Tyrone Willingham has been harshly criticized for poor recruiting at Notre Dame. I thought that it was an unfair assessment, particularly given such players as Brady Quinn and that Szmadjik(sic) fellow, among others who started and played well for the team. But I never imagined that I would read in the SAME article:

"It's true that Notre Dame has suffered a dip in its talent level, attributable to poor recruiting by Weis' predecessor Tyrone Willingham."

Followed just a few paragraphs later by this stunning contradiction:

"This first season was seen as the start of a new dynasty. In truth, Notre Dame was bound to improve, given the natural maturation of a couple of excellent Willingham recruiting classes."

Would the author please respond?

I noticed the same contradiction. Goodbye credibility.

I had never before seen such a STUNNING inconsistency in any article I've ever read! I am amazed that the author himself missed it! It's as though he wrote two different pieces and rather sloppily pasted them together! The unspoken question is whether Weis will get at least one more season to turn things around than Willingham did. But while no one is asking, at least not publicly, the answer, I think, is quite clear.