By Brian Hamilton
SAN FRANCISCO -- A glorious morning-after here in the Bay Area, but likely a gloomy, angst-ridden day thus far a few thousand miles east. The greatest anticlimax of recent vintage will be any official announcement that Charlie Weis won't return to Notre Dame for 2010, because a mountain of circumstantial evidence says that is inevitably the case.
With that, a few leftover musings following Notre Dame's 45-38 loss to Stanford on Saturday...
1. Weis' postgame silence Saturday was a tellingly bad decision. The sycophants will say, what did Weis have to gain by talking? The response: It's what he had to lose. He has a seven-figure salary and, accordingly, a responsibility to be the face of the program. Other coaches about to walk the plank -- Kansas' Mark Mangino, Virginia's Al Groh, Louisville's Steve Kragthorpe -- mustered the courage to face the big, bad media following regular-season finales.
And wasn't it just two or three weeks ago that Weis introduced the world to Notre Dame's week of, as he put it, "accountability and responsibility"? He didn't have to answer job-related questions Saturday. He could have repeated the "Let's talk about Stanford" refrain from last Tuesday's news conference and would have survived it. He simply needed to stand and be counted. Instead, Weis went silent and undermined everything he claimed to be about since the start of his Notre Dame tenure. Was it worth it?
SAN FRANCISCO -- A glorious morning-after here in the Bay Area, but likely a gloomy, angst-ridden day thus far a few thousand miles east. The greatest anticlimax of recent vintage will be any official announcement that Charlie Weis won't return to Notre Dame for 2010, because a mountain of circumstantial evidence says that is inevitably the case.
With that, a few leftover musings following Notre Dame's 45-38 loss to Stanford on Saturday...
1. Weis' postgame silence Saturday was a tellingly bad decision. The sycophants will say, what did Weis have to gain by talking? The response: It's what he had to lose. He has a seven-figure salary and, accordingly, a responsibility to be the face of the program. Other coaches about to walk the plank -- Kansas' Mark Mangino, Virginia's Al Groh, Louisville's Steve Kragthorpe -- mustered the courage to face the big, bad media following regular-season finales.
And wasn't it just two or three weeks ago that Weis introduced the world to Notre Dame's week of, as he put it, "accountability and responsibility"? He didn't have to answer job-related questions Saturday. He could have repeated the "Let's talk about Stanford" refrain from last Tuesday's news conference and would have survived it. He simply needed to stand and be counted. Instead, Weis went silent and undermined everything he claimed to be about since the start of his Notre Dame tenure. Was it worth it?
2. If there is no bowl game, you've seen the last of Jimmy Clausen in a Notre Dame uniform. The Irish's junior quarterback held the line Saturday, reiterating that he hasn't contemplated his NFL future. But Pete Sampson of Irish Illustrated wrote Sunday that Clausen has been telling friends he's gone. And why did La Famiglia Clausen abscond with their scion's helmet Saturday, as if it was a souvenir or parting gift?
Clausen has been a fantastic quarterback this season and there is every justification for him to move to the next level. The only charade is pretending there's any chance he doesn't.
3. Toby Gerhart and Golden Tate have made their Heisman Trophy cases tough to ignore. This voter is saddened that the ballot for college football's highest individual honor has only three spots. Tate has been brilliant for Notre Dame, yet it's difficult to justify a top 3 spot for a player from a six-loss team. Were only the ballots extended to a top 5 to honor a player who cranked out another 201 yards and three touchdowns receiving Saturday, and who truly cares about the game, as evidenced by his tears afterward.
It is less difficult to argue for Gerhart, a spectacularly bulldozing runner who accrued another 205 yards on the ground and four total touchdowns (three rushing, one passing) versus the Irish. On an eight-win Stanford team in a season where the top players on the top clubs have been up-and-down, Gerhart may have sealed a spot on the final ballot Saturday.
Clausen has been a fantastic quarterback this season and there is every justification for him to move to the next level. The only charade is pretending there's any chance he doesn't.
3. Toby Gerhart and Golden Tate have made their Heisman Trophy cases tough to ignore. This voter is saddened that the ballot for college football's highest individual honor has only three spots. Tate has been brilliant for Notre Dame, yet it's difficult to justify a top 3 spot for a player from a six-loss team. Were only the ballots extended to a top 5 to honor a player who cranked out another 201 yards and three touchdowns receiving Saturday, and who truly cares about the game, as evidenced by his tears afterward.
It is less difficult to argue for Gerhart, a spectacularly bulldozing runner who accrued another 205 yards on the ground and four total touchdowns (three rushing, one passing) versus the Irish. On an eight-win Stanford team in a season where the top players on the top clubs have been up-and-down, Gerhart may have sealed a spot on the final ballot Saturday.
how is clausen keeping his mouth shut a charade? he does it out of respect for his teammates and coach, so as not to draw public attention away from the team to his own nfl bid. it's not a charade.
and weis' postgame silence was due to lack of courage? the fact that he didn't hold a press conference isn't even really newsworthy, but somehow you've construed that into weis being a coward. come on!
these are interesting facts in your article, but the editorial seems ambiguous and not well-thought-out.
Well I thought the Sun Times writer Brian Hanley gave us another comprehensive story of the Notre Dame game. There was actually a complete story of the game and some items about the players but also the required lines about the Weiss situation.
The stuff your columnist David Haugh wrote was incomprehensible. Hs had Stoopes ready to come there today and in the next breadth quoting the athletic director that nothing has been decided. The Trib Sports columnists come across as having the attitude that the more I mention ND the more people will read my stuff, despite how critical and sophomoric it is. There is absolutely nothing creative in selecting sports stories to write about. Day after day the Trib stuff is 80% negative regardless of who or what the story is about. Bob Shonk ND alom