TP: You were asked this on a couple of occasions, and when one reporter says it, another picks up on it, and all of a sudden it's a catchphrase. Charlie Weis still doesn't have a signature victory. Is that true?
CW: Where do you want to start? Do you want to start with the first game of my career right on through? Let's go through all of them. Pittsburgh? Top 20 team and we beat them on the road. We go into the Big House the next week and we beat (Michigan) on the road. We can go right down…
TP: I know, but the critics are going to say that Pittsburgh is a Dave Wannstedt-coached team, and that Michigan was down in 2005. For every argument you make, the critics are going to shoot it down until you beat Ohio State, USC, Michigan in 2006, LSU…
CW: Okay, how about this one. What exactly is a pressure situation where they say it's a signature win? Would you say it's a signature win when, regardless of their record, Stanford takes the lead 35-34 with a BCS bid on the line, with a 1:50 left to go in the game? Would you say the team moving all the way down the field and scoring is a signature win?
TP: I would because I coach and I know how difficult it is to win. Most don't see it from that perspective.
CW: If you ask me if we beat Michigan at home this year. Nope. We turned the ball over five times, I didn't do a great job and we lost. We go out to USC and they beat us soundly. We go to the bowl game, play competitively for a half, and don't play competitively in the second half.
If you're asking me by their definition of signature victories, what am I going to do, disagree with the fact that those things happened? I mean, they happened. It isn't a question of whether they happened or not.
Did I enjoy Jeff Samardzija scoring that touchdown against UCLA to win that game? To me, that's as exciting of a win as I've ever been a part of. Did I enjoy Terrail Lambert intercepting the ball and taking it to the house against Michigan State to finish that comeback?
Regardless of the records of the teams, they're still huge wins.
TP: What I've said repeatedly regarding those who make these claims is that it's still 19 victories in two years. Notre Dame hasn't won 19 games in two years since 1992-93. The only teams you haven't beaten are the elite teams. That's pretty good following 11 wins in two years.
CW: But you know what? Isn't it good that they can be mad at winning 19 games in two years? That's a good thing. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. At least now people believe that Notre Dame football is moving in that direction.
Glad I was an inspiration.