Friday notes: Nix, Ticks, and NCAA kicks

Leave a comment

Apologies for the late edition of the Friday notes, but I was chasing a few stories for next week and hopefully they’ll come through. It was a fairly slow week news wise for the Irish, so I’ve expanded this a little bit to take a look at a few key Irish opponents as well.

* Friend of the blog, Bruce Feldman, sent over the link to his interview with incoming defensive tackle Louis Nix. It’s always nice to see a complimentary piece on the Irish at the WWL, and Feldman has always been one of the guys who seemed very fair with his coverage of the Irish the last few years, even taking loads of grief for prediction big seasons from Charlie Weis’ squad the last two years.

If you’re looking for a reason to like Louis Nix, here’s a quote that should sway you:

“Just being there myself and seeing it [the campus]. A lot of guys around
me don’t know what Notre Dame really is. They don’t know much about it,
about the great tradition and the great football. A lot of guys in
Florida just know about the Florida schools. But seeing the school and
the academics really caught me by surprise. I thought it would be a way
different atmosphere. I thought the guys would be like “high-class”
guys who wouldn’t want to hang around with a guy like me. Or I thought
everyone was like a nun or a priest. I saw a couple of priests. They
were really nice guys. But I really thought it was a place I could fit
in. Let’s put it like that. After I met the players, this was a place I
could adjust to and really appreciate it and have fun at the same time.”

Nix was also upfront and honest about enjoying the spectacle that recruiting has become, a phenomenon that takes 17-year-old high schoolers and turns them into internet celebrities. When asked about being relieved that the recruiting process is over, here’s what Nix had to say.

“I’m happy that it’s over, but at the same time, I’m not. I’m going to
miss the fame. But I’m also ready to start working out and get myself
in better shape… It’s all the people that are talking about you. You’re all over Rivals.
You’re all over the headlines. If something big happens with my life,
people will know about it. Everybody knows who I am.”

Nix might not have the internet celebrity next year, but there are plenty of Irish fans that’ll be watching him intently.
* Eric Hansen of the South Bend Tribune had a nice article on Golden Tate’s draft status, and just how important a few ticks of the stopwatch will be.

“The biggest question is: How fast is he?” ESPN NFL Draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. reflected during a conference call with a gaggle of media on Wednesday.

“He didn’t separate from the (cornerbacks) on the initial routes. But he was great after the catch in the open field, running with the footbal. He’s not a real tall kid, but he plays tough and physical in games. He shields cornerbacks from the football effectively in tight quarters.

To me, if he runs well, he could be a late-first-round pick. If he doesn’t you’re talking about second or third round for Golden.”

I’m one of Mel Kiper’s biggest fans, and since college, on Draft Day, you can find me huddled in front of the TV for about seven straight hours, instantly agreeing or blasting NFL teams as they pick. For some reason, I find myself siding with Kiper usually, but if he thinks Golden Tate is going in the third round he’s nuts.

I’m amazed at Kiper’s encyclopedia-like knowledge of draft prospects from places like Bethune-Cookman, but his analysis on Tate sounds like a guy that’s only watched the highlights from Irish games. How many corners played bump-and-run on Tate? Other than jumping slant routes, there weren’t many times that he struggled to separate from a corner. If Tate runs anything that’s sub 4.55, I think he’s in the first round. If he doesn’t, maybe he slides into the second. 

Hansen points out that Kansas City holds the fifth pick in the second round. With the Chiefs’ lack of depth at wide receiver and Weis’ first-hand knowledge of Golden, I’d be shocked if he slides any lower than there.

* Okay, I couldn’t think of anything that rhymed with Nix and ticks when it came to the NCAA, but two Irish rivals find themselves in interesting situations with the NCAA right now.

The USC Trojans are doing their best to plead ignorance to the misdoings of their athletes and coaches this week as they meet with the NCAA. I’m not hopeful, but if the NCAA doesn’t want to be looked at as complete frauds, they’ll hand down a penalty that’s befitting of the crimes that went down during the past few years under the supervision of athletic director Mike Garrett. If there’s a better example of a lack of institutional control, I’m not sure what it is.

From a great breakdown of the basics, check out Dr. Saturday’s NCAA vs. USC 101.

Meanwhile in Ann Arbor, the Wolverines find themselves caught in a sticky situation of their own making. As Michigan’s Board of Regents met to discuss the NCAA investigation into their football program, they did so confidentially. Not cool, says Michigan grad Robert Davis.

When the University of Michigan Board of Regents met this month for an update on the NCAA

The suit, filed by a U-M alumnus in Washtenaw County Circuit Court,
accuses the Board of Regents of violating the state Open Meetings Act,
which places restrictions on how and why such public bodies can meet in

Robert Davis’ lawsuit says discussing the NCAA probe
isn’t a valid reason to meet privately. The Open Meetings Act allows
such boards to meet behind closed doors to discuss things such as
personnel issues, student disciplinary cases and consultations with its
attorney on certain issues. The law spells out procedures that must be
followed to go into a private session. The lawsuit claims regents did
not follow proper procedure.

Davis’ lawsuit tackles the tricky issue of open records at public universities. It’s the same type of lawsuit that helped journalists recover private emails between Texas Tech administrators and text messages of then Arkansas coach Houston Nutt. While the university had no comment, I expect some pretty interesting conversations to possibly see the light of day, a situation that probably has many inside the administration sweating. 

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: