I think it's "funny" how the early success but ultimate failure of our previous coaches can make us leery of future ones. I feel the same way. Ultimately, Kelly should be judged by a body of work, not only his performance in 2010.

I think part of my trepidation is also tied into the fact that both Willingham and Weis got off to good to very good starts and then crashed and burned. But that's an emotional reaction.

Based on the above, our returning experience, the schedule, Kelly's track record, etc., 10 wins wouldn't be shocking in the least.

each of those teams (if I know which years you are referring to) had a situation that the Irish won't share in 2010.

-USC (2009) had to replace a host of defensive starters, operated with a true freshman quarterback, and had a lot of coaching turnover
-Georgia (2008) lost a ton of talent on their offensive line and Stafford has always been overrated in my estimation (career ~2:1 TD:INT ratio)
-Oklahoma (2009) lost the bulk of arguably the best offensive line in 2008, several very good receivers, and their Heisman Trophy quarterback to injury
-LSU (pick a year) has struggled significantly from some of the worst coaching in recent memory. Miles' clock management is poor at best and cost them a couple of games. The turnover at the quarterback position has also been problematic.

I'd also wager that most of these teams played tougher opposition, although I admit I haven't researched this point.

The lost off Tate and Clausen should not be understated, but Notre Dame returns multiple starters on both sides of the ball and for the most part won't be a young team. Crist is in year three and was a highly rated prospect. The ACL injury certainly provides some suspense, but all accounts indicate he is progressing ahead of schedule. Floyd should be able to fill in for Tate, Kamara has good potential and solid playing time to draw from, Rudolph and Ragone are two very good options at tight end, and the backfield is deep and talented.

Considering they play two, maybe three, solid defensive teams, I can't see the offensive problems being a huge liability. Improving to an average defense should be worth three or four wins alone. Additionally, the momentum generated by a new coach is often a strong asset.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not predicting 10 wins either. I've learned that, at least recently, the pessimistic view is far more accurate than the optimistic one. But I think 10 wins is not an unreasonable expectation given the talent level and schedule.

Independent of Notre Dame, we have recently seen situations where teams with "elite" raw talent, in addition to "elite" head coaches, have fallen short of 10 wins. Just last year USC, Oklahoma, Georgia and LSU all fell short of 10 wins. And none of those coaches were in their first year at the school.

Let's put it this way; I am not going to go and predict a 10 win season, but I sure as heck would not be surprised if it happened.

anything less than 10 wins would be a disappointment against what appears to be a very manageable schedule.

As best I could, using Rivals rankings, I broke down each teams spring roster. I did this for fifty BCS conference teams.

What follows are the Top 25 teams, based on the average star rating of each programs "best" 55 players in the sophomore thru 5th year senior classes. I settled on 55 players because that is the amount that, at the very least, each program had.

1. USC 4.07

2. FLORIDA 3.93

3. ALABAMA 3.91

4. TEXAS 3.85

5. OHIO ST 3.84
5. NOTRE DAME 3.84

7. LSU 3.80

8. GEORGIA 3.76

9. MIAMI 3.67

10. OKLAHOMA 3.66

11. MICHIGAN 3.58

12. SOUTH CAROLINA 3.53
12. FLORIDA ST 3.53

14. UCLA 3.50

15. CLEMSON 3.44
15. ARKANSAS 3.44

17. AUBURN 3.38

18. CALIFORNIA 3.35

19. NEBRASKA 3.22
19. TEXAS A&M 3.22

21. PENN ST 3.20
21. NORTH CAROLINA 3.20

23. GEORGIA TECH 3.16

24. VIRGINIA TECH 3.15

25. OLE MISS 3.13

ALSO OF NOTE:

PITTSBURGH 3.11
MICHIGAN ST 3.07
STANFORD 2.91
BOSTON COLLEGE 2.78