Courtesy ESPN.comWhile I myself am a Buddhist of longstanding, since A) I was born and lived my first 8 years in the Midwest and B) I am descended from Polish Catholics on my father's side of the family, I have loved Notre Dame since they fought Michigan State to a 10-10 tie in 1966, clinching the mythical National Championship. (Sorry, Bama fans, ND played a tougher schedule and this is yet another NC that you claim but you don't deserve, just like 1973 and 1978).
With that having been said, someone needs to do an intervention with ND, its fans and the BCS, because Our Lady 's Institution needs to quit getting BCS bids it clearly does not deserve.
The picture above says it all, as Jamarcus Russell and LSU flat-out ABUSED the Fighting Irish tonight in the Sugar Bowl, 41-14. While the Irish stayed close for almost a half, the Bayou Bengals blew them out in the second half in front of a majority Purple and Gold-clad crowd just 70 miles from campus.
Look, I know the Irish have a devoted national following, most like me, who never attended Notre Dame; this is why they have their own TV contract with NBC. However, even though Charlie Weis has done a decent job in South Bend, the Irish have not won a bowl game since the 1994 Cotton Bowl.
Yes, you read that correctly; tonight they set a record with their NINTH consecutive bowl game loss.
Let me make it even scarier for you: since Notre Dame knocked off Texas A&M in the 1994 Cotton Bowl, your University of Memphis Tigers have appeared in THREE bowls and won TWO of them. Yes, the UM Tigers have two MORE bowl wins than Notre Dame since 1994.
Let that sink in for a moment.
The BCS rules that requires Notre Dame to get a BCS bid if they finish in the top eight in the BCS rankings is not fair to them, or non-BCS schools. It overrates the Irish, as painful as it is to say that, and leads to massacres like tonight.
As the good fathers who run Notre Dame ensure that Fighting Irish recruits meet the same academic standards as every other student, it puts them at a disadvantage against other schools from conferences who are, shall we say, less discriminating about academics. That's part of the charm of ND anyway, but with the increasingly growing professionalism of college athletics, something has to give.
Change the rules so we can have more Boise States, who are more deserving than the Irish. At the rate they're going, in another 10 years they may have to either drop the standards or drop football.
Neither of which is a good sign for intercollegiate athletics.
7 comments:
My heart weeps, just weeps, for a school who by the virtue of its name was given (didn't win, mind you, but was given) a "Championship" in 1966 for a tie!! Alabama (God's actual school--look it up--Genesis 65:13)actually won in 1966 and arguably should have been awarded the title in 1977 when ONCE AGAIN Notre Dame's name gave it the NC. If you argue that Our Lady beat the number one team in the country in 1977, true enough. Just like Alabama did the next year by defeating Penn State 14-7 in the Sugar Bowl. If USC had beaten Arizona, they would have taken both halves, but since they didn't (my heart bleeds for them too), Alabama had a chance AND WON THEIR GAME. Unlike Notre Dame in 1966.
On the other hand, your hope for Notre Dame not to get embarrased any longer strikes me as a good thing. NBC ought to consider the ramifications for their own ratings, too. As a U of M grad, in any case, I feel rather good about our recent bowl success as opposed to Our Lady of the Name School.
Another whiny Bama fan, sigh.
As always, you conveniently failed to note that in 1978 when USC played Alabama on that neutral site known to one and all as Legion Field, the Men of Troy soundly thrashed the Tide, thus dissolving any and all claims to the mythical NC that the Bear may have had.
If the Men of Troy had beaten Arizona, they would have won both halves, period. They didn't and Alabama beat the NUMBER ONE TEAM in the country on the field during a bowl game, hence EARNING their half of the title. Earning more, in other words, than Our Lady's Institution did in either 1966 or 1977 (although I think Notre Dame should have won both parts in 1973 since you beat us straight up--$%^#@!!!! to Tom Clements, but you won fair and square).
I do not overlook Bama's loss to USC, but you and your fellow Northerners conveniently dismiss the Men of Troy's loss to a low-ranked (if at all) team, giving Bear and his crew an opening through which Barry Krause made sure they went.
Ahem. While the Arizona blemish did equalize the records, dropping USC into tie, what is the first tiebreaker, always?
Head to head matchup. With Bama's lovely removal of USC's last obstacle (thanks, by the way), since USC held the tiebreaker in head-to head matchup, Tommy Trojan wins the title.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow!
This ain't the pros and no "ties" are broken. Head to head matters--so do the bowl games. If USC had beaten Arizona, they would have played Penn State in some bowl game and had a chance to win the whole thing straight up.
Tell you what: you give Alabama its half of 1978 and I'll give you the other half of 1973. That way, you get one whole and we'll take our half. Unless, of course, you want to argue about 1966 or 1977, in which case, the Bear ought to have two more on top of his 6. 8 National Championships--like the sound of that.
This ain't the pros, where every thing would be settled rationally on the field.
Logic and reason, however, decrees that USC won the head to head matchup, which gives them a tiebreaker.
Bear only has the right to claim 1961, 1965 and 1979. Like the rest of you Bamaniacs, you lost your logic and reason and are now sounding, sadly, like Tennessee fans.
How pitiable. Roll Tide indeed.
My last comment on the latest round of stubborn wills. Bear has the right to the championships his teams earned, which includes the three (well, two--1973 is yours) plus 1966 and 1977. Logic also dictates that we beat Penn State, who was Number one in the country since USC lost to Arizona after beating Alabama. Logic also dictates that if USC had bothered to win that game, Alabama would have been playing for somewhere between third and fifth rather than Number one. Since USC couldn't even beat an unranked--I beleive--team, Alabama got an opening and took it.
Post a Comment