Right he beat a bad ACC team and a G5 team. They realized our path to the F4 was so easy they changed the format. Neither SMU nor Boise State were good teams. Plus we all know had we beat a mid ND team (which he couldn't do) then we'd have lost to Ohio State per usual.
Your definition of not a good team and mine are different. And it’s not about whether he should have been fired as much as when he was fired. And someone having the opinion he shouldn’t have been fired is not pretending…it’s just as valid an opinion as yours.
You've yet to make any logical argument for why firing him mid-season is worse than keeping him and losing recruits when you fire him in November
At anywhere from 6-6 to 3-9 with an additional half season of interviews, press conferences, and on field shots he would be less attractive than he currently is. That would correspond to less options. Are you disagreeing with this?
The why he was fired reason is obvious. They could have waited until after this past tOSU game if home game environment was the main timing reason.
So would I. I won't take 14.5 though. Just being realistic w/ how things have played out.
You would lose no matter what the odds are to make it attractive. I guess if you bet $10 to win $100 you can take a flier but you will still lose $10.
If someone actually offered me 9-1 on us winning Saturday, it would be a no brainer to play it for however much action they'd take.
If so, then that means that a 10% chance isn't being "kind"...it's a bit too low.
I mean, the team that lost in the National Title game obviously isn't "mid". It's a ridiculous comment.
Yes our half of the bracket was insanely weak. Georgia, if healthy, would have been legit.
It is...look at the path. An unprepared Indiana team, a banged up Georgia team and Franklin. We all knew Ohio State would beat the winner of our game.
If there were about 6 teams in D1, then you'd have a point. But the team that finished runner up, and was one of the top 4-5 teams in the country (if you want to argue the other side of the bracket was stacked), is anything but "mid".
How so? We aren't using non-contenders to determine what a good team is. If you use teams outside of the Big Ten and SEC you'd ve able to claim everyone we beat is a good team. ND, like us, benefitted due to the dumb rul3s set forth with the byes. Our side of the bracket was so weak that the changed the rules after a single season.
And this is my point. FBS isn't really 136 team..those teams just exist for the money. There's 80+ that have no chance to even sniff a playoff when the season begins. Each year there's typically 5-8 truly elite team. This year it looks like Indiana Ohio State A&M Georgia and maybe Bama can win a title. Maybe Oregon and Ole Miss. Everyone else just wants to make the playoff and maybe pull off an upset before being eliminated.
So a team is either "elite" or "mid"? Notre Dame was one of the top 5-6 teams in the country last year. If you want to really wanted to stretch it, maybe you could knock them down to 7th or 8th. That's not "mid". And losing one game to a MAC team doesn't change that (especially when you pull it together and make the title game).
Yes...there nothing in between. There's contenders and others.
How is that a valid argument?
They were....they had to win out after the loss and many fans (especially our own) claimed they shouldn't have been in due to their schedule.
