A great example as to who Notre Dame truly is…

[ThomasM]

I agree. Jimmy Johnson did the same thing as Tom Osbourne in 88. After the refs stole the football from Gary, we got the ball back and scored a late touchdown. Instead of going for the tie (which most likely would have given us the championship), we went for two and missed it. Our only loss that season.

And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.

In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.

I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.

There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.

Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.

The players on that team would have NEVER forgiven JJ had he not gone for 2. The same would have applied to former players.

Had JJ settled for the tie the "U" wouldn't be what it is today. Since our first National Championship players who have a win at all costs attitude have been the core of the Canes football program. We've never wanted players or coaches that think about anything other than winning. No moral victories!!! No ties!!!

Bull crap. The players would have been chomping at the bit for the rematch. Might have been a tough pill to swallow for a few days, but once they realized they were getting a rematch and a national title, they'd have been fine with it. Tell me, how do you think they felt leaving there with a loss? How do you think that loss feels to them nearly 30 years later? You're telling me we tie them then beat them in a rematch isn't better than stewing over a loss for 30 years?

 

[NorthEastCane]

I agree. Jimmy Johnson did the same thing as Tom Osbourne in 88. After the refs stole the football from Gary, we got the ball back and scored a late touchdown. Instead of going for the tie (which most likely would have given us the championship), we went for two and missed it. Our only loss that season.

And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.

In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.

I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.

There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.

Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.

The players on that team would have NEVER forgiven JJ had he not gone for 2. The same would have applied to former players.

Had JJ settled for the tie the "U" wouldn't be what it is today. Since our first National Championship players who have a win at all costs attitude have been the core of the Canes football program. We've never wanted players or coaches that think about anything other than winning. No moral victories!!! No ties!!!

Also, IMO, there's no way Holtz would of agreed to a rematch. We all saw how scared he was angling for West Virginia in the bowl game. Like Parseghian, he would of relied on the Notre Dame sympathy vote to get what he wanted.

 

[NorthEastCane]

And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.

In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.

I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.

There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.

Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.

The players on that team would have NEVER forgiven JJ had he not gone for 2. The same would have applied to former players.

Had JJ settled for the tie the "U" wouldn't be what it is today. Since our first National Championship players who have a win at all costs attitude have been the core of the Canes football program. We've never wanted players or coaches that think about anything other than winning. No moral victories!!! No ties!!!

Bull crap. The players would have been chomping at the bit for the rematch. Might have been a tough pill to swallow for a few days, but once they realized they were getting a rematch and a national title, they'd have been fine with it. Tell me, how do you think they felt leaving there with a loss? How do you think that loss feels to them nearly 30 years later? You're telling me we tie them then beat them in a rematch isn't better than stewing over a loss for 30 years?

See my other post. Do you really think it was automatic that Holtz would have agreed to a rematch? They would have done anything to avoid it. There would have been no loud clamor for a rematch, as in most things Notre Dame, public sentiment would have supported him.

 

[moshated305]

If a Miami coach purposely took a tie to preserve his season, he'd be dead to me. Al Golden is held in higher regard to me than Ara Parseghian.

I agree. Jimmy Johnson did the same thing as Tom Osbourne in 88. After the refs stole the football from Gary, we got the ball back and scored a late touchdown. Instead of going for the tie (which most likely would have given us the championship), we went for two and missed it. Our only loss that season.

And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.

In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.

I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.

There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.

Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.

Wrong, if you have a chance to win a game you go for the win.

 

[DTP]

Tom Osborne could have easily kicked an extra point and Nebraska would have won the national title. He didn't because going for the tie is a move reserved for coaches like Bobby Bowden. You play to win.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

***** Ara. Coward. Watched him whine about Miami embarrassing Notre Dame and complaining about Johnson running up the score was classic. Ara ran it up time and time again during his time at Notre Dame. He was gifted the national title. Alabama went undefeated and embarrassed Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia finished with one loss to Miami and embarrassed SMU in the Cotton Bowl.

 

[Earnest T. Bass]

And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.

In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.

I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.

There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.

Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.

The players on that team would have NEVER forgiven JJ had he not gone for 2. The same would have applied to former players.

Had JJ settled for the tie the "U" wouldn't be what it is today. Since our first National Championship players who have a win at all costs attitude have been the core of the Canes football program. We've never wanted players or coaches that think about anything other than winning. No moral victories!!! No ties!!!

Bull crap. The players would have been chomping at the bit for the rematch. Might have been a tough pill to swallow for a few days, but once they realized they were getting a rematch and a national title, they'd have been fine with it. Tell me, how do you think they felt leaving there with a loss? How do you think that loss feels to them nearly 30 years later? You're telling me we tie them then beat them in a rematch isn't better than stewing over a loss for 30 years?

Your words betray you, because no real Cane would ever make such a cowardly statement. Had JJ opted for the tie, which he wouldn't have done even had someone put a loaded gun to his head, to this very day JJ and the Canes would have gone down in history as a bunch of pansies. The buildup to tomorrow night's game would have been replay after replay with he accompanying media language that the Canes didn't have the courage to go for a win. But, too be clear, had JJ played for the tie I would have instantly been an ex-Cane, and I know that many others would have felt the same way.

Regarding your "Bull Crap" comment, using those famous words to pin the tail on the donkey...he who smealt it dealt it!!!

It's a Canes thing baby...you wouldn't understand!!!

 

[drifters1234]

Tom Osborne could have easily kicked an extra point and Nebraska would have won the national title. He didn't because going for the tie is a move reserved for coaches like Bobby Bowden. You play to win.

Pat “Tie” Dye earned his nickname. Bobby was not conservative at all compared to Dye.