Apparently I touched a nerve

I was unaware that a post completely filled with facts (and obvious questions relating to those facts) was able to strike such a nerve with people who have apparently completely obliterated from their mind the tremendous hype surrounding Notre Dame football after the 2002 season. My last entry in no way denigrated anything Charlie Weis did this year. But apparently pointing out what was going on in Willingham's first year is blasphemy around an Irish fan.

Here are some facts comparing 2002 with 2005:
1) 2002 was a more difficult schedule
2) 2002 team beat better teams
3) both Ty and Charlie were taking over for what was considered the worst coach in ND's modern era
4) 2002 had a better record


Far be it from me to take a team with a better record against better competition and somehow deem them to be a better team. Those are just facts and I'm putting 2 and 2 together here.

As for leaving out facts, seems the only fact that the responders wish I included was a way of measuring # of blowouts in any given direction. Well, how about this fact? Baseball stat heads keep track of pythagorean winning percentage. If you are familiar with the method, ND 2002 had an estimated winning percentage of 64% and ND 2005 clocked in at 69%. Considering it's a sample size of 13 and 12 games respectively, it isn't even statistically significant.

So no, I don't really have an opinion of Weis other than he appeared to be very good at scoring points against teams that turned out to not be very good. The easy schedule wasn't his fault. But it will be interesting to see how he does when he happens to face a tough schedule. And no, bringing up the near victory against USC isn't proof of anything. Fresno State had them on the ropes in LA late in the 4th quarter and they trailed in numerous games this year. They were very good, but almost beating them at home is, as Charlie himself would say, the same as any other loss.

Sorry to offend anybody. But if you'd like to compare CVs, I'd be happy to.