Minter sees big things for ND with Kelly, Diaco


Late last week, former Notre Dame defensive coordinator Rich Minter spoke with the South Bend Tribune’s Eric Hansen and Darin Pritchett on WSBT 960 AM. They covered a variety of topics, and eventually got around to discussing Minter’s time at Notre Dame under both Lou Holtz and Charlie Weis, and his time working with new head coach Brian Kelly at Cincinnati, where Minter returned as an assistant to work under Kelly after being the head coach of the Bearcats from 1994 to 2003.

You can listen to the entire interview here (with the Notre Dame discussion starting around the 5:30 mark), but if his comments are any indication, Rick Minter is a gigantic Brian Kelly fan.

“I worked for Lou Holtz three times, and I really don’t think it’s going to talk long for people to start making some of these favorable comparisons, because I do think that BK is the right guy for the job at this time at Notre Dame,” Minter said.

While he spent a great deal of time complimenting Kelly as a head coach and a leader, Minter also had rave reviews for defensive coordinator Bob Diaco, who came to South Bend as a somewhat unproven coach.

Minter addressed that very issue with Kelly in the days before he decided to take the job in South Bend.

Minter told Kelly:

“I really think you should think hard about taking what people perceive as a young unproven defensive coordinator,” Minter recalled.
“When I think about Bobby, I really believe he’s a rising star in the business. He’s tremendously high character, he’s very well spoken, he’s a high intellect guy, a high energy guy, I’ve never worked with him personally, I’ve only gathered this in a few conversations and I know the people that he knows, and how high he’s held in their regard, I trust their opinion. I think he’s truly a young star on the rise.”

The hiring of Diaco reminded Minter of the decision Charlie Weis made when he decided to replace Minter and bring in a younger defensive coordinator who would install the 3-4 defense that Weis knew from his days in New England.

“What Charlie thought he was getting when he let me know, he really
wanted a Bobby Diaco type guy. He didn’t get it, but that’s what he
wanted. That’s what he tried to get when he hired Corwin. But Bob Diaco
really is that guy. He came out of the pedigree of Belichick, Parcells,
Al Groh… I just think the timing is right to come in an implement a
3-4 defense.”

On the subject of the 3-4 defense, Minter himself has come around on the scheme, having run only a 4-3 base for much of his career. He also thinks that a 3-4 will help Notre Dame when it comes to putting together a front-line defense.

“One of the toughest things to recruit is a true-SEC looking front-four. It’s not impossible, but you have to develop them. You rarely get the ready made 280 to 300 pound kid that can come in and make a difference in a 4-3 scheme. But I believe that Notre Dame is a perfect place to come in and run a 3-4 defense.

“I did not do that when I was there, my background was a 4-3. But I truly believe after
having evolved over the last three years into much more of a 3-4 guy. that those are the kind of players that you can indeed recruit nationwide at ND. It’s going to rely on length, strength development, on intelligence, on toughness, on being sound and very coachable high character kids. I’ve already noticed the kind of kids they signed this first class, the kids they’ve already got committed. Just look at the front-four, front-five type guys, they’re these 6-5 to 6-6 guys, that are 215 to 225, let Longo have them, develop them. Guys that can run, guys that are smart, that are hard nosed and will play with great leverage.”

It’s not hard to notice the strategy that Kelly and company took during his first recruiting campaign, where size and length were one of the most important characteristics when profiling an athlete. They’ve continued to go after rangy “big skill” athletes that can develop in a strength and conditioning program that Kelly truly values.

Really illuminating stuff from Minter, a guy who has seen a lot of football under three of the last five football coaches at Notre Dame. 

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: