Are you kidding me. I just pointed out 2 posts that are saying 'ND looks 100 percent better..' and so on. What the hell are you reading dude. Are you just ignoring those or what. That is about as clear as it can get.
I don't know how anyone can say they look a lot better AFTER ONE GAME. If you don't see a bunch homers jumping up and down then I would say you need to get YOUR EYES checked. I just pointed out two posts that said just that. You need to read this article on si.com.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/09/05/first-impressions/index.html
Notre Dame is "back"
• When we last heard this: 2009, 2006, 2005, 2002...
• Why this might be presumptuous: The Irish began last season by pitching a shutout (35-0 over Nevada) and wound up 6-6.
• Why this time might be different: You could have made a laundry list of all the areas in which Notre Dame needed to improve under Kelly, and the Irish hit all of them against Purdue: offensive balance, fundamentally sound defense, more pressure on the quarterback and fewer penalties (two).
Charlie Weis left behind veteran talent, and it stands to reason that Kelly, a more proven head coach, can iron out the wrinkles.
Still, it will be some time before we can truly gauge Notre Dame's progress. If the defense holds down Michigan's Robinson next weekend, we'll probably start seeing some "Return to Glory" headlines, but try not to forget that the Wolverines are themselves coming off a 5-7 campaign.
Read more:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...05/first-impressions/index.html#ixzz0yqmcubWx
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.