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 agree with the goal by Domer99

But I also see the goal a little different than I see the expectations. Clearly to me, 8 and 9 win seasons are not meeting expectations.

But I also don't want having a goal of a national championship to be the equivalent of shooting the moon. Larry Coker, Mack Brown, and Gene Chizik all won national titles, but I wouldn't want ND to hire any of those guys. If it's a national title without any kind of sustainability, then I'd argue that my definition of ND's goal is more nuanced.

Said a little differently, and I know this might sound sacrilege, but I think I'd rather have a program like Oregon that was constantly in the national title conversation morese than I'd want one title like Chizik. Heck, I'd rather probably see something that mirrored Dantonio's post year 6 than to have a program that was as inconsistent as Auburn. But I can understand those that disagree.

But of your list, I think Kelly stacks up well compared to Fisher, Miles, and Stoops. The latter being a poster child for how difficult it is to win any title.

But then I think the next question is how do we get there. I am still not convinced that Michigan, who made the biggest splash hire since Meyer is necessarily assured of winning the title.

There are 2 sure gold standards in college football right now, and I am not sure anyone is hiring those guys away.

The totality of Kelly's body of work is not enough. Clearly. But if 2015 becomes a baseline (and that's the most recent data point) then I think that provides ND the best chance at winning 2 straight games against the best teams in college football. Heck, our 3 losses were against arguably 3 of the best teams in college football last season, and 2 of those should have been wins on the road. Note, I did say should so it wasn't good enough. But for me (and I understand if there are different views), it demonstrated an ability to compete (although not finish) at the highest level.

I wished Kelly would mix things up defensively, because to my untrained eye, that was the primary obstacle in ND winning 2 games against the best teams in the country and being a 10-3 club. But Kelly is on the hook for that. I think next year bodes significantly toward proving whether 2012 was a fluke or whether 8 or 9 wins is likely. If it's the latter then I am fine moving on. But I just hope we have a viable reset strategy at that point.