Paul Zeise seems to be as cranky as usual.
And don't forget Notre Dame is playing against Pitt, against Connecticut, against Syracuse (and they wanted to play Rutgers but of course, Rutgers being Rutgers declined an eight-year deal to play four at Notre Dame and four at the new Giants Stadium because Rutgers wanted the games on campus, which is ridiculous. The amount of money and exposure and the guaranteed national television appearance which would have come from playing at Giants Stadium against Notre Dame would have been far more than any home game against Army or Morgan State or whatever rent-a-win opponent Rutgers wants to bring to its campus) -- so those teams are benefitting from being aligned with Notre Dame
That's funny, I don't recall Zeise personally auditing the Rutgers books. How does he know that the series made financial sense? How does he know who will replace Notre Dame on the schedule (it emphatically will not be a lower-tier opponent, this blog as carried speculation as to who Rutgers is adding in the next few years)? I agree that the Big East still needs to be affiliated with Notre Dame, but Zeise is quite wrong on this.
Basically, the whole problem is that Zeise is making one gigantic assumption. All too often, these bits of "conventional wisdom" are 100% bunk. Case in point:
"Joe has always been loyal to his staff. That's what they've been selling at Penn State - continuity," said Meister. "That's why [Paterno's failure to designate a successor] doesn't make sense."
Outside candidates whose names have surfaced include Temple's Al Golden and Rutgers' Greg Schiano, two alumni who reportedly covet the job.
Greg Schiano is a graduate of Bucknell University.
The fact that Frank Fitzpatrick cited baseless internet speculation in his report might be far worse though.