Notre Dame Needs to Switch Its Nickname to the Pink-Domers

Of course, that would mean it allowed him to hire coordinators and then stripped that power from its golden boy, Charlie Weis. Does anyone believe that's how it went down?

Remember, this is the same school that fired Willingham after he went 21-15 but gave Weis a TEN-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION after compiling a record of 14-5.

Not only that, there was barely a whisper for Weis' job during the debacle of a season last year (really, a couple of 30-point losses cost you your job, but losing to Navy for the first time in a half-century doesn't even raise a concern?).

Before I get drawn into all this racism nonsense, let me explain. I'm not saying the above comparison proves Notre Dame is racist.

Obviously, there were many reasons for the disparate treatment of Willingham and Weis (NFL pedigree, Weis is an alumnus, recruiting, scoring-margin, etc.). Race may have been one factor, but clearly not the only one. Or even the most significant.

What the above comparison does prove is that Notre Dame has given Charlie Weis a much longer leash and bigger margin for error than Tyrone Willingham for whatever reason. To argue that Willingham had powers that Weis does not is illogical and counterintuitive.

It also shows that claims of racism were not unfounded, as the author of the instigative piece claimed. Again, I'm not saying the allegations were true or even reasonable. But unfounded is a far more absolute accusation.

There are other examples demonstrating the taint of the Pink Hat on the author's judgment.

He calls Notre Dame the biggest stage in college football. That's a bold claim about a team that hasn't been competitive in a bowl game since 1996, let alone relevant to the national title picture. I'm sure it's the biggest stage to him, but the rest of us acknowledge that the football world actually encompasses teams other than Notre Dame.

He calls the University of Washington one of the biggest stages in the Pac-10. Umm, Willingham was hired in 2004. Not 1994. Such a statement is stale to the tune of 15 years.

What I fail to understand is that the author is clearly intelligent and thoughtful. He makes a number of astute observations such as Willingham's hiring practices and the problem of "fireability," which is a very real and complicated problem.

Consider this. My father runs his own business. He is one of the most equitable, honest, and reasonable men I know. I am not exaggerating when I say his integrity has never been questioned by anyone who has had a substantive conversation with him.

And even he refuses to hire African-Americans because of their low fireability. As a small business owner, he just can't afford to have an employee who performs inadequately but cannot be fired because doing so would be even more costly. Neither he nor I nor any fair-minded person likes this reality, but it is the reality.

And it's a reality that wasn't necessarily created by African-Americans. A good share of the blame has to go to blindly-progressive whites who have exacerbated the problem by giving credence to the idea that African-Americans are, by definition, fired primarily because of their race.

That idea was absolutely true once upon a time, possibly more recently than you or I know. And now it needs to be revisited.

But back to the author. In true Pink Hat fashion, he can't be content with an objective assessment; he's got to blatantly manipulate the situation to make Notre Dame look even better.

And that's fortunate for us because it destroys his credibility. Otherwise, more fans might be tricked into listening to these donkeys.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?