Rockne's Roundtable

Agreed--lets get to even consider being part of a 4-team discussion. I'm wondering how far we are off that possibility, let alone winning out 2 from that point.

With that talent, Yes you could!!

Coach CFT,

Unfortunately, in 1990 Notre Dame was ranked No. 5 with a 9-2 record, so it doesn't appear they would have made the cut, at least from the outside looking in.

In 1989, I would have like ND's chances better than in 1988.

Lou,

I found myself in yester-year while reading your post, then I woke up and said to myself, "Self, stop being an arse!" We haven't sniffed the NC picture since 1988 and it certainly isnt going to happen in 2012. Now, 2013, assuming the heir apparent (EG) at QB learns the plays and takes a leadership role in the offense, could have us thinking and even competing in a yester-year type of mode!!

Sorry, didn't know how to delete this so I edited it all out.

I am curious about something, and I ask this respectfully: Where is this "huge upgrade" business coming from along the offensive line? What is the evidence that we are basing this on beyond just the usual rhetoric?

Brian Kelly used "upgrade" about three times during the press conference when he introduced the new coaches, and frankly it came across as petty.

I understand that's part of the coach speak with any new hiring, but Ed Warinner has proven himself to be a pretty doggone good coach. He was part of constantly overachieving teams at Air Force and was a line coach/coordinator of a Kansas staff that went 12-1 a few years ago. KANSAS!!!! Try going 12-1 and finishing in the top 10 at Kansas sometime. And if Warinner was so bad, why did Urban Meyer — he of two national titles in three years plus a 12-0 season at Utah — hire such chopped liver? Wasn't it just two years ago when Kelly was asked what surprised him the most, his reply was the offensive line that had to find several new starters and seemed to acclimate so well to change. How could that be?

I'm sure Harry Hiestand is a fine coach in his own right, and he too has a fine background. These men are professionals and have been in the business for a couple decades.

Why does there always have to be these shots at predecessors, especially when nothing has been achieved on the field yet? This is why ND fans get mocked so often. They're seen like Jackie Gleason on The Honeymooners — "This time, Alice, I've found the perfect idea! We're going to be rich! — and then it becomes the same old story.

Ed Warinner is a fine, proven coach. Harry Hiestand is a fine, proven coach. They come and they go. Let's move forward and start doing it on the field instead of with constant verbiage trying to convince ourselves that this time we got it right.

"When we're good, I won't have to tell you." — Lou Holtz, circa 1988.

Polls are still gigantically biased, ie coaches voting in their own interests, and the biggest part of the BCS formula. Supposedly are going to look at schedule strength, but voters only look at wins and losses unless they play almost nothing but cupcakes like Boise. So our tough schedules might hurt us there unless lose 1 or less.

Still our name allows us more votes which always helps. The biggest conferences should cause more teams to lose, which will help.

Bottomline if we deserve it by record, this will help since it is 2 more spots. If we have no more than 2 losses voters will like us regardless of the competition because of our history. May need more realistic schedule to give us the best shot though or finally put out a really good team. In terms of other good bowls it depends on how well we have to do if they change it at all.

Lou, under a BCS type of computer system that weighs strength of schedule, I believe ND would've made the top 4 in 1990. The human polls had them at 5 with wins @ SEC champ Tennessee, @ P10 champ USC, B10 champ Michigan and Miami. I would think between the SOS component and the computer rankings, that would've bumped us up 1 spot into the top 4 where we would've played #1 Colorado in the semis which we ended up doing anyway and losing 10-9.

Simm,

I thought the same about the 1990 team, but you never know. The wins were very impressive, but two home losses (one of them to a 5-6 Stanford team) might have kept it where it was.

The final poll had No. 1 Colorado (10-1-1), No. 2 Georgia Tech (10-0-1), No. 3 Miami (9-2) and No. 4 Texas (10-1).

Colorado won a controversial game against Missouri in which it was mistakenly awarded a fifth down, but the computers and human element polls didn't take that into account. Georgia Tech's SOS was low in the ACC, but it couldn't be matched up with Colorado in the Orange Bowl because of the automatic tie-ins to bowls back then. I found it odd that 9-2 Miami was ahead of 9-2 ND when the Irish had defeated Miami 29-20 on Oct. 20.

Would today's polls have had ND in the top 4 in 1990? I can't say that for sure. Miami beat FSU in 2000 — yet it was FSU that was chosen over Miami to play Oklahoma for the national title that year even though both the 'Noles and Hurricanes only lost once.

I would have liked ND's chances more in '89 and '93 — and even '92 — in a four-team playoff than in 1988. That 1990 team was immensely talented but, according to some seniors I talked to, had more a sense of entitlement. Plus, the chemistry was hardly the same between DC Gary Darnell and Holtz the way it was with Barry Alvarez and Holt.