[BostonCard]

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.

We still outgained Notre Dame 385 to 302.  We had more first downs (21-16).  We had a better third down efficiency (7/16 versus 3/12).  They had three three and outs to only one for Stanford.  Of Notre Dame’s 11 drives, five failed to make it into Stanford territory (and one made it to the Stanford 47 before a sack pushed them back to their own side of the field); Stanford had four such drives.  Stanford’s average drive was 35 yards (excluding the final kneel downs), 8 yards longer than the average Notre Dame drive.  The median Notre Dame drive was just 17 yards; the median Stanford drive was 31 yards.

I’m not saying that Stanford dominated Notre Dame.  This was a fairly close game, and if Notre Dame had won, I wouldn’t have said they were unworthy.  But I think it is a mistake to say that Notre Dame “should have” won.  To me, both the eyeball test and the numbers suggest that the score was roughly reflective of the underlying game.  It was a tight game; Stanford was a shade better.  And note I feel the same way about OSU last week (hard to feel like Stanford “should have” won that, but for the fact that we were leading with less than a minute left).

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

We still outgained Notre Dame 385 to 302.  We had more first downs (21-16).  We had a better third down efficiency (7/16 versus 3/12).  They had three three and outs to only one for Stanford.  Of Notre Dame’s 11 drives, five failed to make it into Stanford territory (and one made it to the Stanford 47 before a sack pushed them back to their own side of the field); Stanford had four such drives.  Stanford’s average drive was 35 yards (excluding the final kneel downs), 8 yards longer than the average Notre Dame drive.  The median Notre Dame drive was just 17 yards; the median Stanford drive was 31 yards.

I’m not saying that Stanford dominated Notre Dame.  This was a fairly close game, and if Notre Dame had won, I wouldn’t have said they were unworthy.  But I think it is a mistake to say that Notre Dame “should have” won.  To me, both the eyeball test and the numbers suggest that the score was roughly reflective of the underlying game.  It was a tight game; Stanford was a shade better.  And note I feel the same way about OSU last week (hard to feel like Stanford “should have” won that, but for the fact that we were leading with less than a minute left).

BC