College Football Week 11: Indiana is playing for a Big Ten title. In football.

[Stoney]

Notre Dame is a tough, physical team. Best Irish team I've seen since the late '80s.

Make that early 90s. The 93 Notre Dame team was better than this one, and should've and would've won the national championship if not for a truly screwy vote. The Notre Dame program's dropoff didn't really begin until around the mid-90s, after which it dropped HARD.

 

[Songbird]

The team I keep thinking of in relation to Notre Dame then and now is Rice at QB with Stams at LB leading the defense.

 

[Songbird]

Keeping in mind, of course, that Golson has a long way to go before he's Tony Rice.

But there are more and more flashes of brilliance.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Notre Dame has had some dramatic wins, but they can be very tedious to watch in a game they control like tonight's.

They just can't win with some people, can they? Get a dramatic game against Pitt or Stanford and people say they are lucky to win. Go on the road and dominate Oklahoma or Boston College and they get called boring.

All of that maybe true, but what do people want? They're not going to run up scores like, say, Oregon. That's just not who they are. They manage to win games, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a little more. Given how they've played on the road, I give them a better than 50/50 shot to win at USC, especially if they make it a physical game between the tackles.

It reminds me of 1997 when Nebraska was blowing out people every week and Michigan won all these relatively low-scoring squeakers. Both went undefeated with very different styles.

If you call beating a 2-8 Boston College team 21-6 dominating for Notre Dame, you've got a low threshold for blowouts.

They did dominate that game last night. Not that it was much of an achievement, but once they got to 14 there was zero doubt whatsoever about who was going to win. They could have also spent the entire fourth quarter running it up like Oregon did -- they led 38-17 after three quarters and a 59-17 final -- but they didn't do that. So Oregon led by 21 after three quarters, Notre Dame led by 18, and some scoreboard-readers think Oregon dominated and Notre Dame didn't.

That Stanford win is looking better and better for the Irish too. Ultimately, though, letting Pitt hang around and needing a fluke to survive that game is going to do them in if voters are choosing between three unbeatens.

 

[Stoney]

So who will start our Week 12 college football thread if Versatile doesn't return from the ledge soon?

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Mariota is throwing on sideline. It looks like non-throwing shoulder is what's giving him trouble. Guessing he is coming back in on next possession.

More baffling is the inability to stop what has been an absolutely putrid offense.

A lot of that is just that Oregon is incredibly banged up on defense. I think they're playing three true freshmen on the defensive line tonight. They're really thin right now.

Weird side-note for me as I watch this game: the Cal QB is a distant cousin of mine.

You might want to explore that relationship. His family is loaded.

http://www.bridgford.com/

Yeah, I've known the family all my life. I forget the exact relationship, but I think my grandmother and his great-grandmother were first cousins.

Alllan Bridgford's dad is a few years older than me. He was an excellent prep quarterback and was offered a scholarship to Stanford but they wanted to switch him to safety; I believe this was when John Elway was coming in. He didn't want to play safety, so he turned down the athletic scholarship... and went to Stanford on the academic scholarship he was also offered. Pretty impressive guy.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Don't get me wrong. I think Notre Dame is a good football team, particularly defensively. I'm talking about pure aesthetics. I'm reminded of all the Zagoshe posts about Butler the two years they reached the Final Four. Notre Dame is the Butler of college football. (Style-wise only, obviously.)

 

[Songbird]

Notre Dame? Butler?

The better analogy is that Boise State football could soon turn into the Gonzaga of basketball.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Notre Dame has had some dramatic wins, but they can be very tedious to watch in a game they control like tonight's.

They just can't win with some people, can they? Get a dramatic game against Pitt or Stanford and people say they are lucky to win. Go on the road and dominate Oklahoma or Boston College and they get called boring.

All of that maybe true, but what do people want? They're not going to run up scores like, say, Oregon. That's just not who they are. They manage to win games, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a little more. Given how they've played on the road, I give them a better than 50/50 shot to win at USC, especially if they make it a physical game between the tackles.

It reminds me of 1997 when Nebraska was blowing out people every week and Michigan won all these relatively low-scoring squeakers. Both went undefeated with very different styles.

If you call beating a 2-8 Boston College team 21-6 dominating for Notre Dame, you've got a low threshold for blowouts.

They did dominate that game last night. Not that it was much of an achievement, but once they got to 14 there was zero doubt whatsoever about who was going to win. They could have also spent the entire fourth quarter running it up like Oregon did -- they led 38-17 after three quarters and a 59-17 final -- but they didn't do that. So Oregon led by 21 after three quarters, Notre Dame led by 18, and some scoreboard-readers think Oregon dominated and Notre Dame didn't.

That Stanford win is looking better and better for the Irish too. Ultimately, though, letting Pitt hang around and needing a fluke to survive that game is going to do them in if voters are choosing between three unbeatens.

Sounds a lot like the Kansas State-TCU game. Final was 23-10 but TCU was never in the game and was never a threat to K-State. Their defense just wouldn't allow it.

 

[Stoney]

Notre Dame? Butler?

The better analogy is that Boise State football could soon turn into the Gonzaga of basketball.

I believe you're missing his point. The analogy was to style of play, not type of program. The Zag posts he was referring to were about Butler's defense-first, low-scoring, grind it out style of play.

Which I think is fairly analogous to the football version of the way this Notre Dame team plays. Both versions might not be the most aesthetically pleasing to those who like high scores, fast breaks or lots of touchdowns, but it damn sure works.

 

[JackReacher]

FSU -13 at VT. Ugh. Could be ugly. AND IT WAS. JUST NOT IN A BLOWOUT KIND OF WAY.
Georgia -15.5 at Auburn. Could be real ugly. AND IT WAS. SHOCKER. FREE MONEY.
Texas A&M +13.5 at Alabama. I'm 1-0 betting against Alabama. Roll Tide. MAKE THAT A SPECTACULAR 2-0.
Clemson -31.5 vs. Maryland. Clemson might score 60. And give up 3. NOT QUITE, BUT A WIN NONETHELESS.
TCU +7 vs. Kansas State. Is Klein even playing? LOSER. MEH.
Cuse +2.5 vs. Louisville. No reason. Just a hunch. GOOD HUNCH, SONNER! THAT LINE WAS FISHY, THO.

I should be charging for my picks.

I told you VT would cover. They weren't going to win. But they were going to cover. Tsk.

Yeah. I still had no reason to believe VT would cover that game. None. The defense played better than it has played all year. The run defense was basically a brick wall.

It goes down as a loss, but it's not a bet I regret taking. Just a fluke. They happen. There's a reason it went from 12 to 14.

And VT was 40 seconds and one play way from winning. So the whole hindsight "I knew VT would cover, but not win" rationale doesn't fly.

 

[Songbird]

Well then, good point.