The Bunkering at The National

[Kalen Braley]

Pat 6-3 is clearly on the mediocre side given NDs prominence thru the decades where they were constantly try to win national championships. I guess one can be more content by simply lowering thier standards, but I suspect this really isn't the case for ND fans.

There tends to be an ebb and flow in college football and other sports.
USC has enjoyed great success for about the last 10 years, but, look at how they fared the previous 10 years.

But if you want some facts and figures.  As of now Charlie Weis has a .603 winning %. 
Both Bob Davie and and Tyrone Willingham were within .20, with .583% winning percentages and those guys were both ran out of town. 

When you rely on ESPN for your data base, there's a lot your missing.
Davie was a nice fellow who had never been a head coach.  And, he wasn't run out of town, his five year contract expired and wasn't renewed.
He inherited a pretty strong program and didn't make the quantum leap from assistant to head coach.
Willingham was another nice fellow, but, a default candidate and a mistake, unless you feel that his tenure at Washington established him as a good coach.

Is it your considered opinion that Davie and Willingham were good to great coaches and should have remained at the helm at ND ?

So are you going to try to tell me Charlie Weis is all of a sudden a far better coach when he is only a hair better than these two also-rans?

To answer that question, one must look at Weis's entire body of work, which is impressive.
In addition, this is his first year with his team.
I'm content to let him continue as ND's coach.
The interesting thing is that so many anti-ND fans want him fired.  Why do you think that is ? 

I also get a big chuckle how Weis is given credit for the good things that he did with "Willinghams players", yet also gets spared the hook when the bad things happened because after all it wasn't Weis' fault because he had "Willinghams players".

I think that's called making the best of a bad situation.

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

Really ?
                   BYU    ND

2005            23      49
2004            20      17
2003            14      33

Like your favorite source, ESPN, perhaps you have your facts confused.
 
And, are you sure that you're not jealous that ND graduates 94 % of its football players and that BYU's graduation rate for their football players is only 56 % ?

I know you're not going to try to compare historical schedules, are you ?

Pat,

Charlie Weis' winning % is basically identical to those two mentioned...and ND fans/folks couldn't wait to get rid of em.  Why they tolerate and deify Weis is beyond me.....so it is indeed apples to apples.  As for previous work?  Who cares, is the standard not "what you have done for me?" 

If you want a ranking comparison...BYU's overall ranking in the last 5-10 years far surpasses NDs..and I see you included at least a few data points to show that....thanks!! 

And if you are going to mention conferences....at least get it right.  BYU is in the MWC, not the WAC!!  Where they play such "cupcakes" as TCU and Utah that have been perenial top 25 teams over the last 10 years as well.    This in addition to constantly scheduling very good non-conference games while ND loses to Navy.....     

As far as graduates...talk about a typical deflection by yours truly when u don't want to talk the issues. But if you want to discuss this then by all means lets do so. Who gives a stuff about graduation rates? The colleges exploit them far more in terms of revenue and using thier images to rake in uber millions, so if players want to use them as a ticket to the NFL, and drop out when it ain't happening otherwise, then colleges get what they deserve.  The mechanics of how college football works in lieu of NCAA rules is the biggest rig-job racket I've ever heard of!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Charlie Weis' winning % is basically identical to those two mentioned...and ND fans/folks couldn't wait to get rid of em. 


Do you think that ND should have kept Willingham ?
Do you think that ND should have kept Davie

Why they tolerate and deify Weis is beyond me.....so it is indeed apples to apples. 
As for previous work?  Who cares, is the standard not "what you have done for me?" 

Unfortunately that's become all too true today.
People want instant gratification and when they don't get it, the negativity starts.
I'm content with Charlie remaining as the football coach, so I don't understand why you're so anxious to see him go.

If you want a ranking comparison...BYU's overall ranking in the last 5-10 years far surpasses NDs..and I see you included at least a few data points to show that....thanks!! 

Rankings by whom ?
I love it when a better ranked team in the BCS plays the inferior team and Vegas has the inferior BCS team as a decided favorite.

All I know is that in recent head to head competition ND seems to have beaten BYU pretty soundly.

And if you are going to mention conferences....at least get it right.  BYU is in the MWC, not the WAC!! 

I NEVER said that BYU was in the WAC.
I just went to the BYU website and looked at the teams they've played over the last 4 or 5 years.
You must not be that passionate of a fan if you don't know who BYU's opponents have been.

Where they play such "cupcakes" as TCU and Utah that have been perenial top 25 teams over the last 10 years as well.    This in addition to constantly scheduling very good non-conference games while ND loses to Navy.....     

TCU's program has made terrific strides, but, their schedule hasn't been very difficult, and, when you look at how they fared against ranked opponents, it's not too good.
Navy came within a two point conversion of beating Ohio State this year and has only beaten ND twice in the last 46 years.

As far as graduates...talk about a typical deflection by yours truly when u don't want to talk the issues.
But if you want to discuss this then by all means lets do so.

That's not a deflection, graduation rates are significant component in the overall assessment of a university's athletic programs. 
Colleges with high graduation rates aren't just renting athletes for a few years and casting them aside, they're actually educating them, which is why they're there in the first place.  The concept or basis for college athletics is that student-athletes will compete against one another, not that student- athletes will compete against transient athletes, ones who don't go to class and don't graduate.   The concept is that there's a level playing field comprised of student-athletes competing against one another.  That's why graduation rates are important, they indicate which schools fulfill their educational obligation to the student-athlete and which schools shirk that responsibility, having no interest in educating the student-athlete, only using them for their talents.

Graduation rates show which schools are serious about educating their student-athletes and which schools ONLY care about winning in a dishonest fashion.

So, if you want to look at football programs, quality football programs, you have to look at the entire picture.

Schools like Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Rice and ND recruit, educate and graduate their student-athletes.

Those are programs to be admired.

Those are the programs other schools should aspire to replicate.

Who gives a stuff about graduation rates?

I do, and so should every student-athlete and their parents.

The colleges exploit them far more in terms of revenue and using thier images to rake in uber millions, so if players want to use them as a ticket to the NFL, and drop out when it ain't happening otherwise, then colleges get what they deserve. 

How many players make it to the NFL, not the draft, but the team rosters ?
The number is miniscule.
Now, what happens to all of the players who don't make the team rosters, what becomes of them, those uneducated masses.
At Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice and ND they go on to be doctors, lawyers and successful business people or public servants, enjoying a good life.

In exchange for their athletic talents, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice and ND provide them with an education.

What do the schools that don't educate and graduate them provide them in exchange for their athletic talents ?

That's why Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, ND and other schools of similar ilk should be admired.
That's why their model should be copied.
They combine amateur athletics with education.
Other schools provide neither

The mechanics of how college football works in lieu of NCAA rules is the biggest rig-job racket I've ever heard of!!


I can understand why you feel that way, but, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, ND and their peers aren't in the rig job racket business, they're wonderful institutions that fulfill their obligations to their student-athletes while at the same time fielding competitive teams at the highest level.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

1) As for thier previous two coaches...this is where I'm baffled.  They booted them but seem to be in love with Weis....go figure!!  You try to make logical sense of it cause I sure can't!! 

2)  If 5 years isn't enough to prove yourself, then I don't know what is!!!  This is far from instant gratification...that half a decade!!   

3)  Rankings by ESPN poll and AP poll.  BYU has consistently ranked higher in them over the last 10 years than ND.

4)  If we want talk cupcake opponents.  Try this list on for size over the last 5 years!!

Nevada
Navy
Army
A doormat Washington team
Duke
Hawaii
North Carolina - Before they improved

In the last 5 years, ND has only played 15 games against ranked opponents....thats hardly a murder's row type schedule!!

5)  It is a deflection despite all your worst efforts to make it a real issue.  If teams feel like atheletics are just a distraction, then they should refrain from having them or not worry about how competitive they are.  But if we go on the premise that ND has always been a quality school, then it doesn't explain how they could have had all those good teams of the past but yet not have killers now?  Perhaps maybe its cause they got the wrong people running the show now? 

In the meantime why don't you guys just draw-up ur own special momma's boy league for patsy players who don't want to play with the big boys so they can feel good about themselves?  They no doubt could win their leauge every year and ND homers would feel so proud right?   

Until then I'm glad you all love Weis so much cause that means we get to crack on your team every year when the melt down inevitably occurs and the losses pile up.  And then we get to see those precious shots of Weis on the sideline with the deer in the headlights look.  Supporting Weis as a coach is no different than having 8 beers down at the local watering and deciding the local bar fly isn't looking half bad as ur looking for a hookup.  Sooner or later the booze is going to wear off, and you'll see what everyone else who isn't a ND homer has been seeing all along!!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

1) As for thier previous two coaches...this is where I'm baffled. 
They booted them but seem to be in love with Weis....go figure!! 
You try to make logical sense of it cause I sure can't!! 

You can't look at the issue in an isolated context, you have to examine previous hires, good and bad.
Ara Paraseghian was one of the best, Gerry Faust, one of the worst.
Gerry was/is a terrific fellow who was a high school coach, thrust into not just Div I, but, the pinnacle of college football competition.
He was ill equiped for the job.
Was Willingham ill equiped for the job ?  What would his record at ND and Washington indicate ?
Remember, Willingham was a default hire, not the first choice and there were other issues.
Olsen, the tight end for the Bears was an ND recruit who left for Miami where he was AA.
His brother, a QB left for Virginia ?.
So perhaps there were other issues besides W-L..
Davie, was never a head coach prior to his appointment at ND.

I know of a few golf courses that are trying to hire a new Superintendent.
One of the issues is: do you hire someone with NO prior head superintendent experience, hoping that they'll grow into the job, or do you go with someone with previous head superintendent experience ?

It's a difficult dilema, one without a fixed answer, one dependent upon so many other factors.

Weis is a Belichick disciple, not to different from Bill in how he handles the media.
They, the media, don't like that, but, Belichick, like the energizer bunny, keeps winning, so the media has to tolerate him.
Trust me, if he starts losing, the media will be calling for his head.
It's the Bobby Knight syndrome all over again.
Knight, Belichick and Weis are all curt, blunt and in my opinion, contemptuous of the media, and I believe the media knows that, hence, the media wants their scalp.

If ND is content with Weis, what business is it of the media's ?
Why are they trying to foment disent ?

Why wasn't there any criticism of Washington's firing of Willingham ?

I can't speak for other graduates, or the University, but, I DON'T want the media determining what course of action ND should take.
If ND was 9-0 or 8-1, which they came close to being, would we be having this discussion ?
Would you and others be asking for his head ?

2)  If 5 years isn't enough to prove yourself, then I don't know what is!!! 
This is far from instant gratification...that half a decade!!   

ND isn't like other schools, they can't or won't lower their admission, education or graduation standards to enhance their programs.
Like the large tanker, changing course takes time.
While I can't speak for other "Domers" or the University, I'm content to have Weis continue as head football coach.
I'm more concerned for his health being the reason he leaves, than I am for his record being the cause.
But, I'm not the one empowered to make that decision.

3)  Rankings by ESPN poll and AP poll.  BYU has consistently ranked higher in them over the last 10 years than ND.

That's my point, irrespective of the rankings, head to head ND blew them away.
Rankings today tend to be solely the function of the won-loss record, regardless of schedule.
Do you really think that LSU, USC and Oregon would be underdogs against Cincinnati ?
I don't.  Yet, Cincinnati is ranked higher .

4)  If we want talk cupcake opponents.  Try this list on for size over the last 5 years!!

Nevada    2009, 1st year ND played them.
Navy    Navy's a good team, they came within a 2-point conversion of beating Ohio State.
Army    Army has fallen on hard times, hopefully, they'll improve, but, their standards may be too high
A doormat Washington teamA concession to TW ?
Duke      ND played them once
Hawaii    Hawaii is not and has not been on ND's schedule
North Carolina - Before they improved Nonsense, NC was # 22 the last time ND played them.

Don't leave out LSU, USC, Georgia Tech, Penn State, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan and Boston College.

How has BYU fared against Boston College, USC and Stanford over the last 5 years ?

How difficullt has BYU's schedule been over the last 5 years ?

In the last 5 years, ND has only played 15 games against ranked opponents....thats hardly a murder's row type schedule!!

I think the number is higher, but, using your numbers, that's 20 % to 30 % of their schedule.
This year they will have played 4 ranked opponents out of 12, that's 33 %
Who plays against more ranked opponents ? Certainly not BYU.

5)  It is a deflection despite all your worst efforts to make it a real issue. 
If teams feel like atheletics are just a distraction, then they should refrain from having them or not worry about how competitive they are. 
But if we go on the premise that ND has always been a quality school, then it doesn't explain how they could have had all those good teams of the past but yet not have killers now?  Perhaps maybe its cause they got the wrong people running the show now? 

Not at all.
GSR rates now shine the light of scrutiny on programs that have little connection to the academic institutions.
ND and others chose to maintain a high level of academic requirements, like going to class, studying and graduating.

You asked before, what difference do graduation rates make.
On this Veterans Day, let me try to answer that.
How would you like it if the product of our military academies were under-achievers, recruited to the service academies on the sole basis of their athletic talents ?  Instead, the military academies not only have high admission standards but rigorous demands on their student's time, physical and mental challenges.  Imagine if you will, the concept of admitting unqualified candidates, of not having to go to class, not having to graduate.
Is that the product you'd like our service academies to produce ?
Now, apply that concept to a non-military college, in terms of that college's responsibility to our society.

The NFL pay players to do nothing but play football.
That shouldn't be the function of our colleges.

In the meantime why don't you guys just draw-up ur own special momma's boy league for patsy players who don't want to play with the big boys so they can feel good about themselves? 

You must be joking.  ND's schedule is, and has always been, far more demanding than BYU's.
If anyone has had a patsy schedule over the years, it's BYU, not ND

They no doubt could win their leauge every year and ND homers would feel so proud right?   

So how has BYU done against those patsy's that ND plays, USC, Boston College and Stanford.
Have they ever beaten one of them in the last 5 years ?  The last 10 years ?  The last 20 years.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Until then I'm glad you all love Weis so much cause that means we get to crack on your team every year when the melt down inevitably occurs and the losses pile up. 

The last time BYU played Weis he beat the daylights out of BYU, 49-23.
Maybe that's why you want ND to get rid of him

And then we get to see those precious shots of Weis on the sideline with the deer in the headlights look. 
Supporting Weis as a coach is no different than having 8 beers down at the local watering and deciding the local bar fly isn't looking half bad as ur looking for a hookup.  Sooner or later the booze is going to wear off, and you'll see what everyone else who isn't a ND homer has been seeing all along!!   

I never imagined that that 49-23 beating would have such long lasting affects on BYU fans.
It's a good thing he began using subs in the 3rd quarter.

[DMoriarty]

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Dave, Let's forget the distant hill for a second.

Look at how severely the fairway/green slopes between the man in white and the American Flag.
Then, look at how severely the rough slopes between the American flag and the hill to the left of it.

There is NO terrain like that on top of the fairway across from the windmill, or south of the windmill.


Aha!   I think I finally understand what you are seeing and I am not.  You are thinking that the green starts right at the edge of the bunker and keeps climbing.    But, as I see it, the ground does NOT slope up from the man in white.   It slopes down, and out of view, and then rises back into view on the other side of the fairway.  A slight saddle shape.   The US flag pole is right of the current fairway, probably around 60 yards away from the bunker edge.

Dave, take a look at the google aerial and tell me on the google aerial where the landform in the photo appears.
It's certainly not in the location you diagramed, just west of the windmill.
So, where do you think this green sat, could you outline it on the google aerial.

Patrick, I cannot right now but the US flagpole would be all the way to the RIGHT of the fairway, about in the horizontal center of the google image.  

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Dave, Let's forget the distant hill for a second.

Look at how severely the fairway/green slopes between the man in white and the American Flag.
Then, look at how severely the rough slopes between the American flag and the hill to the left of it.

There is NO terrain like that on top of the fairway across from the windmill, or south of the windmill.


Aha!   I think I finally understand what you are seeing and I am not.  You are thinking that the green starts right at the edge of the bunker and keeps climbing.    But, as I see it, the ground does NOT slope up from the man in white.   It slopes down, and out of view, and then rises back into view on the other side of the fairway.  A slight saddle shape.   The US flag pole is right of the current fairway, probably around 60 yards away from the bunker edge.

Dave, there's no topography like that up on the hill across from the windmill.
Nowhere does the land slope down, then sharply back up.

But, I know somewhere where that happens, on the 3rd hole.

If I take the position that the bunker line as shown in your photo is essentially the same bunker line that exists today, there is NO section of land that slopes down, then sharply back up, especially for such a long linear degree.

As to the location of the flagpole, if it was on the right of the current fairway, it would have to be on or close to the Sebonack property in order to attain that elevation, but then the huge right side bowl would come into view/play

If the green is well to the right, as you indicate, at the 200 yard mark, the fairway falls off into the huge, deep bowl, flanking the right side of today's green.

Again, I don't see the relationship of the fairway or green, and we haven't established that the green ISN'T the area surrounding the black flag, to the topography on or near the top of the current fairway hill.

Dave, take a look at the google aerial and tell me on the google aerial where the landform in the photo appears.
It's certainly not in the location you diagramed, just west of the windmill.
So, where do you think this green sat, could you outline it on the google aerial.

Patrick, I cannot right now but the US flagpole would be all the way to the RIGHT of the fairway, about in the horizontal center of the google image.  

Dave, don't use the angled google view, use the google view from solar noon.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Maybe I'm a dunce but does Notre Dame have any damn thing to do with the accuracy and identification of that photograph of the 2nd hole of NGLA?  

Should I let you and Moriarty continue to have this dumb diagram and Google Earthing jack-off on that photo or would you prefer to just get together out there and actually look at the land with me sometime soon? I guarantee you it ain't changed that much?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If what you say is true, then show me, where the ground that borders the current Sahara bunker, rises up so steeply ?

While you're attempting to do this, orient the picture so that the Sahara bunker in the picture is aligned in its basic northwest to southeast alignment so that the photo and the actual land form are in harmony as you view them.

Take as much time as you want, submit as many photos as you can find.

But, show me where ANY land within 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 feet of the border of the Sahara bunker rises up, precipitously as it does in that photo.

Look at the 07-06-38 aerial of NGLA.
Look at the Sahara bunker, from the begining near the tee to the end up on top of the hill.
Look at where the windmill is.
Now take a look, FROM the windmill, directly west, sweeping your view to the south.
Is there ANY landform, viewed from the windmill, that BORDERS THE SAHARA BUNKER that duplicates what you see in that picture ?

P.S.  I anticipate that in the time it will take you to find that land form that I can get two additional post graduate degrees from ND

[JMEvensky]

Pat:

Maybe I'm a dunce but does Notre Dame have any damn thing to do with the accuracy and identification of that photograph of the 2nd hole of NGLA?  

Only to the extent that someone who can't identify a floundering football program probably has trouble identifying anything else.

TEP,I hope this detour won't keep Pat from continuing his enchanted journey around NGLA.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

I must admit....I usually tire of the back and forth, but this time its fun!!

1)  I really liked your answer....I think....but not sure what any of your response has to do with ND giving the previous two guys the boot and keeping Weis.  I guess we'll just have to settle on the fact that ND has a man-crush on Weis despite him doing basically the same as the previous recent coaches that they loathed.

3)  It was one game.....and yes BYU was going thru a rough spell.  But it really wasn't even Weis's team that won in 2005 as it was his 1st year taking over the reigns.  So I'll give Ty W. credit for the win there!! 

4)  Notre Dame did indeed play Hawaii. Are you really a fan? Perhaps you forgot about this?  http://cfn.scout.com/2/824493.html
   As for BYU, they have beaten plenty of ranked opponents including Oklahama this year.  They were ranked 3rd at the time. http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=292480201.  When is the last time ND beat the #3 ranked team or higher in the nation?  Additionally BYU beat 3 ranked opponents in 2007 as well as 3 more in 2006.

5)  Same broken record speech Pat.  I know you think this is a big deal, and you constantly try to convince others its a big deal....but alas in the end its not a big deal!!   

As for the players?  Everyone is an adult here and everyone makes thier choices.  There is no hand holding and surely these top prospects understand the low %s for actually making the big leagues.  As mentioned before if ND and other schools are more worried about how well thier graduates do, then why do they even have sports teams at all?  They could easily close up shop and devout those funds elsewhere if education is that important to them.  In the end no one forces anyone to go to college and if many atheletes drop out, thats on them.  Besides, each school has what maybe 75-100 football players on scholarship?  Even if half dropout, when you compare it to the entire enrollment for the school in the tens of thousands....its a drop in the bucket!!


6)  As for Weis and Notre Dame's win in 2005, once again it was Ty's team.  Sorry you can't have it both ways as much as you love to justify Weis using any means possible!!  You shoulda been a politician Pat, after all this is thier motto...."when things are going bad blame it on the other side and when things are going good, take all the credit!!"

P.S.  I love how you try to sell that Navy is a good team by almost beating Ohio State...but then you also mention in the same post that they have only beaten ND twice in the last 46 years.  Thats not exactly an effective way to drive home the point!!   

[Bradley Anderson]

Pat:
Maybe I'm a dunce but does Notre Dame have any damn thing to do with the accuracy and identification of that photograph of the 2nd hole of NGLA?  

Only to the extent that someone who can't identify a floundering football program probably has trouble identifying anything else.
TEP,I hope this detour won't keep Pat from continuing his enchanted journey around NGLA.

That meeting out there between Tom and Pat should be a part of the enchanted journey. 

[JMEvensky]

Pat:
Maybe I'm a dunce but does Notre Dame have any damn thing to do with the accuracy and identification of that photograph of the 2nd hole of NGLA?  

Only to the extent that someone who can't identify a floundering football program probably has trouble identifying anything else.
TEP,I hope this detour won't keep Pat from continuing his enchanted journey around NGLA.

That meeting out there between Tom and Pat should be a part of the enchanted journey. 

I think the problem is that TEP threatened to ambush Pat on 7 tee due to some disagreement about some historical tee box.Maybe Pat's afraid to go back to the Hamptons knowing that TEP lies in wait.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I must admit....I usually tire of the back and forth, but this time its fun!!Agreed

1)  I really liked your answer....I think....but not sure what any of your response has to do with ND giving the previous two guys the boot and keeping Weis.  I guess we'll just have to settle on the fact that ND has a man-crush on Weis despite him doing basically the same as the previous recent coaches that they loathed.

With regard to Davie, his five year contract was up and it wasn't renewed.  There's nothing complicated about that.
TW is another matter.
Prior to TW, ND had never abrogated the head football coach's contract prior to its completion.
Some might say that a palace revolt was taking place, administratively at ND.
Others might say it was merely a changing of the guard.
With that change, TW was bought out of his contract. 
The old administration opposed that action, the new administration was for that action.
Hence, you might say that TW was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
It was the timing of the administrative change at ND that was responsible for TW's departure.
A clearing out process not disimilar to when a new candidate takes office.
It's that simple.


3)  It was one game.....and yes BYU was going thru a rough spell. 
So, it's OK for BYU or USC to go through rough spells, but, not ND ?
If you'll look at the record you'll see that BYU squeeked out a victory the prior game and got blown out the previous game, so, it wasn't just one year.

But it really wasn't even Weis's team that won in 2005 as it was his 1st year taking over the reigns. 

Was WEIS the coach ?
Or was someone else the coach ?

So I'll give Ty W. credit for the win there!! 

You're the only person deranged enough to do that 

4)  Notre Dame did indeed play Hawaii. Are you really a fan? Perhaps you forgot about this?
  http://cfn.scout.com/2/824493.html


Perhaps your reading comprehension skills, a product of your college education at BYU, are slipping.
I clearly stated that ND had NOT scheduled Hawaii, as BYU does.
The only reason that ND played Hawaii was because the participated in a Bowl game, not a game on either team's schedule.
   
As for BYU, they have beaten plenty of ranked opponents including Oklahama this year. 
They were ranked 3rd at the time. http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=292480201. 

Once Oklahoma's QB was injured and unable to play they became a non-ranked team.
They're 5-4.
But, if you want to crow over beating a 5-4 team, please continue.

When is the last time ND beat the #3 ranked team or higher in the nation? 
Additionally BYU beat 3 ranked opponents in 2007 as well as 3 more in 2006.

Ranked ?
How did they fare against lowly ND in 2005 ?
49-33 ?
So much for rankings.

How has BYU fared against USC, Stanford and Boston College, common "patsy" opponents, I believe you called them ?
They haven't beaten any of them in how many years ?  5 ?  10 ?  15 ?  20 ?
Boy, maybe those "patsies" have been mislabled.

5)  Same broken record speech Pat. 
I know you think this is a big deal, and you constantly try to convince others its a big deal....but alas in the end its not a big deal!!   

It depends, it depends on whether a university/college seeks excellence in academics and athletics.
ND has long maintained the tradition of doing both.
That some universities/colleges want to abandon their quest for academic excellence is their choice.
But, you tell me, which aspiration is noble and which aspiration is derelict


As for the players? 
Everyone is an adult here and everyone makes thier choices. 

Not true.
These kids come to college as High School Seniors-College Freshman, under aged minors, by any standard.
And, that institution of higher learning has an obligation to educate all of its students, including its student-athletes.
Not just use them and discard them into a difficult world without an education.


There is no hand holding and surely these top prospects understand the low %s for actually making the big leagues. 

Therefore, their education takes on a heightened sense of responsibility for those universities that seek them out.
These are kids, minors, years shy of adulthood/age 21, when they come to school

As mentioned before if ND and other schools are more worried about how well thier graduates do, then why do they even have sports teams at all?

WHAT ?
So now your point is that universities/colleges shouldn't be worried about how well their graduates do ?
Their students ?  Their Student-Athletes ?
You must be kidding.
ND, Rice, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern and other colleges/universities have proven that they can do BOTH, they can field competitive teams and provide their student-athletes with a great education, not just rent athletes for a few years and discard them, used, without providing them with the education they need to succeed in life.

They could easily close up shop and devout those funds elsewhere if education is that important to them. 

Ahhh, here's the neat part.  The schools listed above have proven that they can do BOTH.
Imagine that, schools that actually educate their student-athletes and produce competitive teams.

Just because other schools choose to cheat by accepting academically unqualified athletes, not requiring them to attend class, pass their classes and graduate, doesn't mean that all schools have to choose that path.
If schools want to sell their academic soul in the name of glamour and fame, so be it, but, let's categorize them for what they are, and not hide their refusal to educate their student-athletes.

In the end no one forces anyone to go to college and if many atheletes drop out, thats on them. 
Besides, each school has what maybe 75-100 football players on scholarship? 
Even if half dropout, when you compare it to the entire enrollment for the school in the tens of thousands....its a drop in the bucket!!

Myopic vision is a terrible thing.
So, if 50 out of 100 kids per school drop out, only to be replenished by another cadre of drop-outs, that's OK ?
Rather than waste those scholarships, how about the qualified kids who could use those scholarships if they were available, kids who would attend class, study, graduate and try to make something for themselves.

Your logic is so flawed I'm astounded, but, then again, you went to BYU, so I shouldn't be surprised       

By your reasoning, colleges should just find the best athletes they can, house them, feed them and have them play their sport for a few years
Why waste the professor's time by having them show up when they feel like it.

Just to clarify my position, I think student-athletes should get special treatment, in the way of tutors, hours, etc., etc., as long as it's a reasonable not too different from the general population.

And, I believe that scholarships should ONLY be replenished based on graduation rates.
Then, and only then, will the academic responsibility be taken seriously, by the university and the student athlete.
End of rant.

6)  As for Weis and Notre Dame's win in 2005, once again it was Ty's team.  Who was the coach ?

Sorry you can't have it both ways as much as you love to justify Weis using any means possible!! 

Sure I can.   
The point is that Weis, even in his first year, with someone else's recruits, from a team that went 6-6 the previous year, still beat BYU 49-33

You shoulda been a politician Pat, after all this is thier motto...."when things are going bad blame it on the other side and when things are going good, take all the credit!!"

That's not true.
I've been critical of the DC all season.
I don't think anyone denies that ND has a terrific offense, one structured by Weis, an offensive co-ordinator by experience.
ND's problems seem to be more on the defensive and kicking side.
Is that Weis's fault or the fault of the DC and STC ?
Weis bears the ultimate responsibility as the head coach, but, I support the University retaining him as head coach.

P.S.  I love how you try to sell that Navy is a good team by almost beating Ohio State...

I don't have to sell that Navy is a good team.
They are a good team.
Ohio State was lucky to beat them and couldn't stop their running game.
No one has stopped their running game, they're averaging over 300 yards a game, even without Dobbs when he got injured.

but then you also mention in the same post that they have only beaten ND twice in the last 46 years. 
Thats not exactly an effective way to drive home the point!!   

Sure it is.
You would have us believe that Navy, having beaten ND, is a weak opponent, yet at 7-3 (with loss/es without their QB), coming within a 2 point conversion of possibly beating Ohio State when they were ranked # 8, it turns out that they're a pretty good football team.

Then you indicated that Navy has beaten ND 2 out of the last 3 times, the first time in overtime, ignoring that Navy had gone 0-43 for the previous 43 years.

You're the one that can't have it both ways.
Either Navy is or isn't a good football team this year

[TEPaul]

"While you're attempting to do this, orient the picture so that the Sahara bunker in the picture is aligned in its basic northwest to southeast alignment so that the photo and the actual land form are in harmony as you view them.

Take as much time as you want, submit as many photos as you can find."

Pat:

I'm sorry but I don't know how to post stuff like that on this website. You've never seen anything like that from me on here, have you? But for your info I basically agree completely with that diagram Moriarty posted with those three red lines. That camera was up in that water tower and pointing up to the west/northwest towards that hill on the 2nd that borders Sebonack. I already explained that to you. If you want to see it I suggest you just walk out there and look at it when your next at NGLA as I did some years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"While you're attempting to do this, orient the picture so that the Sahara bunker in the picture is aligned in its basic northwest to southeast alignment so that the photo and the actual land form are in harmony as you view them.

Take as much time as you want, submit as many photos as you can find."

Pat:

I'm sorry but I don't know how to post stuff like that on this website.
You've never seen anything like that from me on here, have you?
But for your info I basically agree completely with that diagram Moriarty posted with those three red lines.

That camera was up in that water tower and pointing up to the west/northwest towards that hill on the 2nd that borders Sebonack.


That's impossible.

In the photo, the border of the Sahara Bunker runs from the lower portion of the hole to the high portion of the hole, from a North to South orientation, perhaps a slight NNW to SSE direction.
Yet, the orientation of the border in the photo, taken from the water tower and almost directly across from the water tower, is almost from West to East, Perhaps WNW to ESE.

The photo David posted has the orientation of the bunker at an impossible angle if the photo was taken from up in the watertower/windmill as you and David Moriarty state.

How do you account for the rotation of the bunker on its axis and how do you account for the fact that there is no substantive elevation change up on the fairway hill next to the bunker, especially when David's photo shows the green and/or fairway having a very steep incline ?

I already explained that to you. If you want to see it I suggest you just walk out there and look at it when your next at NGLA as I did some years ago.

I intend to do so, however, my ability to recall spacial relationships remains fairly sharp, especially up on top of the fairway across from the Windmill.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  Three more pics.  ADDED A THIRD
- The first is looking down the fairway from above the first green.  Starting at the bunker and looking left, one can see that there is a slight bow down in the fairway, then the fairway rises on the right up into the rough.  
-The secon is from the tee, with US Flag and what I think was the directional flag .  
- The third is from straight above.  The white line is the same line in both photos, and is the approx line at the US flagpole.  I've marked approx where I think the two flags were.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Again, for your information, I pretty much completely agree with Moriarty's diagram that has been on here for many days and includes those red arrows. That pretty much matches what I saw when actually out there on that hole with that photograph in mind some years ago. I think that particular photograph was taken from up in that old windmill and the camera is pointing west/northwest looking up a rise that is perhaps around the first tee or hole or whatever of Sebonac GC today.

I'll let you and Moriarty continue to argue over the petty details of this issue for the next month or so and the next ten pages but my suggestion to you would be to just go out there on that hole at the top of the fairway and and look to the right and I think you'll see exactly what I mean. All these stupid Google Earthing things frankly just completely bore me and I don't want to be involved anymore in this petty issue. Just go out on that land Patrick and do it the right way!

[DMoriarty]

Pat:

Again, for your information, I pretty much completely agree with Moriarty's diagram that has been on here for many days and includes those red arrows. That pretty much matches what I saw when actually out there on that hole with that photograph in mind some years ago. I think that particular photograph was taken from up in that old windmill and the camera is pointing west/northwest looking up a rise that is perhaps around the first tee or hole or whatever of Sebonac GC today.

I'll let you and Moriarty continue to argue over the petty details of this issue for the next month or so and the next ten pages but my suggestion to you would be to just go out there on that hole at the top of the fairway and and look to the right and I think you'll see exactly what I mean. All these stupid Google Earthing things frankly just completely bore me and I don't want to be involved anymore in this petty issue. Just go out on that land Patrick and do it the right way!

TEPaul,  Thanks for butting in to tell us that you don't want to be involved in this discussion, again.  You may not know this, but there is no rule requiring you to post.

[TEPaul]

"You may not know this, but there is no rule requiring you to post."


True indeed; that pretty much goes for all of us Moriarty! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

Thanks for those photos.

Take a look at the middle one, where you try to replicate the placement of those flags.

Here's the problem I have.

First of all, you've offset the black flag a considerable distance from the border of the bunker.
In your 1910 photo, it's significantly closer.

Second, if you're familiar with the land in the second photo, the aerial, you know that the land between the black flag and the American flag slopes from LOW right to HIGH left.
yet, the allegedly same land in your 1910 photo slopes from HIGH right to LOW left, just the opposite.

Look at the 1910 photo, look where the man in white is standing, then look at the black flag and see how the land to the left of it slopes downhill, toward the left.

Yet, in the aerial, that land slopes uphill toward the crest of the hill where it levels off.
Your location of the green would have it much closer to the tee, certainly not 213 yards.

How do you account for that ?

In addition, in your 1910 photo the right side of the bunker is at the highest elevation of any portion of that bunker, yet, we know that the highest portion of that bunker is to the extreme left.

How do you account for that ?

Could the negative have been reversed ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

For starters I think that black flag placed on that aerial above is way out of position. I think it needs to be about 40 yards further up the hole and to the left (just over that white line). If it was placed where it is on that aerial on the actual photo I think it would be right about above that guy's head who is standing at the top of the bunker stairs.

[DMoriarty]

Dave,

Thanks for those photos.

Take a look at the middle one, where you try to replicate the placement of those flags.

Here's the problem I have.

First of all, you've offset the black flag a considerable distance from the border of the bunker.
In your 1910 photo, it's significantly closer.

Patrick,  I realized I had the black flag in the wrong place by a bit (wrong side of white line) so I moved it.

I think the Black Flag was a considerable distance from the border of the bunkers.   It is the persective that make makes it look closer.  You see on the right side where the 1910 bunker looks highest, and there is just a tiny strip of fairway next to it and then rough going up the hill?   Even though you can only see a tiny strip, that is there is about 60 yards of fairway between that bunker spot and the rough.  

Second, if you're familiar with the land in the second photo, the aerial, you know that the land between the black flag and the American flag slopes from LOW right to HIGH left.
yet, the allegedly same land in your 1910 photo slopes from HIGH right to LOW left, just the opposite.

Patrick, I am familiar enough with the land to know that this just isnt' the case.   At least not where I have those flags.   Looking from the golfer's perspective and moving East to West, from the bunker to the US flag along that white line . . . the land slopes a bit lower from the bunker toward the middle of the fairway, and then slopes higher as one approaches the right edge of the fairway.  (I don't think the fairway is as wide now.)

Look at the 1910 photo, look where the man in white is standing, then look at the black flag and see how the land to the left of it slopes downhill, toward the left.

Yet, in the aerial, that land slopes uphill toward the crest of the hill where it levels off.
Your location of the green would have it much closer to the tee, certainly not 213 yards.


I agree that this flag is not anywhere near 215 yards from the tee.  It is more like 175 yards.   But then again, I don't think it is a green!   I found a photo from 1909 of players putting on one of the holes, and the flag is white and the flagpole is only about 3 feet tall.   Now maybe the changed flagpoles, but I still think that this black thing (which is the wrong color and way to big) is not a flag on a green.  None of the other photos from that tournament show an enormous black triangular flag.  
for that ?

In addition, in your 1910 photo the right side of the bunker is at the highest elevation of any portion of that bunker, yet, we know that the highest portion of that bunker is to the extreme left.

How do you account for that ?

I don't think the bunker is higher on the left.  It is the angle of the photo that makes it look higher.  The point you are seeing as higher is actually the further right (west) point of the bunker.  

Could the negative have been reversed ?

Nope.

Patrick, I think when I first posted the 1910 you understandably got off on the wrong foot in thinking the photo angle was more toward the green, as opposed to across the fairway and maybe just a little back a bit, away from the green.  Because to me, it looks almost exactly like I would expect, except I think there used to be a huge sand face on the bunker, especially on the furthest point west of the bunker.    

But again, you know it way better than me, and maybe I have lost the last of my marbles.    I am willing to make a friendly wager with you though, if you are still feeling confident that the bunker is NOT the Sahara bunker at NGLA.  Because I am convinced that it is.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Are you saying you don't think that bunker in that photo in question is the Sahara bunker? Do you think that photo is of some other hole on NGLA? If you don't think that photo is of NGLA's 2nd hole or of the original Sahara bunker up on top of that fairway I would like some of that action betting you that it is the 2nd hole and the original Sahara bunker. Essentially proving that photo could not be of another hole at NGLA is a pretty simple process of elimination. If you suspect it is of the 3rd green, I think there is all kinds of visual and perhaps other reasons why that is highly unlikely.

As a long term summation, though, that particular photograph always has been something of an enigma, for sure.

By the way, Patricio, as I'm sure you've noticed, this is one of those incredibly rare instances on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com where it appears that Moriarty and I actually agree on something----so I'm sticking with this one and I'm encouraging a bet on your part with the two of us. You've got your hands full, Paly. 

[DMoriarty]

Patrick

Here again are the two from approximately the same angle.  Obviously I added CBM and the ladder.  Notice that even the island in the bunker is the same, and the curves of the bunker lip are the same, and the hill in the back ground is close to the same.   Given that the 1910 bunker is labeled  NGLA's "Sahara" don't you think we need to give it the benefit of the doubt?
The last is a 1909 photo is what is now the 12th green.  Notice that the flag is nothing like the black thing in that Sahara pic?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I believe we have a Rules of Golf issue on this thread. I don't know what time you played that hole yesterday that appears in the last diagram of Moriarty's post #340 but he changed the flag on that hole at 5:38 pm yesterday after I pointed out on here at 5:29 pm that the flag was way out of position on that diagram (and that it should be above the white line and not below it).

Under Rule 33-2b you have the right to make a timely claim Patrick! I also think it might be appropriate that Moriarty be disqualified from this thread because he failed to consult with the Tournament Committee before he unilaterally changed that pin position on that diagram. As you probably know all players must play to the same pin in any particular tournament round!