[4thandgoal]

Alternately, it's kinda tough to blame the line when the play calling was so transparent.

Well, sure, except the first two drives of the game involved the line being unable to get push against a light box and then, subsequently, getting bossed on first- and second-down passes. Things went downhill from there; there were plenty of passes and runs against type in the second half. So I guess I'm wondering what "non-transparent" play calling means, because the complaint this season has been (rightly, to be fair) that there needs to be more passes on first and second down. There was plenty of that and the N.D. defensive line teed off anyway.

Undeniably true. The ND line teed off. But why? You claim that we couldn't run against a light box. I can recall running two times against a light box(7 or less). I'm claiming that our line played poorly-and ND played great- when we ran against a loaded box. For example, we opened the game running Love for zero, Love for zero, incomplete pass. An overwhelming percentage of our runs came against a run defense. Likewise, we passed against pass defenses. 
Look, it's a hypothesis in some ways. But it has the advantage of explaining a weak run game in 5 straight games against lesser opponents-ND included. 
In all likelihood, the line hasn't gelled. They're not going to gel against relentless stacked boxes.

[4thandgoal]

Alternately, it's kinda tough to blame the line when the play calling was so transparent.

Well, sure, except the first two drives of the game involved the line being unable to get push against a light box and then, subsequently, getting bossed on first- and second-down passes. Things went downhill from there; there were plenty of passes and runs against type in the second half. So I guess I'm wondering what "non-transparent" play calling means, because the complaint this season has been (rightly, to be fair) that there needs to be more passes on first and second down. There was plenty of that and the N.D. defensive line teed off anyway.

Undeniably true. The ND line teed off. But why? You claim that we couldn't run against a light box. I can recall running two times against a light box(7 or less). I'm claiming that our line played poorly-and ND played great- when we ran against a loaded box. For example, we opened the game running Love for zero, Love for zero, incomplete pass. An overwhelming percentage of our runs came against a run defense. Likewise, we passed against pass defenses. 
Look, it's a hypothesis in some ways. But it has the advantage of explaining a weak run game in 5 straight games against lesser opponents-ND included. 
In all likelihood, the line hasn't gelled. They're not going to gel against relentless stacked boxes.