Brady Quinn on ND Recent Success

Submitted by skegemogpoint on December 1st, 2021 at 11:50 AM

Brady Quinn was recently on Petros & Money radio show and expressed a thought that is widely held: Notre Dame's success in recent years has been premised upon a weak ACC schedule and a down USC.

As many have said in the past, ND would have ZERO cfb playoff appearances if they were a full time member in a P5 Conference.  They would never have gotten by Alabama, Ohio State, or Clemson.  Not ever, not even close.  Yes, they've been a good team but the scores in recent playoff appearances speak for themselves. Just really refreshing to hear an objective Irish alum making these comments.  

 

Mike Damone

December 1st, 2021 at 11:54 AM ^

Despite having attended Notre Dame - Mr. Quinn really showed intelligence and nailed it with that accurate observation.  Their schedule recently has been pathetic.

And I will just add - To Hell With Notre Dame!

Bo Harbaugh

December 1st, 2021 at 5:20 PM ^

You were technically there, but didn't look like the players ever got off the bus for those games or the BCS championship game year.  Avoiding a conference and potential conference championship games is why ND has no hardware to show for its "successful seasons" and when they do fraudulently make it into big games, they have their doors blown off.

 

Collegefootballfan

December 1st, 2021 at 8:18 PM ^

Let's see how you do against Georgia.

ND played eventuall Championship winners each time.. 

Albama beat Ohio State worse than they beat ND that year in the final

Clemson blew out Bama worse than ND on their way to championship

ND ran into historically good teams both years

rc15

December 1st, 2021 at 11:58 AM ^

I mean... they did beat Clemson once. Missing their star QB, but P5 teams take advantage of injuries to other teams all the time too.

ldevon1

December 1st, 2021 at 11:58 AM ^

It doesn't matter, and he's just taking a shot at Kelly. They've played and beat good teams. I hate when people blame a schedule for a teams success. I'm not gonna go over their whole schedule, but they beat some good teams. 

ironman4579

December 1st, 2021 at 12:13 PM ^

I mean, I'll go over their schedule.  Their best win might be Purdue.  Wisconsin has fixed up their record a bit, but they certainly weren't a good team at the beginning of the season.  And that's about it.  FSU isn't good, USC isn't good, Virginia Tech isn't good, North Carolina isn't good, Navy, Virginia, Stanford and Georgia Tech aren't good.

ironman4579

December 1st, 2021 at 12:37 PM ^

Ok, you were the one that talked about their schedule, which seems to imply this year.  But fine, last year they played like one decent team in Clemson. Outside of that I think they played two teams with winning records, one of whom was Alabama and they got crushed.  2019 they may have been legitimately decent, as they played a few 8 win or better teams.

BlueMk1690

December 1st, 2021 at 12:30 PM ^

I'm not sure how schedule could not be considered in a sport like college football where schools get to pick and choose their opponents and are typically compared to other teams which played totally different sets of opponents. This isn't exactly the NBA or NHL where at least everyone plays everyone (in a normal year).

Given the right schedule - playing vs 4 year olds - I could be undefeated on my own and make a claim for the playoff, right? Obviously extreme example, but the point still nevertheless holds true.

 

MgofanNC

December 1st, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^

I think the issue isn't just did they play A good team or not but its playing several good teams. There is a difference between playing MSU, PSU, OSU in the span of a month and playing just 1 of those schools in your season. This is why being in the BIG and SEC should and often does give the conference champ a spot in the playoff even if they have 1 loss. It's not about playing good once in your season. It's about being able to go out there several times a year and sometimes without some of your best dudes at 100% (see Corum and All these last 3 weeks) and still have the depth, drive, and skill to get those wins. That is what ND has lacked with USC, Stanford, being down and no UM on their schedule. They did play Georgia in a home and home a few seasons back but that's probably been their best opponents over that time (Clemson without the no. 1 draft pick doesn't count IMO).

jmblue

December 1st, 2021 at 12:00 PM ^

ND's schedule this year was an absolute snoozefest.  Only two ranked opponents - Wisconsin and Cincinnati.  A big reason Brian Kelly became their winningest coach* is that he watered down their schedule considerably.

*If we overlook games vacated due to academic fraud

Brhino

December 1st, 2021 at 12:35 PM ^

It depends.  Are we talking about Indiana, who were #17 in the preseason AP poll but finished 2-10?  Yeah, nobody should be claiming "ranked when we played them" there.

But some teams are good enough to be ranked, but then we beat them.  So that's another loss and now they're not ranked.  It's the whole negative mindset cycle:

1. We may not beat this team, they're pretty good

2. Oh hey we beat that team

3. I guess that team wasn't very good.

Wisconsin and Penn State are fringe top 25 teams that lost to most of the top 15 teams they played, plus one single bad loss each.  We should absolutely take credit for a quality win against each of them, especially given they were both on the road.

Washington started the season ranked and would still have been ranked when we played them if they hadn't lost to Montana the week before.  However they finished the season 4-8 and nobody should be claiming them as a victory over a ranked team.

MNWolverine2

December 1st, 2021 at 12:32 PM ^

Dude, I'm one of the biggest Michigan fans out there.  I just hate when Michigan fans have blinders on when comparing things like this.  Did ND have a tough schedule - no!  Did Michigan have a tough schedule - not really!  Different is Michigan won their game against a Top 5 team (OSU) and ND lost their game (Cinci)

KBLOW

December 1st, 2021 at 12:46 PM ^

You are so full crap. #1 You have simply not watched ND or UC play if you think UC is anything other than a 10-15 team at best. And generally, Notre Dame gets to play away games at stadiums that are most often close to empty against the weakest P5 conference (yes, even with a fully powered Clemson) in the land. So, yes, if ND had to play in the Big Ten, they would have losses to IU occasionally (last years team would've beaten them for sure) and NW every few years and PSU and MSU and OSU and Michigan most years. 

B-Nut-GoBlue

December 1st, 2021 at 2:57 PM ^

I have watched Cincy.  I've watched Alabama. I've watched Baylor.  I've watched Michigan and Ohio St..  I've watched Iowa., Penn St., Michigan St., Ole Miss, Iowa St..  I cannot, nor you, nor any claimed college football expert say thay Cincy couldn't hang with the power 5 team schedules we keep propping up because tradition and their "name".  They're a good outfit and quite possibly really good.  Bama is sitting #3 because recruiting ratings and recent history but they have not looked any better than Cincy, often times, this season.

The Cincy schedule turned out to not be so great.  Yes.  But they won the games.  Just like us (mostly). Just like Bama (mostly).  Just like Oklahoma St.  Not all were gorgeous blowouts.  But they won. Of course one of the bigger games they could've played they happened to miss in rotation this year (they do play them Saturday and if they win, it's just as good a win if not better than beating the likes of Auburn or UCLA or Penn St.).  Of course Navy had had a down year when 2 years ago it would've been an excellent win.  We know what it's like to play the service academies.  It.  Sucks.  The bottom feeders (Temple, USF) of the AAC are indeed pretty shitty; though I'd be curious to know how shitty when next to Northwestern, Kansas, Arizona, Oregon St, Rutgers, Maryland, Florida St., etc..

Toasted Yosties

December 1st, 2021 at 12:04 PM ^

This is all very much “don’t hate the player, hate the game” situation. I’ve had no problem with ND having gotten into the playoff the last few years. Their performance in the playoff isn’t a factor in their entry, so pointing to a game after the decision is made is meaningless. A lot of teams not named Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State are going to get blown out in the playoff. In the end, the committee chose them. You could argue/speculate it was because of ratings, but I think they’ve always made a fair case in getting in. While I totally buy their ACC affiliation helps them in that pursuit, hats off to them for being strategic. What they did on the field has been good enough in the eyes of the committee. Please, let’s change it so everyone has to win a conference championship to get in, so everything doesn’t come down to what a bunch of administrative professionals in a conference room think, otherwise tip-of-the-cap for doing what they needed to do to make the playoff. 

skegemogpoint

December 1st, 2021 at 12:18 PM ^

That's the issue. The last data point (the Conf Championship game) is often the most difficult leg or at least very difficult. ND never faces that challenge - a huuuge advantage.

Imagine if the last mile of a mini marathon is uphill but one runner doesn't have to run it and finishes at mile marker 12 while everyone else must run 13.  Would it surprise anyone if the guy who ran 12 miles finished faster than the others? 

Toasted Yosties

December 1st, 2021 at 12:31 PM ^

And this year, missing out on a conference championship may very well be the difference of missing out on the playoff. While I’m all for every team playing the same amount of games, in total but also at the conference level, and a general equal playing field, that’s NEVER been college football. Ever. Hate the game, but ND has played it well. The people/computers who decide who gets in and doesn’t thought 12 wins in 2013 and 2018 for ND was enough. In the end, that’s all that matters.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Mpfnfu Ford

December 1st, 2021 at 12:23 PM ^

I don't know if I agree with Quinn there. Notre Dame in the ACC just needs an upset win over Clemson a couple of those years which I think it could have done. 

I fully believe Independence has HURT Notre Dame, not helped it. Having so little continuity of schedule from year to year leaves you open to being upset by a team that you should beat on paper. Everyone at BYU talked about it when they first went independent, how hard it is to deal with 7-10 new opponents every year. 

Other than USC/Stanford/Navy, Notre Dame's schedule is a grab bag every season. They have to game plan for 9 different teams every single season, most of whom are gunning for them because it's always a big nationally televised game. It's untenable. But like most things with Notre Dame, the school puts the competitiveness of its team secondary to making money. The checks from NBC cash, so they intentionally hamstring the team to keep the money flowing.

Now with the expanded playoff, they're even willing to foreclose on the opportunity to ever get a bye week in the playoff just to keep getting that NBC money. They've run their coach off because they won't invest in basic facility things like a team dietician that every other major program has. It's kinda pathetic.

HateSparty

December 1st, 2021 at 12:33 PM ^

I saw this and thought that it was intended to be a slight toward the now former coach.  He was only successful because he wasn't pressed by any quality teams consistently.  I am a cynic though and that would be what I would say, most likely.

LSAClassOf2000

December 1st, 2021 at 12:48 PM ^

Let's face it though - they partner with the ACC because they are probably guaranteed a decent record that way, at a minimum. A mid- to bottom-heavy conference where most of the teams are under their baseline is exactly what they wanted out of such a partnership. 

skegemogpoint

December 1st, 2021 at 1:31 PM ^

of course that's the reason they partnered with ACC. Do you really think they want a piece of OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, WIS et al every year?  They'd face at least five 50/50 games each year which equates to 2-3 losses on average.  They've played the scheduling game wisely by affiliating with ACC but nobody can convince me they're anything better than a 5th place team in SEC or 4th place team in B10 year in and year out.

Perkis-Size Me

December 1st, 2021 at 1:32 PM ^

ND has been a huge beneficiary of USC being down almost every year since Pete Carroll left, FSU being down for the last 5-6 years, Stanford being down for the same amount of time, Clemson being on the schedule maybe once every few years, and playing against an otherwise very weak ACC and Navy team. 

Now, is it ND's fault that those other programs aren't any good? Of course not. Play the schedule in front of you. But that doesn't change the overall point. They get exposed thoroughly when they actually get to the CFP. 

ND could be taking a huge hit in the coming years now that Riley is heading to USC. Now depending on who ND hires they may be able to counter, but if they don't knock that hire out of the park, this could turn into another Pete Carroll situation where USC just flat out dominates the rivalry for a decade. Once he gets that team up and running it could be a while before ND smells the playoffs again. 

bronxblue

December 1st, 2021 at 2:25 PM ^

ND feels a bit like how MSU benefitted from PSU/UM struggling in the early 2010's.  Once PSU and UM started winning 9-10 games a year on the regular MSU's success cratered, and I assume if USC rebounds under Riley we'd see the same.  It also helps that Stanford started to fall apart the past couple of years; that was another team that gave ND trouble under Harbaugh/early Shaw.

ND is a good football program but they've benefitted immensely from weak scheduling and peers being down a bit.

Jonesy

December 1st, 2021 at 7:03 PM ^

He's 100% right and is exactly the answer that went through my head as i read this title and clicked the link. Half their fault and half not, their schedule has been butt for years. They play 5 ACC games a year, and that generally means 4 MAC teams and maybe Clemson and/or whatever FSU is that year. Stanford has sucked for a while. USC has sucked for a while. They don't play us or MSU anymore. Half joining the ACC is their fault, all the rivals still on their schedule sucking isn't. But either way they have had a joke of a schedule lately and anyone paying attention has noticed theyve been overrated.