Ranking Notre Dame in Top 25 not yet justifiable, plus more thoughts

In what's likely a make-or-break year, Charlie Weis and Notre Dame could easily win nine games thanks to a favorable schedule. Chris Williams/Icon SMI Stewart Mandel's Mailbag Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Stewart Mandel on Twitter

They already have their own TV network, their own BCS entry rule and their own, famous leprechaun (Regis Philbin). Now, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish have their own Mailbag lead.

Stewart, please explain to me why Notre Dame, which lost to SYRACUSE at home last season, is ranked in the preseason Top 25. Will the college football world ever stop overrating that team in South Bend? If this isn't a reason to completely disregard preseason rankings, I don't know what is.
-- Tim, Evanston, Ill.

You wrote recently that Charlie Weis needs at least nine wins to keep his job. Will Weis and the Irish win nine games this season?
-- @PPokaski (via Twitter)

Most voters treat their preseason polls as a prediction of the final outcome, and it seems most pollsters are looking at Notre Dame's schedule and penciling in at least nine wins. It's easy to see why. Notre Dame plays just one team -- USC -- that is unquestionably better than it. It plays four teams -- Michigan State, Boston College, Pittsburgh and Connecticut -- that were better than it last year but lost key players. Everyone else, you could probably pencil in as a "W."

I'd been on the fence about this for some time. For one, the image of those last two regular-season games -- the loss to Syracuse (at home, no less) and the 38-3 drubbing at USC -- still weigh heavily on me. Those were not games played by a team poised for a breakthrough. In fact, the Irish lost their last four games against BCS-conference foes. For another, as favorable as the schedule seems, Charlie Weis' teams have shown a penchant for losing at least one game they have no business losing (Navy in 2007 and Syracuse last year). It wouldn't take much for a presumed 9-3 season to turn into 8-4 or 7-5.

But then something changed for me. I was watching one of Weis' post-practice press conferences this week, and the coach's demeanor was completely different than anything I'd seen before. He looked ... relaxed. The days of "I have three Super Bowl rings and I'm smarter than you, so deal with it" seemed a distant memory. But so, too, did that sad, resigned demeanor Weis displayed the past couple seasons when trying to convince the masses "everything's still under control" while his team routinely stunk up the joint.

The Weis I saw the other day seemed cool, but not cocky. He seemed like a guy who, probably for the first time in three years, knows what to expect from his team. I think he feels his defense, already fairly decent last year, rests in good hands with former Georgia Tech whiz Jon Tenuta taking over the play-calling. He surely feels his offense rests in good hands now that he himself is back in his comfort zone calling offensive plays. His offensive line, such a sore spot two years ago, now consists of five seniors. And his star quarterback should finally be dependable.

Still, it's doubtful Notre Dame's offense will be the well-oiled machine it was in 2005 and '06 or that it's defense will be nationally elite, which is why the Irish's sudden inclusion in the top 25 remains a bit of a leap of faith. I don't believe it's justified just yet. But as I look at that schedule, I don't see too many teams that are going to hound the Irish with their defense. Nor do I see a bunch of high-octane offenses. (Opening-week foe Nevada is the one notable exception, but because that's the first game, Tenuta will be well prepared.)

I see as many as 11 winnable games. While that's never going to happen (assuming Michigan is improved, I could see the Wolverines upsetting the Irish in Week 2), it still seems likely the Irish will make it to 9-3. Whether that will merit rising into the top 14 is another story.

I believe an experienced offensive line is an important factor in a successful season. Are there any Top 25 teams with lots of talent at the skill positions, but playing with an inexperienced or suspect offensive line? Do you think these teams will not live up to their preseason rankings because of this potential weakness?
-- John, Chicago

I couldn't agree more. Besides quarterback, there is not a more important position on a football team than offensive line, and too often voters get so seduced by a team's glamour players that they overlook serious questions on the line. Having a pair of stud receivers won't do you much good if the quarterback doesn't have time to throw the ball. Ask Clemson last year. And losing an elite left tackle can be downright crippling. Ask Alabama.

There are three teams in the preseason top 15 that could potentially fall into this category: Oklahoma, Penn State and Oregon. The Sooners lost four veteran O-linemen that made a combined 151 career starts. Even with quarterback Sam Bradford returning, Oklahoma's offense won't be nearly as powerful as last season, though I'm not too concerned because they don't need 60 points every week to win.

However, I was quite surprised to see Penn State check in at No. 8 in the coaches poll. Yes, quarterback Daryll Clark and running back Evan Royster are back, but Penn State lost three All-Big Ten offensive linemen, not to mention all their most important receivers. I find it highly unlikely the Spread HD will have as sharp a resolution this year. The Ducks are in a similar situation. They return a dynamic quarterback (Jeremiah Masoli) and a dangerous running back (LeGarrette Blount), but their offense loses its two most important cogs, All-America center Max Unger and left tackle Fenuki Tupou. And the Ducks don't have the same caliber defense as Oklahoma or Penn State to lean on if the offense sputters early.

One should also look at O-lines when identifying potential surprise teams flying under the radar. Even without longtime starting quarterback Mike Teel, Rutgers is my pick to win the watered-down Big East due in large part to its five returning starters on the line. While Northwestern lacks veteran tailbacks and receivers, it's in fine shape to duplicate last year's nine-win season due to the quality of its offensive and defensive lines (and secondary, another overlooked position). And while star sophomore quarterback Russell Wilson gets the pub for N.C. State, the four seniors blocking for him make the Wolfpack an ACC contender.

Are you sure Robert Griffin is faster than Terrelle Pryor? Griffin is said to run a 4.4 40 time while Pryor, despite being taller and heavier, runs a 4.3 40 time.
-- Sean, Columbus, Ohio

Um, did you see that Pryor ran a 4.33 at camp? Fastest time on the OSU roster. Still think Griffin is faster?
-- Rob, Denver

You've got to love Ohio State fans. A reader asks me which quarterback would rather have over the next three years, Pryor or Griffin. I choose Pryor, even go against all tangible evidence to date and declare him the better passer -- only to get flooded with angry e-mails for daring to suggest someone is faster than him.

First thing's first: I'm fully aware Pryor is fast. Very, very fast. However, my immediate response upon receiving all of these e-mails was to wonder for the umpteenth time why fans continue to get duped into believing 40 times are some sort of gospel. I was even going to use this week's Mailbag as a pulpit to expose the many myths behind this archaic football ritual -- but then Matt Hinton, author of the extremely insightful blog Dr. Saturday, beat me to it.