Five things we learned: Notre Dame vs. UConn


When UConn kicker Dave Teggart’s field goal hooked wide left as time expired, it looked as if the scene was set for a dramatic escape for the Irish and another heart-breaking loss for Randy Edsall’s hard luck Huskies. But the Huskies marched down the field in overtime, and on a critical 3rd and 7, former Notre Dame quarterback Zach Frazer hit wide receiver Kashif Moore for a touchdown in the corner of the end zone, and the Huskies scored first to swing the momentum back in their favor.

Even though the Irish responded with a touchdown of their own, they settled for a field goal to start the second overtime, and gave the Huskies a chance to win with a touchdown. Five plays later, Andre Dixon rumbled off the left side of the fatigued Irish defensive line for a touchdown and the victory, leaving the Notre Dame stunned and a senior class heartbroken in their final game at home for the second time in as many seasons.

Here’s what we learned today:

1) Emotions and heart are an integral part of college football.

Say what you will about recruiting rankings, but today’s game showed that emotions and momentum are just as important as personnel in college football. Even after the Irish jumped out to an early 14-0 lead, it never felt safe, especially with the tidal wave of negativity surrounding the Irish. The tipping point of this game came early in the second quarter, when Sergio Brown inexplicably hit a wide receiver after the pass sailed out of bounds, giving UConn new life. On cue, Jordan Todman darted 43 yards for a touchdown, cutting the lead in half, and changing the complexity of the game.

As we’re seeing in Ann Arbor, once the ball starts rolling it’s tough to get things back in control. With two fanbases as entitled and accustomed to winning as the programs at Michigan and Notre Dame, tradition and past excellence no longer seems like assets, but harbingers of doom. At high profile schools like these, there’s enough pressure put on the players by the swarming national media, but when the grumbling festers and permeates from within the faithful, it’s easy to see why these two proud programs are cracking at the seams, regardless of the head coach.

2) Notre Dame was decimated by the run.

Both Jordan Todman and Andre Dixon ran for over 100 yards, and even with a quarterback that was lost, UConn won the football game.  Todman’s explosive day didn’t end at the line of scrimmage, he also returned a back-breaking kickoff 96 yards for a touchdown that knotted the game at 17. As I mentioned earlier in the week, the Irish’s lack of a veteran front-seven leaves them incredibly susceptible to a hard-nosed running attack, which has many Irish fans already walking the plank with Toby Gerhart and Stanford on deck.

3) Mistakes kill every team… especially the Irish.

No team is impervious to mistakes, and once again the Irish have themselves to blame for this loss. Even worse, Notre Dame has it’s best players to blame. Costly fumbles by two of the Notre Dame’s premiere skill players killed scoring drives. Missed tackles by everyone, even stalwart safety Kyle McCarthy killed the defense. And boneheaded decisions by veteran players like Sergio Brown were enough to cost the Irish the game.

Like I’ve said before, coaches coach and players play. While it’s going to be difficult for Irish players to look at their senior teammates and embattled coaching staff one last time in Notre Dame Stadium, it may be even tougher to look in the mirror.

4) We may have just seen the end of an era.

With a transition probably inevitable, we may have just seen the end of an offensive era at Notre Dame Stadium. It makes little sense for Jimmy Clausen or Golden Tate to stay through a coaching change, and combining that with the attrition along the offensive line, we may have seen the last of the most explosive offense in modern Notre Dame history. 

If that’s the case, let’s just take a moment and reflect upon how incredible this group of skill players are, and try to imagine what it would’ve been like if they could’ve all be healthy at the same time. Whether it was Michael Floyd’s broken collarbone, Jimmy Clausen’s turf toe, Armando Allen’s ankle, or Kyle Rudolph’s shoulder, this unit never had the chance to mold together, and that lack of cohesion showed up in the one area of the field where the offense just wasn’t dynamic: the red zone.

If this is the end, at the very least Charlie Weis disproved the myth that Notre Dame couldn’t run an explosive pro-style offense.

5) Coaching changes won’t solve all the Irish’s problems.

To all the Notre Dame fans so adamant about a coaching change, please realize that a switch won’t solve all the problems.

In fact, there may not be a less desirable job in all of college coaching. If Charlie Weis is fired, Notre Dame will have run its last four coaches out of town. (You can argue five with the situation that surrounded Lou Holtz’s “retirement.”) The terms “good will” and “growing pains” mean nothing to a fan base stuck in the past, and they will expect greatness immediately, as the cupboard is far from bare.

You’ll be installing a new offense with a quarterback sidelined with a torn ACL, and inheriting a defense that’s flopped between a 3-4 and a 4-3, and has failed to stop either the run or pass with any efficiency.

More over, you’ll run into all the roadblocks that the past head coach embraced. Academic standards, demanding alumni, and an administration that wants the glory of the past without sacrificing the aspirations of the future. Your home field advantage will be neutered by four-quadrant branding and over-the-top hospitality, and there’s a very large segment of college football fans and the national media that will immediately be rooting for you to fail.

Notre Dame has made the bold choice before, cutting ties with Tyrone Willingham after three seasons, and opening themselves up to the fair and unfair criticism that comes along with replacing the most high-profile African-American head coach in college football’s most high-profile position.

Now athletic director Jack Swarbrick and president Father Jenkins are saddled with an equally difficult decision, trying to find a coach that’s better suited for a job that the current coach seemingly fits perfectly.

Go for two or not? Both sides of the highly-debated topic

during their game at Clemson Memorial Stadium on October 3, 2015 in Clemson, South Carolina.

Notre Dame’s two failed two-point conversion tries against Clemson have been the source of much debate in the aftermath of the Irish’s 24-22 loss to the Tigers. Brian Kelly’s decision to go for two with just over 14 minutes left in the game forced the Irish into another two-point conversion attempt with just seconds left in regulation, with DeShone Kizer falling short as he attempted to push the game into overtime.

Was Kelly’s decision to go for two the right one at the beginning of the fourth quarter? That depends.

Take away the result—a pass that flew through the fingers of a wide open Corey Robinson. Had the Irish kicked their extra point, Justin Yoon would’ve trotted onto the field with a chance to send the game into overtime. (Then again, had Robinson caught the pass, Notre Dame would’ve been kicking for the win in the final seconds…)

This is the second time a two-point conversion decision has opened Kelly up to second guessing in the past eight games. Last last season, Kelly’s decision to go for two in the fourth-quarter with an 11-point lead against Northwestern, came back to bite the Irish and helped the Wildcats stun Notre Dame in overtime.

That choice was likely fueled by struggles in the kicking game, heightened by Kyle Brindza’s blocked extra-point attempt in the first half, a kick returned by Northwestern that turned a 14-7 game into a 13-9 lead. With a fourth-quarter, 11-point lead, the Irish failed to convert their two-point attempt that would’ve stretched their lead to 13 points. After Northwestern converted their own two-point play, they made a game-tying field goal after Cam McDaniel fumbled the ball as the Irish were running out the clock. Had the Irish gone for (and converted) a PAT, the Wildcats would’ve needed to score a touchdown.

Moving back to Saturday night, Kelly’s decision needs to be put into context. After being held to just three points for the first 45 minutes of the game, C.J. Prosise broke a long catch and run for a touchdown in the opening minute of the fourth quarter. Clemson would be doing their best to kill the clock. Notre Dame’s first touchdown of the game brought the score within 12 points when Kelly decided to try and push the score within 10—likely remembering the very way Northwestern forced overtime.

After the game, Kelly said it was the right decision, citing his two-point conversion card and the time left in the game. On his Sunday afternoon teleconference, he said the same, giving a bit more rationale for his decision.

“We were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don’t chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two.

“We usually don’t use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don’t chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions.

“The way they were running the clock, we’d probably get three possessions maximum and we’re going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we’ve got a different outcome.”

That logic and rationale is why I had no problem with the decision when it happened in real time. But not everybody agrees.

Perhaps the strongest rebuke of the decision came from Irish Illustrated’s Tim Prister, who had this to say about the decision in his (somewhat appropriately-titled) weekly Point After column:

Hire another analyst or at least assign someone to the task of deciphering the Beautiful Mind-level math problem that seems to be vexing the Notre Dame brain-trust when a dweeb with half-inch thick glasses and a pocket protector full of pens could tell you that in the game of football, you can’t chase points before it is time… (moving ahead)

…The more astonishing thing is that no one in the ever-growing football organization that now adds analysts and advisors on a regular basis will offer the much-needed advice. Making such decisions in the heat of battle is not easy. What one thinks of in front of the TV or in a press box does not come as clearly when you’re the one pulling the trigger for millions to digest.

And yet with this ever-expanding entourage, Notre Dame still does not have anyone who can scream through the headphones to the head coach, “Coach, don’t go for two!”

If someone, anyone within the organization had the common sense and then the courage to do so, the Irish wouldn’t have lost every game in November of 2014 and would have had a chance to win in overtime against Clemson Saturday night.

My biggest gripe about the decision was the indecision that came along with the choice. Scoring on a big-play tends to stress your team as special teams players shuffle onto the field and the offense comes off. But Notre Dame’s use of a timeout was a painful one, and certainly should’ve been spared considering the replay review that gave Notre Dame’s coaching staff more time to make a decision.

For what it’s worth, Kelly’s decision was probably similar to the one many head coaches would make. And it stems from the original two-point conversion chart that Dick Vermeil developed back in the 1970s.

The original chart didn’t account for success rate or time left in the game. As Kelly mentioned before, Notre Dame uses one once it’s the fourth quarter.

It’s a debate that won’t end any time soon. And certainly one that will have hindsight on the side of the “kick the football” argument.



Navy, Notre Dame will display mutual respect with uniforms

Keenan Reynolds, Isaac Rochell

The storied and important history of Notre Dame and Navy’s long-running rivalry will be on display this weekend, with the undefeated Midshipmen coming to South Bend this weekend.

On NBCSN, a half-hour documentary presentation will take a closer look, with “Onward Notre Dame: Mutual Respect” talking about everything from Notre Dame’s 43-year winning streak, to Navy’s revival, triggered by their victory in 2007. The episode will also talk about the rivalries ties to World War II, and how the Navy helped keep Notre Dame alive during wartime.

You can catch it on tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET on NBCSN or online in the same viewing window.

On the field, perhaps an even more unique gesture of respect is planned. With Under Armour the apparel partner for both Notre Dame and Navy, both teams will take the field wearing the same cleats, gloves and baselayers. Each team’s coaching staff will also be outfitted in the same sideline gear.

More from Monday’s press release:

For the first time in college football, two opponents take the field with the exact same Under Armour baselayer, gloves and cleats to pay homage to the storied history and brotherhood between their two schools. The baselayer features both Universities’ alma maters on the sleeves and glove palms with the words “respect, honor, tradition” as a reminder of their connection to each other. Both sidelines and coaches also will wear the same sideline gear as a sign of mutual admiration.​

Navy and Notre Dame will meet for the 89th time on Saturday, a rivalry that dates back to 1927. After the Midshipmen won three of four games starting in 2007, Notre Dame hopes to extend their current winning streak to five games on Saturday.

Here’s an early look at some of the gear: