I’ll say this, however: How’s Ty doing at Washington where it was supposedly easier to recruit and he can fill roster holes with JUCO’s?

Firing Ty Willingham was the smartest thing the program has done in years.

The first problem is that your conclusion (Notre Dame “established a precedent for the next coach: You’ve got three years, pal. Have it up and running at full speed or else.”) is based on a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that Willingham’s failure to win (assuming that’s what you mean by “have it at full speed”) was the sole reason for his firing. While you can make a logical case that his last two seasons and the inability to win were one part of the decision, unless you are Willingham or the Notre Dame decision-makers writing under a pseudo-name, you don’t have all the information to come to a definitive conclusion.

Also, your general conclusion (that fairness requires a 4th year) is not logical, nor is it supported by your arguments. You admit that Weis has done more with Willingham’s players than Willingham did with them, that Willingham was a poor recruiter, that Willingham may have never been successful or happy at ND. So fairness requires that Willingham be given a fourth year only to drive the team further into the ground? That’s simply not logical. If a ship is headed for Niagra Falls and the captain is unwilling to do anything to stop it, you don’t have to wait till the ship goes over the falls to replace the captain with someone who will turn things around.

Your fairness to Willingham argument also fails to take into account the duty and responsibility the powers that be owe to Notre Dame players, the school, the alumni and the fans.

You commit more logical fallacies by comparing Willingham’s record this year to Weis’ record this year; it’s a non sequitur. Whether or not Willingham should have been given a fourth year has nothing to do with him going 2-0 this season, or Weis going 0-2. If Willingham has Washington playing for a national championship within 4-years (not just winning a few games here and there), then you could possibly argue Willingham could have turned ND around in his 4th year. But two wins against Syracuse and Boise don’t prove that. Nor would his turning Washington around. If Washington got better each year under Willingham until it plays for a national championship in his 4th year, that trend is the opposite of what he did at Notre Dame. He started out strong but quickly went down hill.

He also mentioned, get this, that Willingham’s and Charlie’s careers at ND are comparable. Willingham had two good years and the third one he sucked. Now Charlie has had two good years and now he is sucking. So, basically, he said the Willingham’s 5-7 second season was “good”. That right there just ruined any credibility the guy had.

You’re right domer, there is no point in trying to win a battle of the minds win the other side won’t play.

1.”They’ll tell you his lackluster recruiting left the cupboard bare, setting the stage for this difficult season.”

Listen Pat, the fact that you can predict a counter argument does not make it false. He goes on to claim that we site recruiting rankings. I guess he assumes rankings are completely invalid. Even if they were, you could count the raw number of recruits and still find the cupboard bare.

2. It’s true that Weis coached many of Willingham’s players better than Willingham ever did.

How can he just gloss over this point? Charlie is a better coach, but… But what? So the logic is that Ty got a few good players, then very few mediocre ones. Then he couldn’t develop any of them. Then he got trap-doored. Then Charlie gets hired, coaches Ty’s recruits better than he ever did, then suffers with the few mediocre ones. All along recruiting top 10 classes. It’s amazing how emphasizing Forde’s own claims changes his argument completely.

Conclusion: He is a racist, lazy idiot.