A hypothesis re: Stanford

Or rather, a hypothesis heavily involving Stanford, or where it comes to mind.

An academically rigorous university can compete at the highest level if it commits itself to athletic excellence and sticks to a strong fundamental plan. This plan can be any variation on successful gameplans (power football, spread offenses, Air Raid etc) but the success of the plan is determined by three factors:

1. Fundamental soundness of the plan.
2. Long-term commitment of the plan for player development/experience
3. Institutional support/infrastructure

Basically the means, motive, and opportunity to championship football.

Ill argue that there are too many things about Notre Dame's identity that conflict with various parts of these arguments, and invite opportunity to fail.

Trying to take my head out of my own ass for a moment, applying this to the current situation, point 1 is arguable, though we are fortunate to have a plan a bit more sound than running the power-I option or whatever the hell Kevin Rodgers was up to. Should Brian Kelly be hit by a bus tomorrow, applying point 1 would involve replacing him with someone able to run an offense somewhat related to the current roster. (EDIT: philosophy. Replacing Kelly with a 3yrds colud of dust type would be inviting failure)

Points 2 and 3 are questions for us as a fanbase and for the administration. Can we ride out the growing pains of rebuilding long enough to actually do it? Does the program have the resources and ability (both within the program and as part of the university) to continually compete at a high level?

This isnt trying to be another qualitative "does the dome care or doesnt it" post. I'm trying to understand where the program's weaknesses have been on the most basic levels. Do we have the means? Do we have the motive? Do we have the opportunity? What is lacking, and is it within the program's power and the overall university's mission to correct those differences?

locked

288 views

But I am convinced more than ever that college football is a QBs game.

And some of you may argue that I am simplying this way too much. But.

The QB position has been our problem.

And Kelly obviously wears that responsibility. I would love to see our offense with a guy like Andrew Luck, or Matt Barkely running it.

A guy mobile enough to move around, but with the skill set both of those guys have.

I'm pretty sure if we had one of those two QBs---discussions about our process, our university's comittment to winning--would all be tabled.

It's funny how this game works. At Iowa State, Gene Chizik is a losing coach with little or no thought of being a "great coach"----give him Cam Newton, and he wins the NC, and Auburn fans are building statues of both of them.

locked

204 views

As you suggest, one is to have Superman as your QB. An RG3 or Andrew Luck or Brady Quinn can paper over deep, deep flaws.

The other is to build up so much talent and depth on your entire roster that you can afford to make the QB position irrelevant.

locked

203 views

As you suggest, one is to have Superman as your QB. An RG3 or Andrew Luck or Brady Quinn can paper over deep, deep flaws.

The other is to build up so much talent and depth on your entire roster that you can afford to make the QB position irrelevant.

I can see how the first model fits a 2011 Baylor or 2010 Auburn, and I can see how the second fits a 2011 LSU.

But where do 2010 and 2011 Oregon go? While their talent is nothing to balk at, is it really enough to put them in the second category? And their QB isn't required to be superman.

Is there a third "system" category?

locked

196 views

Execution puts you on a fairly even playing field vs raw talent. Boise State, TCU, OSU, Stanford, Oregon in recent years are what I'm basing this on.

Player development takes you to the next level, and then "special talents" increase the odds of taking it over the top. This is why I think Shaw can keep the machine running without Luck as long as the fundamentals are still in place. With those in place, youve got an 8-9 win "floor" to build from and go out and try to get the next Luck.

Its a virtuous cycle, but you have to put the pieces in place. It doesnt happen over night, and it certainly doesnt happen solely because you buy a new coach (unless of course he's a close match to the existing system).

ND's biggest flaw over the past 15 years has been the constant lurching. Davie ball, something else, West Coast offense, Pro-Style, Spread. 3-4! no 4-3! no hybrid! no 4-3!

locked

152 views

Your examples are flawed.

Execution puts you on a fairly even playing field vs raw talent. Boise State, TCU, OSU, Stanford, Oregon in recent years are what I'm basing this on.

Kellen Moore, Andy Dalton, Brandon Weedon, and Andrew Luck are pretty much "superstar" QBs in terms of their collegiate abilities. Yes, each fit very well into the program he was asked to run, maybe so much so that the program made the QB as much as the QB made the program (except luck). Or maybe it was a synergy of talented QB and program tailored to that QB's talent. But in all cases except Oregon, it has yet to be shown that the team can keep up the same level of success in the years after the QB leaves. Yes, TCU beat Boise this year; they also had some bad losses. It will be interesting to watch each of these schools and to see what they do as they move on without their QB.

locked

149 views

Im proposing that any of those teams with average quarterback play wins 8-10 games a season, and has ND sweating bullets the night before the game.

Its not about contending every year with a capital C. Its about contending every year by putting yourself in a position to succeed. Teams with depth and system knowledge (those TCU system numbers were crazy) have the advantage.

locked

140 views

I like that Patterson doesn't really want players to see the field until year 3 in his program. And that the players buy into that. Gives him a bunch of 21-23 year old guys out there with solid heads on their shoulders. That's a nice system, right there. But takes a while to build.

locked

136 views

I think that counter example falls somewhere between 1 and 2. You're right though, Chip Kelly has done a fabulous job of making QB play systematic. However, what's really interesting about that offense is that they do a deceptively good job of minimizing the QB.

2009
Masoli - 305 pass attempts, 121 rushing attempts
Costa - 33 pass attempts, 16 rushing attempts
QB touches - 475 (53.6%)
non-QB touches - 410 (46.4%)

2010
Thomas - 361 pass attempts, 93 rushing attempts
Costa - 33 pass attempts, 20 rushing attempts
QB touches - 507 (49.6%)
non-QB touches - 517 (50.4%)

2011
Thomas - 339 pass attempts, 56 rushing attempts
Bennett - 46 pass attempts, 23 rushing attempts
QB touches - 464 (45.8%)
non-QB touches - 550 (54.2%)

The Ducks focus on the ground attack and get more yardage on the ground than through the air. Contrast that to Baylor. RG accounted for 581 of the team's 1000 touches and that Baylor accumulated 1500 more passing than rushing yards.

So while Oregon's strengths are on offense, they don't run anywhere near as QB centric an offense as others. I would suggest they're sort of a mid-point between #1 and #2.

locked

171 views

It'll be interesting to see if ND goes this route (which would make sense, given Martin's supposed heavier reliance on the run and the new slot/RB grouping under Alford) or end up closer to #1. I guess it kinda depends on where we end up at QB next fall.

locked

157 views

On all levels, football is becoming a game that relies on a great QB on offense and on the ability to rattle/get to a QB on defense (whether by great coverage that gives the DL time to get there or by a great DL that gets there on its own).

And forget Luck or Barkley. If ND had Kirk Cousins the last 2 years, I think we would have gone 9-3, 10-2 and be viewed as ascendent.

locked

185 views

Isn't next year the real test of whatever it is that Stanford's "established"? Isn't it just as likely that they Lucked into a generational QB and rode him to two BCS bowls?

How is Stanford 2010-2011 different from ND 2005-2006?

locked

208 views

They've managed to parlay their success into a few pretty damn good recruiting classes, including one of the better OL hauls in recent memory. Time will tell whether they can maintain this level, but for now, they look like they're in pretty good shape to succeed for a long while.

locked

189 views

Sure, Shaw maintained last year's class but it was built up on Harbaugh's efforts.

I doubt that Stanford will drop off into the Will Harris or Buddy Teavens morass, but I also doubt they'll be in BCS contention on a regular basis.

locked

196 views

the big difference is that Stanford accomplished what they did with a cultural transformation of the program on both sides of the ball that did NOT exist in 2005 or 2006 at ND and which led to our downfall. Stanford is a tough, physical, sound team. They will likely experience some carryover as a result -- and much more than we carried over from 2006 to 2007 (though, of course, there were other issues, too). But if that 2007 team had Stanford's mentality from the last two years, they could have gone 6-6 or so.

locked

194 views

But again, Stanford' ascension very conveniantly aligns with Andrew Luck. The next two years are the real tale of the tape for what the purported cultural transformation buys them.

locked

180 views

He recruited Luck. He helped develop him. Most important, he fundamentally changed the culture of Stanford football to where a guy like Luck didn't have to carry Stanford on his back all by himself because he was supported by a pounding running game and physical defense that has essentially never existed at the school. Luck was a huge piece of Harbaugh's plan, but in the end he was just a piece. Harbaugh built that program to last, and if Shaw is a good coach, then it will last.

locked

179 views

Don't forget-in 2007, that Stanford team lost to the worst Notre Dame team of all time.

locked

174 views

In his third year, Harbaugh made a jump of three wins from the previous season, after winning just four and five games in the first two years. I'd like to think Kelly is capable of something like that, but I doubt the schedule or the QB situation will allow for it, unfortunately. What he must do is continue to build the program in ways that wins don't necessarily show, get the QB spot straightened out, and gear up for a serious run in 2013.

locked

174 views

draft, for sure. But they aren't going to dive back to 3-9 territory very quickly.

locked

176 views

But will they receed into 8-5 territory? If they do, then what does Stanford really teach us?

locked

175 views

you need a truly great coach. If Harbaugh had stayed, there wouldn't be receding, at least not significantly so. We too have institutional disadvantages, but we also have advantages that Stanford simply can't compete with.

locked

175 views

I'm sure some will read this as a "rah-rah", enabling, blindly supportive manifesto for Brian Kelly and mediocrity. But who I am aiming this at is the group in the middle, those who haven't completely made up their minds, in either direction, about this athletic administration and coaching staff.

One of the most fundamental problems is a set of expectations that match what is being achieved at Alabama, Florida, USC, etc., that is combined with a recent past that is more Michigan State, Stanford, etc.

In the three years before Brian Kelly took over, the football team went 16-21. In the five years before he took over, 35-27. In the ten years before he took over, 70-52. So that's a range of terrible to thoroughly mediocre.

There have been times when I silently wished that what idiots like Wilbon said was true, that Notre Dame was irrelevant. But because of the heights of our past, that just will never happen. Whatever happens, good or bad, at Notre Dame is done so in the spotlight of national interest and exposure. And at the right time and place, that can be an awesome positive. At other times, a crippling negative.

Kelly has gone 8-5 in each of his first two years. The pros and cons of those results have been dissected and debated endlessly both here and in all corners of the Notre Dame football universe.

What is factually undeniable is that Kelly has equaled, in two years, the total number of wins that the program managed in the three years before he took over.

What is factually undeniable is that Kelly took over a quarterback situation that was, in terms of experience and number of scholarship QBs on the roster, significantly worse than what Weis, Willingham, Davie, Holtz, or Faust did.

What is factually undeniable is that Kelly took over a defense that, in 2009, was quite possibly the worst in the history of the program.

What is factually undeniable is that Kelly took over a team that had won 6 games on the backs of, almost exclusively, two players. And those players were leaving early for the NFL.

What is facutally undeniable is that Kelly has made some painful mistakes over the course of his first two seasons.

The thing that concerns me most is that, in a time when college athletics and football in particular, is dominated by teams, and a league, that truly doesn't care about cheating, oversigning, paying for elite players, paying coordinators what head coaches in other leagues make, etc., the fan base is more impatient, more pissed off, more agitated, as a whole, then I can remember.

While the question remains as to whether Kelly can be an elite coach, I have little doubt that by his fifth year he will have a program that has a strong foundation and will be capable of moving forward at a clip that at the very least sees us winning in the area of 9 games per season. Is that THE GOAL? No, it's not. Is that what made Notre Dame in years gone by? No, it's not. But I think it's somewhere we have to get if we are ever going to have a shot at making it all the way back.

The fan base, and this could be my misreading of the situation, seems to consider Kelly's first two years a failure along the lines of what Michigan went through with Rodriguez. The idea that a coach that has gone 16-10 might be on the hot seat, whether it be real or imagined, is mind boggling. It's not like this is Ron Zook taking over for Steve Spurrier.

And it's not hard for natural born enemies of Notre Dame to pick up on all of this chatter. What scares me is that they, to even greater impact, will continue to use this self created angst and vitriol against us.

I don't know, maybe this is just me rambling, but I don't feel very good about ND's ability to suffer through the growing pains that I personally think the program has to endure in order to get back on our feet.

locked

348 views

While the question remains as to whether Kelly can be an elite coach, I have little doubt that by his fifth year he will have a program that has a strong foundation and will be capable of moving forward at a clip that at the very least sees us winning in the area of 9 games per season. Is that THE GOAL? No, it's not. Is that what made Notre Dame in years gone by? No, it's not. But I think it's somewhere we have to get if we are ever going to have a shot at making it all the way back.

Both the ND administration and the ND fanbase need to get this drummed into their heads and need to view the Kelly era in this light. We've been mediocre or worse since 1994 (with seasons of "return to glory" promise mixed in that were followed by shit sandwiches). That's 17 years of mediocrity. It was 15 when Kelly arrived; have we seen any change in the last two that would indicate that problems underlying the mediocrity are being fixed, even if the changes are not bearing fruit on the field yet? I say yes; it is my understanding that others see nothing changing.

At some point, we need to get to where we are consistently a 9-win team. That'll mean a few 7-5s mixed in with a few 11-1s, but consistently we're in that range instead of sporting 5-7s or 3-9s. We can't vault from where we are today to being back in the top 10 in 3 years. Just can't happen, and no reference to 1964 or 1987 is going to make me think otherwise.

locked

170 views

The entire point of consistency is not mixing 7-5s with 11-1s. We need to be satisfied with our regular season record falling between 8-4 and 10-2 for the next 4-5 years (2011 can be year no. 1, although it needs to be the low end of the spectrum).

Below that 1-2 more times and we start looking for a new coach. Above that would be great, but we shouldn't make that the expectation and call everything else "failure."

locked

158 views

8-4 is good enough right now. I will say that, but the time is running out. fix the foundation and build a new base.

Evaulate the trajectory of the program closer to the end of the first 5 years. We arent even halfway.

locked

149 views

...we have to acknowledge that sometimes things will go to shit. Like in 1994, for example. Here's Lou's run:

5-6
8-4
12-0
12-1
9-3
10-3
10-1-1
11-1
6-5-1
9-3
8-3

So two years to gear up; then a great run where, other than that one year, we didn't lose more than 3. I agree that it would be best to never lose more than 3, but sometimes things go to shit and you get a 1994. While ND fandom was turning against Holtz then ("the game has passed him by," and "throw to the tight end" being two of the more-remembered statements), I think he rebounded from the 6-5-1 pretty damned well and would have continued with the 3-loss or better seasons from there.

I guess I just want to leave room for a bad season now and then without us going nutty. You're right though that the Davie-esque bouncing up and down does nothing for us.

locked

153 views

I was thinking in terms of a five to seven year period, starting in 2010. The two 8-5 seasons were improvements over 2007-2009, but we need to take another half step to get to the consistent 9-4 or 10-3 seasons. Once we have 4-5 of those under our belt, we have a little more room to take a step back - although at that point I'd like us to take the next step and start competing for titles.

But the overall point is the same. Stringing together decent to good seasons would be an improvement and is crucial for the program to work its way back - but we need to have the patience to let it happen.

locked

139 views

- No text -

locked

127 views

On a serious note a well constructed and thought out post. Excellent job as usual of stripping away the emotion and getting to the fact(s).

locked

196 views

with some thoughts.

Switch one of several plays in 2011 in our favor and we're looking at a solid 9-4 record, which is approximately in the wheelhouse of the "consistency" that you're looking for. For that reason, I feel like 2011 could be the first year of real program building if we let it be that.

Seasons like last one need to be the low ebb, but say we go 9-4, 10-3, 10-3, 9-4 over the next four years - at the point 2011's 8-5 (hell, 2010's 8-5) suddenly look like part of that pattern rather than the 3-9, 7-6, 6-6 one. And we now have 6 seasons of acting like a real football team under our belt and, as fans, we can start expecting the next step.

Basically what I'm saying is the last two seasons could be looked at either as the continuation of mediocrity or the beginning of a more solid program. It really depends whether we can establish more consistency over the next several seasons.

locked

175 views

- No text -

locked

170 views

- No text -

locked

180 views

the Polo Grounds

I'm probably wrong about this...

I think there's two models for success right now

question

I'm arguing for a system category

I get your overall argument, but...

Let me rephrase

Gotcha

that's a very good counter-example

not a bad model to follow.

Take out the word "college"

aren't we overreading Stanford's success just a bit?

Sure, but since Harbaugh left

into one good recruing class

In terms of being a one (OK, two)-hit wonder, yeah. But,

what you say is certainly possible

Harbaugh deserves most of the credit

And it took time

True

And it will taper without Luck and the two OL going into the

they won't go into the toilet

That when you have institutional disadvantages...

The window at ND is ridiculously, painfully, small.

You touched on what I think is the key to rebuilding ND

One nit

We should think twice before we dismiss Chan Gaileydom

OK. But...

I guess I wasn't really thinking about a 10 year period

Very nice words

Enabler. You're part of the problem

Going to replace my generic "excellent post"

well said

Very good post. I'll cosign all of that.