Rockne's Roundtable

My question is why hasn't Kelly been as succesful yet at ND as his historical W/L percentage?

I think he had a slow start at GVS, but am not sure. If he did, that would imply there was a learning curve. He could currently be in the midst of another learning curve at ND, having perhaps not experiecnced one at the MAC and Big East levels, where the opposition was not as challenging, given his improved skill set.

Though, to be fair, while Kelly dominated the Big East at Cincy, he has been, for the most part, only able to win nail biters against them here.

Still, if Kelly is, indeed, learning on the job -- and it's my sense or guess, really, as per Ham's remarks on the whole issue of seat-of-the-pants expertise -- then he will either replicate his growth leap at GVS, or he won't. But he needs that third year to show us which way it's likely to break. Here's why I say that.

While Rockne, Leahy and Ara didn't need even a second year to prove their mettle, Brennan and Weis, after two good years, proved, in year three, to be false positives. And what's interesting about this is that Kelly fits into neither group.

His record, after two years, is in fact closer to those of Holtz and Davie. While both of those guys appeared to have it going in the right direction after year two, it was only Holtz, as we know, who did.

Three options exist for Kelly next year. He will either morph into Holtz, into Davie or into neither.
I think the chances for neither are the greatest, which is to say he will not win the NC, and probably not even come close. Nor is he likely to have a losing season unless, say, 6 or 7 key players go down.

So, given the schedule versus the team's personnel, 8-5 or 9-4 sure look like reasonable bets. Which, of course, is not the definiion of elite. So, unless, the team has the kind of breakout year it did in 88 and 93, when expectations were much lower than the actual final results, Kelly stands a good chance of not having ND back to elite status going into year 4.

Will that be the new normal for ND? Will ND go with a coach who, while capable of winning at least 8 or 9 games in a 13 game schedule, cannot make it to the next level? Cannot crack 70%? Will it be enough simply not to have losing seasons, while making it each year to a secondary or tertiary bowl? Will the ND football program, indeed, begin to mirror the ND BB program?

As I said earlier, there were never questions about Rockne, Leahy or Ara. And, while Holtz started out slowly, there wasn't much question about him either. One simply believed in the man. One simply did. As for Davie, who ever believed in him?

I have no such belief in Kelly right now either, though I tried one on for size for about a season and a half. Still, I'm hoping the tough sledding at the end of last year was either a question of him not having all the right players or from the temporary lack of something he indeed has, but has not yet shown me.

Regardless of that, right now, the odds, on paper, are against him making it, unless the team comes up big next year, an outcome the odds also do not favor. Unless, of course, ND allows Kelly to make it by lowering its expectations for CFB, i.e. retains him as a kind of Earl Bruce who could.

What I am left with, then, is hope and doubt. And in the face of many unknowns. But none of my comments have anything to do with what kind of fan I am, or how I feel about ND.

Facts are facts. I'm just hoping that "that was then" and "this is now" is not where we're headed next.

Risk, I won't quote your entire, typically insightful post, but I just want to raise a question from a horse player's analytical perspective. In looking at a past performance chart, we don't get nearly so hung up on the final result as is the case in most of the football analysis, which is interesting because, at the track, you don't get to collect money unless your horse wins. So, obviously it's important, but in assessing performance you look at an assortment of variables, including what we call "trouble line", e.g. horse got "stuck" in traffic, and also something called "speed figures" which is a weight adjustment for how fast the horse actually ran. All of which is to say, when one looks at ND's season through this prism, one might logically conclude they "ran faster" than their record. Two factors jump out at me: turnovers and quarterback. Now, at some point, those two overlap, but the lack of defensive turnovers had no relation to the quarterback, and those numbers were abnormally low, with no real causative explanation. Quarterback play, after the first few games, was consistently subpar, probably at a level below anything Kelly experienced elsewhere. So, in that horse player model of performance analysis, ND probably outplayed its record. That's no consolation for last year, and if anything, it adds to the frustration, but looking ahead, it suggests that if those two variables can be remedied, then there will be some surprising improvement. Some statistical studies suggest that there is almost a random element to defensive turnovers from year to year, so one might expect that should improve just as a matter of probability. As for the quarterback, it will get better regardless of who gets the nod, and that even includes Rees, but I'd be very surprised if that's the case. The bottom line? Wearing my horse player hat, if the over under for next year is 8-4, I like the over, even acknowledging a step up in competition with a potentially tougher schedule. The variables that sunk the ship this year, have to get better.

So you agree we are in the top ten..so why didn't we get a top ten class?

This is what happens in the off season. Other than recruiting and speculation there is no new information other than Spring football. Therefore the hive focuses on whatever they can. I love ND football. I just need to see more reps on BK and next year's team before I can form any further opinions.

Risk, I can't project what other teams will look like next year. The future book is fools' gold. Too many surprises, but here's my best guess. Stanford without Luck, and another year away from Harbaugh, starts to concern me less. Michigan was a bit of a smoke and mirrors team this year. I think they are the flip side of the coin that suggests ND played better than their record, as I posited above. MSU will have to get better, but I think they're at a plateau. Miami? Plenty of talent, plenty of problems. Anybody's guess. That leaves OU and USC. No getting around it, either one would be an upset if ND were to win.

Fact is, I'm betting on the if-come here, to borrow another gambling metaphor. I think improved quarterback play will allow Notre Dame to make a major step up in class. The question is, however, will they get that improvement? Some is guaranteed. How much, is the $64 question.

Now, as for your point about recruiting, first of all, I can't compare us to Alabama. Ain't happening. Forget what happened when Holtz was here. That won't happen again in terms of those #1 & #2 classes getting stacked up. The landscape is entirely different, and it tilts away from ND. They do, however, need to be Top 10 three out of every four years. They're close, right now. The program needs a little pizazz to get them over the top. Those kinds of classes will keep them in the BCS conversation, and occasionally give them a legitimate shot at the brass ring.

Which brings us to coaching. First of all, I don't like Kelly's sideline presence, either, but then I don't think much of Saban's, so what does that tell me? Belicheck is stoic, Coughlin looks like he's sucking on a lemon, and ready to spit out nails, but they both made it to the final table. Too many conflicting images on the sidelines to allow me to use it as a barometer. Beyond that, Kelly's performance has been mixed, to be sure. But, two years means next to nothing to me, particularly after I thought Weis was the guy after his two. Unless Kelly lays an enormous egg after year four, he'll get his five, but I'm betting we'll know after four whether he's got "it", or not. Some, of course, are convinced now, in both directions. That's a bet I wouldn't make with LELLY's money.

As for the horses, stick to the rocks.

Ham, I agree that ND played better than its record last year, but the jury is still out on whether Kelly can close, win signature games, or even kick-start the team out the gate.

The better/new QB scenario should bring greater value, but, unless its Rees again, God forbid, there will also be a steep learning curve, which could wash out any ability or improvement advantage.

As for those key six matchups, I'll concede ND should be better on paper than MSU and Miami, but that still doesn't remove the threat of an upset by either of them. I will go you one better with UM and say they have won three years in a row, not just one, with smoke and mirrors, which, at the same time, though, would indicate that they have our number. With Dennard, three could just as easily turn into four. And I agree that for ND to beat either OU or USC, it will probably take an upset or a TKO.

As for Stanford, they remind me of the Pittsburgh teams of the 70's, the ones Johnny Majors revived, and which were not supposed to survive his departure. The thing was, Majors had breathed such new life into the program that Jackie Sherrill took over from where Majors left off, and Pittsburgh became good again for about 10 more years. The same thing could happen at Stanford, as I see Harbaugh as not only having turned them into a winner on his own watch, but also as having gotten them over a significant hump as a program.

As for yourself, though you didn't state it, it looks like you're comfortable in the neighborhood of 10-2 for next year, with losses, most likely to OU and USC. Is that a reasonable inference?

On the recruiting side, if you don't see competition with Alabama as likely, then beating Alabama, the next time the two teams play, should be an even taller order. From that, I would also infer that you see ND, at best, as being possibly a somewhat regular BCS contender, but with a lot less chance of ever again playing in an NC game.

But here's a wrinkle. The ND recruiting class that just graduated was ranked just behind Alabama's that year. Was that, in your view, an anomaly, or could that be replicated should we see a little of that pizzazz you talked about? And if they can do it once, and then win big, they could conceiably do it again, could they not? Go #1 or #2 in recruiting in stacked years, I mean.

My take is that if ND can win, period, it might light a fire that could take it all the way back. The problem is it's a mighty big -- and, maybe, almost impossible -- IF, and, after watching the team torment itself and its fans this past year, particularly toward the end, my faith in Kelly -- which I simply had declared on the basis of his record -- was shaken. I mean, some of the losses had an almost Faust-like or even Kuharich-like feel to them. Defeat snatched from victory.

But momentum born of tipping points is a funny, funny thing. When the worm turns, he turns. If, of course, he ever does turn. No one can time the market, it seems, or sports turnarounds.

Bottom line, I remain hopeful, yet, at the root, somewhat more pessimistic.

The reason we aren't pulling top classes every year is because we aren't doing enough on the field. Until we get results on the field our hard sell is academics and tradition, while both of those are great to have it's not what the majority of the top players are looking for. You want academics go to Stanford where they are winning. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed how far Stanford has come on the recruiting trail in only a few years. The kids that use to pick ND are now going to Stanford more and more. Is Stanford legit on the field? We'll find that out over the next few years. Another aspect that does not favor us is Indiana doesn't exactly push out top notch players like other states. I will say it's getting better, but look at the kids in the "13" class Smith, Kimbrough, Latham, and Daniels only one has been offered and we are by no means the clear cut leader for any. We'll learn a lot about where we stand this recruiting cycle in IL. There is a load of talent that we have to fight UM and national powers for. The days of ND owning IL might be a thing of the past. Ohio is also loaded this year and right now we have very few offers out to Ohio kids. UM and tOSU are the major players here. Is our recruiting strategy wrong, I can't answer that yet. Hoke and Urbs just made it that much more difficult, that I do know. OSU will not be recruiting the same as past staffs did. That means more Ohio kids will be left to go elsewhere we better become more of an option than I'm seeing now.

Great stuff, Risk. I'll try to go point by point. I'd also like to be succinct, but brevity often eludes me.

- Agreed, jury is still out on Kelly.

- Yes, there will be a steep learning curve with a young QB. Occasionally, you do get a phenom. That's the joker in the deck, and the reason I wouldn't bet a nickel on an ND future bet right now.

- Michigan and Denard? We stopped them for 3 quarters. We will likely have an improved front seven, and can an inexperienced secondary hurt us any more than Gray did last year? It's at home. I like ND.

- Stanford? Good analogy, and there will be a "halo" effect from Harbaugh which lingers. However, there won't be one from Luck. That's a big pair of cleats to fill. At home, I like ND's chances here, too.

- Record next year? Losses to USC and OU, plus one we let get away, so I'd say 9-3, contingent on reasonable QB play. Absent that, 7-5.

- Yes, I see BCS as the likely neighborhood for an improved ND. The NC game? Nobody makes it with regularity, but there are seven or eight you figure to be in the hunt nearly every year. Can ND elevate to that rarified air? Possibly. They need to catch lightning in the bottle one of these years, and make that first legitimate run toward the title to give them the kind of cachet that tips the scales in their favor with some elite recruits who are looking beyond ND right now. They still don't have a shot at all of them because of academics, which you noted elsewhere, but that has always been the case. I think that "one big year" on the field which would give a bump to recruiting is largely dependent on QB play. If Golson or Kiel can eventually deliver Luck or Barkley kinds of performance, that might just do it, because the complementary pieces are starting to fall into place. But, recruiting classes ranked 1 or 2 in consecutive years? I find that very unlikely.

- Your line about a "tipping point" is very telling. Few here believe it, but ND is close. The kind of football they played last year was significantly different from what we've seen for many years, until opposing coaches caught up with the offense's limitations. No, they couldn't close when they needed to, but that's not a permanent affliction. Look at Brey's basketball program. For years, they struggled to close in games they were poised to win. It would drive me crazy. Plus, they were full of defensive liabilities. However, for the past 2+ years they have the look of an entirely different team. Did Brey change up something in his coaching? Was he able to identify and recruit players that brought a different ethic to the floor? Whatever the case may be, if football can do the same, they will enjoy success at a much higher level, because ND basketball has a very defined talent ceiling whereas football can bring in first-tier talent. I prefer to look at year 3 of Brian Kelly without any predetermined, or in the case of my friend, Hodges, "fatalistic" conclusions. I just want to sit back and experience the ride.

Ham,

Nice job acing the mid-term. First of all, you had to plow through that whole interrogation and, second, lay it all out, which you did.

As usual, you made a very persuasive case for your position. And it's also credible. I see it as a best case, with my 8-4 the median case, should chance continue to be as unkind to ND as it has the last several seasons.

6-6 would be the bottom falling out: injuries, ineligibilities, suspensions, etc.

But you are right, a change could be in the wind. And good for you for not succumbing to what you describe as fatalism. It is a hard tendency to resist these days, one I have been slipping toward, more and more, myself.

But the thing I think you articulated best was in one of your earlier posts where you said, by year four, the latest, we would know if Kelly has "it." I think we will know by next year. While most "its" show up almost immediately, there can sometimes be a lag, and, I hope, for all our sakes, that Kelly's is, indeed, a later blooming "it", but "it" nonetheless.

Thanks for paying the kind of attention you do to all of this and for an honest and stimulating exchange.

"Maybe it is just me."

I agree totally.