6-5-1 is light years better than 7-4-1. As is 7-5.
Jack, please make one of these the goal, and 7-4-1 the exception. That'd be nice.
Q: You were open to creating some flexibility with the 7-4-1 scheduling model. How is that playing out as you move forward with the scheduling?
A: “We have the goal of the 7-4-1 model, but there may be some years where an opportunity presents itself that we may go to 6-5-1 or 7-5. We're open to those sorts of modifications."
Few other tidbits in there as well. Jack likes Stanford, Duke and Wake Forest as opponents. Yeah, that's fine, but let's make sure that for each of those we get a bigger program in FOOTBALL as well.
The idea of Chuck staying on as OC was at least discussed...would've been cool, but would never work with Brian Kelly as HC. And probably wouldn't work with 99% of coaches. But, would've been cool.
Q: There were rumblings about contingency plans that would have allowed Charlie Weis to remain at Notre Dame in 2010 in a reduced role, offensive coordinator. Was that really ever a viable option?
A: “I wouldn't describe it as ‘contingency plans.' That wouldn't be fair at all. I think if an incoming coach didn't have a plan for an offensive coordinator, it would have been an interesting conversation, one I would have been happy to facilitate, but there were no plans. We weren't out there in our search for a coach having that be a contingency, for example.”
Swarbrick seems to not be in the running for the NCAA Presidency in the short run, though that could change...not sure how much of this is a non-denial denial. We'll have to see.
Q: During the coaching search, there was a lot of speculation about your own future. A lot of people speculated that you may be the next NCAA president. Is that something you're interested in? Is that a possibility?
A: “Myles (Brand) did a great job as the NCAA president, and I'm a great admirer of his. We all benefit from his legacy with the NCAA. As a result, they will focus on a university president as a successor, and I think that's a good thing. I think Myles had a cachet with the university presidents that helped him get some of those important things done - like the APR (Academic Progress Rates).”
Q: Is it something that might interest you down the road, or because you're not a university president, does that take that out of the realm of possibilities?
A: “I don't see it as a possibility, but I care about the industry, so I can't tell you that sometime down the road, if I had the opportunity to lead somewhere, that I wouldn't have an interest in it. But all of my energy right now is focused here, and I see myself focused here for a long time.”
By BigE January 15, 2010 - 12:43 pm
WTF, Jack is going to schedule based on schools that are institutionally like ND? Duke, Wake, well why not start scheduling the Ivy league schools too. Why do we need Stanford, Duke or Wake and their kind? What about Alabama, Tennessee, Miami? He sounds like he is shying away from the elite programs. By the way Jack, what was so successful about the Washington State game in Texas? Low attendance, low ratings and low national interest!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 15, 2010 - 2:07 pm
E, I agree that we need to schedule football schools as well, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to mix in schools like Stanford and Wake (Duke? ugh). It’s good to work with other schools that care about academics as well. But per my post, I think each Wake should have an Oklahoma attached. Each Stanford, a Texas.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By SDI January 15, 2010 - 4:12 pm
Biscuit–interesting look at Swarbrick’s views on CW as OC. I think the author of the piece may have meant contingency to mean a fall back plan, whereas Swarbrick took him to mean contingency in the legal sense of the word–i.e. our offer to you to be the next head coach at ND is contingent upon you retaining CW as OC.
Also, what is it about 7-4-1 you don’t like? The only problem I have with it is if the the neutral site game is a dud like it was this year playing a terrible Washington St. team in Texas.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 16, 2010 - 11:28 am
Swarbrick should also make contingency plans for what might happen to U$C in February. Less than a month ago I thought the NCAA would do little or nothing to $C. The arrogant stupidity of its AD hiring a rule violator like Kiffin and Carroll’s sudden departure makes it look like this may be a severe penalty. If $C gets a death penalty like SMU got in 1987, they will lose at least one season of football.
The Kiffin hire has got to have removed any leniency the NCAA could have toward $C.
I think most fans are fed up with the $C damn the rules attitude and stonewalling the investigation, and the NCAA is aware of that sentiment.
$C fans believe they are a golden goose the NCAA won’t touch. They maybe in for a very bitter reality come February 19-21.
SMU cooperated with NCAA, $C has done the exact opposite.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 16, 2010 - 5:01 pm
Problem though Ska, is that SMU is SMU and USC is USC. I don’t think they’ll get off, but I dont think they’ll get anything like the death penalty.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 16, 2010 - 5:07 pm
The more I think about the rule violations with $C and the Kiffen (kitten) hire makes sense. Why would anyone with any smarts hire a 34 year old coach with baggage and no proof of being able to win? The answer is simple: $C does not expect to be playing major FB for a few years. Let Kitten mature a little bit and the lords at $C think the program will be back after a penalty is finished. SMU is still struggling, because it did not have a plan to come back as a FB power.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0