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 don't know how I'd answer this question ... by CJC

But which Notre Dame sports are better-positioned today than they were when Swarbrick arrived?

I'll make it easy on everybody and acknowledge that football is better off today than it was in 2009 (although that underscores one of the limitations of this exercise, since many would argue that's not good enough).

I'll also declare that both men's and women's basketball are better-positioned today than they were in 2009, even though Swarbrick inherited both coaches and they remain in place. Feel free to argue whether the improvement in those programs is due to Swarbrick, in spite of Swarbrick or neither.

Have at it.