and it's a helluva lot easier to win in that mutt conference than the SEC, but Saban chose to stay. UT apparently may have some perhaps "aggressive" boosters who try to meddle whereas Saban can focus solely on winning games at Alabama, but $100MM is dynastic wealth and would have also likely made him the only guy to ever win at 3 schools, yet wasn't good enough to leave his Death Star at Alabama. Given our national scope, $12B endowment, and the instant fame for the guy who does turn it around, I'd have to think ND could be an attractive job for the right guy, but unfortunately agree that we're more likely to hire a Butch Jones or someone like that.