[oldalum]

I mean, I get the OMG SEC and their eight game conference schedule is a bit overrated

Every team in the SEC except Vanderbilt is bowl-eligible this year. That can't happen without 4 non conference games with which to schedule cupcakes.

[oldalum]

I mean, I get the OMG SEC and their eight game conference schedule is a bit overrated

Every team in the SEC except Vanderbilt is bowl-eligible this year. That can't happen without 4 non conference games with which to schedule cupcakes.

[JustAnotherFan]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

[JustAnotherFan]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

[JohnR34231]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

No doubt we have now squandered the respect that we earned in the 2010's. Hopefully can can get it back in the not too distant future.

[JohnR34231]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

No doubt we have now squandered the respect that we earned in the 2010's. Hopefully can can get it back in the not too distant future.

[82lsju]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

No doubt we have now squandered the respect that we earned in the 2010's. Hopefully can can get it back in the not too distant future.

this year LSU played in non-conference games

- McNeese State
- Central Michigan
- UL Monroe
- UCLA

in 2022 they play in non-conference games

- Florida State
- Southern
- New Mexico 
- UAB

[82lsju]

Random tweet:

[twitter] https://twitter.com/SID_Belvin/status/14...3102166023 [/twitter]

Actually ND has only played Air Force a couple of times in the last 15 years. One of those Air Force won 41-24.
And, of course, we have certainly held our own with them over that same time period.

I just thought it was worth sharing the random tweet by a random person given the many discussions of the state of Stanford football. I think that in the 2010s no one would have identified Stanford as a cupcake opponent. And the SEC is quite comfortable with cupcake opponents.

No doubt we have now squandered the respect that we earned in the 2010's. Hopefully can can get it back in the not too distant future.

this year LSU played in non-conference games

- McNeese State
- Central Michigan
- UL Monroe
- UCLA

in 2022 they play in non-conference games

- Florida State
- Southern
- New Mexico 
- UAB

[Hurlburt88]

There are members of ND's administration who have not been fans of some Kelly behaviors for some time.  Unsure if that has anything to do with this.

[Hurlburt88]

There are members of ND's administration who have not been fans of some Kelly behaviors for some time.  Unsure if that has anything to do with this.

[DC 86]

There are members of ND's administration who have not been fans of some Kelly behaviors for some time.  Unsure if that has anything to do with this.

Aside from the money and the easier path to a national championship it's true that Kelly requested facilities upgrades and personnel increases which had been put on the back burner, and that may have been an indication to him that the administration wasn't wiling to go all out in pursuit of a championship, whereas at LSU he just needs to snap his fingers to get whatever he needs as long as he's winning.

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

[DC 86]

There are members of ND's administration who have not been fans of some Kelly behaviors for some time.  Unsure if that has anything to do with this.

Aside from the money and the easier path to a national championship it's true that Kelly requested facilities upgrades and personnel increases which had been put on the back burner, and that may have been an indication to him that the administration wasn't wiling to go all out in pursuit of a championship, whereas at LSU he just needs to snap his fingers to get whatever he needs as long as he's winning.

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

[teejers1]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

[teejers1]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

[DC 86]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

That's all fine, but all you need to know is that LSU has won three national championships in the last 18 years (under three different head coaches no less) while Notre Dame's last national championship was 33 years ago.

The 12-team playoff is actually a major boon to Notre Dame which is why Swarbick is its chief proponent. They really should be in the playoff every year under that format.

[DC 86]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

That's all fine, but all you need to know is that LSU has won three national championships in the last 18 years (under three different head coaches no less) while Notre Dame's last national championship was 33 years ago.

The 12-team playoff is actually a major boon to Notre Dame which is why Swarbick is its chief proponent. They really should be in the playoff every year under that format.

[teejers1]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

That's all fine, but all you need to know is that LSU has won three national championships in the last 18 years (under three different head coaches no less) while Notre Dame's last national championship was 33 years ago.

The 12-team playoff is actually a major boon to Notre Dame which is why Swarbick is its chief proponent. They really should be in the playoff every year under that format.

Agreed.  If issue is making CFP, then stay at ND.
If goal is winning a natty . . . less clear.

BTW, I've made much of the fact that Shaw inherited a Ferrari when he took over at Stanford; the same will be true for the next coach at ND.  That roster is pretty loaded (thanks to Kelly and Freeman), and the next coach should do very well there for at least a couple seasons, at minimum.  And if Fickell gets the job, well, ND will be formidable for the foreseeable future.  Freeman might be the guy - by all accounts a good coach and recruiter.  Only ?? is can he run a program (as opposed to one side of the ball).  But he'll start with a good base (roster) in all events.

[teejers1]

Brian Kelly is one of the Top 3 College Football Head Coaches, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if he can actually get better talent at LSU than he could at Notre Dame. There is no guarantee he will, but Kelly's teams are always physical, and that wins at every level.

Per the rankings, LSU has better talent than ND . . . virtually every year (this according to the numbers-based poster from TOS).  The same guy thinks this is all about getting a championship - the one thing the Great Brian Kelly has yet to achieve as a college coach.  It may be easier for ND to make 4-team CFP at ND than at LSU, but he believes that actually winning it will be easier at LSU.  That may well be the case.  Also, if the CFP expands, as many expect, then a 1 or 2(?) loss LSU might readily make the CFP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kelly had thoughts along lines of "If that chump Ed Orgeron can win a natty at LSU, then I ought to be able to do it with my eyes closed!"  And this much is certainly true:  SEC coaches are not happy with LSU's obvious upgrade at the coaching position.

That's all fine, but all you need to know is that LSU has won three national championships in the last 18 years (under three different head coaches no less) while Notre Dame's last national championship was 33 years ago.

The 12-team playoff is actually a major boon to Notre Dame which is why Swarbick is its chief proponent. They really should be in the playoff every year under that format.

Agreed.  If issue is making CFP, then stay at ND.
If goal is winning a natty . . . less clear.

BTW, I've made much of the fact that Shaw inherited a Ferrari when he took over at Stanford; the same will be true for the next coach at ND.  That roster is pretty loaded (thanks to Kelly and Freeman), and the next coach should do very well there for at least a couple seasons, at minimum.  And if Fickell gets the job, well, ND will be formidable for the foreseeable future.  Freeman might be the guy - by all accounts a good coach and recruiter.  Only ?? is can he run a program (as opposed to one side of the ball).  But he'll start with a good base (roster) in all events.

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

[OutsiderFan]

I highly doubt the University of Scandal & Corruption has similarly dilapidated libraries on its campus, but LSU has its priorities! Winning lots of football games is more important than the research mission of the university.

https://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/opin...c68e7.html

[OutsiderFan]

I highly doubt the University of Scandal & Corruption has similarly dilapidated libraries on its campus, but LSU has its priorities! Winning lots of football games is more important than the research mission of the university.

https://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/opin...c68e7.html

[DC 86]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

[DC 86]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

[martyup]

Will they try to steal Shaw from us? ;)

I think the memory of Willingham will prevent this from happening.

[martyup]

Will they try to steal Shaw from us? ;)

I think the memory of Willingham will prevent this from happening.

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

I think we actually agree. I don't think there was pressure to move on. I think there was significant pressure to not recruit players that might reflect unfavorably on the University and to maintain at least defensible academic standards. The presidents of Notre Dame are in a unique bind. They are supposed to reflect a certain value system that is even more restrictive than most schools, but yet the success of the program brings alumni money, which they need. At LSU, Kelly will be virtually free of that constraint/pressure, which I think is a big advantage in the pursuit of a National Championship.

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

I think we actually agree. I don't think there was pressure to move on. I think there was significant pressure to not recruit players that might reflect unfavorably on the University and to maintain at least defensible academic standards. The presidents of Notre Dame are in a unique bind. They are supposed to reflect a certain value system that is even more restrictive than most schools, but yet the success of the program brings alumni money, which they need. At LSU, Kelly will be virtually free of that constraint/pressure, which I think is a big advantage in the pursuit of a National Championship.

[gailtate]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

I think we actually agree. I don't think there was pressure to move on. I think there was significant pressure to not recruit players that might reflect unfavorably on the University and to maintain at least defensible academic standards. The presidents of Notre Dame are in a unique bind. They are supposed to reflect a certain value system that is even more restrictive than most schools, but yet the success of the program brings alumni money, which they need. At LSU, Kelly will be virtually free of that constraint/pressure, which I think is a big advantage in the pursuit of a National Championship.

"Step Dad" Brian Kelly telling LSU players that he's not trying to replace their dad, but wants them to know that he's hip and understands them.
http://t.co/4KnoNLLVDD

[gailtate]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I interpreted your post to mean that he was feeling pressure to move on from some parts of the administration. In any case, while I am sure it's true that there are faculty who are bothered by the importance of the football program at Notre Dame it's even more true that the football program is a big part of their brand and that university presidents there have historically been heavily invested in the program's continuing success for obvious reasons.

As I posted there indeed was tension in terms of Kelly not getting everything he asked for there, which surely played some part in his decision.

I think we actually agree. I don't think there was pressure to move on. I think there was significant pressure to not recruit players that might reflect unfavorably on the University and to maintain at least defensible academic standards. The presidents of Notre Dame are in a unique bind. They are supposed to reflect a certain value system that is even more restrictive than most schools, but yet the success of the program brings alumni money, which they need. At LSU, Kelly will be virtually free of that constraint/pressure, which I think is a big advantage in the pursuit of a National Championship.

"Step Dad" Brian Kelly telling LSU players that he's not trying to replace their dad, but wants them to know that he's hip and understands them.
http://t.co/4KnoNLLVDD

[teejers1]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

[teejers1]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

[Farm93]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

[Farm93]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

Actually, I heard it going in the opposite direction, that he was told to stop recruiting certain players that were not acceptable to the admin for conduct reasons. I don't know it is true however. It is certainly true that there are players that he wanted that did not get admitted, and a whole lot more that he didn't recruit because he knew they couldn't get admitted.

He has won enough at Notre Dame to be "popular" there, and it is probable he could continue doing so. This year, I am sure he is very frustrated that despite his team's good record  they most probably won't get in. In two years that issue will go away with 12 teams going every year, but I am sure this year rankles, as probably would next. More importantly, I believe that Kelly believes the teams he has created at Notre Dame have been very good, but, lets face it, not good enough to win a National Championship (like say Oregon wasn't). He has been there long enough to understand the constraints and simply doesn't believe it is possible. There will always be an SEC school that doesn't have essentially any restrictions on recruiting that will always be better than his ND team. At least if he is in the SEC, it is a level playing field. Ogeron did it, so it can be done.

Granted, a busload of money is a great incentive, but there are other good reasons. It was probably a bit of "Now or probably never".

[Goose]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

Actually, I heard it going in the opposite direction, that he was told to stop recruiting certain players that were not acceptable to the admin for conduct reasons. I don't know it is true however. It is certainly true that there are players that he wanted that did not get admitted, and a whole lot more that he didn't recruit because he knew they couldn't get admitted.

He has won enough at Notre Dame to be "popular" there, and it is probable he could continue doing so. This year, I am sure he is very frustrated that despite his team's good record  they most probably won't get in. In two years that issue will go away with 12 teams going every year, but I am sure this year rankles, as probably would next. More importantly, I believe that Kelly believes the teams he has created at Notre Dame have been very good, but, lets face it, not good enough to win a National Championship (like say Oregon wasn't). He has been there long enough to understand the constraints and simply doesn't believe it is possible. There will always be an SEC school that doesn't have essentially any restrictions on recruiting that will always be better than his ND team. At least if he is in the SEC, it is a level playing field. Ogeron did it, so it can be done.

Granted, a busload of money is a great incentive, but there are other good reasons. It was probably a bit of "Now or probably never".

[teejers1]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

So, it's your belief that Kelly was receiving wrath from fans for not winning enough and that caused tension in his professional relationship at ND?  Could be - but I doubt that's true.  He has won a ton, including the last several years, and has delivered ND to title game and a couple CFPs.  That's pretty incredible, especially for a school with some admissions limitations.

The problem with the Stanford-as-a-stepping-stone assumption for all coaches is that such was more applicable under the Old Model - you know, where Stanford University was opposed to having its head football coach show up on the 990.  Those days are long gone.  I think there are lots of coaches out there who would view Stanford as an ideal long-term coaching destination for all the reasons Shaw does (the guy is not dumb, after all - he "gets" the many benefits of the Stanford HC gig).  Are you going to lose guys (who hate recruiting) to the NFL?  Probably.  Are you going to lose guys who are only after top dollar?  Maybe.  But given that HC salary at college level is exceeding that of the pros, both considerations are not as big a hurdle as previously believed.  

Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent.  Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.

There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination.  That's my belief, anyway.

[teejers1]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

So, it's your belief that Kelly was receiving wrath from fans for not winning enough and that caused tension in his professional relationship at ND?  Could be - but I doubt that's true.  He has won a ton, including the last several years, and has delivered ND to title game and a couple CFPs.  That's pretty incredible, especially for a school with some admissions limitations.

The problem with the Stanford-as-a-stepping-stone assumption for all coaches is that such was more applicable under the Old Model - you know, where Stanford University was opposed to having its head football coach show up on the 990.  Those days are long gone.  I think there are lots of coaches out there who would view Stanford as an ideal long-term coaching destination for all the reasons Shaw does (the guy is not dumb, after all - he "gets" the many benefits of the Stanford HC gig).  Are you going to lose guys (who hate recruiting) to the NFL?  Probably.  Are you going to lose guys who are only after top dollar?  Maybe.  But given that HC salary at college level is exceeding that of the pros, both considerations are not as big a hurdle as previously believed.  

Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent.  Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.

There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination.  That's my belief, anyway.

[Row80Critic]

Wow! I'm surprised Kelly thinks LSU is an upgrade over USB. I guess that SEC appeal beats coaching team NBC.

Will they try to steal Shaw from us? ;)

LSU gave Kelly a US$95,000,000 (ninety five million U.S. Dollar) deal over 10 years, PLUS incentives.  I'm guessing he'd consider his local junior high school team an upgrade for that kind of money.

[Row80Critic]

Wow! I'm surprised Kelly thinks LSU is an upgrade over USB. I guess that SEC appeal beats coaching team NBC.

Will they try to steal Shaw from us? ;)

LSU gave Kelly a US$95,000,000 (ninety five million U.S. Dollar) deal over 10 years, PLUS incentives.  I'm guessing he'd consider his local junior high school team an upgrade for that kind of money.