Who's the greatest
Perhaps partially inspired by the discussion going on concerning who to pull for between Georgia Tech and Notre Dame, I got to thinking about the prestige and tradition of Notre Dame.
And I was doing this thinking, and reading all of the comments about how great and wonderful the lore of the Fighting Irish is ... I got kinda bothered by it. Out of more than 100 Division I-A college football teams, Notre Dame is the 'best' with the richest tradition? The Irish are considered the top program in history? Why do we assume this? Is it because of actual statistical evidence or is it more of a myth ... something perpetuated by NBC contracts and "Touchdown Jesus" and "Win One For The Gipper" ... who knows?
So I decided to do a little digging into some of the history of college football's top programs, as recognized by most observers. I whittled the list down to eight programs I'd consider the most successful ones in history:
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
Southern California
I came to these particular programs based on all-time won-loss records, bowl visits and bowl victories, Heisman Trophy winners, etc. By taking a look at some of these stats and records, I wanted to see how Notre Dame stacked up with the others and if it was worthy of all of the adulations it receives.
Now, a disclaimer, though I used the evidence I found, this is by no means a scientific study - there is no formula nor ratings system. Simply me analyzing the situation and coming up with what I feel is the most logical conclusion.
What I found was that, aside from those intangibles I mentioned earlier, nothing about Notre Dame's history jumps out and says the Irish deserve the pedestal they've been given.
Notre Dame has captured 12 national championships, but so has Alabama, who also lumped in 28 total conference championships into mix. The Crimson Tide also have played in 53 bowl games, compiling a record of 30-20-3 (the most bowl wins in NCAA history).
The Fighting Irish, in what I feel is a particularly damning piece of evidence, played in only one bowl game prior to 1970. Of Notre Dame's 12 national titles, nine of them came prior to the school's decision to enter into postseason play, meaning the Fighting Irish were rarely challenged by a team of supposedly equal caliber for the bulk of their titles.
Furthermore, Notre Dame's overall bowl record is a rather pedestrian 13-14, including eight consecutive losses punctuated by last year's disappointing defeat to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl.
But, as some Notre Dame fans like to point out, the Irish did compile a 5-1 record against Alabama, including back-to-back victories in the postseason of the 1973 and 1974 seasons. So we take a look at how the 'Big Eight' fared against each other, and we again find nothing standing out from Notre Dame.
The Fighting Irish compiled the following records:
5-1 vs. Alabama
14-18-1 vs. Michigan
7-8-1 vs. Nebraska
2-3 vs. Ohio State
8-2 vs. Texas
8-1 vs. Oklahoma
42-30-5 vs. Southern California
Four series with winning records, all to be noted with clear advantages, but three series with losing records, including one to a pivotal rival in Michigan.
By contrast, take a look at Michigan's record:
2-1 vs. Alabama
3-2-1 vs. Nebraska
18-14-1 vs. Notre Dame
57-39-6 vs. Ohio State
0-1 vs. Oklahoma
0-1 vs. Texas
4-5 vs. Southern California
Just like the Irish, the Wolverines own advantages in four of the seven series, and if you take away Vince Young in the 2005 Rose Bowl, they'd have five of seven. Plus Michigan has won 42 conference championships, seven national titles and an Division I-A-best 848 overall victories.
And we find these kinds of equals across the board - Notre Dame has seven Heisman Trophy Winners ... so does Southern California. The Irish have more than 800 total victories ... so do Michigan and Nebraska.
And if we take a look at some of the existing data, we find that much of Notre Dame's success came largely in the 1920s and the 1940s. It's remarkable success, to be sure, but those numbers tend to artificially inflate their overall rankings. Notre Dame captured four national titles in the 1940s, losing only nine games in the entire decade.
However, upon looking at the 1950s and 1960s, we see a return to earth for the Irish. It was still an impressive 126-65-8, but it doesn't compare to the gaudy 155-50-4 record Oklahoma put up and, all things considered, it isn't that much better than Georgia's 110-87-13 mark over the same 20-year span.
It seems to me the Irish were the program from 1920 through 1949, however they have done little to distinguish themselves since then. A title pops up here and there, but Notre Dame has done little - in comparison with the other members of the 'Big Eight' as well as upstart competitors like Miami and Florida State - to stake a longterm claim to its supposed throne.
In fact, one could make the argument that Michigan has an equal, if not better, history.
The Wolverines hold the head-to-head advantage over Notre Dame, have the most wins of any Division I-A college football program in history and have won more bowl games than the Irish. They've rolled up 487 victories in Big Ten play and do not have a losing record against the major conferences (including an 18-5 mark against the SEC).
Furthermore, they've enjoyed considerably more success from 1950 to the present day than Notre Dame as far as consistently winning. All of the hype around Notre Dame appears to be just that.
And I was doing this thinking, and reading all of the comments about how great and wonderful the lore of the Fighting Irish is ... I got kinda bothered by it. Out of more than 100 Division I-A college football teams, Notre Dame is the 'best' with the richest tradition? The Irish are considered the top program in history? Why do we assume this? Is it because of actual statistical evidence or is it more of a myth ... something perpetuated by NBC contracts and "Touchdown Jesus" and "Win One For The Gipper" ... who knows?
So I decided to do a little digging into some of the history of college football's top programs, as recognized by most observers. I whittled the list down to eight programs I'd consider the most successful ones in history:
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
Southern California
I came to these particular programs based on all-time won-loss records, bowl visits and bowl victories, Heisman Trophy winners, etc. By taking a look at some of these stats and records, I wanted to see how Notre Dame stacked up with the others and if it was worthy of all of the adulations it receives.
Now, a disclaimer, though I used the evidence I found, this is by no means a scientific study - there is no formula nor ratings system. Simply me analyzing the situation and coming up with what I feel is the most logical conclusion.
What I found was that, aside from those intangibles I mentioned earlier, nothing about Notre Dame's history jumps out and says the Irish deserve the pedestal they've been given.
Notre Dame has captured 12 national championships, but so has Alabama, who also lumped in 28 total conference championships into mix. The Crimson Tide also have played in 53 bowl games, compiling a record of 30-20-3 (the most bowl wins in NCAA history).
The Fighting Irish, in what I feel is a particularly damning piece of evidence, played in only one bowl game prior to 1970. Of Notre Dame's 12 national titles, nine of them came prior to the school's decision to enter into postseason play, meaning the Fighting Irish were rarely challenged by a team of supposedly equal caliber for the bulk of their titles.
Furthermore, Notre Dame's overall bowl record is a rather pedestrian 13-14, including eight consecutive losses punctuated by last year's disappointing defeat to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl.
But, as some Notre Dame fans like to point out, the Irish did compile a 5-1 record against Alabama, including back-to-back victories in the postseason of the 1973 and 1974 seasons. So we take a look at how the 'Big Eight' fared against each other, and we again find nothing standing out from Notre Dame.
The Fighting Irish compiled the following records:
5-1 vs. Alabama
14-18-1 vs. Michigan
7-8-1 vs. Nebraska
2-3 vs. Ohio State
8-2 vs. Texas
8-1 vs. Oklahoma
42-30-5 vs. Southern California
Four series with winning records, all to be noted with clear advantages, but three series with losing records, including one to a pivotal rival in Michigan.
By contrast, take a look at Michigan's record:
2-1 vs. Alabama
3-2-1 vs. Nebraska
18-14-1 vs. Notre Dame
57-39-6 vs. Ohio State
0-1 vs. Oklahoma
0-1 vs. Texas
4-5 vs. Southern California
Just like the Irish, the Wolverines own advantages in four of the seven series, and if you take away Vince Young in the 2005 Rose Bowl, they'd have five of seven. Plus Michigan has won 42 conference championships, seven national titles and an Division I-A-best 848 overall victories.
And we find these kinds of equals across the board - Notre Dame has seven Heisman Trophy Winners ... so does Southern California. The Irish have more than 800 total victories ... so do Michigan and Nebraska.
And if we take a look at some of the existing data, we find that much of Notre Dame's success came largely in the 1920s and the 1940s. It's remarkable success, to be sure, but those numbers tend to artificially inflate their overall rankings. Notre Dame captured four national titles in the 1940s, losing only nine games in the entire decade.
However, upon looking at the 1950s and 1960s, we see a return to earth for the Irish. It was still an impressive 126-65-8, but it doesn't compare to the gaudy 155-50-4 record Oklahoma put up and, all things considered, it isn't that much better than Georgia's 110-87-13 mark over the same 20-year span.
It seems to me the Irish were the program from 1920 through 1949, however they have done little to distinguish themselves since then. A title pops up here and there, but Notre Dame has done little - in comparison with the other members of the 'Big Eight' as well as upstart competitors like Miami and Florida State - to stake a longterm claim to its supposed throne.
In fact, one could make the argument that Michigan has an equal, if not better, history.
The Wolverines hold the head-to-head advantage over Notre Dame, have the most wins of any Division I-A college football program in history and have won more bowl games than the Irish. They've rolled up 487 victories in Big Ten play and do not have a losing record against the major conferences (including an 18-5 mark against the SEC).
Furthermore, they've enjoyed considerably more success from 1950 to the present day than Notre Dame as far as consistently winning. All of the hype around Notre Dame appears to be just that.
posted by Jmac at 9:33 AM
42 Comments:
First, for many of your stats you must state what year you compiled data from and where you go it.
National championships according to the AP poll which started in 1936:
Notre Dame: 8
Alabama: 6 with 2 co's
Nebraska: 5 with 2 co's
Michigan: 2 with 1 co
Ohio State: 5 with 2 co's
Oklahoma: 7 with 1 co
Texas: 4 with 1 co
USC: 7 with 3 co's
Data from: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com
Now, if you go back futher the records are not very concrete. There were so many different polls that many schools claim the national championship for the same year because one or more different polls had them #1. Notre Dame claims to have won 19 total NC's, UM 12 and so on. Whichever way your counting Notre Dame has the most, and you can't find many people who will argue with that.
Now concerning Bowl Victories, Notre Dame didn't play in bowl games for most of it's history due to acedemic reasons. Exams were held prior to christmas break way back when, and it wasn't until 1970 when exams were moved to after break that ND started playing bowl games.
All time winning %: Notre dame and Michigan and virtually tied, you have to go to the 3rd decimal place to get the winner. But, Notre Dame has always played one of if not the toughest schedules year in and year out, which is not facotred in. Also, UM has played 207 more home games than Notre Dame.
Regarding Michigan's 18-14-1 adv. over ND. Let me point out a few things. UM won the 1st 8 games of the series in the 1800's. Then ND beat them and they refused to play ND for 30 years, when ND and UM split 2 games, then UM refused to play ND for another 30 years. It wasn't until ND was down in the late 1970's that UM finally decided to play ND on a regular basis. In modern day ND holds an adv record wise.
Notre Dame has the most National Championships, is tied with USC for Heisman tropny winners, ND as the most all-americans, most consensus all-americans, most college and pro football hall of famers and has sent more players to the NFL than any other school. ND has the most coaches in the college football hall of fame with Holtz soon to be inducted. Knute Rockne holds the all time winning percentage, Leahy and Devine are not far behind.
Your comparison of teams head to head records is pretty scewed considering many of these schools have only played each other a couple times.
To say Michigan is a better program overall than ND is kind of silly. They do hold the head to head record, but like I wrote early you must go back over a century for that to hold up. Michigan won more games, but has also played more games, and played 207 more home games. Same with Bowl games, UM has played many more than ND. Lets look at UM in the Rose Bowl: 8-10. Now, what about National Championships, the ultimate measuring stick: Michigan has 1.5 to ND's 8 since 1936. Michigan has one 0 outright NC's since 1950 when you say they have enjoyed considerably more success.
Notre Dame has struggled as of late in Bowl games, but look at who they play compared to UM. And don't forget from 1988 to 1993 we won the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton twice with our only loss to undefeated, #1 Colorado in the Orange when a phantom clip brought back a Rocket punt return to win the game. Because ND is the biggest draw in college football every top bowl wants us and we end up playing as a big underdog. Like 1992 when we were #17 and we beat then #3 Florida in the sugar by a wide margin.
Let me also say this. In 1993 we finished with the same record and FSU and beat them head up, how do we not at least get a share of the NC?
I leave you with this, furher evidence ND is has a better over all program than Michigan:
In the end, much of the Michigan-Notre Dame relationship comes down to smallness and jealousy. Notre Dame has won far more national championships, more Heisman Trophies, has more All Americans. Its games are more highly-rated, its team more closely followed nationally than Michigan. It has its own network contract and every year that polling is conducted Notre Dame is chosen as America's most popular college football team. While Notre Dame has been consensus national champion nine times since the polls came into effect in 1936 and number two four times, Michigan has won a championship in 1948 and a half of one in 1997, and has finished second twice. Never has Michigan defeated an undefeated or number one or two ranked team in a bowl game to win a national championship as Notre Dame has done repeatedly. While Notre Dame has won bowl games against undefeated opponents seven times, Michigan has never won a bowl game against an undefeated opponent. And Notre Dame is the only school to have a winning record against Michigan over the last fifty years. Indeed, even failures such as Bob Davie and Ty Willingham have a combined .500 record against Michigan, with Ty having a winning record against Carr! Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the average Notre Dame undergrad far outshines the resume of his Michigan counterpart, having finished in the top ten percent of his high school class and scoring much higher on standardized tests. Even by the ludicrous standards of the U.S News and World Report survey by which large universities such as Michigan live, Notre Dame outranks them. All of this is galling to Michigan, whose worldview is one conditioned on absolute superiority to the Big Ten schools it regularly dictates to politically, defeats on the field and over whom it presumes intellectual superiority.
Oh yeah, ND graduates 98% to UM's 55%. Does that mean anything?
I am ashamed to know you...
But you knew when you posted this that was coming...
One major flaw here...you twist the evidence to come to the conclusion you wanted when you began.
Seriously, you have a couple of (minor) mis-conceptions in this piece.
I'll take them one at a time.
* First, throwing out "intangibles" takes away a big part of what makes Notre Dame a "top program." Even then, the evidence you lay out still holds up.
* Next, go back and re-count Notre Dame's national championships in the way that Alabama counts them. Notre Dame's total far surpasses Alabama's. Goodness sake, only Alabama fans still count 1973!
8 of the losses to Michigan came consecutively in the 19th century and first years of the 20th. It is 13-10-1 Irish in the "modern" era, including 3 of the last 4, and 4 of the last 7 during the latest, bad Davie-Willingham era. Michigan has not won in South Bend since 1986.
7-8-1 against Nebraska, but 11 of the 16 were played in Lincoln. Irish are 3-1 in South Bend against the 'Huskers.
"If you take away Vince Young in the Rose Bowl..." What kind of caveat is that?
Michigan has 7 titles in the same absurd way that Alabama counts them, by including 1901 and 1902. UM has just .5 in the last half century +. Michigan has more victories than ND because they have been playing longer. The Irish have the slightly better winning percentage.
Notre Dame has 19 games against Oklahoma and Texas...two of your "big 8." Michigan has 2...both losses.
Notre Dame elected not to play a bowl game during that era, for fear of the "football factory" label placed on the school every time it earns a championship. So Bowl victories are a poor area for comparing.
"All of the hype around Notre Dame appears to be just that"? Yet, in your own piece you outline all the reasons why it is not just hype.
I can handle you finding somebody else as the "top" program. You'd be mistaken, but a case can be made for some of the other teams in your "big 8." Just not Michigan.
Did I strike a nerve? Was it the mere mention that Michigan might challenge Notre Dame's supposedly unshakable mythos as the end-all, be-all of college football?
Note that not once did I say that Notre Dame wasn't one of the greatest college football programs of all time. I feel I gave the Irish their due, and my point was to stress how much of this legend is just that - it's an aura which has been built around Notre Dame and perpetuated by things like Rudy. They're all wonderful memories and beautiful aspects of the program's history, but why is this history that much more important than any other programs? That, as Paul noted, if you dig away at this legend, we find a successful program that is on par with other successful programs.
So we start with your academic rebuttal, which was two-pronged. The latter, as our anonymous poster noted, is that Notre Dame graduates more student-athletes than Michigan.
Well, congratulations. Notre Dame may be a bang-up place for your studies, but that argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this discussion.
Concerning the fact that Notre Dame willingly skipped bowl games prior to 1970 due to academics, I think that argument is equally without merit. While a very noble thing for the school to engage in, the fact of the matter is that whether Notre Dame was avoiding bowl games due to academic conflicts or because of a fear of flying, the program didn't participate in the postseason. Other teams, however, did so I tend to give them a little more credit football-wise. The played the regular season and then went out and played again.
Had Notre Dame played in the postseason, it probably would have enjoyed considerable success. It's a good program which turned out good teams. However, since the Irish did not, I say it deserves a little more scrutiny.
Our anonymous poster also cites the national titles according to the AP poll, but the NCAA now officially recongizes titles based on a variety of factors and a variety of polls. This is why Georgia, in 1942, is now the official NCAA national champion despite not winning the AP title that year.
And the NCAA recognizes, according to the same web site you cite, 12 championships for both Notre Dame and Alabama.
Also, this home field advantage theory both you fellas are pushing is beyond me. I, for one, would think that if you're claiming to be the 'best' program of all time, you wouldn't cop out by saying 'well, gee, Michigan had this many more home games' or 'gosh, it wasn't fair because Nebraska hosted more of those contests.' I thought that if you were the best, you'd be able to win away from home as well.
I mean, Southern Cal did that to you last year, right?
As far as the jealousy argument goes, I really can't speak to that. I'm not a Michigan fan, nor am I a Notre Dame fan. My conclusion, however muddled it may be, isn't grounded in that at all. I'm a Georgia fan and the one time we squared off, things turned out OK for us.
But I do find a bit odd that our anonymous poster feels the need to brag about how much better the resume of a Notre Dame graduate is. With all due respect, the insecurity seems to be more on your part than anything else, seeing how you decided to not make the discussion about the tangible and intangibles of football.
And Paul alluded to the fact that one of the other 'Big Eight' could potentially rival Notre Dame, but not Michigan. I still think the Wolverines, followed by Alabama, rival the Irish in terms of success. Had a member of the Crimson Tide actually won the Heisman Trophy, I might actually put them atop the heap. The sheer presence of Bear Bryant makes them a worthy competitor in their own right. Had I really wanted to be biased, I would have opted for the Crimson Tide off the bat because, outside of an Auburn fan, every Southerner has a sense of pride and tons of respect for the Alabama program.
But with the Crimson Tide lacking a Heisman Trophy winner and struggling in head-to-head competition with all of the 'Big Eight' it wasn't feasible for me to make that conclusion.
In fact, out of all of the teams I researched, the success of Nebraska surprised me the most and the overinflation of Ohio State's success was another surprise (a pleasant one, I'm not a fan).
And my research also found that Notre Dame's overall record, from 1950 on, was on par with the other members of the 'Big Eight.' The Irish were successful, to be sure, but not significantly more successful than the other programs. It's those intangibles which I attempted to strip away that factor into Notre Dame's prestige.
Unlike, say, the New York Yankees in Major League Baseball, it isn't as clear-cut as saying 'this is the best team because ...'
JMAC --
You hit my nerve when you said Notre Dame as "best program" was "hype." I probably would of let your post go if you had not said that and held up the skunkbears as the best. "Hype" is defined as "promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind." Your own statements, even minus the "intangibles," show that --in fact -- the ND hype is not extravagant or contrived. Your hype comment was my overall problem with your post...besides the fact that you felt the need to suck up to Michigan.
Not sure what last year's SC game has to do with this argument. That was below the belt.
Bowl games (and wins) are one aspect that I think you might be weighting too strongly. However, in your most recent comments, you also are making my point about Michigan for me: "I thought that if you were the best, you'd be able to win away from home as well." Exactly, as Michigan has not. Check their Rose Bowl record since 1970. 4-10. Not pretty.
You could make an overall case for Alabama. But in 1979 and 1992, they never even left the Southeast to win the NC. In 1973, again...they never left the Southeast. And when a team came down to the Sugar Bowl to play them in their region, 'Bama lost. The fact that the NCAA still gives Alabama a NC for 73 is absurd, based on your own argument about bowl games.
I've seen Bryant, and he's no Ara...let alone a Leahy, Rockne or Harper.
The bottom line is, before the early '70s the major polls didn't count bowl games, and Notre Dame thought itself too proud to stoop to such exhibitions. This prevents Notre Dame from having any of those weird "we won the MNC even though we lost our bowl game" seasons.
We really need to limit our discussion to the last fifty years or so, rather than to the entire history of "American football" when Yost was paying players and Heisman was laying 222 on Cumberland College. If we take all of college football's history into account, then Yale and Army need to figure more into our discussion than they currently do.
If we're talking about the "modern" game to some extent, then Notre Dame is an elite in a handful of elites. I think that JMac's main objection here is to the general attitude so often picked up from ND fans that ND is the college football program. It starts to sound like an old t-shirt, "It's an Irish thing, y'all wouldn't understand..."
And pooh-poohing the Bear is just ridiculous, and smacks of worse bias than you accuse JMac of. Bryant won 6 national championships in about 20 years of coaching, in the modern era. This is impressive, period. And Ara can't claim the same.
A number of sports writers were on-record in the 1970s as having a policy of not voting for southern schools, because of their opposition to segregation (which had been ended at that point). There is a lot of stupid bias flying all over this country, from one region to another, and this raises the hackles of folks when one fanbase speaks of its team as though dominance is its birthright.
The 1993 Irish squad failed to win the MNC because they lost to an obviously inferior Boston College squad (as a side note, wasn't that the game during which they filmed the scenes from Rudy? Just wondering if my memory is correct about that). The defeated Flordia State in "the game of the century", in South Bend, in a game that went down to the wire, but was ND obviously better than FSU? No, in fact if they had played 10 times I'll bet it would have gone 5-5. At the end of the year, FSU had a more impressive resume--their only loss was to a top-2 team (Notre Dame). Notre Dame's loss, on the other hand, was to Boston College. 1993 was an ugly year in which no team went undefeated, and once you lose, you lose the high ground for the "we should be champs" argument. If you want to be undisputed champ, with all crowns laid at your feet, then don't lose to Boston College. It's messy when everybody has a loss, but the outcome in '93 seems fair enough.
This is the same reason that Miami got bumped from the BCS Championship Game for FSU in 2000, despite beating the Mulliganoles head-to-head. Because "the U" lost to Washington, a lesser-quality team.
God forbid that I defend FSU in anything other than giving us Coach Richt, though...I don't know what came over me.
ND not going to bowl games had little to do with pride, and everything to do with the Holy Cross fathers trying to prevent "football factory" criticism that had been heaped on them, especially by Big 10 members, in the 20s.
Bryant's 6 "National" Championships break down this way...
Two are dubious, at best, especially by JMAC's reliance on bowl game results.
1961 he never left the Southeast.
1964 'Bama was voted #1 in spite of a bowl loss to Texas. No way this one should count.
1965 selected in spite of a loss (to Georgia), a tie, and never leaving the Southeast.
1973 is absurd, by any measure. The UPI was so upset they changed their voting rules.
1978 OK.
1979 Again, never left the SE.
Ara won 2 on a national schedule, and...as JMAC mentions...owned the Bear head-to-head. Ara at ND had a higher winning % than Bear at Alabama.
The Bear was a great coach, but he is not even the best of his era.
Paul, the "never left the southeast" argument is tired and irrelevant. Playing a "national" schedule matters not neraly as much as playing a "challenging" schedule. The fact that ND traveled does not, in itself, prove much of anything. Give us a break.
I agree that the old-school way of determining the champion at the end of the regular season and treating the bowls as exhibitions was a silly way to do it, and that today is better. But when you play in an era where the national championship is already settled before your bowl game, then it's hard to think that you get as "up" for your bowl game as you would if all the marbles were actually on the line. It's a mangos and pineapples comparison (tired of the old cliche).
And, hey, at least the Tide actually played in a bowl game. If 'Bama gets criticized, retroactively, for losing their bowl game to Texas in '64, then ND should also be criticized, retroactively, for not even playing in a bowl game until 197whatever. No matter what the reason they weren't doing so. (And I'm skeptical of the "football factory rebuttal" analysis, but hey let's get to know each other better...) How many of their championships might they have lost had they put it on the line (at least in the eyes of public opinion decades later) to play in a Bowl?
You ND fans are idiots... you have lost 8 consecutive bowl games and barely beat the worst Michigan team in 25 years last year and all of a sudden you think your are an elite program again? ND's lack of speed and talent was glaringly obvious from the pounding Ohio State put on them last January; the big head ND fans have grown in the offseason will be popped when Michigan pummels ND in mid-September.
ND is a great school - don't get me wrong, but it has been nearly 2 decades since ND had anything close to an elite team. Don't expect much more from this years squad.
Go Blue!!!
Ah, the endless insecurity of ND fans. First off, the author wasn't 'sucking up' to Michigan. He was acknowledging their success in the same way he was the success of the other 'Big Eight' programs. Secondly, if you really want to get nitpicky about bowl games, you might mention the fact that the Big 10 didn't permit their schools to play in any bowl games but the Rose until 1975 and not in the RB in consecutive years, which puts a bit of a crimp in the bowl status of Michigan and OSU in these kinds of comparisons (although, given Michigan's frequent trouble in the post-season, perhaps not (hey, I'm a UM alum and, unlike ND fans, I can admit where they have historical issues. Their bowl record is, uh, not good.))
Anyway, I enjoyed the original article and jmac should feel pleased that he's ignited a bit of a frenzy on IndigNDNation. It's always fun to watch the chests start puffing out when people start questioning the legend...
Actually, I work with JMAC, and he was "sucking up" to Michigan.
Xon -- I am intentionally picking "facts" as JMAC did to show the silliness of his initial enterprise. His "unscientific" protestation notwithstanding...
Have to respond to Paul, who is basically offering up silly spin as if it was an argument. First off, half a title? No one ever counted half titles until someone wanted to discredit a rival and came up with that notion. I've never heard an ND fan claim 1/2 a title for 1973, even though Alabama won the coaches' poll. For ND, that's a full title. When someone else shares, it's half.
Also, to suggest that Michigan makes tenuous claims to national titles is ludicrous. The 1901 and 1902 titles were consensus titles. 1903 and 1904 were also handed out by (multiple) respected indicators. Michigan has NEVER lost a game and claimed a title in the same year. How many other top programs can make that claim? Surely not ND.
And the best part of it is that the whole blog entry that was there was talking about *facts* ... specifically looking for statitical evidence. How far can an ND fan get in claiming supremacy without citing any votes (AP titles are votes. Heismans are votes. All-Americans are votes). Try it. I'm not saying AP titles are worthless, but it's an interesting excercise to see who comes out on top when you throw away all opinions and go back to the factse.
But what's funniest about rants like Paul's (or the anonymous one) is that they try to whittle away portions of history by focusing on the AP era. Sure, it sounds great for an ND fan to do that and claim 8 titles to Michigan's 2 AP titles, but are these ND fans aware that Notre Dame ranks 5th in winning %age in the AP era? That Oklahoma is a full 3 %age points ahead of them and has 7 national titles (per cfbdw).
If Notre Dame fans want to focus on the AP era and talk about who the best of the AP era is, as a Michigan fan I'll readily admit we are not the #1 program of that time frame, but the sad thing for ND is that they aren't either and it's really not close. Oklahoma has them beat hands down.
Can we accept that ND fans? Will you guys stop claiming to be #1? Will you guys admit that Oklahoma is a better football program with greater football history? Or will you stop focusing on the AP era? You can't have both.
(P.S. anonymous: grad rates, great ... can you say diploma mill?)
Anonymous uses shifting standards to defend the ND program. When discussing win percentage, he uses the all-time record. When discussing national championships or head-to-head vs. Michigan, he throws out ancient history and insists that only modern results are relevant.
But, as jmac stated, ND's record since 1950 is undistinguished. Here are the programs with the top win percentages since 1950:
1. Oklahoma .75156
2. Ohio State .7500
3. Nebraska .73502
4. Penn State .73254
5. Boise State .72574
6. Michigan .71855
7. Texas .71562
8. Alabama .70260
9. Tennessee .69969
10. USC .699375
11. Notre Dame .68650
So, ND has been a good team since 1950, but hardly a top-5 program. If you measure from 1970, the Irish drop to #12. If you measure from 1980 (which roughly corresponds to the start of the modern era of cable TV, scholarship reductions, etc), they drop to #17.
RE:The ABSURD LIE BY ND That MIchigan is jealous of hapless Nd is, of course, DRIVEL: Here are the FACTSPOINT BY POINT TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL:
A.The University of Michigan graduates at over 70% despite having a FAR more difficult curriculum across the board academically then ND. UM is rated among the TOP 10 universities in the nation by the Washington Monthly 2006 poll. ND is NOT!
B. Even in the skewered HEAVILY Criticized US NEWS Poll which unfairly uses mostly dubious data to favor private and parochial colleges-while ignoring more relevant data- the UM and ND are both TOP 25 Universities but SIGNIFICANTLY UM's academic reputation (by experts noted there) is HIGHER BY FAR than ND's "reputation" Indeed, UM's is higher than several of the Ivy Cartel schools.
In Both the London Times poll, Fiske 2007 ratings, and China International best 500 poll- UM is of course rated FAR, FAR higher than the easy ND" football factory: in ALL those academic ratings.
Indeed, from Gourman, to US NEWS To Businessweek ratings, to Wall St Journal Polls, Shintao World Best colleges, Fiske , London Times World's best University ALL by consensus CORRECTLY show the obvious: That UM's academic reputation far exceeds that of Nd and in many of those polls Nd is NOT EVEN RANKED in the TYOP 150! Ouch, but true.
C. UM is older than ND, UM Taught ND how to play the game known as football, UM has BOTH a winning record against Nd AND significantly DESPITE UM having the TOUGHEST all-Time Strength of schedule Rating, UM is #1 in WINNING PERCENTAGE . UM is The winningest team in college football history.
D. UM academically is #1 "across the board" in TOP 10 Academic majors and depts undergrad. In Grad depts UM and Stanford are the only 2 schools with TOP 10 programs in the BIG 5 areas: Law, Education, Engineering, Busisnes,and Medical Schools.
E. There are MORE UM students of its 24000 undergrads with FAR HIGHER SAT AND ACT scores and HIGHER GPAS than the ENTIRE 8500 ND student body. True, ND's weak faculty would have to be expanded AND they would blow their entire ND endowment to have a 24000 student body as bright as UM's 24000 but the TRUTH is ONLY Berkeley in the entire 3600 University wide nation, has more OLD STYLE 1200 and above SAT geniuses than UM does. UM commands far more apllicants than ND and UM is #7 (ahread of Harvard)( in international students enrolled). There is NOT a s9ingle pioll academically that ranks ND higher than UM in ANY dept or poll in "academic reputation" ND has always had a HUGE inferiority complex whehn it comes to its MICHIGAN MASTER. The jealousy and envy of ND in regards to UM goes back to the overrated(look at hisEASY schedules) and #1 cheater of all time Knute Rockne.
D. ONLY ND's FOOTBALL TEAN, NOT UM's , has been hit with MAJOR NCAA VIOLATOR STATUS by the NCAA when millions of dollars of money went to ND jocks just several years ago. Google hits on ND's Dome by the thousandas NOW etenally call its renegade program a TARNISHED Dome, rightly so, While UM's football program is famed as the "The ASnow White of Integrity of all College Sports."
E. UM 'sPRIVATE ENDOWMENT far exceeds Hapless Nd's endowment BY OVEr A B as in BILLION Dollars. UM and Hasrvard are #1 and #2 in GLOBAL and NATIONAL Worldwide mentions. Part of the ND envy is that so many ND grads scrounging for jobs come to UM CEOS looking for work but are often turned down UM is near annually #1 in Medical and law school acceptances by itys graduates. EVERYONE it seems knows that a UM degreee is far more prestigiious than that of ND's degre e and tthis is another source of frustration to jealous ND Domeheads.
F. In ALL 4 MAJOR MENS' sports of: Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey, UM leads ND head to head . THUS, with a FAR greater academic rep than ND, far more successful alums across the board than ND ( UM ranked #1 of ALL colleges in successful alums in WHOS WHO in research conducted in that asugust book in the 1970s), and THE FACT that UM 's campus ALSO ATTREACTS EVERY YEAR OF THE "NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLAR PROGRAMS' " prestigious existence MORE TRUE Merit Scholar winners than lowly ND, is further proof of UM's dominance over ND in , well, everything that matters.
G. The Dec. 2001 issue of the HIGHLY RESPECTED "Chronicles of Higher Education" called Mickey Mouse party school ND's academic curriculum one of "The 10 EASIEST' in the NATION! By contrasdt, UM , Berkeley and MIT were rated by Gourman as the 3 TOUGHEST colleges IN AMERICA by that poll.
H. UM's faculty is TOp 5, ND's less respected/ skilled Faculty BY NEAR UNANIMOUS FACULTY SENATE VOTED/begged to get into the B10/CIC league a few years ago before negotiations fell through.
The "genesis" of ND's uglyiness and jealousy of UM comes from a time (UM still feels this way given all the recent ND corrupt scandals and "institutional racism" at non-diverse ND) stems from the days when the legendary UM coach FIELDING YOST (winning record vs ND, 6 team Catholics he chose for UM teams, devout Christian,6 NCS, and yes, #1 in all time defensive shutouts in a career among all coaches as well as a 56 game UNBEATEN streak-2nd longest in college football lore),literally EMBARRASED ND and Rockne by causing the disembarking from a train on ND/UM game day players because UM morally did the right thing: It cancelled the contest due to ND's CHEATING (it used unenrolled players, pro players, players using up ND eligibility) THIS ETERNALLY embarrassed ND -rightly so- and for the further reason that UM believes now & then that ND's academics are FAR too lax/easy...UM has successfully resisted ND's entry into "UM'S" league. That ND did not learn its lessons of dishonesty is CLEAR.In the 1990s ND was hit by minor NCAA v8iolator status and punished as the result of the ND jock Demetrious Dubose's payola /booster scandal(a car). Later ND of course received MAJOR sanctions in the booster scandal AND , significantly, the NCAA held: That dishonest ND students were caught writing term papers for equally disgusting ND football jocks" in an effort to pad those bogusly high academic rates. While UM is "the People's champion" and CHAMPION OF DIVERSITY(where it successfully won the US Supreme Court case allowing race as a factor in admissions) ND is NOW called a RACIST INSTITUITION because it has but one(1) full time black professor for its whopping 8500 undergrads at ND!! Equally disgusting is the FACT that ND has NEVER had even 1(one) MINORITY COACH of ANY COLOR in ANY SPORT...that wasn't fired before his contract was up.
By contrast UM was the FIRST MAJOR University( 3rd college overall) to ADMIT WOMEN-some 100 years before the IVY Cartel, it is the school of choice for many of the Jewish people because why the IVY Cartel discriminated UM accepted them.UM was among the FIRST to admit blacks, as well.
I. In Re: The NBC Contract for HOME games. UM has been on NATIONAL TV networks MORE THAN ND and EVERY OTHER SCHOOL AND at HIGHER ratings than ND overall. The TRUTH: NEARLY EVERY SEASON of the ND contract for NBC home TV games, ND TV ratings have ranged from HORRIBLE to dismal to mediocre. It has garnered ND ZERO Heismans in that 15 years, and ZERO NCS. Indeed, in addition to the OVERALL low NBC ratings, ND has had 4 seasons in just the last 7 where it failed to get a winning record.
I. ND's NCAA RECORD for CONSECUTIVE BOWL LOSSES have mostly included chokes and LOPSIDED HUMILIATIONS as well as second tier bowl games where lower ranked or non favored teams in mEDIOCRE BOWLS have destroyed ND. By contrast, NEARLY all of UM's bowl losses have been close AND, significantly, it has won MORE bowl games than ND. Moreover ND's most recent nonwinning season was: 2004. UM has not had a LOSING SEASON since way back in: 1967!!!!! UM is honing in on a dynastic record there but NOT only in that important category as UM is #1 in consecutive Bowl Appearances currently at 30!
J. In 2003, UM Slaughtered ND 31-0 the most lopsided massacre in the series. Yes, UM beat ND in the 1800s...and 1900s and this century as well. THEY ALL COUNT; 18-14-1 in UM's favor as the original poster pointed out. But consider further: UM has a WINNING TRECORD vs elite PSU; ND does NOT. UM has a winning record versus Ohio State; ND does NOT, UM has a winning record versus Nebraska; ND does NOT. Those are generally considered to be 3 of the TOP 6 programs of ALL time. UM also has 11NCs but just as significantly given many consider the B10 the toughest league of all time: a RECORD among all leagues for MOST League titles at: 41.
K. UM is "the winningest team in college football history." Nd is THIRD behind #2 Yale and #1 Mighty Michigan.
L.Yes, USC may now have the most Heismans...(along w/ Nd ) but ONLY UM has the cache to be THE ONLY SCHOOL to have a primarilt DEFENSIVE player to win the award; Charles Wooson.
M UM(alums and coaches) has the MOST college coaches in the Halls of Fame(college and Pros) than ANY school, including ND.
N. Though Nd "may: have the most NFL players in the NFL...the poll is for GREATEST college. UM now has MORE players in the NFL than ND AND its football alums have gone on to become lawyers , doctors, CEOS, prime time journalists/sports announcers, scientists, and yes astronauts and even a PRESIDENT OF THE USA. ND simply cannot make the same claim re: its grammatically challehed jocks (ever listen to the "retired" or AAron Taylor or Rocket Ismail??!!)Contrast: w/ Rick Eislen, Dan Dierdorf, Andrea Kramer and other intelligent UM alums .
O. Hmm..ND boasts of 7 Heisman winners...while UM takes pride in the fact it has graduated 8 times MORE NOBEL PRIZE winning alums than hapless ND.
P. In the last 25 years alone has been ND has had 7 non winning SEASONS. UM? ZERO.
Q.ND 's fanatics selectively counting NCs for "periods" illustrates the depths they will go to prove a point while IGNORING the TRUTH. NCpolls did NOT begin in 1936. A victory by UM over ND in 1887 is as significant as a victory over ND in 1942 or a ND victory over UM in 1943, etc. THEY ALL COUNT.
R. ND in its huge INFERIORITY complex re: UM's worldwide SUPERIOR ACADEMIC FAME and college football dominance, has resorted to lies about UM and its legendary characters. The TRUTH is UM is secretly " ND's aspirational aspiration". While most people on earth think of Nd as "that Cathedral in France" or at best in America as a "football factory" UM is NOT built on lies or myths. It doesn't have to do so because as "People's Champion" in America and so well respected WORLDWIDE( UM is#1 in knick knack sales in Asia, Europe, worldwide and yes, often, NATIONALLY), it need not create lies like ND does to cover up its corruption, greed, or insecurities. There NEVER was a Gipp deathbed speech, Divine never had his players turn in their uniforms as the box office loser "Rudy" portrays, there wasn't even a gipper speech and oh, BTW the CHUTZPAG of some Damestrers to question the amount of Alabama's NCs is amusing in its HYPOCRICY to NOn-Damesters given that ND and UM BOTH claim a 1947 NC. BUt who -as a MATTER OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY DESERVES IT THAT YEART?- Easy. UM. The 2 teams played 3 common opponents...and in ALL 3 cases UM beat them FAR worse trhan ND was able to do. Hence, the first post bowl poll in AP as it exists now. For a ND to still claim 1947 as a NC when UM would have pulverized them by likely at least17 points is a travesty. Yet like Bama NMD refuses to relinquish its share to 1947 NC to the REAL champion that year; UM.
S. UM hasone of the 3top Musicschools in the nation(IU and Hulliard are the others0 John Phillip Souza and more recently Esquire have opined HAIL TO THE VICTORS as THE greeatest#1 fight song of all time. This bugs jealous Damesters as does the FACT that ESPN and other sources say OSU/UM is the #1 rivalry in sports and yes, that UM's maize and blue uniforms w/ the winged/striped helmets are the best in ALL sports; ALL levels.
T. The Damester ilkster who falsely stated UM's last victory over ND at ND was 1986 is a liar or ignorant but in any case he is WRONG. UM beat ND at ND stadium in: 1994. Of course any such ND claim along those lines is lAUGHABLE given 2FACTS they at ND ignore:
Since that SAME year-1994- ND has managed to beat MIGHTY MICHIGAN at the BIG HOUSE- only ONE(1) measley time! FACT!
FACT #2: ND has been averaging at LEAST 2 losses AT HOME in ND stadium nearly every year for the past 7-10 years including 2 more by UNWeis in 2005. If Nd is not a has been program, why so EASY for teams like BC and MSU to kick ND fanny EVERY year in ND 's own stadium? Because they are NOT the greatest , never were, IMO.
U. Davie had a losing record versus UM.
V. ND for years lied to cover up their easy academics and tradition of CHEATING by saying UM was at fauklt for not letting them in the B10. UM correectly stated those 2 reasons are/were THE ONLY REASONS. ND's demented Leahy Brothers and Rockne insisted UM was "ducking" Nd despite the fact UM has an all time winning record over ND...So tyo SHUT ND up UM played ND...AT ND STADIUM...that was coached by arguasbly ND's greatest coach and second to Rockne in cheating (Frank Leahy) and proceeded to kick ND's fanny in a humiliating defeat for BIG MOUTH, jealous ND.
W. Then years later, ND still playing patsy cream puffs (Note ND's schedule this year contains Pitytsville, Air Craps, Army and get this NAVY ALL in the SAME FRICKEN SEASON!! Notre SHAME!) again bugged UM to play th3em..UM obliged and in 1978 All-American Rick Leach and Coach Bo beat Montana and ND yet again. There is no truth EVER to the ND myty\h /lie that UM is "afraid" of such an overrated schoolwhom Um dominates ACADEMICALLy and ATHLETICALLy in EVERY salient way.
X. ND has had ZERO Heisman, Belinikoff, Remington, Doak Perry award winners in the last 19 yeasrs. ZERO! By Contrast UM has won EACH of those awards -some more than once in the time frame.
Y. UM is the ONLY remaining TRULY NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RECRUITING SUPER POWER. Over the last 15-20 yearas UM leads ND in higher rated recruiting class years. Moreover UM was #1 in 1998 ; a year many feel is the all time #1 OFFENSIVE recruitment year for quality of student-athletes in football for any one year.
Z. The original poster isRIGHT Clear away the ND libel/slander/blarney of living in a dubious past, and MIGHTY MICHIGAN is the OBJECTIVE greatest team of all time. " Harvard, the Michigan of the East" T-Shirts are prevalent, though UMers believe UM gives its a STUDENTS A BETTER EDUCATION than Princeton, YALE, BERKELEY or HARVARD but the point is well made. In Re: to hapless corrupt sanctioned Nd , I see 2 prevailing T-Shirts " ND the Bob Jones University of the Midwest" which, sadly speaks for itself and, of couse in re: to the boring BOX OFFICE LOSER: "RUDY SUCKS." ( Note that movies about UM celebraste the intellectual NOT just sports ala ND, such as THE BIG CHILL classic about successful UM alums claiming back their idealism and service to others ...which was nominated for an ACADEMY AWARD). "LEADERS AND BEST"....indeed. Case REALLY closed.
Prior to 1968, everyone awarded their National Championship prior to the bowl games, so avaoiding bowl games didn't help ND win a single national championship.
Record in bowls:
ND 13-14-0
Michigan 18-19-0
Winning Percentage:
ND .743
UM .743
Recognized National Championships:
ND 12
UM 7
NCs since 1950:
ND 5
UM 1
Heisman Trophy Winners
ND 7
UM 1
HOF Coaches
ND 5 (Rock, Ara, Leahy, Parshegian, Holtz)
UM 2 1/2 (Yost, Schembechler, Carr maybe)
All-Time Ranking (per CFDW):
ND 1
UM 4
And while Michigan fans may not care about these numbers, ND fans certainly do:
Football Graduation Rate (fed reported NCAA 2003)
ND 85%
UM 59%
African-American Graduation Rate (per UCF study 2003)
ND 74%
UM 37%
Case closed.
Uh oh, JMAC, now we've done it. The skunkbear crazies are out.
This may be your first exposure to them. Enjoy.
I'm sorry I ever commented now.
Wow, so wrong so often:
ND does not have 5 titles since 1950, only 4.
Michigan does not have only 2 HOF coaches, it has 3 (Fritz Crisler)
You list winning %age, but don't clarify who is 1st (Michigan).
You list titles since 1950, but don't list winning %age since 1950 (Michigan #6 overall at 71.9%, ND #11 at 68.7%).
And repeat grad rates, as if that were evidence not affected by factors like private schools often being diploma mills. High graduation rates are often reflective of the attitude that you paid your dues and deserve a diploma.
Just curious, but if Notre Dame is NOT the best program in college football (historically), with the lead in national titles, tied for the lead in heisman trophy winners, the lead in all-americans, 2nd behind Michigan for all-time wins, 2nd behind Michigan for all-time win percentage (although ND has a chance to re-take the lead in this category this season)...
Who is it that you submit to being the best?
So, I'm either an idiot, or I just got bored reading your post, and did not notice that you appear to submit Michigan as your greatest all-time team. Please feel free to delete both of these posts, so that I might save the tiniest bit of my dignity.
This is all a useless argument. Michigan fans will contend that they are the greatest of all time and Notre Dame fans also will contend that they also are the greatest of all time. There is a statistic for every argument and both sides in this case pose good points.
To attack each others' fans is childish and ridiculous, calling Michigan fans idiots or ND fans morons is not needed for this argument. Why not agree that both programs are great, have their history, and settle the score out on the field?
To Michigan's credit, ND has been horrendous throughout the 80s, 90s, and 2000s save for a few spurts of glory from 88-93. Michigan has been consistently up there in the polls throughout the decades and yes did win awards unlike ND. To Notre Dame's credit, they have more National Championships, Heisman winners, All-Americans, and better educational statistics regarding football players. Also, ND has the lore--when someone says Notre Dame, the first thing that you think of is football greatness, at least it does for me. Rockne, Leahy, Rudy, all that crap--while it may appear to be crap to some people, it exists and it works.
Is Michigan a good school? Yes--Is ND? Definately, and again, statistics exist to support both claims.
My advice in this whole argument is relax. ND is a great program, so is Michigan. ND was successful in the past and is on the rise now, Michigan has been successful recently, and now ND consistently gives them a run for their money. Fact of the matter is that both programs are great so stop it with the ridiculous childish arguments about hype, insecurity, or whatever other unnecessary comments may come to mind.
For what it's worth, I think that picking "the" best program since 1950 (or all-time) is a lot like picking a clear preseason #1 this year. Every program has enough stuff you can nit-pick so that it's hard to confidently settle on any one team.
Michigan definitely has plenty to nit-pick, such as the fact that they've only won one MNC in remotely recent times, and it was a split one at that (yes, they did get screwed by the coach's poll, but then again Nebraska going undefeated and not winning at least a share of it would have been pretty crappy too). They have only one Heisman winner, and it should have been Peyton that year. (The ABC/ESPN war chest came through for Woodson big-time). Their bowl record is not particularly good, although I agree with others in this thread that bowl record can be a misleading stat. When you go to the Rose Bowl dozens of times, that speaks volumes in itself, regardless of what your actual record is in those games. But, bowl record does contribute something to the overall out-of-conference performance of a team, so that being said it is at least worth pointing out that Meeeeeechigan's bowl record is not impressive.
I would probably have to pick Oklahoma as the best program since 1950. Possibly Alabama (I don't care whether they traveled outside the SE or not, unless all their games were against Mercer and SE LA Tech State, which they weren't).
Your paragraph
"The Fighting Irish, in what I feel is a particularly damning piece of evidence, played in only one bowl game prior to 1970. Of Notre Dame's 12 national titles, nine of them came prior to the school's decision to enter into postseason play, meaning the Fighting Irish were rarely challenged by a team of supposedly equal caliber for the bulk of their titles."
has no merit.
Prior to that time the AP and UPI polls crowned their national champions prior to the bowl games. By your logic all championships from that era by all schools are equally suspect.
It is revealing of your attempt to present only those facts that seem to support your preconceived thesis that you are not tempted to submit Alabama's or Michigan's national champtionship from this period to scrutiny. Only Notre Dame's are suspect.
I've just posted a lengthy explanation, but for our anonymous poster ...
It wasn't my intention to mislead anyone. My point was that, even though national championships were awarded prior to the bowl game (a ridiculous system for what it's worth), some teams still chose to play in the postseason.
And, in trying to determine who is the greatest (something which isn't scientific by any means), it helps to look at those factors. Playing in the postseason against quality teams from outside of your region (which is one of the defenses of Notre Dame in this thread), can only help us sort out this question.
For Alabama, the strategy obviously backfired. The Crimson Tide struggled in the postseason, particularly against the Irish. Michigan, however, enjoyed some postseason success.
What I was trying to get at was that Notre Dame did not play in the postseason, while other quality programs were. As a result, even though titles were awarded prior to the bowl games, we are missing an added layer to analyze.
Wow, you'se guys is way too deep for me. I just think it's nice to be know that ND is causing the sparks to fly again. (By the way, it was ND having exams after Crhistmas before 1970s, not after, that kept them from bowl games. The Rose Bowl way back when required tain travel and took too long, and other bowls wouldn;t invite the Catholic college, so ND just decided not to do it anymore.)
It's pretty hard to connect your current notion that the post season provides additional information with the original claim that Notre Dame's absence from the bowls was "particularly damning" to their record of acheivement. If this is a revision of your argument, it is a move in the right direction.
Notre Dame was on a level playing field with other schools during the period when ND didn't play in bowls and other teams' bowl records didn't figure into the national championship.
It was also on a level playing field in the later period when it competed in bowls and bowls figured into the championships.
There is, of course, one exception to that. In 1973 the polls were making the transition but one wire still had their final poll before the bowls. Notre Dame beat Alabama in the Sugar bowl to finish undefeated and win the post bowl poll. Should we take Alabama's share of that title away?
Revision might be a strong word, but I'd say I was just writing with a bit of flair (like in Office Space) when I said 'particularly damning' ... I still think that Notre Dame not playing in bowl games means we miss an added dimension to consider.
For instance, the bowl game theory serves to bolster the argument Paul put forward about Alabama. Though Notre Dame played a 'national schedule' the chance to play against the best teams of the year from across the country in the postseason didn't materialize. The Irish chose to stay home.
So while we can say 'Alabama appears to be a bit overrated because they went 10-1 but lost to X in the Sugar Bowl' we can't say that about the Irish.
As far as 1973, I'd agree with you and say that Notre Dame is, in my opinion, the rightful national champion. However, we can't go back in time and revise how the system was done. One poll said Alabama was the best based on its regular season performance, and if we strip that title away from them, we're then left with the precedent to devalue all of the titles won prior to the changing of the voting systems ... something that would directly impact many of the titles won by the Irish as only three of their 12 titles were won in a bowl game.
The only thing that will stop me from laughing at the utter incoherence of "ellendegenerates" comments is if I find out he/she is literally retarded.
I'd tend to agree that both ND and Alabama should get a national title for 1973. If we count wire service final polls we live with the rules of the time.
The trouble is, of course, that the 12 titles for Notre Dame and 12 titles for Alalbama cannot be arrived at by any such consistent rule.
If we apply the standards by which Alabama gets 12 titles, we get more than 12 for Notre Dame. If we apply the standards by which we get 12 titles for Notre Dame, we get less than 12 titles for Alabama.
I am not as eloquent as the above posters however, I will say this. Notre Dame Is the most followed and wrote about team in America. The other schools and fans of other schools just can't stand that fact.
Right, anonymous, because those other schools are also deserving of national recognition. You have just confirmed the major impetus for JMac's original post: Notre Dame gets more national attention than other teams, even more than they deserve, and other fans don't like that fact. Nor should they.
ellensdegenerates...you are funny.
Notre Dame and Michigan - A History
It is well this week to reflect on relations between Notre Dame and Michigan: how they began, how they developed, why they are the way they are and what forces impel Michigan to be the way it is. Let us review and remember all that Michigan really stands for.
Chapter One - Seeds of Smallness - The Yost Legacy
Fielding Yost is by far the most influential person in the history of Michigan athletics. A review of his tenure vis-à-vis Notre Dame is instructive of how and why Notre Dame and Michigan view each other the way they do.
"The two most powerful conference members athletically and politically were Chicago and Michigan. Both would become the staunchest athletic foes of Notre Dame. In 1898 Michigan voted to deny Notre Dame membership in the (then) Western Conference."
"In June 1901 Michigan and Chicago orchestrated the conference's banning of Notre Dame from the initial I.C.A.A. track meet"
1909 - Notre Dame defeats Michigan for the first time. After the game Notre Dame player Red Miller goes to shake Fielding Yost's hand. "When Shorty Longman introduced me to Mr. Yost, who had been my idol for years, I was thrilled beyond measure. . . To my utter amazement, he greeted me by saying 'Miller you were guilty of the most unsportsmanlike conduct that I've ever seen in all my days.'" Yost was angry because Miller had waited several times until the last minute to signal fair catches on punts and Michigan had been flagged twice for interference. "The fair catches were perfectly legal" as officials later confirmed.
Later that year despite, having a worse record and losing to ND, Michigan was voted "Champions of the West" by some Western Conference sportswriters and Yost claimed the split championship was just. "Of course we are champions. They have a good team down there, but you must recognize the fact that we went into that game caring little whether we won or lost. Practice was what we wanted."
1910 - 24 hours before Notre Dame and Michigan are to play, Yost cancels the game. The two teams do not play again for thirty-two years.
1911 - A general policy of blackballing of Notre Dame by Michigan and Western Conference schools begins. Jesse Harper writes to ask Michigan to schedule a game: "I am very sorry you could not think it best to schedule a game for next fall. If at any time you should find that your schedule is not working out to suit you and that you would like to play Notre Dame, I would be very glad to hear from you."
1913 - ND begins playing schools outside the midwest as a result of the boycott. Army, Texas, Penn State and Syracuse are added to the schedule. The 1913 Army game -- only scheduled due to the Michigan boycott -- becomes one of the most famous in ND history as Gus Dorais and Knute Rockne use the forward pass to upset the top team in the then-dominant East.
1914 - Yost to his AD "Do not favor Notre Dame game. It would be a hard game. Not much money or prestige if we won."
One senior football player of the class of '14 bears particular ill will towards Yost and Michigan for blackballing Notre Dame. Also, despite his pass-catching ability as displayed in the game against Army, Yost works to keep this player off of All American teams. The young player swears to friends that he will ensure that Notre Dame not only never needs the Western Conference, Yost or Michigan again, but that she will eclipse them across the nation.
Rockne viewed Yost as "a hillbilly who was forever grinding a religious ax against Notre Dame, who was crooked as a dog's hind leg, who was selfish and vain beyond comprehension, who was blindly jealous of Rockne's own success and ascension to national stardom and who coached boring, neanderthal football."
1923 Big Ten track and field meet to which ND is invited. At a meeting of athletic directors Yost makes a comment in front of all listeners that Rockne is a "Protestant holdout at a Catholic school" and urges Big Ten schools to boycott Notre Dame in all sports. During the meet one of Michigan's hurdlers stumbled and lost. Yost insisted the hurdles had been placed wrong and demanded the race be re-run. Illinois, Wisconsin and other schools withdrew and Notre Dame joined in support of their protest. Yost then approached Notre Dame's captain and told him to tell Rockne that he was a quitter and that he and his "dirty Irish" would never play on Ferry Field again.
Rockne wrote Yost "The Western Conference could put in a regulation that all coaches had to join the Ku-Klux-Klan but that certainly does not apply to us any more than some of the other freak regulations they may have. Now if you personally don't want to meet Notre Dame, that is your business, no holler from this end. . . But I don’t think it is fair for you to carry out a campaign against us. I have always been a loyal booster and admirer of yours and I always hope to be. However, I am no quitter. I will not sit by quietly and have my school knocked even though I am not of its faith [this was before Rockne converted]"
1926 - In a note to the Big Ten Commissioner, noting that Notre Dame had won its last twelve games against Big Ten teams Yost urges all to join Michigan's renewed boycott, "one can readily see how the Conference is helping Notre Dame."
1929 - After years of false assertions by Yost against Notre Dame, Michigan's longstanding unethical tactics are exposed in a study by the Carnegie Report on college athletics. The report cited Michigan as "among the least fortunate" of 100 schools investigated in the manner in which both the University and its alumni clubs provided loans, jobs and other forms of aid to athletes. That same year, the Big Ten Commissioner denounced the report and called Michigan "an ideal" for other college athletic programs regarding ethics.
Rockne's system, involving the famed Notre Dame Shift caught other teams off balance and was the rage in football. Yost begins a national campaign to get the shift banned and resort to old-style less fluid football not involving shifting or as much passing - in other words, a return to the rugby-style that earlier had led to many deaths and led to President Theodore Roosevelt calling for reforms in the game. Eventually, the rule was modified to require a "complete stop" - Rockne coached his players to do so - briefly - and still used his motion offense to win a national championship in 1924. Yost was outraged. Next, Big Ten officials began flagging Notre Dame on a consistent basis for its "slick" plays and quick shifts and reverses. In a game at Northwestern, Michigan alum and Big Ten official Meyer Morton penalized Notre Dame 95 yards, NW zero, leading to the famous Rockne quote to the official "Looks like a Big Ten suckhole out there to me." Rockne was also outraged that Yost had a say on which Big Ten officials called ND games against Big Ten teams, even though Michigan was not playing Notre Dame. Even with the new rules designed by Yost and his allies to impede Rockne, Notre Dame went undefeated in 1929 and 1930 and won two more national championships.
At the end of the day Rockne has become the prototype of coaches and an American cultural icon, the winningest coach in the history of football with towns, buildings, stamps and famous movies named after him and the most legendary of all team exhortations to his credit. Yost's name is generally known only to Michigan fans.
Chapter Two - The Crisler Legacy - "They Say Hail Mary's"
Finally, in 1942, after thirty-two years, a game was played between Notre Dame and Michigan. Michigan won 32-20. The next year, the game was played in Ann Arbor. The teams were ranked 1 and 2 in the polls and it was a huge game. Notre Dame won 35-12 on the way to the national championship. The star of the game was Creighton Miller, son of Red Miller who Yost had attacked in 1909. As after Notre Dame's first win over Michigan, Notre Dame's second win provoked a cessation of relations for another thirty years.
In a gesture of goodwill in order to strengthen relations between the schools, Coach Fritz Crisler was extended an invitation to the Notre Dame football banquet in 1943. He told a friend to graciously say he was deeply disappointed he could not attend and that "No one but you need know that I have my tongue in cheek when I say that."
A Michigan official told Crisler that if asked about the Notre Dame series he would say it’s a great series, we are looking forward to more of the same. Crisler told him "I would back you in public for any quotes and then chew you out in private for going beyond your authority." Crisler thereafter politely put off all requests for a game in 1944, 1945 or 1946. In 1946 he instituted a policy requiring that aside from conference games, Michigan only play three other games of which one must be Michigan State, one must be an eastern team and one must be a western team, effectively eliminating any chance of playing Notre Dame without having to admit that was what was being done. Frank Leahy won five national championships at Notre Dame and constantly wrote letters to Crisler begging for him to play a game. Crisler never responded to those requests, but did work behind the scenes in an attempt to have Leahy censured by the coaches association for "faking injuries".
Crisler remained AD until 1968 and never scheduled Notre Dame for a football game. Moose Krasue, ND AD during the period would call Crisler every year to seek a game and was declined for twenty straight years. Said Krause, "I think he didn’t want to play us because we were the power in his own backyard. If Michigan lost to Army, well, they were back East. We were too close."
Crisler often said he just did not want to distract from the Big Ten focus of the program. Others thought Crisler harbored anti-Catholic sentiment and feared that Catholics in Michigan might root for Notre Dame. A Detroit News writer, Pete Waldmeir, who covered Michigan for decades, says the excuse of not wanting to jeopardize the importance of the conference was a smokescreen. He opined "That's the party-line bullshit. It wasn’t that at all. Fritz didn’t give a damn about the Big Ten. And you can quote me on that. He told them what to do in football. He had his people placed all around the Big Ten." In 1956 Crisler told Waldmeir, "You know, it’s tough. Every Saturday morning from every pulpit in town, they're praying for Notre Dame in Ann Arbor." Even Michigan's later athletic director Don Canham all but admits his predecessor's anti-Catholic bigotry: "Fritz didn’t have a deep-seated hate of Catholics or anything like that. But, you know, in those days they figured if a Catholic ran for President he couldn’t win. . . . I mean it was a different world. And that’s what you have to realize when you look at it with today's perspective."
Bump Elliott, Michigan's coach from 1959-1968 also endorsed the "religious threat" reasoning for not scheduling Notre Dame, noting that when he was an assistant at Iowa, some of their Catholic alumni rooted against the Hawkeye’s and for Notre Dame. Father Edmund Joyce, Vice President of Notre Dame, said that the only two schools that ever used Notre Dame's Catholic affiliation as an excuse for not scheduling Notre Dame in football were Ohio State and Michigan. Said Joyce, "I always thought the two of them were together on this. I never believed it." Continued Joyce, in the neatest summary of what the Big Two are all about: "Ultimately, Woody Hayes was a little more honest about it. He said he didn’t want to play Notre Dame because the Michigan game was the only big game on their schedule, whereas if they played Notre Dame it would detract from the Michigan game. In other words what he was saying was they don’t like to lose. Those guys all had great egos and they didn’t want to lose." Said Elliott, "I think Crisler felt our schedule was tough enough without playing Notre Dame."
Indeed, Crisler loaded up Michigan with home games, as many as seven in a nine game season and even today, Michigan's historical record is incredibly slanted with a large majority of games having been played at home. From 1943 to 1958 Michigan played Indiana fifteen times, all in Ann Arbor. They played MSU eleven of thirteen games in Ann Arbor from 1945 to 1957. Despite such favorable scheduling and a boycott of Notre Dame, Michigan did not win any national championships from 1948 through the resumption of the series with Notre Dame, while ND was winning championships in 1949, 1953, 1966, 1973 and 1977. And Michigan's light schedule may have had much to do with its lack of success against good teams for decades. In the 1970's, while Notre Dame was winning three Cotton Bowls, a Sugar Bowl, an Orange Bowl and a Gator Bowl, defeating undefeated Texas twice, undefeated Alabama twice, as well as Houston and Penn State, Michigan was 0-6 in bowl games.
One time, Crisler was assured by an alumnus that he could always count on support from Michigan alumni in his efforts to avoid scheduling Notre Dame and preventing other Big Ten schools from scheduling them, telling Crisler he could depend on "a public opinion sufficiently non-Democratic and non-Catholic." Perhaps the mentality and admirability of the second-most significant figure in the history of Michigan sports can be summed up in this quote from him about Notre Dame "You know, before the game they march them all off to church and they say their Hail Mary's,"
Chapter Three - The Canham Years - Michigan and The Big Ten Want ND's Money.
While figures such as Yost and Crisler didn’t like Catholics or Irish, their successors did like green, the color of money. And money was precisely what led to Michigan realizing the greater spirit and glory of sport that a resumption of games with Notre Dame would serve. Businessman extraordinaire Don Canham became athletic director in 1969 and quickly looked for avenues to increase revenue. Notre Dame was one.
Canham quickly got the deal done and Notre Dame always had the utmost respect for him as he did for Notre Dame. Said Canham. "You have to give Notre Dame credit. Any sport you name Notre Dame goes after the best competition. That’s why they're Notre Dame." The class and largeness of spirit exhibited by Canham was a break with Michigan's heritage and one not to be followed by those around him.
Canham was ahead of the game for the Big Ten in reaching out to Notre Dame. In the late nineties, Big Ten officials hotly courted Notre Dame to join the conference -- for money not love. Notre Dame wisely demurred. In an ironic twist of history largely and predictably ignored by the media, Notre Dame was being asked to join the regional institution whose many earlier rejections of Notre Dame had forced it to seek a national schedule and thus become the national athletic institution it was. Moreover, the institution that had done the most to attempt to destroy, undermine and thwart Notre Dame athletics was aghast and insulted at its rejection when it came begging for Notre Dame join it so that it could monetarily profit from the name and brand ND had built up over the years.
Chapter Four - Bo and Lloyd - Pettiness Personified
Sound familiar? "I don’t know whether [playing Notre Dame] is in the best interests of Michigan because Michigan should be pointing to Iowa or Michigan State or Ohio State. It had just got to the point where if I had remained there as athletic director and Notre Dame continued to manipulate the position of the game and to do some of the things they were doing, I'd have dropped Notre Dame." Yes, it is Bo. He also resented that his players didn’t agree with him. "When you're setting your goals in your first meeting, Notre Dame always pops into the picture. And you say 'Okay men, we're going to shoot for Notre Dame, but I'm going to tell you something, Notre Dame is a non-conference game, and we'll always play it as that. There are only so many games you can really get your team up to a fever pitch." Bo was 4-6 against Notre Dame.
Bo's frustration undoubtedly stems in part from the fact that during his tenure at Michigan, three different Notre Dame coaches won national championships while Bo never got close. And throughout Lou Holtz's tenure, Notre Dame won five major bowls and played in four others while Michigan was going 2-3 in the Rose Bowl and not making any other major bowl games. Bo, who had the worst record against top-ten teams of any coach who ever won over a hundred games, had some of his most galling and embarrassing defeats at the hands of the Irish, including three straight losses to Holtz to close his career, Harry Oliver's 51-yard boot, Bob Crable's blocked field goal, Ricky Watter's punt return helping catapult Notre Dame to a national championship in 1988 and Rocket's two kick returns in 1989. So Bo's desire to avoid Notre Dame is understandable. His class and Michigan manner were recently displayed yet again when in true statesman of the game style he proclaimed "To hell with Notre Dame."
Lloyd Carr has picked up many of the same tendencies as his predecessors. He frequently talks about how it might be a good idea to end the Notre Dame series. Also, he went ballistic over a perceived "injustice" when Notre Dame played Kansas before playing Michigan in 1999. He claimed there was a gentleman’s agreement that neither school would play a game before this one. Krause was conveniently dead. Unfortunately, the then-alive Canham opted to tell the truth and denied any such agreement. Carr's dissembling was further undermined by the fact that Michigan played games before playing Notre Dame in 1978-82, 1991, 1993 and 1994. As former Michigan athletic director Jack Weidenbach points out, "We can move our games around too" and had done so to get a game before Notre Dame for years before Carr's Yostian tirade.
Carr's hostility to truth is also displayed in his recruiting efforts to play the race card. Carr frequently uses Notre Dame's Catholic affiliation [sound familiar] and location away from a large city to attempt to convince African-American players not to attend Notre Dame. Carr's tactics are especially unworthy considering that African-American athletes going to Notre Dame almost uniformly earn degrees while an African-American football player at Michigan for most of the last two decades is most likely to serve his time in the fields at Michigan Stadium and around the Big Ten and then leave school with no degree. Carr's average of three-losses a season with what is generally considered unlimited recruiting resources and limited academic demands on his players has placed him squarely in the Michigan mold. Consistent winning with few outstanding seasons.
In the end, much of the Michigan-Notre Dame relationship comes down to smallness and jealousy. Notre Dame has won far more national championships, more Heisman Trophies, has more All Americans. Its games are more highly-rated, its team more closely followed nationally than Michigan. It has its own network contract and every year that polling is conducted Notre Dame is chosen as America's most popular college football team. While Notre Dame has been consensus national champion nine times since the polls came into effect in 1936 and number two four times, Michigan has won a championship in 1948 and a half of one in 1997, and has finished second twice. Never has Michigan defeated an undefeated or number one or two ranked team in a bowl game to win a national championship as Notre Dame has done repeatedly. While Notre Dame has won bowl games against undefeated opponents seven times, Michigan has never won a bowl game against an undefeated opponent. And Notre Dame is the only school to have a winning record against Michigan over the last fifty years. Indeed, even failures such as Bob Davie and Ty Willingham have a combined .500 record against Michigan, with Ty having a winning record against Carr! Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the average Notre Dame undergrad far outshines the resume of his Michigan counterpart, having finished in the top ten percent of his high school class and scoring much higher on standardized tests. Even by the ludicrous standards of the U.S News and World Report survey by which large universities such as Michigan live, Notre Dame outranks them. All of this is galling to Michigan, whose worldview is one conditioned on absolute superiority to the Big Ten schools it regularly dictates to politically, defeats on the field and over whom it presumes intellectual superiority.
Nowhere is Michigan's "Notre Dame complex" more apparent than in the hostile, ugly treatment of Notre Dame fans at Michigan Stadium. Michigan and other fans routinely comment on how friendly and refreshing a trip to Notre Dame is for a game - a trip back to days of real college football sportsmanship. Michigan, on the other hand, while constantly publicizing its commitment to sportsmanship and the values of intercollegiate competition embarrassingly was forced to send an official apology to Notre Dame for the vulgar and violent treatment of Notre Dame's students and fans at Michigan Stadium in 2003. Unable to have a constructive, mature relationship with a school that sees itself as more than its equal, Michigan's relationship with Notre Dame has always been one of animus and pettiness, fueled at various points by historical prejudice against Catholics and envy of Notre Dame's unique place in the history of American sport and its success against the odds, all achieved outside the narrow confines of the conference walls Michigan so obsessively built and maintains.
Hey JMac, while many people may be hazing your blog here, I as a ND fan appreciate it because it gives us something to debate like reasonable adults. While I do not agree with your conclusion that UM is the greatest team of all time over ND, I see your points and I welcome debate of them.
That said, whoever the heck ellendegenerates is, I wonder if you even have a brain. Please, if you are going to post ridiculous "facts" please cite some source as to where you found them--ND steroid users? Please cite source. UM taught ND how to play football? Please cite source. I could claim that you are an incoherent retard and all I would have to cite is your comments so far. I understand you are passionate about Michigan football but save yourself some dignity and please think before you post a comment. Believe it or not, it is possible to get your point across without sounding like a child. Ridiculous.
JMac, I enjoy your blog here, keep up the good work, and thanks for this debate.
So many anonymous posters ...
To the most recent anonymous poster, thanks for the good words. If you read my more recent post, you'll see that upon some additional research I revised my findings.
To the anonymous poster before our most recent one ... dude, nice work. You ought to put your name, or at least some handle, on that. It must have taken a lot of time.
I thought the "big house" was a penitentiary and the only Yost I ever head of played baseball. What is this degenerate talking about?
Only ONE thing is clear. ND fans are aware their program's relevance is fading away. Much like giving Weis a 10 year contract, they are dying to hang on by that thread.
wow. You all need to push away from the computer and ask mom if you can play outside for a while.
What an absurd history lesson, posted by someone who obviously hasn't gotten laid in a long, long, long, long, long, long............long, long, long, long.........long, long, long, long-as-that-stupid-ass-"history"-post, long time.
p.s. Three words: Thirty. Eight. Zip.
Those are 3 words ND has never been able to utter to a Michigan fan.
Have a nice day with yourself.
Where's the College Football Hall of Fame located, oh yeah, less than a mile from ND's campus.
ND's beaten UM 3 out of the last 4.
UM was preseason top 5 last year and finished 7-5 with all that talent. Nice work.
Hart, Long, Arrington, Mundy, Massaquoi, Woodley, Kraus, Englemon, Biggs...shit, did I miss anyone else? Probably.
What do all of these Michigan players have in common?
They were STARTERS last year who were injured for most of the season.
Hey, it's hard to win games when you're starters get hurt. Plain and simple.
Listen, I'm not saying they definitely would've beaten ND or OSU with all of those guys healthy. Frankly, who knows?
I will say this, however: in my 25 years of watching Michigan football, 2005 had an unprecedented number of key injuries. They definitely don't go 7-5 with a healthy team.
As far as the manipulation of statistics go, how about this one:
Michigan and ND have split their last 8 contests, 4-4. Each team has 1 road win in that 8-game span. Still a pretty even rivalry to me. And in their heart of hearts, most Michigan fans just expect to be about .500 against ND and OSU. They expect to beat MSU 3 out of 4.
All these schools have prestigious records. There are so many measuring sticks to go by but the only one that really matters (the others are nice to add on but not necessary) is how many national championships they have. Notre Dame has the most. Apparently after reading this they are tied with Alabame in how many championships they have. Some of those they probably shouldn't have won, but there is also others they should have won like in 93 when they beat Florida State. In the end it all boils down to how many championships you have and apparently that honor goes to Notre Dame and Alabama. I am very aware of them just being a mediocre team of late. They will rise again.
and if we are talking about the last five years obviously it would be USC
One more comment before I go. I notice mostly this with the people who have posted on behalf of Michigan. They list having the most wins and a few other things. If you used there measuring stick things would be much different. It would be like me saying we were winning the whole game and we had more yards and more completions and this, that, and the other and when it was all said and done we left with a loss and somehow claimed my team was better because we dominated everything except the final score. When it's all said and done it comes down to how many national championships you have. Period.
Post a Comment
<< Home