Don't cry for Weis, South Bend. 

Although Weis won't have many, if any, head coaching opportunities, he'll have a few NFL offensive coordinator opportunities.  The Cleveland Browns is a good fit, for example.

Now, what about the next coach for Notre Dame?  Some of the wish-list coaches have already declined (Meyer and Stoops). 

Barring securing a wish-list coach, Notre Dame will be served best by a coach 1) hailing from a non-BCS program, particularly one that has had to overcome limited recruiting options, poor conference prestige, and lack of resources (facilities and/or financial), 2) who has excelled despite said challenges, and 3) who delivers a balanced offensive attack with a very strong defense (defense wins championships).

Using this framework, here is a good example:

Texas Christian University (TCU)'s Gary Patterson | 1998-present; Fort Worth, TX

• 2009: 12-0; Outscored opponents 49-15 on average per game

• Arrived after 1997 season when TCU was 1-10

• Defense (6th in nation)

• Offense (4th in nation; balanced run/pass attack)

• Recruiting (has to compete with regional powerhouses Texas, Oklahoma and most big schools in SEC and Southwest US.  Interpretation: Patterson wins despite getting athletes that were not recruited by aforementioned schools).

Now, let's extend this framework further, to other college divisions. 

After all, one does not find diamonds-in-the-rough by staying on the well-worn path. The Ohio State University didn't attempt to find its wish-list coach by pursuing successful coaches at Division I schools; those were its backups.  OSU evaluated several Division II and Division III coaches, and wooed Jim Tressel, who was head coach at Division II Youngstown State University (Ohio).

Notre Dame will wake up the echoes by seeking diamonds-in-the-rough.  Moreover, the state of Ohio has been an unparalleled hot-bed of coaching talent, particularly within the lower division colleges, and, yes, high schools (Ara Parseghian, Lou Holtz, Bob Stoops, Urban Meyer, John Harbaugh, Les Miles, Bo Pelini and Jim Tressel were all diamonds-in-the-Ohio-rough, just to name a few). 

So, the key is identifying the statistical anomaly indicating coaching genius that transcends divisions.  It's picking the proverbial government file clerk to be one's lead physicist, before everyone and his brother want said physicist at their university.

Here is an example:

Mount Union College's Larry Kehres | 1986-present; Alliance, Ohio

 

• 2009 (will compete for national championship, again) 12-0. Outscored opponents 50-8 on average per game

• Coached 23 seasons: 275-21-3, .929

• Since 1993, won 10 Division III national championships

• 1994-2005, won 110 consecutive regular season games

• Prior to Kehres taking over head coaching position, Mt. Union was a historically average (.500) team

My guess is Notre Dame will pursue a "safe" choice, like a Davie, Weis or Willingham.  I hope that is not the case, Dear Loyal Irish Fans. 

I hope athletic director Jack Swarbrick can awaken the echoes of his Notre Dame undergraduate degree and channel the entrepreneurial decision-making of his Stanford University Law School degree to identify and woo a proven leader and winner, a Diamond-in-the-Rough.

Let’s review the last three seasons of the last three coaches at the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.  The third year will be compared at ten games into the year, for a side-by-side comparison. 

As you will see, Charlie has performed miserably – far worse than his two most recent predecessors and poor by any measure. 

Further, he has earned dubious distinctions that aren’t conspicuously revealed in the W-L columns: losing to rival Navy…twice…at home in past three years; most 30 point defeats as percentage of games coached; worst record against winning-record teams; 0-5 against USC; etc.

Davie (1999-2001): 19-15  || 55.9%

 

Willingham (2002-2004): 21-14  ||  60.0%

 

Weis (2007-2009): 16-19  ||  45.7% 

Here are some of the excuses for Notre Dame and its alumnus, Charlie:

1)  ND’s academic standards are too high to enable a competitive team

(Really, tell that to Stanford, which has more stringent student-athlete academic standards than that of ND; what is an athlete’s "academic standard" at ND?  I can highlight ACTs and high school GPAs of many football starters, but will just say ND has a lot of 18 ACT scores, which is below the 50th percentile, by the way).

2)  Charlie inherited a team with depleted talent

(On a relative basis, perhaps; that was December 2004, too.  Yet, ask any coach at Boise State, Boston College, Stanford, Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Brigham Young, Navy, et al, whether he would love to have had that depleted talent – even that depleted talents’ backup players, and they would salivate at such an offer)

3)  Charlie needs more time

(More than half-a-decade?  Really?  The top coaches in the country have been vocal about the top-notch talent at ND, particularly its current juniors and seniors, and the depth on the squad)

4)  Next year will be better

(Charlie loses the core of his starters as most are seniors; Tate and Clausen will likely enter the draft since both will go high in first-round and it’s the last year of no-cap rookie salary; So, do the math…2010 equals rebuilding year…even though the house was never built!)

The Brains AND Brawn, Mama Say Knock You Out, Stanford Cardinal is, hands-down, the role model for a Division I program that wants to instill class, discipline, athletic competitiveness and academics.  

Bottom line: Can Notre Dame’s administration change its ways and do what it requires to improve student-athlete standards and perform on-and-off the field as does the Stanford Cardinal?

That is the question, Dear Readers…

Fighting Irish vs Panthers preview

Fighting Irish vs Panthers coverage

Pittsburgh Panthers will win, but not as easily as its ranking might indicate (they’ve yet to prove themselves against a top 30 team, and won’t do so until the West Virginia Mountaineers and Cincinnati Bearcats games later this month). 

Given Pitt’s tough-as-nails rushing defense, even my grandma can predict Charlie & Company will be calling "fade route" to the right, "fade route" to the left, "fade route" all over the place.  You see, Charlie is predictable – and defiant (he never, ever changes).  [Side note: If somebody steps on Clausen’s toe, then game-over for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.]

ND has a weak defense, especially the secondary.  Pitt will expose it by using its balanced offensive attack.  So, expect ND to give-up occasional big plays, runs and passes, because the secondary will have to help against the running game.  Remember, Navy’s fullback easily dropped 158 yards on ND (and it was ND’s priority to stop Navy’s fullback, if nothing else).

Pitt has a smaller, but speedier running back (40: 4.44) than that of Navy’s.  ND, however, will witness a combination of speed and size when it plays Stanford to close the season.  See stats:

• Navy FB Vince Murray   | 6’1" 217lbs | #37 in nation | 796 yards | 5.3 yards/carry  
• Pittsburgh RB Dion Lewis | 5’8" 195lbs | #7 in nation | 1,139 yards | 5.6 yds/carry
• Stanford RB Toby Gerhart  | 6’1" 235 lbs | #2 in nation | 1,217 yards | 5.2 yds/carry

Both teams played the Navy Midshipmen on their home fields.  Here’s the apples-to-apples comparison:

Pitt held Navy’s vaunted rushing attack to 129 yards (2.8 yds/carry).  In contrast, ND gave up a whopping 348 yards (6.1 yds/carry) rushing, despite not even attempting to defend a passing game (Navy only threw three times, including a 50+ yard touchdown).  

Mental weaknesses: Both Pitt and ND turned the ball over on Navy’s 1 yard line (partly proof of Navy’s goal-line, fumble-forcing abilities).  For Pitt, it didn’t matter.

Pitt-Navy:  27-14 Win

ND-Navy : 21-23 Loss

Pitt beats ND by at least 9 points…