Archive

Notre Dame releases 2011 and 2012 schedules

  • CinciX12
    The game in Ireland is f'ing stupid. The people don't know what is going on and no one cheers at appropriate times.

    And with the 2012 schedule, so much for that 3 year NC hopes thing I had going.
  • tcarrier32
    karen lotz;526176 wrote:I agree. They should play more MAC/I-AA/teams full of cripples and then get exposed by the first team with a pulse they play. That wouldn't be shitty at all.

    that actually doesnt bother me that much. you'd have a point if notre dame was a relevant team. but they're not, scheduling teams like that just puts numbers in the loss column.
  • CinciX12
    If we are irrelevant then why the fuck do you care about the schedule.
  • rock_knutne
    tcarrier32;527302 wrote:that actually doesnt bother me that much. you'd have a point if notre dame was a relevant team. but they're not, scheduling teams like that just puts numbers in the loss column.

    LMAO.......another dumbass hater post. You clowns can't knock the fact that ND has stepped up their scheduling so you resort to the standard bullshit. There's only a handful of teams who are willing to play anyone, anywhere and ND is one of them.
  • karen lotz
    tcarrier32;527302 wrote:that actually doesnt bother me that much. you'd have a point if notre dame was a relevant team. but they're not, scheduling teams like that just puts numbers in the loss column.



    Yes you are correct. They are completely irrelevant. That's why ND fans and alums are the only ones to talk about them/watch their games. Solid post.
  • tcarrier32
    rock_knutne;527368 wrote:LMAO.......another dumbass hater post. You clowns can't knock the fact that ND has stepped up their scheduling so you resort to the standard bullshit. There's only a handful of teams who are willing to play anyone, anywhere and ND is one of them.

    so what exactly does that prove? just because you are willing to play anyone does not make you a good team. its "standard" bullshit because its true. I'm sorry that Notre Dame hasn't been a good team as of the past 5 years but thats the truth. They play a rather unimpressive schedule this year and thus far are 1 game above .500. So what part of me assuming that since their scheduling is getting tougher they will lose more games makes me a dumbass?
  • rock_knutne
    tcarrier32;527531 wrote:so what exactly does that prove? just because you are willing to play anyone does not make you a good team. its "standard" bullshit because its true. I'm sorry that Notre Dame hasn't been a good team as of the past 5 years but thats the truth. They play a rather unimpressive schedule this year and thus far are 1 game above .500. So what part of me assuming that since their scheduling is getting tougher they will lose more games makes me a dumbass?


    Tell us Nostradamus.......you can see the future? BTW, ND's current schedule is ranked in the top 10 as far as difficulty goes. Keep reaching pal!
  • krambman
    karen lotz;527452 wrote:Yes you are correct. They are completely irrelevant. That's why ND fans and alums are the only ones to talk about them/watch their games. Solid post.

    When people talk about Notre Dame being irrelevant, they don't mean irrelevant to college football culture. They mean irrelevant from a championship standpoint. Notre Dame hasn't been a legitimate national championship contender in over a decade. So considering their schedule doesn't matter much because until they are back to the level of competing for championships they are essentially "irrelevant" in the landscape of college football.
  • -Society-
    krambman;527570 wrote:When people talk about Notre Dame being irrelevant, they don't mean irrelevant to college football culture. They mean irrelevant from a championship standpoint. Notre Dame hasn't been a legitimate national championship contender in over a decade. So considering their schedule doesn't matter much because until they are back to the level of competing for championships they are essentially "irrelevant" in the landscape of college football.

    This is the first post I have agreed with from the Applebees waiter.
  • karen lotz
    krambman;527570 wrote:When people talk about Notre Dame being irrelevant, they don't mean irrelevant to college football culture. They mean irrelevant from a championship standpoint. Notre Dame hasn't been a legitimate national championship contender in over a decade. So considering their schedule doesn't matter much because until they are back to the level of competing for championships they are essentially "irrelevant" in the landscape of college football.


    A lot of teams are irrelevant then.
  • krambman
    karen lotz;527633 wrote:A lot of teams are irrelevant then.

    Correct. There are only a handful of teams that are annually relevant when it comes to the national title (Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Virginia Tech). There are others that make it into the conversation occasionally, but aren't there every year (Nebraska, Florida State, West Virginia, Oregon, Miami, Georgia, Michigan, Boise State). Obviously the top tier teams will occasionally have a down year or two and you'll always have teams that come out of nowhere and finish high and make some noise (Rutgers, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and South Florida in recent years come to mind). Notre Dame certainly hasn't been in the top category and really hasn't even been in the second category in the past decade (since 2002 ND has only finished in the top 25 three times and never in the top 10).
  • karen lotz
    None of the 8 schools you mentioned have been annually relevant. They have all had their down periods. Best example is Alabama. Where have they been outside of the last 3 years? 3 years in contention doesn't mean annually.
  • tcarrier32
    rock_knutne;527559 wrote:Tell us Nostradamus.......you can see the future? BTW, ND's current schedule is ranked in the top 10 as far as difficulty goes. Keep reaching pal!

    can i see into the future? no, but what i can do is make inferences based on what a team has done in its recent past. Granted Notre Dame normally gets a pretty good recruiting class, but we all know that never guarantees future wins. Since 2007 Notre Dame has a winning percentage of 45% , so its not a reach to say that they will continue along those lines in the near future.

    yes i understand 2007 is rather arbitrary, but thats a good 4 years of statistics too look at.
  • rock_knutne
    tcarrier32;527785 wrote:can i see into the future? no, but what i can do is make inferences based on what a team has done in its recent past. Granted Notre Dame normally gets a pretty good recruiting class, but we all know that never guarantees future wins. Since 2007 Notre Dame has a winning percentage of 45% , so its not a reach to say that they will continue along those lines in the near future.

    yes i understand 2007 is rather arbitrary, but thats a good 4 years of statistics too look at.

    Nice spin, where's the "unimpressive schedule bullshit at now? At least you admit that you don't know what's going to happen in the future.
  • rock_knutne
    krambman;527647 wrote:Correct. There are only a handful of teams that are annually relevant when it comes to the national title (Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Virginia Tech). There are others that make it into the conversation occasionally, but aren't there every year (Nebraska, Florida State, West Virginia, Oregon, Miami, Georgia, Michigan, Boise State). Obviously the top tier teams will occasionally have a down year or two and you'll always have teams that come out of nowhere and finish high and make some noise (Rutgers, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and South Florida in recent years come to mind). Notre Dame certainly hasn't been in the top category and really hasn't even been in the second category in the past decade (since 2002 ND has only finished in the top 25 three times and never in the top 10).
    LOL.......Virginia Tech? BTW, OSU and Oklahoma have been frauds as of late.
  • tcarrier32
    rock_knutne;527830 wrote:Nice spin, where's the "unimpressive schedule bullshit at now? At least you admit that you don't know what's going to happen in the future.

    oh dont worry the schedule is still unimpressive. of course i dont "know" the future but ive got a pretty good idea. whether or not you agree is a different story but im not too worried about that.
  • vball10set
    FRAUD: In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

    with all due respect, how can anyone call OSU & Oklahoma "frauds"? IMO, it's hard to call any intercollegiate football team a "fraud"...sorry, but this just ain't right.
  • rock_knutne
    vball10set;527889 wrote:FRAUD: In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

    with all due respect, how can anyone call OSU & Oklahoma "frauds"? IMO, it's hard to call any intercollegiate football team a "fraud"...sorry, but this just ain't right.


    Yep.......frauds, both of them! Their track records in title games have not been very good. And vball, spare me the "atleast the got there" crap, both of them have backed in to title games and their performances showed it.
  • rock_knutne
    tcarrier32;527857 wrote:oh dont worry the schedule is still unimpressive course i dont "know" the future but ive got a pretty good idea. whether or not you agree is a different story but im not too worried about that.

    Yeah, ranked in the top ten in strength of schedule is unimpressive.:rolleyes:
  • slingshot4ever
    rock_knutne;527898 wrote:Yep.......frauds, both of them! Their track records in title games have not been very good. And vball, spare me the "atleast the got there" crap, both of them have backed in to title games and their performances showed it.

    OSU was undefeated in 2002 and 2006.
    OSU was the only BCS school in the country with just one loss in 2007.

    So which NC game did they back into it? I am curious as to your answer on this one...
  • slingshot4ever
    So OSU is 1-2 in title games. What is ND record in just BCS bowls? I don't think you have any wins....Then look at the fact that OSU has the most BCS bowl wins of ANY school (or tied)....Hardly frauds unless you were talking about ND....

    Since the BCS started in 1998 OSU has only played in 4 non-BCS bowls...Frauds though??? 5 straight Big Ten titles and you can't even beat Michigan when they suck...
  • rock_knutne
    slingshot4ever;527910 wrote:OSU was undefeated in 2002 and 2006.
    OSU was the only BCS school in the country with just one loss in 2007.

    So which NC game did they back into it? I am curious as to your answer on this one...
    They backed in to that 2007 game and don't deny it!
  • rock_knutne
    slingshot4ever;527913 wrote:So OSU is 1-2 in title games. What is ND record in just BCS bowls? I don't think you have any wins....Then look at the fact that OSU has the most BCS bowl wins of ANY school (or tied)....Hardly frauds unless you were talking about ND....

    What's ND have to do with it? My response was to krambman's post. Yes, OSU in title games have been a fraud! Deal with reality and go worry about those three MAC schools you play next year, I'm sure they'll prepare you for another NC:rolleyes:!
  • slingshot4ever
    rock_knutne;527915 wrote:They backed in to that 2007 game and don't deny it!

    So which team deserved to be their instead?
  • slingshot4ever
    rock_knutne;527918 wrote:What's ND have to do with it? My response was to krambman's post. Yes, OSU in title games have been a fraud! Deal with reality and go worry about those three MAC schools you play next year, I'm sure they'll prepare you for another NC:rolleyes:!

    How was OSU a fraud in 2002 or 2006? Undefeated both years. You keep saying title gameS but then only mention 2007....plural or singular....please decide.