Tell me something I don't know... Each year, the collectively growing nation of Notre Dame-haters spew forth the usual tiresome and banal arguments to the detriment of ND's reputation. Here's an assessment of some of the more popular drumbeats:
1. ND is elitist and greedy in their refusal to join a conference. This has been considered many times in the past, most recently in February 1998. ND was considering joining the Big 10 (again), but in the end the Board of Trustees voted against the decision. Ironically, the primary motivating factor behind any decision to join a conference has always been the attraction of the school's ability to expand its research and collaboration capacities with conference members, as well as the huge amounts of research funding that would follow.
Annually, ND will face three primary Big Ten foes: Michigan, MSU and Purdue. On any given year they may also have a fourth, most recently Penn State (2006) and in the past Northwestern, Ohio State and Indiana. This is due to proximity, the ability to minimize travel costs, and long-time regional rivalries. The argument that ND "needs" any team more than the other team "needs" them on their schedule has been beaten to death. In truth, either team could easily replace the other with another big heavy-hitter. But the fact remains that ND's exposure sells extremely well, at the gate and on TV. Outside of their rival Georgia, GTech's biggest game this year (gate + TV revenue) will no doubt be ND on 9/2; likewise for Navy's "home" game vs ND on 10/28, and when USC hosts the Irish on 11/25. Last year's ND-USC game was the highest rated regular season TV game in 9 years; the previous highest-ranked TV game was the ND-Ohio State game in 1996.
Since the barnstorming days of Knute Rockne, the coaching staff and athletic department have sought to gain widespread exposure for the program by playing a truly national schedule. So while ND will face several midwest/Big 10 foes, they as well travel and entertain teams from across the US: Georgia (@ Georgia Tech), California (vs. Stanford, @ USC, vs. UCLA), North Carolina (vs. UNC), Maryland (@ Navy), Colorado (vs. Air Force), and New York (vs. Army). If they were tied to a conference, their ability to do this would be severely limited to two, maybe three, non-conference games.
As a counter-example, UT plays three non-conference games this year (North Texas, Ohio State, and Sam Houston State). All three games are at home, and only one of them is against a team outside the state of Texas. In fact, in the five years from 2002-2006 inclusive, UT will have traveled outside of Austin, Texas only four times to face a non-conference opponent during the regular season. That is not quite maximizing their potential national exposure.
As expected, a great deal of this circulates around money. The NBC contract is nice in that it allows ND's fan base to watch every home game of the year (a limited number of local pre-emptings notwithstanding). But the coverage and announcing teams are piss-poor. Before getting the Sunday NFL game this year, name another time NBC had (and did a good job with) a regular-season sporting event? They are terrible. However, I guarantee that 99% of schools, if asked, were offered the same bazillions of dollars for a TV contract (and could do so without the burden of a conference restriction), they would jump on it in a second.
Here's a
timely article about ND's independent status and all that goes with it.
2. Notre Dame is over-hyped. Agreed, ND football gets probably more than its due share of media coverage, but it's important to recognize that this is both positive and negative media coverage. When Tyrone Willingham took ND to 8-0 in hist first year, the hype machine was in full swing about how ND's program was finally back on track and again a national power. Yet just nine months earlier, the media was assaulting ND for its incompetence and poor due diligence in the hiring of George O'Leary. Two short years after Ty's 8-0 start, he was summarily fired due to poor performance. The media coverage was unrelenting, casting ND as an evil, racist institution for firing Ty after "only" three seasons, saying it was a color issue and not a performance issue. Yet Ron Zook at Florida and Gerry DiNardo at IU also got the axe that year in their third campaign, and no cries of anti-Polish or anti-Italian sentiments were raised by the media. It was fine to assume their poor performances led to their ouster; not so at Notre Dame. ND willingly accepts the good with the bad.
Additionally, Notre Dame has the largest alumni network (in the world!) of any US college or university, so it is understandable that media's "hype supply" would match the demand.
3. ND always receives undue title considerations. Disagree (though in the past, may have been more true than not). Let's address the present-day argument. Saying that a 10-2 ND squad these days would get preferential consideration for the national championship (say, if at 10-2 they then won their bowl game, which in itself is a faaaar stretch of late) simply does not hold water. If I am wrong, I'd be glad to review some articles or collateral which state otherwise.
Like it or not, since the inception of the BCS there has been a great leveling in the disparity of arguments both pro/con in exactly this scenario, i.e., unworthy national title and top-tier bowl contenders. The BCS is not perfect, but all those schools covered by the umbrella of the BCS regulations signed up for what the process entails. Sometimes it works well--last year's UT-USC matchup is a good example (for the record, even if ND had beaten USC, most computer models show that the BCS still would have paired UT-USC in the Rose Bowl, as they should have). Yet there were concerns about games such as the Orange Bowl, where PSU, possibly only one play away (loss to Michigan) from being in the Rose Bowl, seemed to be a prohibitive mismatch against FSU. At the time, FSU had recently recovered from a season-ending 3-game losing streak to beat Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship, and entered the Orange Bowl at 8-4. Their narrow, overtime loss to PSU was one of the best games of the year. Still, one only need look to a year prior, where Pitt won the BCS' Big East berth in the Fiesta Bowl. Coming from a relatively weak conference that year, it showed, as they were shellacked by #5 Utah, 35-7.
Sometimes the BCS works, other times not so well. Regardless, devoid of a true playoff, it does provide that #1 vs #2 matchup and fewer arguments about your national championship winner. Many who argue on this very point conveniently forget that at times the perception has worked against Notre Dame's favor. For example, in 1989, ND went 12-1-0 with their lone loss being to Miami. ND finished the season by trouncing #4 Colorado in the Orange Bowl. Meanwhile, Miami went 11-1-0 (losing to FSU), and beat #7 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Miami was declared National Champions by virtue of the fact that while both teams had only 1 loss, Miami had beaten ND head-to-head. Fast forward to 1993, similar scenario. ND went 11-1-0 with their lone loss being to BC, and finished the season by beating #4 Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl. Meanwhile, FSU went 12-1-0, and beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl; their lone loss was to ND. FSU was declared National Champions by virtue of the fact that while both teams had only 1 loss, FSU had beaten ND head-to-head. Oh wait...never mind.
4. ND has a special, favored BCS arrangement. Disagree. It's true ND has specific language in the
BCS Automatic Qualification criteria...but it is logically mandated since they are not in a conference (see prior comments.) However, they must now be in the top 8 final BCS rankings, not the top 12 as many critics contend.
The amazing irony with all the anti-ND arguments vis-a-vis the BCS is that they almost always conveniently ignore how much
the BCS favors almost EVERY OTHER TEAM other than ND in the ability to qualify. For example: if you are one of the sixty-five (65) Div. 1a teams from the "power conferences"--ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12 or Pac 10--you get an automatic bid REGARDLESS as long as you win your conference. So an 8-4 FSU went to a BCS matchup last year, as did a woeful Pitt team the year before. Imagine ND going 10-1 and being ranked #9 in the BCS, but not getting a bid because 7-5 Virginia Tech wins the ACC. Is that fair?
But it gets better. The fifty (50) teams from the "mid major" conferences--MAC, WAC, Mountain West, CUSA and Sun Belt--need only win their conference and be in either the top 12 final BCS rankings, or possibly even the top 16 final BCS rankings (if its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.)
So in effect, it is harder for ND to qualify for a BCS game than it is for 115 other Div. 1a schools. The only teams I can discern as being slighted more than ND, and at less of a disadvantage when it comes to BCS qualification, are the other three Div. 1a Independents: Army, Navy and Temple.
The primary matchup being discussed for today's game is Notre Dame's prolific offense and Georgia Tech's stingy defense. Experts have pointed out how good Georgia Tech was last year in stopping the run, as well as Tech defensive coordinator John Tenuta's penchant for frequent, unrelenting blitzes. The Yellow Jackets surrendered only 50 yds in a 23-14 win over #16 Auburn, and only 30 yards in a 14-10 win over #3 Miami. Overall, Tech was #11 nationally against the run.
