Revisionist history shouldn’t comfort Trojan fans


We’ve done our best to stick to just football this week. Whether it be unsettling reports in the media regarding the Lizzy Seeberg case or sticking to just on-the-field matters when it comes to discussing USC and the major sanctions the NCAA imposed on its athletic department, we decided to stay in the football writing business because that’s what this is, a Notre Dame football blog.

That said, it’s been hard not to discuss the elephant in the Coliseum this weekend, the USC Trojans and the massive sanctions handed down by the NCAA in June, a ruling nearly four years in the making after Yahoo! Sports broke open the Reggie Bush scandal.

I have no desire to recap or judge the findings of the NCAA Committee on Infractions, a committee that Notre Dame deputy athletic director Missy Conboy serves on, one of ten members. (For an in-depth article on the members that heard USC’s case, read George Dohrmann’s excellent piece at But there seems to be an undercurrent flowing through the USC fanbase that both points blame at Notre Dame’s role in their athletic department’s demise and pointedly questions why the NCAA committee that a Notre Dame administrator sat on could levy such serious penalties on Heritage Hall.

Dan Weber, the writer who we exchanged questions and answers with via email earlier this week, writes for, a website that’s been incredibly critical of the sanctions on the football program. Earlier in the week, the website launched a campaign targeting Conboy:

For those who paid close attention to the NCAA’s embarrassing Committee on Infractions USC saga, next week will offer an opportunity. The Trojans host Notre Dame for the 43rd time in the nation’s most historic intersectional college football series that opened here in 1926 and helped make Notre Dame a national name. Much of that is thanks to a respected West Coast school like USC willing to play the Irish when a number of Midwest powers — Ohio State, we’re talking about you — would not.

Next week will also be a time to remember that Notre Dame’s senior deputy director of athletics, Missy Conboy, joined with the gleeful Mr. Dee in the scandalous over penalizing of USC in a manner that branded the Trojans as one of the all-time rogue programs in college football history.

We know a number of you haven’t understood how anyone from Notre Dame could have possibly come to such a conclusion about the school that’s been there toe-to-toe with the Irish academically and athletically for 84 years.

All we know about the actions of Conboy, a Notre Dame grad with a law degree who’s been an athletic administrator there for 23 years, is that she recused herself when the Committee unbelievably talked about penalizing USC by taking the Trojans off TV. Recused herself because that could have hurt Notre Dame.

But what we don’t know is what in the world was Conboy thinking? One ineligible player, 30 scholarships? Could she possibly be serious? Should she have recused herself on the entire case? It would seem someone at Notre Dame would have to because they would know USC couldn’t possibly be as guilty as the Dee scenario called for it to be, allowing his Miami program not to go down as the most lawless in modern history. Wouldn’t a Notre Dame administrator just recuse herself for fear of looking like she’d given up on the Irish ever beating USC again unless someone took 30 scholarships away from USC.

So here’s your chance. We’re creating a thread on The Peristyle this weekend called “Ask Missy” where each of you can list the one question you’d like to ask a person on the Committee on Infractions about the USC case. Sure, she won’t answer them. But we’ll work to get them to her, or to South Bend, or to a place where maybe, just maybe, she’d have a chance to read them. And think about what she and Dee have done.

No profanity. Be respectful. This is serious business.

In our original Q&A, I asked Dan two questions about the NCAA’s rulings. The first was asking for an explanation of why he thought the sanctions were heavy handed and the second dealt with his critical comments on Dee and Conboy, and what blame he would hand to Mike Garrett, Pete Carroll, Tim Floyd, O.J. Mayo, and Reggie Bush. His responses were extensive and pointed, especially his characterization of Conboy, so I asked for a response from Notre Dame before I posted any of his responses.

Here’s the response I got from Notre Dame after I shared the original question and answer:

NCAA Bylaw 32.1.5 entitled Conflict of Interest states that a Committee member should not participate if the member is directly connected with an institution under investigation or has a personal, professional, or institutional affiliation that reasonably would result in the appearance of prejudice. In this case, Ms. Conboy did offer to recuse herself from the case precisely because she was concerned about the appearance of prejudice. After a discussion with the Committee Chair, her participation was deemed appropriate in light of no discernible Conflict of Interest. It is important to note that even if the Committee member does not believe that his/her involvement would prejudice the institution, the institution is also able to raise an objection to the participation of a Committee member whom they feel might prejudice their case. USC did not choose to raise an objection to the involvement of Ms. Conboy.

After talking with Brian Hardin at Notre Dame, he explained that Conboy has stepped off the committee multiple times before, like when UConn basketball came in front of the committee, or when Arizona State baseball coach Pat Murphy came in front of the board, because Murphy is the former baseball coach at Notre Dame. She even asked to be recused during the recent Michigan hearings, but was asked specifically by Michigan that she stay on.

In a posting yesterday, a few days after I agreed not to publish our questions and Notre Dame’s response, the “War Room” was at it again, this time pointing to the Kim Dunbar scandal, which resulted in the Notre Dame football program being placed on probation for two years and losing one scholarship for two consecutive seasons, the first major violation of NCAA regulations by any Irish athletic program.

From the War Room:

One thing that you realize quickly if you engage in this dialogue with the ND folks is how much they don’t know about the USC case, and never will. And do not care.

Sure, they’ll still argue, more than a decade after the fact, how unfair it was what the NCAA Committee on Infractions did to Notre Dame. How it had to go to a tiebreaker vote to declare the Notre Dame booster club member and $1.4-million-dollar embezzler who just liked to “date” Notre Dame football players, a “booster.”

Sure she took trips with them and showered them with presents over a five-year period, something an Irish assistant coach admitted he knew about but never bothered to inform the NCAA because, as one ND official said, the rules were “convoluted.”

What a miscarriage of justice, they’ll tell you, costing the Irish one whole scholarship a year for two years.

But they’re little concerned that the NCAA, after the fact, declared a whole slew of passers-by in the lives of Reggie Bush and O.J.Mayo USC “boosters.” After all, the USC case was about a lot more than that, they’ll tell you. You USC fans just “lack introspection” to see your program as others see it, they’ll say. Sure, ask them to name the other USC athletes involved, unlike the eight from ND, and all you’ll hear is crickets chirping.

And that’s when you realize where this case was lost. We’d forgotten about the USA Today national survey of nearly 25,000 readers published the day after the NCAA’s ridiculously unprecedented penalties were revealed in June.

Only 16 percent thought the USC penalties too harsh. A whopping 42 percent thought that the loss of 30 scholarships and a two-year bowl ban for one player on the take from outsiders encouraging him to leave was letting USC off way too easy. Another 41 percent thought that was just right.

So there are the numbers: 83 percent thought the NCAA was either too easy on USC or got it right. Just 16 percent understood what had happened. And that’s what the NCAA was clearly counting on.

Nearly four years of relentless hammering had done its dirty work. Nearly four years of failing to answer back, to respond in any way, to make the USC case, to let others fill in all the negatives, well, even if USC’s lawyers had gotten the Trojans off, it might not have mattered. USC was guilty as charged, or guiltier — if that’s a word. And as dirty as a program could be. It had to be.

How else do you win three Heismans in four years to tie the almighty Irish? How else do you play in seven straight BCS games and win 34 straight games and seven straight Pac-10 titles and hammer four straight SEC teams whose names begin with the letter “A” if you’re not doing something outside the rules?

And if you come to South Bend next October to play the 85-scholarship-strong Irish with the same number of 51 scholarship players you took to Stanford this season, well, that will be just fine, Notre Dame fans seem to be saying. It’s about time the playing field was leveled.

Comparing the Dunbar case to the violations committed by the Trojan athletic department doesn’t make much sense when you look closer at what actually happened. That Dunbar was convicted of embezzling $1.4 million from her employer wasn’t an NCAA violation. That Dunbar, starting at the age of 20 and until she was arrested at 25, dated a few different football players, had a child with one, and occasionally purchased travel and gave them gifts also was not an NCAA violation. What turned the Dunbar fiasco into an NCAA violation was that she gave $25 in 1996 to a (quickly defunct) Quarterback Club that supported Notre Dame athletics, which turned her into a booster.

It was far from an easy decision for the NCAA, who — as the War Room points out — needed a tie-breaker to determine if Dunbar was a booster, making the comparison of the then-22-year-old Dunbar to Lloyd Lake, Michael Michaels, Rodney Guillory, or any of the other unsavory characters in the USC case not too appropriate.

USC will go in front of an appeals committee in the near future, asking to cut in half the sanctions they received, and athletic director Pat Haden believes that USC has a strong case, even if only 10 percent of all sanctions are overturned in appeal. For the sake of the student-athletes that were in junior high when Reggie Bush was committing violations, maybe lessening the penalties is the best thing that could happen, with most of the major player long gone from the Trojan athletic department.

But even though Garrett, Carroll, running backs coach Todd McNair, Tim Floyd, O.J. Mayo and Reggie Bush are a memory now doesn’t make any revisionist history including Missy Conboy, Notre Dame close to appropriate.

Harsh or not, any penalties levied on USC were their own fault.

Stanford’s personnel has forced defensive evolution

David Shaw

The past few years you knew what you were going to get with Stanford’s defense. Coordinated by Derek Mason and passed along to Lance Anderson, the Cardinal built one of the most rugged front sevens in the country, capable of dominating at the point of attack in a multiple, 3-4 system.

The Cardinal were one of the toughest statistical defenses in the country, dominant at the point of attack and constantly near the top of the statistical heap in tackles for loss nationally. Since 2011, Stanford hasn’t finished out of the Top 30 in TFLs. In 2012, they led the country. In 2013 they were No. 5. Last season—even during an off year where they finished 8-5—the Cardinal were No. 17.

That dominance was expected to change in 2015. Gone were pillars like Shayne Skov, Trent Murphy, Henry Anderson and Chase Thomas. Nine new starters were being asked to fill holes by Nelson and head coach David Shaw.

But the Cardinal are doing it. They’re allowing just 22 points a game. They’re playing excellent run defense, holding opponents to just over 130 yards per game and slightly more than 4.1 yards per carry. But Stanford has also morphed from the team that consistently terrorized opponents behind the line of scrimmage. The Cardinal are a very ordinary No. 76 in the country when it comes to TFLs, with personnel no longer capable of dominating both on the edge and in the trenches.

So the Cardinal have adapted. They’ve patched holes, utilizing graduate transfer Brennan Scarlett at defensive end while calling on a reserve outside linebacker like Mike Tyler for a pass rush. As we saw last weekend against Cal, Stanford has been willing to concede yardage to eliminate the big play— something Notre Dame fans wish Brian VanGorder and company would consider.

Shaw talked about the evolution of his unit, in light of their performance against Cal. The Bears gained 495 yards last weekend, converted 10 of 18 third downs, dominated the time of possession battle and didn’t turn the football over yet still lost by two touchdowns.

Why? Because Stanford got tough in the red zone. Cal scored just one touchdown in five red zone attempts, with Stanford’s defense stiffening when it needed to do so. And while it went against everything in the Cardinal’s defensive DNA, Shaw talked about the changes made and how they helped Stanford win their rivalry game.

“I hate the phrase ‘bend but don’t break’ because it sounds very passive. We’re not a passive football team,” Shaw said on Sunday. “But we want to keep the ball in front of us and not give up the touchdown passes. By trying to keep the ball in front of us and get them to 3rd-and-6 in the red zone, get them to 3rd-and-5 in the red zone. And not give up the touchdown to make them check the ball down and make them kick field goals.”

With Notre Dame’s red zone offense spurting the past two weeks as DeShone Kizer‘s decision-making has gone sideways, the Irish’s big play offense will be facing a defense that’s now set up to not allow touchdowns. Can the Irish find the solution like they did against Pitt? Or will they implode like this did last weekend against the Eagles? That answer will likely dictate who goes home a winner.

Saturday’s battle in the trenches won’t be the uphill fight that it was the past four years. But Stanford’s schematic change feels like a tweak almost made because of, well—logic.

“It’s math,” Shaw offered. “If we can go down and score touchdowns and make them kick field goals, eventually, we’re going to win.”


Kelly calls on his stars to carry the Irish against Stanford

SOUTH BEND, IN - SEPTEMBER 06:  Jaylon Smith #9 of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish celebrates a tackle for a loss against the Michigan Wolverines at Notre Dame Stadium on September 6, 2014 in South Bend, Indiana. Notre Dame defeated Michigan 31-0.  (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)

Notre Dame’s recent slip in the playoff polls could be distracting Irish fans from understanding the magnitude of this weekend’s game against Stanford. With one final “data-point” to provide to the playoff committee, the Irish will be able to showcase their merits against a Top 10 opponent, a beneficial scheduling feature after two weeks of soft opponents—and mediocre play—moved Notre Dame from a solid No. 4 to No. 6, the bottom rung of what currently looks like a four-team horserace for the final two playoff spots.

Brian Kelly understands what’s in front of the Irish. Most importantly, one of the season’s most challenging opponents—and a game where his best players need to step to the forefront.

“In big games, the great players rise to the occasion,” Kelly said Tuesday. “And so Will Fuller has to play great. Jaylon Smith’s gotta play great. Sheldon Day has got to play great. Ronnie [Stanley] has got to play great. The great players have to step up. And for us to win they’ll have to play great. If they do, we will. If they don’t, we won’t. It’s that simple.”

Much of the focus on this 2015 team has been on the ability to overcome injuries. Rightfully so. It’s allowed this group to sit at 10-1, shaking off adversity and finding ways to win with players who weren’t necessarily expected to contribute this season.

So while we wonder how the Irish coaching staff will fill in for KeiVarae Russell or how Josh Adams will handle C.J. Prosise‘s workload, Kelly is right to heap the responsibility on his stars. Notre Dame has no shortage of elite talent. And it’s that group that will determine if the Irish can state their case to be a part of the playoff, or if they’ll come up short against Stanford, rending all playoff debate useless.

The play of Notre Dame’s top personnel hasn’t necessarily been consistent. While Sheldon Day has shown a week-to-week level of play that’s been unparalleled, the same can’t be said for Will Fuller or Ronnie Stanley—or even Jaylon Smith. With Christian McCaffrey and road-grading guard Joshua Garnett are performing at elite levels this season, Notre Dame’s four defensive captains—Day, Smith, Joe Schmidt and Matthias Farley—need to anchor a unit whose inconsistency has derailed any of its dominant moments.

Questions have emerged at the national level about Notre Dame’s ability to play through its latest bout of adversity. Those questions should serve as fuel this week. With all eyes on Stanford Stadium Saturday evening, Notre Dame’s stars could alleviate any concerns, playing a dominant game against a very good Stanford team.  They’ll need to if the Irish wants to leave a victor, never mind a playoff contender.




And in that corner… The Stanford Cardinal

Christian McCaffrey

There’s likely a new sense of urgency in The Gug this morning, with Notre Dame waking up on the outside looking in at the four teams currently slotted for the College Football Playoff. But with a short academic week and a very large game looming, it shouldn’t take the Irish long to focus their attention on the real problem at hand—a Stanford football team who’ll be playing for the Pac-12 championship.

Notre Dame has no argument for inclusion in the playoff if they don’t win on Saturday. And until they do that, it’s wise to leave the politicking to the talking heads and fans, with better play on the field after two slugging weeks saying more than any strength-of-schedule argument.

In a rivalry that’s ascended to national prominence (and now needs a clever nickname), Saturday evening’s game is one of a handful of key national showdowns that’ll likely impact the Playoff committee’s decision making. With a beat up Notre Dame team heading to Palo Alto on Thursday for what’s essentially a one-game playoff, I caught up with the Stanford Daily’s Do-Hyoung Park for an update on the Cardinal.

Do and I had a great Q&A this summer heading into preseason camp and he was kind enough to take some of his Thanksgiving break to bring his A-game here as well. Do is the Staff Development Editor for the Daily, their lead college football writer and has been a contributor at’s Campus Rush. He’s also a senior majoring in Chemical Engineering and studying computer science. (He also hails from St. Paul, so if you needed any more reason to like him, there you go.)

Hope you enjoy.


Stanford leads the Pac-12 North and will play for a conference championship, but their chances at the CFB Playoff seem very, very slim, even if they beat Notre Dame this weekend. What’s the mood surrounding the program and this game? Still important? Less so after the loss to Oregon?

These end-of-season games against Notre Dame are always weird; this is going to be the second time in three years that Stanford will already have the Pac-12 North locked away when it faces Notre Dame, and I remember the atmosphere of that game in 2013 being rather subdued because everybody knew that whatever happened in that game likely wouldn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, with Stanford already effectively locked out of the BCS title game.

This year, though, I think things could be different. Yes, the Oregon loss took a lot of wind out of Stanford’s sails, but from a rankings standpoint, this is still the Cardinal’s biggest game of the season — and a rivalry game, no less — and given that Stanford should be borderline top-10 in this week’s CFP poll and we’ve seen a healthy amount of chaos over the last few weeks, Stanford fans aren’t saying die until those final rankings are released and the Cardinal aren’t in the final four.

I know lots of people on campus still believe that a two-loss Pac-12 champion has a healthy argument against a one-loss ACC, Big Ten or Big 12 champion, and a win over one of the strongest non-conference opponents in the nation would certainly help that case.


The Cardinal have done an amazing job rebounding from their season-opening loss to Northwestern, winning games at a rate similar to their great teams of recent years. But how they’re doing it is much different. The Cardinal aren’t playing great defense, outside of the Top 35 in scoring defense, total defense, and No. 74 in passing defense. Let’s keep the focus on this side of the ball: We knew there was major attrition. But where has Lance Anderson’s defense overachieved or under-delivered?

I’m not necessarily saying that Lance Anderson is a wizard, but all I’m saying is that we don’t have any conclusive proof that he’s not a wizard. Given the lack of depth and inexperience on this defense, there’s honestly no reason this defense shouldn’t be one of the worse defenses in the conference — but Anderson’s superb coaching makes up for that in spades.

The numbers might not necessarily be there, but the fact that Stanford didn’t slip into the bottom half of the conference in defense after losing so many starters is a testament to Anderson’s ability to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of his players and adjust his scheme in that way. Shaw has said that he hates the term “bend but don’t break” to describe his defense, but that’s exactly what the Cardinal do — and they’re very, very good at it.

Anderson recognizes that his pass rush is a huge step down from those of years past and his corners might not necessarily be able to keep up with the top receivers of the Pac-12 every down, so he gives the receivers cushions and trusts his defensive backs to tackle in space — which is something they’re excellent at. That’s how you have games like Saturday’s against Cal, where Stanford lets Cal march down the field at will before buckling down in the red zone and holding the Bears to three field goals and a turnover on downs. That’s why the numbers get bloated, but make no mistake — this defense can get big stops when it matters most, which is impressive given the youth around the board.


Let’s talk about Christian McCaffrey. Outside of goal line carries, he is—quite literally—the engine of the Cardinal offense, averaging a ridiculous 30 combined touches a game. He’s the team’s leading rusher at 140 yards per game. He has 34 catches, seven more than the team’s leading receiver. And he returns punts and kicks. He’s rightfully a part of the Heisman conversation.

First, how have the teams that slowed McCaffrey down done it? And second, as I look for some type of negative on McCaffrey, is it maybe that his pitch count is too high because he’s that much more explosive than his teammates?

I’m not sure if I’m the right person to tell you how to slow down McCaffrey if some of the finest defensive coordinators in the nation haven’t been able to do that already. He isn’t an elite running back or an elite receiver, but it’s an unparalleled adaptability that really makes him dangerous — if you hold one element of his game in check, Stanford will burn you the other way.

I look at the Washington game as an example: The Huskies won the line of scrimmage and held McCaffrey to only 109 yards rushing, but Stanford accommodated that aggression up front by getting its stud sophomore involved in the passing game on screens and wheel routes out of the backfield — he finished that game as the team’s leading receiver with 112 yards. Or the Washington State game, where the Cougs overcommitted to McCaffrey and Hogan’s legs burned them on read-options. Or against Cal, where the Bears overcommitted and were burned on a reverse to Bryce Love (who is the most explosive player on this team — not McCaffrey).

As to his pitch count, Shaw and his teammates always rave about McCaffrey first and foremost as “a ball of energy” and a “kid that never gets tired” — among other things. I’m sure there’s fatigue that sets in, but if there is, he never shows it. In fact, he usually gets better after his first 20 or so touches. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right?


Kevin Hogan will be playing his final regular season game at a Stanford quarterback. He has played some good football and some not so good football. What do you expect from him this weekend, and how will his career be viewed when he’s gone?

There’s a strange dichotomy between Kevin Hogan’s career and his legacy that I’m not even sure Stanford fans really know how to balance. By the eye test and by all offensive metrics, it doesn’t look like he should have been a good quarterback. But when you look back at some of the things he’s accomplished, he might very well be the best quarterback in Stanford history — and that’s not an exaggeration.

You can call Hogan many things — a game manager, a mechanical mess — but the lone constant over his four years under center has been that he’s been a winner. No other quarterback in Stanford history has made it to two Rose Bowls, and none has ever had more wins wearing the cardinal and white than Kevin Hogan.

I think seeing those accolades and seeing Hogan’s career as a whole has really softened the hearts of Stanford fans that were calling for him to be benched a season ago and have made them a lot more appreciative of his talents: He’s deadly accurate, throws one of the best deep balls in the nation, has complete mastery of the most complex offense in the nation and was at the helm of this team’s rise to unprecedented heights. Stanford fans might not yet realize it, but his tenure has been one of the most special periods in Stanford history.

It’s strange to think that this Saturday will be the final time he takes the field at Stanford Stadium — he’s quite literally been the quarterback of my entire Stanford existence. He’s all I’ve ever known. But what I know is that whether he throws 10 times or 30, he’s going to be the accurate, clumsy-looking, poised, cool winner that he’s always been — and nobody in the stadium would have it any other way.


Game within the game: Stanford’s front seven vs. Notre Dame’s offensive line. The Cardinal are No. 28 as a rush defense, not quite as stout as they have been in the past, but still far from shabby. But they struggle to get after the passer, with most of the pass rush coming from linebackers Peter Kalambayi and Mike Tyler. Who do you think wins this matchup?

I hate to take the cop-out answer, but I’m going to call it a draw. Quite honestly, I’m not at all sold on Notre Dame’s running game — regardless of who’s carrying the ball out of the remnants of the Irish backfield. Stanford’s defensive line has been bad at getting pressure, but it’s been great at sliding off of blocks and meeting rushers at the line of scrimmage. Inside linebacker Blake Martinez is quite literally the best in the business at sniffing out run plays — he leads the conference in tackles despite not seeing the field much due to Stanford’s ball-control offense.

But in the passing game, the Irish offensive line will have a clear advantage. Those sack numbers are actually really misleading — Mike Tyler is a third-string outside linebacker and those sacks have mostly come in garbage time when Stanford is essentially running blitz drills while up three touchdowns. In meaningful passing downs, Stanford has had little to no success pressuring opposing quarterbacks with its linebackers, instead choosing to take its chances by dropping them into coverage a lot of the time. Unless Stanford’s defensive line manhandles Notre Dame’s big men, Kizer should have plenty of time in the pocket.


Last one from me: If Stanford wins, give me the two big keys to a Cardinal victory. Likewise, if Notre Dame wins, Stanford lost because it couldn’t do these two things.

If Stanford wins:

  • The Stanford offensive line controls the line of scrimmage, Christian McCaffrey runs for 140 yards, Kevin Hogan throws fewer than 15 times and Stanford holds the ball for over 35 minutes, keeping Notre Dame’s offense off the field for as long as possible.
  • Stanford is able to outmuscle Notre Dame on short-yardage downs. No team has been able to stop Stanford’s “ogre” package on third-and-short and goal-line situations this season, which has been a huge part of why short-yardage back Remound Wright has 23 goal-line touchdowns in the last two seasons and why Stanford is fifth in the nation in converting third downs (50 percent). If Notre Dame can’t stop Stanford in those situations, the Cardinal death machine will keep marching on.

If Notre Dame wins:

  • Stanford turns the ball over more than two times. I mentioned Stanford’s bend-but-don’t-break defense earlier, which puts an emphasis on limiting big plays over getting turnovers — Stanford is 10th in the Pac-12 with its -2 turnover margin. Stanford’s defense does a good job of holding opposing offenses to field goals instead of touchdowns, which is why Stanford can win games even when the defense has an off day. But if the opposing offense gets more opportunities, the bend-but-don’t-break gets closer to breaking. Two late turnovers made the difference against Oregon — Notre Dame is more than capable of taking advantage as well.
  • Kevin Hogan throws the ball more than 30 times. In Hogan’s 43 career starts, Stanford has only once won a game in which Hogan has thrown the ball more than 30 times. If Notre Dame can keep McCaffrey in check and force Stanford out of its comfort zone, Hogan working from the shotgun in clear passing situations is nothing special.



Notre Dame falls to No. 6 in latest College Football Playoff Poll

Tennessee v Georgia

The College Football Playoff committee was unimpressed with Notre Dame’s 19-16 victory over Boston College. Of the teams that won last Saturday, the Irish were the big loser this week in the polls, sliding from No. 4 to No. 6 this week, even with Ohio State dropping a game.

Notre Dame was jumped by Oklahoma, Iowa and Michigan State in this week’s poll, the new No. 3, 4 and 5 teams. The 10-1 Sooners held on to win 30-29 over TCU while Iowa pulled away from Purdue in the second half to stay undefeated. Michigan State was the big winner of the week, ending Ohio State’s undefeated run in Columbus winning 17-14, with just a game against Penn State left before solidifying their spot in the Big Ten Championship game against the Hawkeyes.

Clemson and Alabama remain in the top two spots, while the Irish are trailed by Baylor, Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan in the Top Ten. Notre Dame’s lone loss is to No. 1 Clemson and they have victories over No. 15 Navy and No. 25 Temple. But the committee looked at the rather unimpressive play of the Irish these past two weeks while also weighing the ranked victories for Oklahoma and Michigan State.

“The Boston College game didn’t add a lot to their resume, but it was more about the performance of Oklahoma and Michigan State that propelled them ahead of Notre Dame,” committee chairman Jeff Long told ESPN. “I think that combination of them not playing well the last couple weeks, combined with those high ranked wins by Michigan State and Oklahoma propelled them up there.”

If you listened closely to Long, it’s far from a done deal, especially among the four teams bouncing between No. 3 and No. 6. Long told ESPN’s Rece Davis that multiple “revotes” were called, with quite a bit of discussion before ending the week on the current rank.

With Stanford at No. 9 and Oklahoma State at No. 11, both the Irish and Sooners will have high-profile opponents before ending their season without a conference championship game. Alabama will play in the Iron Bowl this weekend against Auburn before facing Florida in the SEC title game while Clemson will face North Carolina in the ACC title game.

Earlier on Tuesday, Brian Kelly sounded like a coach who knew his team’s fate wasn’t in its control. But Kelly also said he thought his team was worthy of a playoff spot if they beat Stanford, something that now carries some urgency with the Irish showing a perceived slip these past two weeks.

“All we can do is control the way we perform and the way we prepare,” Kelly said. “Our guys clearly understand what they have to do in their preparation and then their performance on Saturday. And that’s it. The rest is up to a committee, and we knew that coming into the season. So we’ll take care of what we can take care of.