[Redrum]

Great line from Rick Reilly's no-nonsense take-down of the Irish.  Somebody had to do it and Reilly had the cojones.  Speaking truth to power,  speaking truth to my Must-Defeat Trinity :  USC, Notre Dame,  Kal

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8264769/notre-dame-irish-relegated-insignificance

[Redrum]

Great line from Rick Reilly's no-nonsense take-down of the Irish.  Somebody had to do it and Reilly had the cojones.  Speaking truth to power,  speaking truth to my Must-Defeat Trinity :  USC, Notre Dame,  Kal

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8264769/notre-dame-irish-relegated-insignificance

[washingtonismoney]

It's a stupid argument, really, which makes it par for the course for Reilly. The Irish have been average post-Holtz, but average doesn't get you relegated in any soccer league. Awful does. So the entire premise is dumb.

Otherwise, it's just the old free market. I wish there'd stop being so much attention on them, but evidently N(D)BC is satisfied with their ratings, and the rush of ESPN to put them on whenever NBC corroborates that decision. And you can find plenty of people dissing the Irish these days; it's not exactly hard.

[washingtonismoney]

It's a stupid argument, really, which makes it par for the course for Reilly. The Irish have been average post-Holtz, but average doesn't get you relegated in any soccer league. Awful does. So the entire premise is dumb.

Otherwise, it's just the old free market. I wish there'd stop being so much attention on them, but evidently N(D)BC is satisfied with their ratings, and the rush of ESPN to put them on whenever NBC corroborates that decision. And you can find plenty of people dissing the Irish these days; it's not exactly hard.

[Redrum]

Decrying stupid arguments in sports writing and on sports bulletin boards. 

The fluff about demoting them to a minor league (conference) aside,  what Reilly takes on is the notion that Notre Dame is "special"  simply because they are, after all,  Notre Dame...to which your reposte is that they're average...which sort of makes his point. 

[Redrum]

Decrying stupid arguments in sports writing and on sports bulletin boards. 

The fluff about demoting them to a minor league (conference) aside,  what Reilly takes on is the notion that Notre Dame is "special"  simply because they are, after all,  Notre Dame...to which your reposte is that they're average...which sort of makes his point. 

[fullmetal]

"They did give up," USC quarterback Matt Barkley told ESPN 710 radio in L.A. "I wouldn't have wanted to be on that sideline."

Draco Malfoy burns the Domers pretty good there...

[fullmetal]

"They did give up," USC quarterback Matt Barkley told ESPN 710 radio in L.A. "I wouldn't have wanted to be on that sideline."

Draco Malfoy burns the Domers pretty good there...

[yvonne]

Notice who he doesn't pick to lose to the Domers?

[yvonne]

Notice who he doesn't pick to lose to the Domers?

[yvonne]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p0Y7yjxJVlc

[yvonne]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p0Y7yjxJVlc

[FarmBoy]

While I generally support any movement to further the disdain for Notre Dame football, I thought this article was rather lame. I know much of it was tongue in cheek, but even a farcical piece should have a practical outcome that can be pursued.

The only good point made was that Notre Dame should have no preferential treatment when it comes to discussing post-season arrangements. It makes no sense that they're the only independent sitting at the big boy table dividing up the pie. I get that they're a national brand and have real economic value, but I don't think the BCS Bowl system would have less value if Notre Dame didn't get preferential treatment, or was left out altogether. That, and pointing out that it makes zero sense for Notre Dame to receive a bowl system payout whether it competes in a bowl or not.

But forcing them into a conference? Saying NBC shouldn't renew their contract? I guess this was Rick Reilly's weekly Hour of Hate.

BTW - I don't like that Notre Dame has become mediocre. I hate their fans and program, but let's face, it's a lot more exciting for Stanford to go to South Bend and upset the #1 team in the country than to beat a team analysts expect to go 7-5/8-4. I would prefer if they won every game on their schedule except U.SC and Stanford.

[FarmBoy]

While I generally support any movement to further the disdain for Notre Dame football, I thought this article was rather lame. I know much of it was tongue in cheek, but even a farcical piece should have a practical outcome that can be pursued.

The only good point made was that Notre Dame should have no preferential treatment when it comes to discussing post-season arrangements. It makes no sense that they're the only independent sitting at the big boy table dividing up the pie. I get that they're a national brand and have real economic value, but I don't think the BCS Bowl system would have less value if Notre Dame didn't get preferential treatment, or was left out altogether. That, and pointing out that it makes zero sense for Notre Dame to receive a bowl system payout whether it competes in a bowl or not.

But forcing them into a conference? Saying NBC shouldn't renew their contract? I guess this was Rick Reilly's weekly Hour of Hate.

BTW - I don't like that Notre Dame has become mediocre. I hate their fans and program, but let's face, it's a lot more exciting for Stanford to go to South Bend and upset the #1 team in the country than to beat a team analysts expect to go 7-5/8-4. I would prefer if they won every game on their schedule except U.SC and Stanford.

[Redrum]

"it's a lot more exciting for Stanford to go to South Bend and upset the #1 team in the country than to beat a team analysts expect to go 7-5/8-4."

No.  It's more fun to keep one foot on their neck while kicking them with the other.  Until they decide to unschedule us because its just too painful to have us on their schedule.  It's more fun to have ND losing recruits to us because our academics/football proposition is demonstrably better year in and year out.  It's more fun because losing to them is a worse alternative... to which we would be left with the pathetic self-reassurance;  "Well, they are the #1 team in the nation."  Talk to me again when all the buzz is how Stanford is rated lower nationally because we keep Northern Indiana Parochial College on our schedule.

[Redrum]

"it's a lot more exciting for Stanford to go to South Bend and upset the #1 team in the country than to beat a team analysts expect to go 7-5/8-4."

No.  It's more fun to keep one foot on their neck while kicking them with the other.  Until they decide to unschedule us because its just too painful to have us on their schedule.  It's more fun to have ND losing recruits to us because our academics/football proposition is demonstrably better year in and year out.  It's more fun because losing to them is a worse alternative... to which we would be left with the pathetic self-reassurance;  "Well, they are the #1 team in the nation."  Talk to me again when all the buzz is how Stanford is rated lower nationally because we keep Northern Indiana Parochial College on our schedule.

[FarmBoy]

Talk to me again when all the buzz is how Stanford is rated lower nationally because we keep Northern Indiana Parochial College on our schedule.

I have a distinct memory of many commentators asking "but who did Stanford beat", both at the end of 2011 and 2010 in discussing which teams should play in the BCS. Luckily it didn't hurt our BCS opportunity, but if we'd been more borderline, or say Boise St had gone undefeated and was in consideration for top 5 votes, not having Notre Dame win 9+ games hurts our reputation. The only team we beat last year that ended the season in the top 25 was USC. If ND has beaten Michigan and/or South Florida, our win in November would have been a lot more interesting.

But aside from that, I'm much more interested in seeing Stanford football do something remarkable than watching them beat mediocre teams. I would rather schedule Alabama and risk a bad loss, but have a chance to make a national statement, than schedule Duke and know the outcome of the game ahead of time. Not that Notre Dame is on the level of the Duke, but beating them starts to lose meaning when the Naval Academy and Tulsa are doing it too.

[FarmBoy]

Talk to me again when all the buzz is how Stanford is rated lower nationally because we keep Northern Indiana Parochial College on our schedule.

I have a distinct memory of many commentators asking "but who did Stanford beat", both at the end of 2011 and 2010 in discussing which teams should play in the BCS. Luckily it didn't hurt our BCS opportunity, but if we'd been more borderline, or say Boise St had gone undefeated and was in consideration for top 5 votes, not having Notre Dame win 9+ games hurts our reputation. The only team we beat last year that ended the season in the top 25 was USC. If ND has beaten Michigan and/or South Florida, our win in November would have been a lot more interesting.

But aside from that, I'm much more interested in seeing Stanford football do something remarkable than watching them beat mediocre teams. I would rather schedule Alabama and risk a bad loss, but have a chance to make a national statement, than schedule Duke and know the outcome of the game ahead of time. Not that Notre Dame is on the level of the Duke, but beating them starts to lose meaning when the Naval Academy and Tulsa are doing it too.

[FarmBoy]

have his way with you

I'm not that kind of (Farm)boy.

I guess I'm just a product of my times. I don't feel an unending hatred for all things U.CB or ND that many on here have. I attended Stanford during Willingham's 7 year win streak, so I have considerably less animosity than people who watched the 1982 travesty live. At the same time, the basketball team was rising, and all I wanted was to dethrone UCLA and UofA. The b-ball game against the B.ears was a sideshow that allowed for booking a great mid-season opponent like UConn.

They're a harmless bunch over there and they need their bread and circus to keep them from burning down Telegraph Ave.

[FarmBoy]

have his way with you

I'm not that kind of (Farm)boy.

I guess I'm just a product of my times. I don't feel an unending hatred for all things U.CB or ND that many on here have. I attended Stanford during Willingham's 7 year win streak, so I have considerably less animosity than people who watched the 1982 travesty live. At the same time, the basketball team was rising, and all I wanted was to dethrone UCLA and UofA. The b-ball game against the B.ears was a sideshow that allowed for booking a great mid-season opponent like UConn.

They're a harmless bunch over there and they need their bread and circus to keep them from burning down Telegraph Ave.

[Kathy]

They're a harmless bunch over there

Blasphemy!

Never let your guard down when dealing with a weenie.
Ever.

[Kathy]

They're a harmless bunch over there

Blasphemy!

Never let your guard down when dealing with a weenie.
Ever.

[jayasena]

But aside from that, I'm much more interested in seeing Stanford football do something remarkable than watching them beat mediocre teams. I would rather schedule Alabama and risk a bad loss, but have a chance to make a national statement, than schedule Duke and know the outcome of the game ahead of time. Not that Northern Indiana Parochial College is on the level of the Duke, but beating them starts to lose meaning when the Naval Academy and Tulsa are doing it too.

I know we've had a couple of great seasons and we all have high hopes for continued success. But we still haven't seen how we do without AL and Shaw isn't proven until he wins consistently with his own coaching and recruits. A skeptic may also point out that our only even-mildly-impressive OOC win even in those wildly successful (by our standards) seasons was over an over-rated Virginia Tech team. We didn't even manage to beat Ok State, much less Alabama.

Perhaps we should wait a bit before we start acting like we are a perennial title contender. (Yes, yes, I know what online football message boards are for.)

[jayasena]

But aside from that, I'm much more interested in seeing Stanford football do something remarkable than watching them beat mediocre teams. I would rather schedule Alabama and risk a bad loss, but have a chance to make a national statement, than schedule Duke and know the outcome of the game ahead of time. Not that Northern Indiana Parochial College is on the level of the Duke, but beating them starts to lose meaning when the Naval Academy and Tulsa are doing it too.

I know we've had a couple of great seasons and we all have high hopes for continued success. But we still haven't seen how we do without AL and Shaw isn't proven until he wins consistently with his own coaching and recruits. A skeptic may also point out that our only even-mildly-impressive OOC win even in those wildly successful (by our standards) seasons was over an over-rated Virginia Tech team. We didn't even manage to beat Ok State, much less Alabama.

Perhaps we should wait a bit before we start acting like we are a perennial title contender. (Yes, yes, I know what online football message boards are for.)

[yvonne]

They're a harmless bunch over there and they need their bread and circus to keep them from burning down Telegraph Ave.

You can NOT be serious!

Once those fans got a taste of victory in the Big Game, they acted like they had never ever lost to Stanford. They dismissed the losses in the Royal Ungratefulness years saying that the coached against inferior coaches then conveniently forgot that their streak happened against two of the worst coaches in Stanford history. Some of the players in 2009 told the press that Stanford had no business being on the same field as them. They take joy in physically beating up our mascot, and think losing the game gives them the right to riot. Their new game announcer was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct when he WASN'T EVEN ON THE FIELD. They have a freshman receiver who's already going around saying that he will bring home the Axe every year, even though his father did not succeed EVEN ONCE.

(There, I feel better now.)

You'll note that when Andrew is asked what his favorite part of his time on the Farm, he does not talk about never losing to SC. He does not talk about "What's your deal?" He talks about beating up on Kal at their place.

[yvonne]

They're a harmless bunch over there and they need their bread and circus to keep them from burning down Telegraph Ave.

You can NOT be serious!

Once those fans got a taste of victory in the Big Game, they acted like they had never ever lost to Stanford. They dismissed the losses in the Royal Ungratefulness years saying that the coached against inferior coaches then conveniently forgot that their streak happened against two of the worst coaches in Stanford history. Some of the players in 2009 told the press that Stanford had no business being on the same field as them. They take joy in physically beating up our mascot, and think losing the game gives them the right to riot. Their new game announcer was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct when he WASN'T EVEN ON THE FIELD. They have a freshman receiver who's already going around saying that he will bring home the Axe every year, even though his father did not succeed EVEN ONCE.

(There, I feel better now.)

You'll note that when Andrew is asked what his favorite part of his time on the Farm, he does not talk about never losing to SC. He does not talk about "What's your deal?" He talks about beating up on Kal at their place.

[needle]

Kal sucks.

[needle]

Kal sucks.

[fullmetal]

Don't forget Scott Fujita's Big Game rant.  Even if you consider kal harmless, kal fans will not treat you in the same manner.

[fullmetal]

Don't forget Scott Fujita's Big Game rant.  Even if you consider kal harmless, kal fans will not treat you in the same manner.

[teejers1]

Somnambule, agree with your post top to bottom, including this line:

"Perhaps we should wait a bit before we start acting like we are a perennial title contender."

However, even with the supposed lack of marquis wins in the last 2 seasons, I can confidently make the following statements:

Stanford was one of the Top 3 teams at the end of the 2011-2012 season (no one wanted any part of the Cardinal in bowl season); and

Stanford was a better football team than Oklahoma State - which finished the season ranked, what?  #3 (?) - at the end of this past season, n/w/s the final score in the Fiesta Bowl.  Stanford outplayed Oklahoma State and was just better. 

The point is, even without the marquis Ws, it's safe to say that Stanford was a very, very elite football team the past 2 seasons (and arguably a title contender).  Of course, it's a 2-year sample set - the best in history - and I agree 100% that it is folly to act like the Cardinal is a perennial title contender.  But I would sure enjoy Stanford earning its way into that discussion.

[teejers1]

Somnambule, agree with your post top to bottom, including this line:

"Perhaps we should wait a bit before we start acting like we are a perennial title contender."

However, even with the supposed lack of marquis wins in the last 2 seasons, I can confidently make the following statements:

Stanford was one of the Top 3 teams at the end of the 2011-2012 season (no one wanted any part of the Cardinal in bowl season); and

Stanford was a better football team than Oklahoma State - which finished the season ranked, what?  #3 (?) - at the end of this past season, n/w/s the final score in the Fiesta Bowl.  Stanford outplayed Oklahoma State and was just better. 

The point is, even without the marquis Ws, it's safe to say that Stanford was a very, very elite football team the past 2 seasons (and arguably a title contender).  Of course, it's a 2-year sample set - the best in history - and I agree 100% that it is folly to act like the Cardinal is a perennial title contender.  But I would sure enjoy Stanford earning its way into that discussion.

[jayasena]

Wait, did I just get slapped upside the head by teejers for being too pessimistic?  ???

[jayasena]

Wait, did I just get slapped upside the head by teejers for being too pessimistic?  ???

[yvonne]

you mean Teejers of h--- fame?

[yvonne]

you mean Teejers of h--- fame?

[jayasena]

I was just kidding since teejers has been one of the more demanding/conservative posters around here :)

[jayasena]

I was just kidding since teejers has been one of the more demanding/conservative posters around here :)