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

Not to get too far afield on this board by HTownND

But there are plenty of other examples the other way, and you and I both know that.

Moreover, we aren't MSU.

And while we aren't the Notre Dame of Leahy, Ara or even Lou (it's not 1988 anymore, just for jt), this idea that we somehow were so beaten down we needed to start from scratch is horseshit.

Look at Ohio State, look at Bama (yes, I know, Saban and Meyer), but it's pretty damn simple, if those guys can do it, there is no reason we cannot.



But let me be blunt and get directly to the point. Kelly wasn't hired as a slow builder, no one sold it that way at all when he was hired (including Kelly himself). The retrofitting of expectations to fit the results has been fascinating to watch.

When we hired him, he went to the BCS with X QBs
The retrofitted talking point - he needs the right QB to truly run his system

When we hired him, he turned CMU and Cincy around in 3 years.
The retrofitted talking point - he needed time, he inherited a mess


I'm not buying what you are selling, mostly because we aren't MSU, but also because I think it's bullshit that we're trying to rewrite the talking points after the fact. He was hired to win and win right away, and it didn't matter who the QB was, etc. Those were the exact statements and rhetoric used by those who defended the hire at the outset. Google works here and on other forums, it's easy to find all of those conversations. Now, it's, he needs time, the right QB, program building, just look at MSU. I appreciate the effort, I simply reject the rewrite to fit the current state of affairs.