Sword of Damocles. Quite snazzy, actually.

This is really the only question of the off-season, isn't it?

I hope I make it to September.

I would have a hard time digesting that type of loss to SC, yet again. Also, I think the Nevada game needs to be better defensively. I see us scoring 27-31pts, but if we give up 24 I am gonna be disappointed. I think UM, Pitt, and UConn could be a bigger spread. I just don't see Stanford scoring all that much if we are coming in 10-1 with a frosh QB at the helm who will likely be knee-deep in "battered wife syndrome" coming out of P10 play.

In the end you put together a likely best-case scenario...short of an SC win. Interesting food for thought.

NEVADA .... W 27-13
@ Michigan .... W 28-17
MICHIGAN STATE ... W 24-20
@ Purdue .... W 31-21
WASHINGTON .... W 34-10
SOUTHERN CAL .... L 16-24
B. COLLEGE .... W 24-23
WASHINGTON STATE .... W 49-0
NAVY .... W 31-14
@ Pittsburgh .... W 31-20
CONNECTICUT .... W 28-17
@ Stanford .... W 27-17

that would make me very unhappy:

NEVADA .... W 31-24
@ Michigan .... W 20-17
MICHIGAN STATE ... W 24-20
@ Purdue .... W 31-21
WASHINGTON .... W 34-10
SOUTHERN CAL .... L 10-38
B. COLLEGE .... W 24-23
WASHINGTON STATE .... W 49-0
NAVY .... W 31-14
@ Pittsburgh .... W 24-21
CONNECTICUT .... W 28-17
@ Stanford .... W 27-24

Assume none of our opponents except USC is BCS-worthy. A season like this would prove very little that is good, and would be a set-up for another blowout loss in a BCS bowl.

If this collective coaching staff wins the hearts and minds of the 85 players on the roster, this season will be a success in my opinion. And we will definitely know it when we see it. I saw signs of it in Holtz's first year, and saw it in Charlie's first year. It is a palpable sense of we have the players/plan/effort/etc. to win every game we play (whether we do or not is another question).

I'll know it when I see it.

Didn't Iowa once go down to their walk-on RB at one point a few years ago, and yet people were still applauding them because at least they were competitive if not winning? That sort of situation could play out at ND somehow (of course, then someone will rip Weis for not recruiting enough players at whatever position gets decimated).

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

During these late spring/summer doldrums, much of the discussion seems to be revolving around how many wins would mean the season was a "success," basically an attempt to divine what appropriate expectations for the season should. A prominent side debate to this issue is a discussion about the minimum amount of wins Charlie needs to keep his job.

That all being said, I'm inherently skeptical about nailing down a specific number of games that Weis "must" win, and subscribe much more to the pornography outlook: I'll know it when I see it.

However, are there absolute minimums or maximums that, regardless of actual team performance during the season, would be indefensible or undeniably successful? Is there any way to rationalize a 6-win season, particularly against this schedule, or any way to show doubt in one totaling 11?

Injuries are obviously a wild card in this situation.