• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
Ah, let's just drop it. I generally like you Chief. You bleed for your team and you've taken all the flack thrown your way on rival sites. I can respect that. At one time you probably would have been right about ND being the best program in college football. Sadly, those years have passed ND by. Maybe CW brings the program back to the glory days ... I don't know. It's been 20 years since you were on top and even longer since ND could lay claim to "Best Program" in history. Times have been a changin, ND hasn't been a changin with them.

How about cfbdatawarehouse's all-time program rankings? Sorry I took so long to respond, their site was down for most of the weekend. :wink2:

I don't accept these rankings, but I believe it's a legitmate unbiased source.

cfbdatawarehouse.all_time_team_rankings

<TABLE cellPadding=0 width=665 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=40 bgColor=#e1d2d2 height=17>
1

</TD><TD width=150 bgColor=#e1d2d2 height=17>
Notre Dame (IN)


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Upvote 0
Here's Mike Freeman (formerly NY Times) saying Weis will win big, but be a pain in the ass. He calls him 'Coach Protocol'.

I'm thinking that after he wrote this, he passed his hatchet onto MoC.

sportsline

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=10></TD><TD>
Under Touchdown Jesus' gaze, Coach Protocol rules with iron fist


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=10></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=50>
10231.jpg
</TD><TD noWrap>Aug. 9, 2006
By Mike Freeman


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There are elegant and luminous qualities inside the brusque husk of a man who shall now be known as Coach Protocol.

Some will find it hard to believe, but he has charm and smarts, and several years ago as the offensive coordinator of the New England Patriots, few could match wits and blackboard diagrams with him. He was as sharp as any assistant in the league.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=175 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD width=175>
img9592814.jpg
</TD><TD width=15></TD></TR><TR><TD width=175>Charlie Weis has made quite an impression since taking the Irish job. (Getty Images) </TD><TD width=15></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Super Bowl championships came and went and still NFL owners did not know what to make of Coach Protocol; neither did some in the media. On certain days he was spectacularly charming, on others, his mood resembled that of a donkey that had its big toe smashed by a ball peen hammer.

After years of being seen in professional football as one of the smarter offensive minds of the last decade who could not get a head coaching job, Notre Dame did what many NFL teams should have long before: they hired Coach Protocol.
Now leader of the Irish, that school is seeing what makes Charlie Weis so talented, and at times, so unbelievably frustrating.

I have been screaming for several years that Weis would be a terrific head coach. Nothing has changed my opinion of Coach Protocol. Mark these words: He will win multiple national championships at Notre Dame. Irish fans should be thankful that Weis fell into their lap and Urban Meyer is in the rearview mirror.

"I think he's an awesome coach," said Patriots owner Robert Kraft. "We won three Super Bowls and Charlie was a big reason why. He will make Notre Dame a winner. The school is very lucky to have him. They should cherish him."

A new era is about to begin at Notre Dame as Weis will do there what Pete Carroll has done at USC.

He will win and win and win.

The problem is, along the way, Coach Protocol might alienate just about everyone around him, because if there is one thing Coach Protocol does, it is kick people in the butt with his seemingly size 15 cleats, belittling anyone who does not suck up, shut up or pucker up.

With Weis, feelings get bent, arrows slung, apologies go unsaid. That hardcore New Jersey attitude is used as a weapon and Coach P couldn't care less if that doesn't play in Peoria.

"Am I happy with his X's and O's? The answer is yes, without question," said one prominent Notre Dame booster who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal from Weis. "How could I not be? But am I happy with how he has treated some key alumni and supporters like myself? No. He has treated some of us horribly. He has already alienated some boosters, alumni, members of the athletic department and others around him. He at times can be arrogant, moody and nasty."

Other than that, he's just dandy to deal with.

There are certainly plenty of boosters and important alumni who do not feel that way. They love him. They take Kraft's suggestion and worship him.

He does good things off the field as well. Officials at the school defend him and say he goes to plenty of booster club events. They say he has a compassionate side that people do not see and there is little question he is bringing in a high caliber of student athlete.

Yet there are members of the mainstream press that cover the team who believe the personality of Weis needs more reconstructive work than the city of New Orleans.

It is here where the nickname Coach Protocol comes in.

He recently chided the press that they should follow his rules, speaking to grown men and women like they were fourth graders about to embark on a butterfly hunting field trip.

Weis instructed: "Just follow protocol. That's all. Follow protocol."

A complaint about the personality of Weis is not a new phenomenon. He fancies himself as a sort of Bill Parcells.

The problem is Parcells expertly mixes charm and belligerence, gliding back and forth between the line of rudeness and gregariousness like a longtime tap dancer. Such maneuvers take delicacy, a scalpel. Weis is more the jackhammer type and in college sports, where schmoozing and interaction with influential alumni and the media are important, well, Weis couldn't care less.

Weis does not simply discipline any member of the media that dares not follow his rulebook. Reporters who break the protocol of Coach Protocol are banished to Antarctica. You wake up with a horse's cranium in your bed.

As Northwest Indiana Times columnist Al Hamnik reported -- has that horse head shown up yet Al? -- a sportswriter was banned by Weis from asking questions at a press conference because the writer dared pen a story not to the liking of Weis.

Smacking the media is commonplace in sports now and a reporter shrilly complaining about a hardheaded coach is almost clichéd villainy. Yet what is interesting is that Weis might be irking more than a few pencil-neck writers. He might be angering at least a handful of powerful Irish alumni.

The alumnus I spoke to tells of stories of booster clubs being snubbed by Weis and his staff and lower level athletic department officials being treated with a lack of respect. Since it is difficult to verify these stories, they will not be repeated. But the booster insists he is not being overly sensitive and he is not alone in his feelings.

Cry me an Irish river, crow the hardcore Irish fans. Who cares how he treats the media, you idiot columnist, or if a few alumni get their egos scorched? His job is to win, not please people.

That is accurate. But if I am wrong and he does not win, Weis is playing with fire. There are few recent examples, if any, where a head football coach at a top Division I program had rough relations with key booster groups and alumni and survived to talk about it.

"Behind the scenes, away from cameras and tape recorders," wrote Hamnik, "we're told he has the people skills of a prison guard. And a temper to match."

Coach Protocol will be interesting to watch. If he wins, and his at times obnoxious, moody behavior continues, alumni might be content to bite their lip.

If he loses, well, let's put it this way; there is nothing -- nothing -- like boosters and alumni scorned.

Don't think he will lose many games, though. He's too talented.
So everyone will have to just get used to the ways of Coach Protocol.
 
Upvote 0
How about cfbdatawarehouse's all-time program rankings? Sorry I took so long to respond, their site was down for most of the weekend. :wink2:

I don't accept these rankings, but I believe it's a legitmate unbiased source.

Was I talking to you BB73? :lol:

Anyway, I agree that CFDW is probably an unbiased source. I just don't put too much stock into a ranking system that doesn't explain how it is devised.

Of course the basics are laid out. 4 Categories ... Win % Points, Schedule Points, National Champ Points, and Big 4 Bowl Points combine for a total score. I've looked around, but haven't ever seen an explaination for these rankings.

Here's a few examples that make me wonder.



Win % Points: ND leads (and 1st overall) with a 743.07 to 742.51 CFDW score over Michigan. But, Michigan has more wins 848 to 811, AND a better win percentage .7433 to .7430 ... how is ND rated ahead of Michigan?



Schedule Points: God only knows how this score was derived, but ND is ranked 4th overall (Michigan is 1st). I'm not even going to guess at how the schedule points are awarded (too many variables involved). Doesn't really matter, we'll just ignore it for the time being.



National Champ Points: Again ND leads with a 600 score. Obviously CFDW awards 50 point for each MNC that THEY (CFDW) recognize as awarded by "recognized selectors". I'll just table the discussion of recognized vs unrecognized NCs for the moment. I'll even skip the discussion on points (50 too much or too little). Here's my problem. CFDW recognized ND with 12 MNCs, but they recognize Princeton with 24! What is Princeton's score for CFDW's National Champ Points? 350. Huh? 14.58 points each ... what happened to 50? They have DOUBLE the MNCs, yet ND has a higher score?

Here are some other odd ones:
Yale ... 19 MNCs ... 250 points (13.15 each)
Harvard ... 10 MNCs ... 300 (30.00 each)



Big 4 Bowl Points: ND doesn't lead this category either, so it isn't too important, but ...

Alabama 300 (30-20-3) .594
Oklahoma 295 (24-14-1) .628
Michigan 255 (18-19-0) .486
ND 225 (13-14-0) .481

Well, they're not awarding a set point total based on number of wins ... if they are, it isn't a consistent amount. They aren't awarding them based on wining percentage either. Just what criteria is being used?

This all returns to my original question ... by what criteria are you (NDChief) claiming ND to be the best program of all time? Now I guess the question could be asked of CFDW. Maybe we can drop the subject ... unless BB73 has more to add?

:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Was I talking to you BB73? :lol:

Anyway, I agree that CFDW is probably an unbiased source. I just don't put too much stock into a ranking system that doesn't explain how it is devised.

Of course the basics are laid out. 4 Categories ... Win % Points, Schedule Points, National Champ Points, and Big 4 Bowl Points combine for a total score. I've looked around, but haven't ever seen an explaination for these rankings.

Here's a few examples that make me wonder.



Win % Points: ND leads (and 1st overall) with a 743.07 to 742.51 CFDW score over Michigan. But, Michigan has more wins 848 to 811, AND a better win percentage .7433 to .7430 ... how is ND rated ahead of Michigan?



Schedule Points: God only knows how this score was derived, but ND is ranked 4th overall (Michigan is 1st). I'm not even going to guess at how the schedule points are awarded (too many variables involved). Doesn't really matter, we'll just ignore it for the time being.



National Champ Points: Again ND leads with a 600 score. Obviously CFDW awards 50 point for each MNC that THEY (CFDW) recognize as awarded by "recognized selectors". I'll just table the discussion of recognized vs unrecognized NCs for the moment. I'll even skip the discussion on points (50 too much or too little). Here's my problem. CFDW recognized ND with 12 MNCs, but they recognize Princeton with 24! What is Princeton's score for CFDW's National Champ Points? 350. Huh? 14.58 points each ... what happened to 50? They have DOUBLE the MNCs, yet ND has a higher score?

Here are some other odd ones:
Yale ... 19 MNCs ... 250 points (13.15 each)
Harvard ... 10 MNCs ... 300 (30.00 each)



Big 4 Bowl Points: ND doesn't lead this category either, so it isn't too important, but ...

Alabama 300 (30-20-3) .594
Oklahoma 295 (24-14-1) .628
Michigan 255 (18-19-0) .486
ND 225 (13-14-0) .481

Well, they're not awarding a set point total based on number of wins ... if they are, it isn't a consistent amount. They aren't awarding them based on wining percentage either. Just what criteria is being used?

This all returns to my original question ... by what criteria are you (NDChief) claiming ND to be the best program of all time? Now I guess the question could be asked of CFDW. Maybe we can drop the subject ... unless BB73 has more to add?

:wink2:

No, you weren't talking to me, but that doesn't stop me. :tongue2:

Their all time win totals for ND are 811-267-41, which is a % of .74307, using ties as a half win and a half loss. If that doesn't match your records for ND, maybe you're using some other 'official' stats, like ktffan. :biggrin:

I agree, though, since TSUN doesn't have 743.34 points in that category there is an inconsistency.

The SOS is vague and I don't really like it.

They do have these notes on NC points and 'Big 4' Bowl points (that is, if you're willing to look around, and not just bitch about it :wink2: ) Personally, I'm OK with wiping out pre-1900, but I think all NC's before a certain date (like 1925 or 1935) should get a reduced value.

ND actually gets hurts in the Bowl category because they, by choice, only went to 1 bowl before 1970. I don't understand the rationale for capping it at 20 Bowl games; but I think that only hurts USC, Alabama, and Oklahoma (I haven't dug into it to see exactly how many points are given for a win vs a loss):

cfbdw/rankings_notes

National Championship Ranking Component
Significant points are assigned for being awarded a national championship from the "Recognized National Championship Listing" presented on this site. Points for Recognized National Championships awarded prior to 1900 are not included. Lower division National Championships are included in the rankings but are assigned much less points.

Big 4 Bowls Ranking Component

Only the traditional Big 4 Bowls are utilized for this category. Winning in the Big 4 Bowls as well number of times played in a Big 4 Bowl (capped at 20 games) are criteria for points. 1901 (season) - Current Rose Bowl
1934 (season) - Current Orange Bowl
1934 (season) - Current Sugar Bowl
1936 (season) - 1991 (season) Cotton Bowl
1986, 1988, 1992 (seasons) - current Fiesta Bowl
Note: The 1986 and 1988 Fiesta Bowl Games are included due to the consideration those (2) games were National Championship Games played by Independents


BuckeyeNation27 said:
cfbdatawarehouse has decided to count all National Championships claimed by retard fans. I know it gives Michigan 1 or 2 extra, so who knows about NA.

Note to BN27 - they don't recognize all 'claimed' NCs by teams. They evaluated all claims a couple years ago, and decided to recognize those that were either awarded by a major poll or by a certain percentage of all entities in any given year. I don't agree with all of their decisions.
 
Upvote 0
No, you weren't talking to me, but that doesn't stop me. :tongue2:

Their all time win totals for ND are 811-267-41, which is a % of .74307, using ties as a half win and a half loss. If that doesn't match your records for ND, maybe you're using some other 'official' stats, like ktffan. :biggrin:

Well, I do list ND at .7430 vs. Michigan's .7433. I only carried it out to 4 decimal places since that's all I need to show Michigan's better win percentage. Maybe you're using some other 'official' language like French ... :tongue2: It still leads to an inconsistent ranking.

The SOS is vague and I don't really like it.

They do have these notes on NC points and 'Big 4' Bowl points (that is, if you're willing to look around, and not just bitch about it ) Personally, I'm OK with wiping out pre-1900, but I think all NC's before a certain date (like 1925 or 1935) should get a reduced value.

SOS is vague? That's a kind assessment.

Further, I will NEVER relinquish my right to bitch. :) Thank's for finding the 'notes', but what do they tell you about the rankings? Almost nothing. The winning percentage definition isn't followed correctly based on the fact that ND has the highest score but not the highest Win %.

The notes on SOS are worthless.

The notes on MNC might make things clearer if I really wanted to check each team's titles AND the years they were awarded. But as with the other ranking, they are inconsistent. Arbitrarily picking 1900 as the cut off date? Why 1900? Makes no sense. There are plenty of other years that would make better sense, like 1936 for example. Anyway, it shows the haphazard way in which the rankings are based. CFDW uses All-Time games to figure Win %, yet stops MNCs at 1900? Inconsistent and arbitrary.

I don't see how ND is hurt by the bowl category. It is what it is. That's like saying other teams are hurt because CFDW places a MUCH greater point premium on MNCs or don't consider titles before 1900. So?

Capping it at 20 games (again totally arbitrary number) helps ND by preventing them from falling further behind the other teams who are hurt from capping the totals. Heck, Alabama has (by quick calculation) WON 18 Big 4 Bowls (and tied 1) and played in 33 ... ND has 9 Big 4 wins and 16 overall. Don't you think the score CFDW assigns would be roughly DOUBLE for Alabama? Nope, Alabama 300 and ND 225.

Again CFDW is inconsistent by inserting 2 Fiesta bowl games. "Well it's the Big 4 Bowls ... unless we feel other Bowls are worth throwing in as well."

I guess my gripe is the arbitrary nature CFDW goes about setting up thier rankings. It says "All-Time Team Rankings", not All-Time for Win %, but 1900 for MNCs ... and, oh BTW, just your best 20 bowl games ... oh, and we forgot, we'll throw in SOS but not explain how we calculate it ... THAT should keep you guessing.

This really reminds me of how the BCS system has worked. It is my contention that CFDW had a view (maybe even an accurate one) of how the all time ranking should look (ND, Mich, etc.) and engineered a system that spit out those results. The BCS does the same thing. They get to the end of a season and IF their is an outcry of injustice, they change the system around to achieve the outcome that WAS desired from the previous year. It's just reverse engineering.

In any event, it's their system and that's fine. I generally like the site and applaude them for all the effort they put into it.
 
Upvote 0
We're really in agreement on almost all of the points.

1. TSUN's points for winning % aren't accurate.

2. 1900 as a cutoff for NC's isn't the best way to do that

3. SOS isn't explained, so it can't be understood

4. The way they assign 'Big 4' Bowl games doesn't make sense

5. Some people will always assert their right to bitch :biggrin:

I only posted that source as an answer to your original question about justifying ND as a #1 all-time program. I did that for a couple of reasons: I had just put them as #1 on LJB's "top-5' thread last week, so I wanted to show that the ranking could be justified; and the post would get attacked mercilessly if it had been made by NDChief.

I don't use CFBDW's rankings as the reason for my top-5 rankings, and I don't want to defend them because I agree there are problems with the methods they use.

But I think it indicates that somebody can still claim that ND is the #1 program of all-time without being either delusional or an ND homer. Because I know I'm not an ND homer, and I also don't think I'm delusional (but I might not know it if I were). :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top