Rockne's Roundtable

There are rumblings about it but I don't know yet about a pending announcement. I've said all along that the ACC would seem to be the most sensible route.

However, it was always my understanding that it was going to "all in" to join the ACC, and to leave football out would not be acceptable. We even had former ACC commissioner (and ND AD) Gene Corrigan on the Irish Huddle saying that to take ND without football would go against the grain.

But dynamics can change, so nothing would surprise me by now on that end.

What style of play can we expect to see from ACC teams in general? Speed, smash mouth style football?

mack9710,

That's pretty broad ranging, and a lot depends on the coaching staff. For example, Boston College has prided itself over the last 15 years as a physical, smash-mouth team. But what if there is a coaching change there this year and they hire a "spread coach"?

Georgia Tech runs the triple-option with Paul Johnson, who did the same at Navy. Clemson likes to spread the field with receivers, as does Florida State. North Carolina State with Tom O'Brien takes on the physical approach that he had at Boston College, and Randy Edsall is of the same genre at Maryland, as is Paul Chryst at Pitt.

Other than Georgia Tech's triple option, it would seem the theory is relatively the same in today's football. Everyone's first preference is to be able to run the football, but the skill sets seem to be leaning more toward the pass. Finding the right balance between the two, and being able to be effective with both, is the objective.

NDLax,

What I'm about to give you probably won't matter to him because my guess is he will say I'm not objective because I'm an ND grad.

In answer to your first question, ND's policy is to only include those titles that were known as "consensus."
Anyway, here we go Let me know how his reaction:

The answer is if you use every poll system ever used since the birth of football in 1869 —wire services, historical research documents, mathematical rating systems — Princeton has the most with 28 and Yale 27. Princeton was awarded 20 titles from 1869-99, and Yale had 19 prior to 1900.

The last one for Princeton was 1950 (Boand and Poling), and the last for Yale was 1927 (a poll simply called Football Research).
As for 1900 through 2011, there are three different ways one can count national titles:

System No.1: Every Poll Ever Used/Recognized
There have been approximately 30 different rating systems charted in the NCAA record book. This cheapens titles — including some for Notre Dame and Alabama. Here are two examples, one for each school:
In 1967, the Dunkel System awarded the national title to Notre Dame over consensus champion USC — even though the Trojans finished 10-1 while the Irish were 8-2. Moreover, the Trojans won in Notre Dame Stadium, 24-7. It defies explanation how Dunkel (begun in 1929 as a power index rating system) could reach its conclusion while omitting common sense.

In 1941, there were 15 different services that awarded a national title, and Minnesota was recognized as the “consensus” champion because 12 different organizations (including AP) voted the 8-0 Golden Gophers No. 1. Two gave the nod to 8-1-1 Texas (4th in the AP) and one gave it to 9-2 Alabama — an organization named Houlgate (1927-58), a mathematical rating system developed by Deke Houlgate of Los Angeles, Calif., and syndicated to newspapers.
Alabama finished No. 20 in the AP poll with a 9-2 record and shutout losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt — yet it still claims it as “a national title year.”

There have been several years where five or six teams were recognized as "national champions" by one unrecognized poll or another.
The University of Miami won the Berryman and Sagarin poll in 1988 over Notre Dame, despite losing to 12-0 Notre Dame.
Meanwhile, Notre Dame earned No. 1 recognition in 1993 from Matthews Grid Rating over consensus champion Florida State, which had lost in November to the Irish. Schools will sometimes publicize these “national titles” in their media guide to highlight what most would deem a bogus title.

Although Notre Dame received some national title notice in 1919 and 1920, its first consensus title was with Knute Rockne in 1924. That was the season the “Four Horsemen and Seven Mules” defeated Stanford in the Rose Bowl and were rated No. 1 in 10 of the 11 polls used back then. (Penn won the Parke Davis poll that season.)

For the record, here are the top 10 national champions from 1900-2011 if you used every one of these polls as a reference: Notre Dame (21), Alabama (18), Michigan, Oklahoma and USC (16), Ohio State (12), Nebraska and Pittsburgh (11), Princeton and Yale (8).

System No. 2: Two Wire Service Polls

The Associated Press poll began in 1936, and the United Press International (UPI) — now known as the USA Today/ESPN Coaches’ poll — sprung up in 1950. They became the mainstays of national title recognition by the NCAA.

However, until 1968 with the AP and 1974 with the UPI, bowl games did not factor into the equation (except in 1965 for the AP). Notre Dame did not go to bowl games from 1925 through 1968 in great part because bowl games had no bearing on the national title. The 1966 Notre Dame squad didn’t have to play in a bowl to be voted the consensus national champ.

The year after the AP started voting after bowl games, Notre Dame returned to the bowl scene for the first time in 45 years.

Consequently, Texas can claim a national title in 1970 even though it lost 24-11 to Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl. That's because the UPI, unlike the AP, awarded national titles prior to the bowl games. The Longhorns finished the 1970 regular season ranked No. 1 in the UPI. This practice by the UPI ceased in 1974.

Thus, Alabama also was the 1973 UPI national champion even though it lost to Notre Dame, 24-23, in the Sugar Bowl. Because the AP did vote after bowls, Notre Dame was the AP champion. It also was awarded the Grantland Rice Award (Football Writers Association of America) and The MacArthur Bowl (National Football Foundation & Hall of Fame), both emblematic of national titles. Notre Dame’s national title was deemed “consensus.”

However, Alabama still has the right to proclaim 1973 as a "national championship season" because of the UPI. The Crimson Tide also claimed the 1964 national title — both AP and UPI — even though it lost 21-17 to Texas in the Orange Bowl. Again, neither the AP nor UPI voted after bowls back then, so it’s almost like the bowl games were glorified exhibitions.

The Top 10 national champions in the AP and the USA Today/ESPN Coaches poll (formerly UPI) are: Alabama (9, eight with AP and the 1973 vote with UPI) Notre Dame (8), USC and Oklahoma (7), Miami, Nebraska and Ohio State (5), Texas and Minnesota (4), Florida and LSU (3), Florida State, Michigan, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Army, Tennessee and Auburn (2).

System No. 3: The Big Four 

Two other entities eventually joined the AP, and USA Today/ESPN/Coaches poll (formerly UPI) as the four that are officially recognized by the NCAA when it comes to awarding national titles.

Since 1954, The Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) has presented the Grantland Rice Award. And since 1959, The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame has awarded the MacArthur Bowl.
Since 1971, both of these organizations have had the same consensus champion as the AP or coaches poll, but there were exceptions prior to that.
• The Football Writers Association of America in 1970 awarded the MacArthur Bowl to Ohio State — even though the Buckeyes lost 27-17 to Stanford in the Rose Bowl.
• In 1964, Notre Dame was presented the MacArthur Bowl — despite the controversial season-ending loss to USC. As with Ohio State in 1970, this is not recognized as a consensus title but as a share of one.
• In fact, in 1964 the AP and UPI voted Alabama No. 1, the MacArthur Bowl was earned by Notre Dame, and the FWAA awarded it to unbeaten Arkansas, which unlike the Crimson Tide and Irish, finished unbeaten. However, Alabama was considered the consensus champ while Notre Dame and Arkansas could claim a share of the national title. Arkansas celebrates 1964 as a “national title year” in its football media guide, whereas Notre Dame does not because it’s not “consensus.”

So when you use “The Big Four” from the NCAA, Notre Dame ties Alabama with nine apiece because of the 1964 MacArthur Bowl that was awarded to the Irish. However, Notre Dame has not recognized that as a “consensus” title, thereby only adding the ones under Knute Rockne from 1924, 1929 and 1930 to the eight others since 1943. If it wanted to, it could publicize as many as 21.

Whatever system or spin doctoring one chooses, Notre Dame still has the most national titles since the start of the 20th century.

The objective hereafter is to find a way to win another in the near future, lest Notre Dame be continued to be ridiculed as a program with a once stellar football tradition — like a Princeton or Yale — that is now living off the perfume of a vanished flower.

bndally,

There is a confluence of factors that have led to this shifting of power to the South. It's really not that much different than when the NFL kept getting top NFL players in the 1950s and 1960s from southern black schools (Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Mean Joe Greene, and dozens of others) ... and suddenly the SEC started saying, 'Hey, we need to start getting that talent to our school" and became integrated by 1971.

The population base also started moving more toward the South (remember, in the 1950s and most of 1960s there wasn't even pro football in the South, before New Orleans, Atlanta and Miami started joining the league in the late 1960s), and the culture gradually shifted.

Here is an ESPN link from Signing Day last February that best encapsulates it. It's very well done.

bndally,

It seems quite a few threads were deleted from this thread with the temporary system screw-up earlier this week. Anyway, hopefully you can open this link that i originally attached.

loutologist i got a two questions 1.why does ND not go after JUCO players? 2. what is a gray shirt and how do colleges apply it ive heard the term talked about by the media as being shady ways to recruit players but i dont understand what they mean.

williammcgraw88,

There is a reason why most football players are enrolled in junior college: Their academics are woefully subpar. Many times the objective is to major in "eligibility." That's not going to fit at Notre Dame, nor for the young man. Even at Ohio State, a backup QB this week tweeted an inquiry about what a waste of time and how worthless classes are — yet he still was admitted into the school. As disinclined as he is academically, he was still good enough to not have to go to a JC. If you're a good player, you have to be pretty bad in the classroom to not get admitted

That's just not going to work here.

Now, I'm not saying it couldn't happen in some unique circumstances. For example, 1980-82 fullback Larry Moriarty came from Santa Barbara JC. After high school, he was injured seriously in a vehicular accident and needed a few years to recuperate and get his schooling in order. He had other family members who had attended the school, including a brother (Kerry), and once he got his life into order, he enrolled when he was 22 years old.

I played Bookstore Basketball at ND with Rickey Gray, who was from famed DeMatha High and a top recruit for Clemson in 1980. However, when he failed there academically, he enrolled at Holy Cross Junior College (now Holy Cross College) across the road from ND, and got his grades up where he was able to transfer to ND and be a quality backup for Mark Bavaro in 1984 and make some crucial catches during a 4-0 regular season finish.

This is not why Notre Dame hasn't thrived for 18 years. Its recruiting classes continually rank among the top 10-15, and oftentimes higher. It has resources and financial wherewithal most schools do not. How many schools can recruit nationally the way Notre Dame does — and take weekly trips to Hawaii to recruit Manti Te'o? You think Purdue, MSU, Pitt, BC could do that?

Whenever I hear ND fans complaining about not being on a "level field" because the Irish don't recruit JUCOs, I think of the guy in his limousine complaining about how the water in his jacuzzi is not as hot as he wanted.

As for gray shirting, that's a process where a school delays the enrollment of a prospect from August until January if its recruiting class is filled up. That way, the individual would not count against the 25-man limit for that season, and be considered almost the first recruit for the following year. Now, if the player wants to, he can enroll on his own dime (or his parents'), but he would be separate from the team and cannot practice with them. It can work in some cases if the finances are there for the family, but in many cases they are not. I've attached a link on an example at Alabama.

dave83nd,

John has had some back problems, and it locked up on him against Miami, and it might be an issue throughout the season. It seems a lot of people were hoping for a Samardzija-like season from him, but what was more realistic was a Robby Parris-like effort in 2009.

Parris made numerous clutch catches that season while he was overshadowed by Tate, Floyd and Rudolph. Goodman made only one grab against Michigan and Michigan State, but man, were they clutch.

I don't think it's about Daniel Smith as much as it is being able to split Tyler Eifert to that W or wide position, especially with Niklas then being able to play as an in-line blocker. Then you can also get TJ and Toma, TJ or Daniels, Daniels and Brown, etc. on the field at the same time, depending on what personnel package you need.

Nothing is more worthless this year than that "starting" lineup at receiver. Goodman and Smith and Eifert started together against Navy because they can overwhelm them with size. Toma and Jones started against Purdue for stability. Brown and Atkinson III were in for the first play against Michigan to provide a speed dimension ...

This year truly epitomizes "receiver by committee."