Just to throw a little more fat onto the fire of argument, one can compare the records of O'Leary and Willingham, both of whom had been head coaches for 7 years prior to being hired by Notre Dame. Willingham had won 54% of his games, O'Leary 61% of his games. It would be interesting to see just how many Notre Dame coaches were hired with a 54% winning record. Food for thought.

But if ND was trying to grab Meyer, it appears their strategy backfired, as everyone is reporting Meyer is heading for Florida.

Steve

I want to begin by agreeing with many of you in saying that the current state of diversity among the ranks of college head football coaches in America is woeful. I am not defending the situation as it is. I loved to see Sylvester Croom hired at Mississippi State this year, the first black head coach in the SEC conference. I root for his success. While there is much work to be done, it should be noted that progress has been made.
I fear that this discussion of the possibility that Willingham’s dismissal was motivated in part by racism could result in a further setback to the cause of racial equality in college football. Think very carefully about the possible ramifications of this point of view.
First, Notre Dame is widely considered to be the premiere head-coaching job in the country. Notre Dame set a good precedent by not only considering Willingham, but also hiring him. Further, his success three years ago was trumpeted nationwide. These actions do not seem to be of a school motivated by racism.
Second, what could be the results if Notre Dame is unfairly tarred with a “partially racist” label. This is a clear signal to any other school in the country that there are great risks on the backside of any hiring of a black head football coach. What I am saying is that even if an Athletic Director is completely pure of any racist considerations, the possibility that if he hires a black head coach, he will be forced to keep him regardless of his performance to avoid a public relations nightmare, like this one, may influence his decision. He may rationally determine that the risks outweigh the benefits of hiring a black head coach. This is not France. An employer should have the freedom to fire if deemed wise.
Personally, I am sensitive to this disincentive. If I understand most of your opinions right, does not the black head football coach in America already face a very difficult road to opportunity? Why pile on an additional factor of disincentive to schools who may be open to hiring a black head coach?
Noter Dame should be given credit for giving the opportunity to a good man, Ty Willingham. I do not believe that others should be too critical with the firing until every other school in the country has also given a black head coach the same opportunity. The cause of equality and justice would be better served by posts highlighting the closed-minded approach of all the other universities that have not given this opportunity to qualifying candidates. There are many jobs available this year. If you want to advance the ball on this issue, put pressure on these schools to consider qualified black candidates. Convincing them that there are great public risks on the backside of a good decision does nothing to advance the ball.
Lastly, equality means equality. Along with opportunity come the risks of failure and the spoils of success. Ron Zook, a white coach, was fired with a much better record. Frank Solich was fired from Nebraska last year with a great record. If America is to become a land where the color of skin becomes irrelevant, black coaches must accept the fruits of failure, as determined by their employer, along with the fruits of success. Notre Dame did change their tradition by not fulfilling the contract. Yet I would argue that this change was inevitable in the current competitive environment. The color of Willingham’s skin would have not made any difference.
Willingham will be fine. He will get another job, and he will be a success. Please consider the unintended consequences of making a big deal out of this natural occurrence in the competitive world of big time college football

One little quibble, Derek. You have it that Willingham's record was on a pace to be significantly better than Davie's. By my count, at this point in their two tenures, Willingham was 21-15, and Davie was 21-16. Davie had taken the Irish to two bowl games, both of which they lost. Willingham took them to one bowl, which they lost. Davie bounced back from a 5 and 7 season in his third year, to post a 9 and 3 season in his fourth. Willingham followed his 5 and 7 season with a mediocre 6 and 5 year. Just to extend the argument.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with history, but I'll offer my two cents as an alum. My freshman year at ND, 1988, was the last time the program won a national title. By my senior year, there were alumni and even some fellow students infuriated that the Irish had not won another. None of us knows what went on behind the scenes, but I chalk this up to just what Steven Heise suggests - desperate flailing. For as much as I love Notre Dame football, I hate the spoiled brat mentality that has surrounded alumni attitudes about a divine rite to the national championship. This was about pressure to be elite again. Period. Maybe they see Utah's coach as a savior, maybe the Irish will be spurned again. It is very unfortunate for Willingham, who by all accounts is a terrific man. He did not get less time because of his ethnicity, but because patience is thinner than it was three years ago and panic is setting in, as this is the longest stretch without a title in decades. It is about winning at the highest levels (the College Football Hall of Fame is not in South Bend by accident), and it is sad the school thinks things can't be done the old fashioned way anymore - by building them.

For years, this has bugged me: yes, Notre Dame is a good school. But let's dispatch of this canard that Notre Dame holds its athletes to the same standards as its general student body. let's also get rid of this idea that Notre Dame belongs in the same class as Duke or Stanford when we talk about academics. Notre dame's football team may have to pass slightly higher admissions hurdles than those at most Big Ten schools, say. But Notre Dame lowers its standards substantially for athletes, as does just about every Division I school (anyone here seriously think Christian Laetner, Elton Brand or Cherokee parks scored 1300 on their SAT? Anyone really believe Elway had a 4.0 and 1400 coming out of high school?). Put it another way. When I was just out of college, one of Wiliams' football coached interviewed for a job with the harvard football program. The Harvard guy told him point blank that Harvard could not field a football team if they had to adhere to Williams' admissions standards for athletes. And Williams certainly would recruit guys who did not necessarily adhere to the norms for the Williams student body. Is anyone going to say with a straight face that Harvard lowers its standards for athletes but Notre Dame does not? And if they are going to try to say that, I would point thm toward quarterback by the name of Rice who was on the scene when notre Dame returned to glory -- he was Prop 48 qualifier.
dc

As much as I believe this is a totally valid question to ask, especially of one of the more storied football programs in the college game, I think we have to simply mark it up to the hopeless flailings of a dying dynasty.

Its Notre Dame. They're not in any way related to any of the big conferences, they play to a national audience most weekends despite their schedule being a B-list fare for college football at best, but their name evokes memories of the good old days of the game, like, before the forward pass when casualty lists weren't uncommon.

They are one of the reasons that college football has the BCS to start with. All the BCS is, is a prop for the old 'established' conferences to use to make money off the newer programs. The Minnesota Gophers haven't been to the Rose Bowl since 195-something, and they're not an exceptional case when it comes to big time bowl bids. And they're from the Big Ten, a major player in the BCS world. On top of that, they're not even an exceptional case when it comes to big bowl droughts.

In the end, while it is a hypocritical disgrace that Notre Dame, which glorifies tradition and beats people over the head with their storied history, went and broke one of their own traditions to get rid of a coach who inherited a losing team before he could really rectify the situation, I simply view the whole issue as a form of high commedy. Sure, race probably played some role in the firing of Tyrone Willingham, and such a motivation is reprehensible, but, I think Notre Dame is so far along its decline into obscurity that we might as well enjoy watching the ride. Of course, I always do like to see the mighty crumble from their own hubris.

Total b.s. to fire Willingham this fast. He inherited a trainwreck of a team from Davie, who was a terrible head coach and left almost no talent at Notre Dame. That first year, Willingham was doing it with mirrors, and it kind of worked for a while, but it also had the adverse effect of creating high expectations. I can't believe they didn't give Willingham a chance to get one or two of his recruiting classes through.

I'm not sure Notre Dame fired him because of his race as much as their own unrealistic expectations and ignorance as to how little talent Willingham inherited, but I'm not afraid to say that the Irish have some serious explaining to do.