The Great Debate Goes On
UHND.com - Ken L. Britton
June 26, 2000

For the most part, we all read Tom Layden's article on the football program's problems. For the great majority of the article, Layden points out how admissions standards at Notre Dame keep out top athletes that the football program could use. He devotes a lesser amount of time to the question of how and why Notre Dame would put together such a ridiculous schedule and expect a national championship, or even a competitive team. A conspicuously small portion then devotes to the question of does Notre Dame have the right head coach. Looking at any ND message board, it becomes more than apparent that opinions are fierce on either side.  CNNSI's board on reaction to the article reveal that college football fans in general have a vast range of viewpoints on why mediocrity has set in.  Layden tries to stay as objective as possible while bringing up some very good points. There is qualitative and quantitative evidence that all three are problems.  Anyone who doubts that Saracino is an arrogant is naive at best. Anyone who thinks that the academic restrictions put on potential recruits does not hurt to a point must take another look at their focus. Anybody who thinks that after Malloy's comments, the questionable (at best) schedules that have been approved by Wadsworth and Beauchamp, were not a factor in their separation from the football program must also believe that the federal government cares about privacy.   However, Layden's quest to leave many more questions than answers, in keeping the objectivity of his piece intact, glossed over the seeds of why Irish fans, students, and alumni are in such an uproar.

First, let's deal with the academic question. Did the school raise the bar for incoming athletes in '91? The Irish administration has to stop assuming that the public
is naive, and admit that the above is indeed the truth. This started seemingly in '96, when after a loss to Ohio State Lou Holtz complained that he was beaten with the athletes he wanted in the first place (it actually started earlier internally). Since, because of the drop off in play since '93, many have raised the issue.  This issue has little to do with the supposed drop off in talent. Whether there has been a decline or not (and this will be discussed later on), can someone please give me a reason for Holtz to lie?   Holtz quit after '96 without a bad word to say about the University, and even refused to be interviewed for the Layden article. The reason is because he loves Notre Dame as much as anyone else can claim to, and he does not want the University's image tarnished. Layden interviewed several Holtz era assistants, including Skip Holtz, Jay Hayes, and several others who refused to have their names revealed. All either claimed or hinted that admissions stiffened its stance. Again, what is their reason for lying?  None, on the other hand, admissions has every reason to deny obvious facts; if they did it would place a great deal of pressure on the department, as a good deal more blame would already be presented to an office which has taken much criticism.

The schedule

Many have said that if Davie has only three losses next season, it would be considered a success, and Layden points out that the Irish "could be very good and
start 2-3." While I'm not going to defend Wadsworth's schedules, or the fact that A&M and Nebraska were scheduled back-to-back (explanation?), let's take a look at this year's schedule from the viewpoint of ten years ago. It's 1990. Purdue is a perennial Big Ten doormat.  Michigan State struggles to stay over .500 year after year. USC is a team loaded with talent but short on performance.  Navy, Air Force, Rutgers, and Stanford are considered cream puffs. West Virginia and Boston College might be good once every five years or so. In other words, a solid schedule with two big games. It's one of the problems with scheduling ten years in advance, but if anyone wants the Irish to join a conference, please speak up now.

The Talent Debate

We are all tired of this topic, but as long as the losing continues, it will not go away.  It started after '93, with the coincidence (maybe, maybe not) that the last year Holtz got his way with recruiting was, plus four, the last year the Irish were considered a title contender. After that year, the draft started to show fewer and fewer Irish players being picked. NFL personnel men screamed (and still do) that there has been a clear talent plunge. College football experts (and I use the term experts loosely) pinpointed the lack of success on lesser athletes. They too, know that the late 80's early 90's teams played similarly tough schedules. And since they cannot criticize coaches, talent must be the problem.

Talent, per se, is a product of recruiting. Whether or not your players are drafted into the NFL is another story. Recruiting says whether you actually have talent
or not. Developing talent is another story, and is a product of coaching. If you look at the football in this form, Holtz certainly had less talent after '93. Despite the
raise in standards, Holtz simply continues his wait-till-the-last-minute recruiting practices, and it immediately caught up with him. Despite this, Holtz had teams playing at National Championship level in '95 and '96, and probably would have been more successful had he noticed that he had a bad fit for his system under center. 

Davie inherited this, a team with less than stellar talent, and Davie's first recruiting class was average at best. He hired two big time assistants, who have so far proved to be complete busts, and took on the hardest coaching job in sports (please name another that's worse) with no head coaching experience. After a 7-6 campaign in his first season, analysts screamed how Holtz left the "cupboard bear." His 9-3 second campaign seemed to prove this, while few pointed out that the defense was still full of more open holes than Pebble Beach, and could not seem to put any type of rush on the passer (a situation that has existed since '94 , with the exception of the the '96 defense, which was sometimes solid but inconsistent). In addition, Davie in the interim had proved that recruiting well with the raised standards was possible by landing recruiting classes in '98 and '99 which can be called no less than elite. The talent, finally, would soon be here. 

So we come to last year. Everyone had high hopes for the Irish, as Coletto was finally gone. Superman himself Kevin Rogers was running the offense, and the talent level was clearly rising. Yes, the schedule was tough, but no one was expecting a national title, just improvement from '98. After all, those two recruiting classes were only freshman and sophomores. Finally, a team was here to be excited about.  Then Rome collapsed. Irish fans from coast to coast screamed how bad the clock management was against Michigan and Purdue, and had to listen to Davie talk about how courageous his team was for pulling a win against a bad team.   Many who believed in the talent gap before, could see that despite any reputed lack of talent, the cupboard wasn't bare, or the circumstances so intense, that 5-7 is acceptable. The murmurs turned to screams at the end of the season as losses to BC, Pitt, and Stanford sealed the season, and athletic director Wadsworth acted non-chalantly as if nothing that bad had happened. Calls for Davie's and Wadworth's head began to become more than Malloy could stomach, and then one of the two was gone.  Back to the issue. On the other hand, coaching can often overcome talent. Kansas State receives what are looked on as average athletes every year, but finish in the top ten. Nebraska recruiting halls are never ranked in the top ten, and name me a NFL star, or even starter from NU since 1990 (if you can please email me)?  Was Oregon State really a bowl team last year? Does Wisconsin ever bring in a big name player (besides Ron Dayne, who was on all top 25 lists)? These schools are to name a few.

The debate will end this year. Davie and Mattison have less than three months to put together a decent defense or both of them are gone. Going into the fall, the Irish will have four High School First Team All-Americans starting on defense: Clifford Jefferson, Grant Irons, Gerome Sapp, and Tony Driver. Additionally, Brock Williams and Tony Weaver were on most top 100 prospects list. Anthony Denman's the best player on the defense right now, and the other four (save Legree) have proved they can play.  The offense features a backfield that is as talented as anybody in the nation. The line, which returns four starters, is questionable at best and must prove last year was an aberration and not the norm. The projected wide receivers, Givens and Hunter, were top fifty prospects three years ago. In other words: the ball is in your court Bob, so let's get it done now.

Of course, this is all being over analyzed because and only because this is Notre Dame. USC has had this talent/coaching problem for years (say fifteen or so...), only their admissions are not a problem, and you will have to search long and hard to find any flack that Paul Hackett is receiving outside Pasadena. LSU had the same problem for the last two years but it only received minor publicity. Davie is in a very tough spot, especially after rumors that the alumni association raised money and offered Davie a buyout to get Tom Coughlin in (would that happen at any other school?).  Whatever, or whoever causes this debate, it will not end until the Irish start winning, If Saracino thinks that Notre Dame can someday compete with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton for the nations elite minds, and the fading out of the football program in a similar way to Army or Harvard will only be a secondary issue, they need a wakeup call. 

Do I agree or disagree with Layden's article?  Did he really make a defined point? Did I really make a point? Is there something to agree or disagree with? The only thing that I am sure of is that if there is a record of 9-2 next year none of these questions will matter.

Click here to chat about this article on the message board