Jack Swarbrick and the seismic shifts


It might be hard for some Notre Dame fans to fathom, but athletic director Jack Swarbrick might be the knight in shining armor that saved college football.

That could be overstating things a bit, but for those who clung to the idea that the status quo in college football wasn’t all that bad, they should be praising Notre Dame’s AD, a man who worked quickly and quietly behind the scenes, forging alliances and staying ahead of the rising tide the entire time, even when media reports fueled anxiety of not just fans, but collegiate coaches, administrators and university presidents. Make no mistake, this was college football’s Cuban Missile Crisis, and Swarbrick just stared down the enemy and saved the college football world.

While Nebraska and Colorado fled the Big 12 for the Big Ten and Pac-10 respectively, the mass exodus of six teams to the Pac-10 never happened, largely because Texas and the Pac-10 couldn’t agree on the value of the Longhorns’ television rights. With Texas unwilling to relinquish their local television rights, it opened the door for ridiculed Big 12 commission Dan Beebe to salvage the conference as a 10 team league, with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M all staying put after it appeared they were all but gone.

It bears mentioned that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds and Jack Swarbrick spent a lot of time these past few weeks discussing realignment, and the two men might have come to some sort of agreement days before any news broke on Texas’ decision.

For Notre Dame, independence was the crucial element to all of this, and Swarbrick maintained that while also putting the Irish in the best place possible for future television negotiations. His willingness to back away from a 7-4-1 model that made scheduling impossible and embrace a 6-5-1 schedule will only benefit Notre Dame when it comes to finding attractive playing partners and networks willing to pay to broadcast those games. His ability to see through Big Ten commission Jim Delany’s smoke screen, which included a persuasive sales pitch based around a potential invitation to the prestigious AAU and fuzzy economic numbers for the Big Ten Network was something that the previous athletic administration might not have been able to withstand.

What will be the most interesting sidenote in all of the maneuvering this offseason will be the media’s role in all of this. For the first time in a few years, ESPN wasn’t out front powering this story, it was a select group of reporters with highly placed sources. Chip Brown at OrangeBloods.com, and an Austin-based radio personality, seemed to fuel most of the Big 12 based information, likely from a well placed source in the Texas administration. There’s no doubt in my mind that whoever at Texas was supplying Brown with his scoop was doing it to maximize the Longhorns’ financial grab, and from the sounds of the reports, they did so successfully.

From a Big Ten standpoint, Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune seemed to be the one waving Jim Delany’s flag. For the past few months, Greenstein was out in front of stories, writing about the virtues of the Big Ten Network as well as moving the story forward with insider information likely supplied from someone inside the league, which headquarters in Chicago. Even after it was fairly clear that the Big Ten Network was hardly the source of twenty-million dollar revenue shares, Greenstein continued to find reasons for Notre Dame to join the conference, writing this late last week:

If the Pac-10 does plump to 16 teams (by adding Texas, Texas A&M,
Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State), conference officials
reportedly will push for two automatic bids to Bowl Championship Series

That threat might help push Notre Dame into accepting a Big Ten bid.
[Kirk] Herbstreit believes Notre Dame “has to” go the conference route because
of that BCS instability and the extra revenue derived from the Big Ten’s
lucrative combo TV deal (ESPN/ABC and the Big Ten Network).

“I’m not a Notre Dame hater,” Herbstreit said, “just a Notre Dame
realist. When you look across the landscape and where we are headed, it
becomes very important for them to align themselves with one of these
power conferences.”

Notre Dame also could face additional pressure from its TV partner, NBC,
which Comcast has acquired.

Industry analysts are certain the Notre Dame deal is a money loser for
NBC. In 2008, the network agreed to an extension that pays the school an
estimated $12 million to $13 million per year.

At the time NBC President Ken Schanzer spoke in comically glowing terms
of the “elegance of the institution” and knowing that Irish officials
will “comport themselves in ways that make you proud to be associated
with them and allow you to live in the reflected glory of that

Assuming Comcast cares more about its bottom line than “reflected
glory,” the company could push to move some of Notre Dame’s lesser
games from NBC to its cable sports outlet, Versus. (Efforts to reach NBC
executives were not successful.) That might give Notre Dame another
impetus to seek the Big Ten’s greener pastures.

It’s not hard to see what angle Greenstein is attacking this story from. Whether its the anonymous industry analysts that are certain Notre Dame is a “money loser for NBC,” or the threat of moving lesser Notre Dame home games to little-seen networks like Versus, this might be the playbook for Big Ten propaganda, all in one snippet of a column. He even got a quote from Kirk Herbstreit, one of college football’s more sensible voices, but one that is un-apologetically pro-Big Ten.

There is a large segment of Notre Dame fans that will forever be hyper-critical of their favorite university and the administrators in charge. They were the first to chastise Swarbrick when the “seismic change” quote started getting publicity after a small meet-and-great at the Big East basketball tournament. They openly questioned his ability to work for Notre Dame while living in Indianapolis, or his “real” goal of chasing the NCAA president job while just moonlighting as Notre Dame’s AD. Yet in college football’s most fragile state, many with inside information are crediting Swarbrick as one of the key figures that stopped Armageddon from happening. 

Now about that Western Michigan game…

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: