[msqueri]

FWIW, someone (respected analytics guy Bill Connelly) crunched some numbers and thinks that based on the game stats, ND “should” have won:

[tweet] https://wwe.twitter.com/ESPN_BillC/statu...6377096192[/tweet]

We outgained Notre Dame (by a fair bit) and had two fewer turnovers than they did.  Usually that is a recipe for beating the opponent.  I guess if you start looking at more granular stuff, like yards per play, maybe they look a bit better, but at the end of the day, Notre Dame had exactly two drives of any significance in the game.

BC

But the turnovers were a product of the ball bouncing our way. Stanford had two fumbles and a punt blocked while Notre Dame had three fumbles. Neither team threw an interception. That profile would be expected to even out (or perhaps be a bit of an ND advantage because of the momentum swing a scoop and score can be) but instead were a massive advantage for Stanford. That’s luck. It’s not just yards per play that suggests Notre Dame “should” have won.

[msqueri]

FWIW, someone (respected analytics guy Bill Connelly) crunched some numbers and thinks that based on the game stats, ND “should” have won:

[tweet] https://wwe.twitter.com/ESPN_BillC/statu...6377096192[/tweet]

We outgained Notre Dame (by a fair bit) and had two fewer turnovers than they did.  Usually that is a recipe for beating the opponent.  I guess if you start looking at more granular stuff, like yards per play, maybe they look a bit better, but at the end of the day, Notre Dame had exactly two drives of any significance in the game.

BC

But the turnovers were a product of the ball bouncing our way. Stanford had two fumbles and a punt blocked while Notre Dame had three fumbles. Neither team threw an interception. That profile would be expected to even out (or perhaps be a bit of an ND advantage because of the momentum swing a scoop and score can be) but instead were a massive advantage for Stanford. That’s luck. It’s not just yards per play that suggests Notre Dame “should” have won.