What Does It Mean To Be “Competitive?”

I’m a pretty frequent poster on some of the Notre Dame football boards. (Shocker, I know.) And lately, well, really ever since ND went 0-3 this season, a lot of the discussion has revolved around what would be “acceptable” for the 2008 season. People throw out their “acceptable” record for the 2008 season (usually somewhere in the 7-9 win range) and often add “with all losses being competitive,” meaning any losses ND might suffer in 2008, and let’s face it, it would be the miracle of all miracle football seasons not to lose at least once in 2008, would be “hard fought and close.” But it’s tough to measure “hard fought and close.” And just from a pure score perspective, it’s really, really tough to accomplish.

Thanks to the awesome George Macor Notre Dame Football Database, I was able to take a look at every loss ND has suffered in the last 30 seasons, and I’ve found some pretty interesting data…

Notre Dame has only had 7 seasons (’77, ‘78, ‘82, ‘90, ‘93, ‘96, ‘05) in the last 30 wherein, if they lost any games, those games were “close.” And by “close,” I mean a game in which the final score had a margin of 14 points or fewer (highlighted in yellow). I figure if the game was within 14 points, it was “only a 2 possession game.” And really, that’s pretty generous because that assumes it was a “2 possession game” at a point in the game where ND could still manage to mount a comeback. Some of those losses may have been 4 possession games in which ND only managed to get back within 2 TDs. Take, for example, the 1996 loss to Ohio State, yes it was “hard fought,” but was it really all that close? I was in the stands for that game, and I remember how out-classed the Irish looked compared to the stacked talent of that OSU squad. It was that particular game that people used as clear evidence that Holtz’s best years were behind him.

If you really want to get strict about the “hard fought and close” definition, then consider that only 3 of the last 30 seasons had no losses with margins bigger than 1 touchdown (National Championship/Undefeated seasons excepted, of course). So is this idea of “all losses being competitive” a reasonable expectation, or is finishing with, say 7 or 8 wins and “all losses being competitive” actually an incredibly difficult feat even without a team that finished with 9 or so losses the previous season?

Heck, it’s hard enough to go an entire season in which you don’t suffer some sort of embarrassing loss (defined by having a margin of more than 17 points). On top of the “kept them all close and competitive” seasons, there are only 3 more (’80, ‘89, ‘92 – highlighted in orange), in which an “embarrassing loss” wasn’t suffered by the Irish. The lesson: If you want to have “all losses close and competitive,” then you’d probably better have a pretty freaking good team.

I have a feeling that next year, the ND Nation definition of “acceptable” will be tested to the point of absurdity. I think ND will be far better record-wise, but an exact definition, free and clear of any gray area will be hard to come by. We’re just going to have to “know it when we see it.” And I also have a feeling we’re going to see it. I’m just not sure it’ll fit in the “all losses close and competitive” bucket quite as neatly as some might hope.