I don't think UC was badly tarnished in that game
by ndgotrobbedin97 (2014-12-05 14:34:52)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: Both undefeated regular seasons were badly tarnished  posted by ShermanOaksND



I can't believe many people thought they could hang with UF in that game anyway. The talent disparity is huge, so I don't think that takes away from what a 12-0 season at UC means.


the way no one expected Utah to hang with Bama
by tbonesays  (2014-12-05 21:55:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Or Louisville and West Virginia to hang with Florida and Georgia.

Plenty of under sized teams beat the SEC in the Sugar Bowl even though the Big East champion was disappointed not to be playing for the national title.


But for a few tenths of a second in the NU v UT game, that
by irishhawk49  (2014-12-05 23:08:14)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Cinci team would have played for the NC against Alabama - yikes.


Some here put far more stock in Cincy's 2009 regular season
by ShermanOaksND  (2014-12-05 14:59:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

than you or I did. Even at that, the bowl was much worse than predicted. Florida led 37-3 early in the third quarter; the final 25 minutes were purely garbage time.


I only put stock in it because he did it again.
by rockmcd  (2014-12-05 17:49:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I think 2009 and 2012 validate each other and weaken the argument that either of those were flukes. It's not a huge thing but it's something.

It shows that he's capable of occasional seasons where we'll get an at bat in the playoff. Of course he's also capable of 4-5 loss regular seasons more often than not. Both things are true and there's no need for anybody to place an asterisk next to one data point or the other.


I disagree that 2009 and 2012 "validate each other"
by ShermanOaksND  (2014-12-05 18:37:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In any event, the larger point is that those seasons are far outnumbered by the 4 years of 4-5 losses under Kelly at ND. Such seasons are now clearly established as the norm for him. Occasional exceptions aren't good enough. Davie, Willingham and Weis aren't judged solely by their comparably occasional 9-3 or 10-3 seasons, and rightfully so.


I definitely agree on the larger point. *
by rockmcd  (2014-12-05 18:59:43)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.