Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Notre Dame Fighting Irish football is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 National Championships 2 BC Rivalry 3 Rewrite 3.1 Coaches Table 4 Vandalism 5 Lets get this up to Featured Article worthiness by September 1 6 2005 Notre Dame football team 7 Rivalries 8 Details or Eras 9 Weis' negatives too?

[edit] National Championships

Occasionally, someone will question the number of national championship or that Notre Dame is the undisputed leader in them. Please refer to http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html for a definitive source.

• Notre Dame has 8 APs titles which has been awarded since 1936, which no other school does. In the years where the coaches poll existed (1950-), only one of those titles was a split with the coaches. That year was 1973 in which Alabama was awarded the UPI title…before losing their the bowl game to Notre Dame.
• Notre Dame has 3 consensus titles from before then. No other current Div 1-A school has 11 consensus titles.
• Notre Dame was declared the national champion by some organization a total of 21 times, the most of any current Div 1A school. Alabama and USC are tied for second with 17.
• Though no-longer Div 1A, Yale actually still has the most titles with 24.

KelleyCook 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC Rivalry

Re: Boston College

Boston College and ND are indeed the only two Catholic schools that currently play Div.1-A football. However, BC and ND are generally not considered pure rivals--most Irish fans would consider Southern Cal, Michigan, Navy, and a few other univerisities rivals, but not BC. It is my opinion that the reference does not belong is this article.

I attended Notre Dame and I can assure you that BC is a Notre Dame rival. Aside from being the only two Catholic schools that play Division 1-A football, the victor of each game wins the Ireland Trophy, created in 1995 by the Notre Dame Student Government "as a token of goodwill, camaraderie, and friendly rivalry". Furthermore, the fact that the only time the Irish have worn their green jerseys in the past 20-something years in a game that was not against USC or in a bowl game occurred against BC in 2002 is not insignificant and testifies to the rivalry status of this series.--Brian Brockmeyer 22:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The amount of space devoted to the argument over whether BC is or is not an ND rival suggests ipso facto by the level of the passion here that if it isn't a "rivalry" it sure is something intense. The amount of energy expended to argue that the matchup is inconsequential inherently refutes the argument that it is inconsequential. BTW, ND alum Sec. of State Condi Rice used the "Holy War" moniker to refer to the BC-ND series during her commencement address at BC in 2006. Whatever it is, it is a hell of an annual matchup and it is unfortunate that thanks to the Big East - ACC machinations it may not continue past 2010.

As a current student at Notre Dame, I can assure you that BC is indeed NOT our rival for several reasons. USC is our major rival smart one.

First, a the term "rivalry game" implies that some level of increased anticipation exists on both opposing sides. Now, I can't speak for BC fans, but on campus this past year there was no more excitement for the BC game than there was for the Purdue game, the Washington game, or any other--it simply wasn't special for us. From the alums and sub-alums I've talked to, this opinion exists outside of campus also. If, as I and many others believe, the majority of Irish football fans feel BC is just a normal game on our schedule, then it cannot be termed a rivalry (rivalries just can't be unrequited). Second, ND and BC haven't matched up enough times for the game to be called a rivalry. The game hasn't been scheduled even semi-regularly until recently, a factor which, if changed, could indeed eventually make this game a true rivalry. Third (and this point relates back to the first), the actions of our former coach and ND Student Government do not necessarily correlate to the wills of the student body, the alumni, or the fan base at large. This same coach (Willingham) implied that fans should be satisfied with a 6-win "winning season", and the student government is constantly criticized for not enacting the wishes of the student body. More specifically, recent polls on campus regarding BC state that most see them as just another school. Ty and the student government simply didn't/don't represent what ND students and fans think most of the time. Fourth, ND and BC were not always the only Catholic schools playing D-1A football (or the highest level of football existing at the time). The fact that the two schools _are_ right now does not in itself create a rivalry--it's simply an attribute the schools share in common. Last, the green jerseys are not a gimmick, and they do not designate certain teams to be our rivals. We wore green numbers on white jerseys against Florida in the '92 Sugar Bowl--are they our rivals? Green jerseys were used throughout a good portion of Dan Devine's stay at ND--were all the teams we faced with those jerseys our rivals? Most ND fans I know wouldn't say that these or any other teams we wore green jerseys against (even recently) are our rivals, least of all BC. 69.108.74.58 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go back and read the previous paragraph: I specifically stated that the only time we wore the green jerseys during the past 20+ years in a game that was not a bowl game or a USC game came against BC in 2002, rendering your invocation of the Devine Era and the 92 Sugar Bowl irrelevant. Let me rephrase that we wore green jerseys this year (2005) when we played USC. Point Proven. The fact of the matter is that since the switch back to the blue jerseys in 1982, we've worn "green" jerseys on six occassions, with 2 of those coming against archrival USC (83, 85), 3 in bowl games (92 Sugar, 95 Fiesta, 99 Gator), and the last in the 02 BC game. That the BC game was the only time the green jerseys were worn in a regular season game against an opponent other than USC over the past 22 years is not insignificant, and, combined with everything else (the shared Catholic identity, the strong Irish-American ties, the great games, the Ireland Trophy, the ND-BC rivalries in basketball, hockey, baseball, etc., the academic similarities between the institutions, etc.), cements the fact that this is a rivalry. I'm pretty active in the NDAA and attuned to the sentiments within the Association, and nearly everyone I've spoken to acknowledges that this, indeed, is a rivalry.--Brian Brockmeyer 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

BC's a rival, through and through. The only ones who consider otherwise are the subway alums (i.e. people with no connection to the University itself) who have grown weary of the game due to BC's recent four-in-a-row success. Most alums and students, myself included, consider the game a rivalry game. I was a student for the Foley game, which basically gave rise to the rivalry, as well as for StudGov's decision to create the Ireland Trophy, which WAS well received by the student body. Notre Dame and Boston College have much in common, including their Catholic affiliations, strong ties to the Irish-American community, and a certain College HOF head coach, that served to cement the bond between the two schools. Additionally, if you truly are a Notre Dame student, as you say you are, then I shouldn't have to point out to you the staggering number of Boston-Irish-Catholics in the Notre Dame community, or the high number of BC students that matriculate in ND graduate programs. These various frictions and ties are exactly what make a rivalry a rivalry. To deny the existence of the ND-BC rivalry is to play the elitist card and betray an ignorance of all things Notre Dame. The topic was also broached over at the University of Notre Dame Talk Page and the same conclusion was reached without dissent. Bottom line: It's a rivalry.Juicedpalmeiro 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

BC is not a rival. Though it is true that Notre Dame and Boston College share many of the same demographics that is not enough for a rivalry. ND and BC have only played each other 16 times and every year only since 1992. By contrast, Notre Dame and USC have squared off 76 times, interrupted only by WWII. Other rivals worth consideration are Michigan (17 games since 1978 where both are ranked, as well as the opponent of ND's first football game), Michigan State (68 games), Purdue (76 games), Pittsburgh (62 games), Navy (78 games). We've even played Army 48 times, though they haven't been a rival since the 50s. Any dislike of BC comes from them beating us in '93 and because BC serves as a reminder of Davie and Willingham's failure as coaches, only managing to go 3-5 against BC, which leaves the same bad taste in one's mouth as if we had gone 3-5 against IU.

A rivalry, however, would either entitle a) Mutual respect in that we wish each other well in every other game of the season but just not when we play each other. Notre Dame has such a rivalry with USC, where I would say we would like USC to finish #2 to ND's #1. That makes lording it over them all the more enjoyable as well. It may even be concievable under this definition to consider Navy a rival, as most fans respect the team and the school, hope they get their win againt ND one day because they really do deserve it, but always hope that the one day is not one day this year. The inter-academy rivalries also display this form of rivalry.

Another way to be a rival is b) to hate each other with every fiber of your being, hope they lose every game and are ultimately destroyed by a meteor. This is the way we feel about Michigan, and more like the hatred Auburn and Alabama hold for one another. When the Boston College game rolls around, we expect to win, but we do not care what happens to BC apart from us beating them. Thus, not a rivalry. (Source: http://www.georgemacor.com/NDfootball.html) Tewdrig 07:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't care, but pretty much every ND alum I have come across cares. BC has cleaned ND's clock for five of the last six meetings. They are the only other serious Catholic football playing school and they are now in one of the nation's top conferences.

LOL...I don't give much stock to the opinion of a site that claims we like to see USC finish second. I'd also like to point out the silliness of the notion that the length of a series determines whether or not it counts as a rivalry. Miami was always considered a rival throughout the 80s, even though the series was young. Likewise Penn State (17 games) and Stanford (19 games). The Observer even recognizes the BC series as a rivalry. Pretty much everyone does except for a few self-appointed subway alums who spend way too much time on BGI. It's a settled issue.--Brian Brockmeyer 07:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but of the games from 1980-1990, seven times were both teams ranked, and twice were one of them ranked #1 (#1 Miami at #4 Notre Dame, 1988, and #1 Notre Dame at #7 Miami, 1989). What significance does the Notre Dame BC game have other than the '93 game? Moreover, how can a rivalry exist when one school does not consider the other a rival? Certainly, a rivalry requires reciprocity, and that simply does not exist. It could be elitism on Notre Dame's part, and BC-ND could very well become a new rivalry, but until the majority of students, fans, and alumni consider it a rivalry, how could it possibly be one?

Also, why the hostility towards subway alumni? Though they did not graduate from the university, Notre Dame has nonetheless generated a large following over the last century in the Catholic community starting in a time when you couldn't be Catholic and American at the same time. It was Notre Dame students who fought the KKK in the streets of South Bend, and it was the Notre Dame football team who gave Catholic Americans a sense of pride by beating Michigan, Army, and everyone else despite being a small, midwestern, Catholic school. ND has meant a lot to Catholics over the years, who were often viewed as outsiders in a WASP America, whether they went to the university or not.

The source linked was where I got the number of games versus each school. The feeling that USC should finish second to ND came from my time as a student (class of 05) and fan, as well as from talking with others.

Furthermore, if you disagree that most people would like to see USC finish with 1 loss to Notre Dame, then surely you would agree to the statement that most would like to see them lose every game. The claim still applies that for it to be a rivalry, Notre Dame fans must care how BC does in weeks ND and BC aren't playing, whether hoping they win or lose. Tewdrig 08:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue with you about most of us wanting to see USC lose every game, but, in my experience, BC falls into that same category, too. There is a lot of bitterness that remains from the Foley game, as well as the sod incident in 2002 and the BC student body's gold 'Superfan' t-shirts, which are a blatant wannabe/knockoff of 'The Shirt'. I don't think I've ever seen a Notre Dame Stadium crowd as angry as it was exiting NDS after last year's loss to BC. Most alums I know, even the few who wouldn't categorize BC as a "rival," nevertheless like to see them lose every Saturday. While the height of enjoyment derived from a BC loss might not quite rise to the level of a USC or Michigan loss, I still think it surpasses that felt over a loss by traditional rival Michigan State, and is at least equal to one by traditional rival Purdue. It's certainly a newer rivalry and its intensity, from our side, is not on the level of the USC or Michigan rivalries, but it is nonetheless a rivalry. I think when some deny the existence of the rivalry they are really just trying to heal the wounds created by BC's recent success in the series by dismissing BC as a program that is "not on our level" or somehow beneath us giving a darn about-the elitist card. In reality, with the exception of USC and Michigan, I don't think any loss angers the greater ND community more than a loss to BC.--Brian Brockmeyer 02:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have started a total rewrite on this artilce and as you can see I have only written the history up to Frank Leahy. This is a daunting task, but I would like to get this article up to featured status. Any help is cheerful accepted. Does anyone have some good historic and current photos of the team? Movementarian 12:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome job so far, it was a jumbled mess before. It's black and white and the picture quality is low, but the 2005 Media Guide has lots of pictures. Also it has a lot of info on this year's team and the history of ND football.--MrCalifornia 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now up to 1964 and will be writing the Asa Parseghian Era soon. I would like opinions on the rivalry section. I am not sure that it really helps the articel to have factoids. I think it would be better to have series information on each of the traditional rival whether the rivalry is active or not. I will be adding the Army rivalry back in soon, as that one is picking up again in 2006. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Movementarian 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches Table

I have changed the look of the coaches table abit so that it takes up less space. If you think the change makes it look cluttered than by all means change it back. Perhaps we should look inot a different style of table. Movementarian 12:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the styling a little bit on the coaches table, made it two tables with spacing between them so now it auto-expands to fill the page. --MrCalifornia 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Though now that the table's been split:

would it be more intuitive to be

A B C D E F

Instead of

A D B E C F

?

Maybe, except that when you make the page really skinny (or if there is ever a coach with a really long name) and the text of a row takes up two lines you no longer have row height symmetry between the tables. Also, the all the way down and then back up format is what is used on the players list below. --MrCalifornia 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'd recommend that someone protect this page from vandalism, evidenced by someone's overzealousness in editing the Charlie Weis section.

Seems whenever a ND article makes it's way to an ND message board there's a period of time after that where you'll get some not so encyclopedic edits, but they usually get bored. --MrCalifornia 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good. Let people add as much vandalism they want. I welcome it. I've loved ND all my life, and people have hated me for it forever. I love that. Vandalism only makes support for ND stronger. Bring it. J-Dog 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the Wikipedia ideaology. Please see WP:NPOV. Vandalism is not to be tolerated or encouraged. Please see WP:VANDAL. This may be a page that should use {{sprotected}}. --MECU≈talk 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. I was speaking from a sarcastic POV. Thought that was obvious, guess not. J-Dog 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• More vandalism recently I agreee we need to protect this page from vandals.--Dubguy2131 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I hate when people vandalize, these players work there every day and then people talk bad about them. go irish --Notredamestudent 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Vandalism has been pretty bad Lately, would not be a bad idea blocking this page from new users and ip adresses.--JMay from tampa bay 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of vandalization lately on both sides. Many people are adding negative things that do not belong here, but there is a lot of vandalization on the other side too. Do not just delete things because it isn't something great about ND. This isn't a PR place for Notre Dame. LightningOffense 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get this up to Featured Article worthiness by September 1

I would love for this page to be the Featured Article on September 1st. First of all we have to go through the peer review process. So please help out with the constructive comments. -- KelleyCook 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor change in the uniform section. The article stated that ND home uniforms are blue, which to me might be a little misleading. I'm not a fan of ND by any means, but their uniforms appear to be more of a dark blue so I changed it to that.LightningOffense 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

they would more appropriately be navy blue. The shade of blue however has changed with each iteration of the uniform by Adidas. The first adidas was lighter than the current one. 66.244.123.100 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Notre Dame football team

The large section featuring a narrative and list of players on the 2005 squad should be split into its own article, such as 2005 Notre Dame football team. This would follow similar articles like 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team and 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team. There is no reason to dedicate so much article space to just one of the squads. Further I question the need for listing the state flags for each player. See related discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Current_roster_with_flags. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The split is a no brainer. Do not delete the flags though. -- KelleyCook 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to work on the split, but I think the flags should go per the conversation here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Current_roster_with_flags --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let's all keep an eye on the new roster changes. Last years's new roster was posted on the team's website "As of Aug. 16, 2005". Let's make an effort to keep the roster current! I promise to do my part. J-Dog 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas, we also need a 2006 Notre Dame football team article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 article should be named: 2005 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team per standards developed at {{WikiProject College football}}. Please add it to the Master Team Table at the project when created. A 2006 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team could also be created. Most current standards/formats for such an article are used and discussed/current on 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Please use that format and ideas. --MECU≈talk 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Created both pages though I didn't correct any of the 2006 information -- KelleyCook 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalries

I see that there is a wicked disagreement on whose Notre Dame's rivals really are. So then we obviously need a consensus on this issue. I certainly think that there are more than just two rivals. Some seem to think that only USC and Michigan are true rivals. For sure Navy needs to be on this list based on the history involved. Quite frankly, the two schools will ALWAYS play anually, and both schools have said so. MSU and ND have said publicly that they just flat out don't like each other, and the 1966 game is still one of the most talked about in college football history. As far as BC and ND, there is a huge discussion above, so decide for yourselves. Bottom line is, they all have trophies that are battled for. Why in the world would two schools go to all the trouble to design a trophy and rivalry around it, if the schools weren't rivals?!? Use your logic people. I say the rivals should be listed as (in no particular order): USC, Mich, Purdue, Mich. St, BC, Stanford & Navy. J-Dog 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A nonbinding criteria. For example every single BigTen interconference matchup has a trophy. Specifically, the Little Brown Jug, yet no one in their right mind would call those programs rivals. -- KelleyCook 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me throw this in. What constitutes a rival, and who decides this? J-Dog 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Short of ND publishing its own list of rivals, any attempt to list them would be original research. A better solution would be to simply provide a list of "frequent opponents" or something like that - teams they've played almost continuously for a certain period of time. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details or Eras

The way the eras read they are more of a short synopsis of on the field accomplishments and setbacks of the coaches. Yet several users insist on putting in detailed sections about off the field violations within these short histories. I believe that these would be more appropriate for a separate article about the history of Notre dame football. This article's purpose it seems is to list accomplishments and setbacks of players and coaches and the program regarding events on the field (games, awards, etc.) Tedmoseby 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Tedmoseby

[edit] Weis' negatives too?

I think you should consider adding to the Weis section that despite his positive records, the Irish have only betean one team in the past two years that finished the season ranked in the top 25 (Penn State this season, AP 24, Coaches 25). Listing things about how he set them off to a great start, or that some of his players set records, is fine and dandy, but the negatives such as what i pointed to, or the two losses to rival USC should be mentioned as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krizoitz (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

People here only want to talk about the good things. They will never stand for one negative comment. They won't even acknowledge that they are tied for the most Heisman trophies. I agree it should be in there, but the yes men won't allow it. LightningOffense 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby acknowledge that the afore mentioned Notre Dame Fighting Irish are tied for the most Heisman trophies. Happy now? J-Dog 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think fanboy homerism is clouding your reading of the facts in this article. The fact of that matter is the reason this article reads well is because Notre Dame has been a very successful program over the years. Moreover, if you read the recent history under Davie and Willingham, or the years between Leahy and Parseghian, it is anything but flattering. Also, the 9 game bowl loss streak is mentioned several times. Trying to put these little facts in like Weis' two losses in a row to USC is great and dandy, but it comes across as petty fanboy chest thumping. Most coaches in America have lost two or more in a row (or more) to USC. Are you adding that fact to every team's page that plays USC? I seriously doubt it. Stuff like that is not unique to Notre Dame in any way, but more reflective of USC's dominance over college football. Tedmoseby 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How the football teams plays has no effect on the reading of the article. A good article discusses all aspects of the topic, both pro and con, which this article tends to lack. The two losses in a row might not need to be in the article, but their record against quality teams should. Most of this article sounds less like a wikipedia article and more like something the PR department puts out. LightningOffense 23:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

to Krizoitz: Quote:"I think you should consider adding to the Weis section that despite his positive records, the Irish have only beaten one team in the past two years that finished the season ranked in the top 25 (Penn State this season, AP 24, Coaches 25)"

This statement is true, but it is also biased and spun in such a way as to make Weis' record look insignificant. I could rewrite it to look like this:

"Notre Dame has defeated 4 ranked teams in the 2 years since Weis has taken over. #23 Pittsburgh, #3 Michigan and #22 Purdue in 2005. Moreover, Notre Dame also beat Tennessee, which was ranked pre-season #2. In 2006 ND added another big win over a ranked team, beating #19 Penn State."

I make this point because this makes Notre Dame's record look better under Weis and it is also true. Weis and Notre Dame can't help that those teams didn't take care of business after they played ND and ended the season unranked. But notice that this sentence is also not included in the paragraphs under Weis because it is also biased. Both points of view are true though, and this is the reason why they are ultimately not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Tedmoseby 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)