The Good, the bad the ugly: Michigan


A little over 24 hours after the Irish lost to Michigan 28-24, Brian Kelly was given more than a few opportunities to try and find a silver lining in the heartbreaking defeat. He never took the bait.

“I’m not a real big believer in that you learn a lot after a loss,” Kelly said. “I’d rather learn after winning.”

So would Irish fans, after watching Notre Dame lose a second consecutive rivalry game against Michigan on a last minute touchdown drive.

Before we turn the page, here’s the good, the bad, the ugly from Saturday’s defeat.


Armando Allen is turning into a elite running back. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I’d describe Allen’s running style as punishing, but watching the tape of the game, it’s pretty clear that Allen was a man on fire on Saturday afternoon, gaining 89 yards on 15 carries, and breaking countless tackles as well. Even more impressive is Allen’s role on the offense. As a four-year player, this is very much his offense, and the senior is stepping up.

“I really like his leadership. You could tell it hurt him when we lost the football game,” Kelly said. “He’s made a huge investment and you can see it in the way he plays the game.”

The Irish had five different players break runs of 10-plus yards, with Allen’s 29-yard gain in the third quarter the longest run of the day for Notre Dame. With Cierre Wood stuck in neutral and only gaining 10 yards on six carries, Allen’s blue-collar approach helped keep the offense two-dimensional even when playing from behind.


The quarterback situation behind Crist. Tommy Rees and Nate Montana combined to go 8 for 19 for 104 yards with two interceptions. Even those numbers are misleading, because 37 of the yards came on the near Hail Mary heave from Montana to Theo Riddick, who was left wide open on the penultimate play of the second quarter.

Rees’ first college throw was a terrible decision — a play designed to give the quarterback only one option, and Rees unfortunately took the other one. Montana also seemed lost, complacent to just roll from the pocket, giving himself only half-field reads as he scrambled to his right. While I agreed with the decision to go for the touchdown at the moment, never did I suspect (or Kelly and the coaching staff for that matter) that in a no-risk situation that the quarterback would sail one into the stands instead of trying to squeeze a ball into a tight spot.

With it clear that neither of the two back-up quarterbacks were ready to lead the team to a victory, Kelly shouldered the blame.

“”We’re not going to play Massa and we’re not going to play Hendrix. So I gotta get ready those two kids,” Kelly said. “Flat out, that’s
my job. We’re going to have to do some things a little differently to
make sure they’ve got a package they can handle. That was too much for
them. It doesn’t mean we can’t be successful, but we gotta get a
different package for them and I gotta get that done this week.”


Notre Dame fans have to be kicking themselves playing the “what if” game. After the opening Irish drive, it looked like Notre Dame could’ve put up a really large number on the scoreboard. Even after stalling out with Rees and Montana at the helm for most of the first half, the Irish gained 535 yards on offense, throwing for 381 yards and averaging 18.1 yards per reception.

But one series into the game, the Irish faced an offensive predicament that was as close to a worse-case scenario as you could imagine.

“It was not what was prescribed,” Kelly admitted. “You’re just trying to find out about
your starting quarterback and now when you lose him against Michigan you
put yourself in a position to go to somebody who has never played a BCS
college football game.”  

I was guilty of playing the moral victory card after the game and finding positives in the effort shown by the Irish, but to Brian Kelly’s credit he will be putting those kind of kudos to rest.

“I’m going to tell our team tomorrow that’s the last time I want to hear
us talk about Notre Dame playing hard for four quarters,” Kelly said. “That is now a
given. Notre Dame needs to execute and win football games.”

It’s been said before that every Saturday in college football is a season in itself. That’s a little bit how it feels after this defeat. If Notre Dame walks out of the stadium with a victory and a 2-0 record, the trajectory of this year feels mightily different than the path they find themselves walking now — heading into a hostile environment on Saturday night against a Michigan State team that’s coasted behind a powerful rushing attack against two inferior teams.

You can say it now: There’s no bigger game than this Saturday for Kelly’s Irish. The psychological difference of being 2-1 and 1-2 is staggering, especially with another daunting task coming the next weekend with an impressive Stanford squad coming to South Bend.   

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: