This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I've used this example before by Domer99

But had Michigan St. fans been as confident and adamant of Mark Dantonio's coaching prowess, they'd have missed out on all of their BCS appearances.

Because through year 6 Dantonio was .646 WP with 2 bowl wins in the Outback and Buffalo Wild Wings bowls. That was on the heels of 4 straight mediocre bowl losses (unless you want to call the Capital One bowl way above average). Dantonio also had a losing season bunched in there, against what I'd consider to be an overall inferior schedule to what Notre Dame generally plays.

Kelly through year 6, has a .705 WP, and 2 trips to BCS caliber bowls (at least under the old definition).

ND is certainly not where I want to the program to be, but I don't know that I've seen all the evidence necessary to know we aren't going to get there. I admire the prescience of those that see the situation so much more vividly. With Weis, Willingham, and Davie, there was a more palpable sense that there were obstacles that those guys could never going to overcome, regardless.

I am sure I'll get labeled a Kelly-lover, but I've seen improvements and enhancements in the program that bode well for the future. I've seen the overall talent level improve. I see a program in good shape and capable of competing in the elite realm.

I am not saying there isn't a fairly plentiful pool of data to pull from, but I don't find it nearly the fait accompli (or even definitely persuasive) that so many others here see. He's certainly not a failure, and that's exactly how he's painted.

Witness: what do you call a blow out loss to North Carolina in the NCAA quarterfinals? Kellyesque.

I am open to the possibility that he's not hit his ceiling. That's all. But I guess another point of divergence, I don't see eras like Rockne or Leahy ever happening again at ND. Not to say that I don't aspire for that, but not sure how realistic it is either.

I guess I should answer your question, though. Coachocinco, or whatever the cavalry is prone to calling him now, would likely be enough to convince me that it might be a good time to change direction. But context matters, and we were a 15-yard penalty against Stanford from being in the playoff mix (or certainly the discussion). We need to catch some breaks, but anything equal to or less than 8 wins would probably seal my beliefs.