[BostonCard]

Are we talking past each other?  My point is that the way our D was playing in the first half was encouraging.  Taking a 2-score lead into the halftime and then getting the ball first was absolutely the right decision.  Lucky for us we got the ball back and had a second chance to make that decision -- correctly.

When your offense is sputtering you don't do the high beta stuff.  How many times did we convert a 4th down last night?

Notre Dame’s offense was sputtering worse than ours; they converted 2/4 fourth downs.

BC

---

On luck… the fumble that McGill recovered rolled about 15 yards from the spot it was fumbled.  “Good luck” that we recovered it.  Bad luck that the recovery cost 15 yards.  Given that the subsequent Stanford drive stalled at the ND 38, it is not invonceivable that “all else being equal” (and of course, it never is) the roll cost us 3 points.

BC

Why stop there? Since the ball was basically knocked out of the runner's grasp, it could have gone towards the ND end zone and we could have recovered it at the 2 :-). Obviously, every play's outcome affects subsequent plays. If one "lucky" break hadn't happened, there is no way to know if the subsequent play with another "lucky" event would even exist. Many things about football are non-deterministic. Trying to describe some events as deterministic and other events as "luck" is pointless. They can't be separated.

I think that’s my point. Matt argues we were “lucky” in the game and that on fundamentals Notre Dame should have won. My point is that you can’t really separate luck or determine it’s contribution to the outcome of a game.

BC

[BostonCard]

Are we talking past each other?  My point is that the way our D was playing in the first half was encouraging.  Taking a 2-score lead into the halftime and then getting the ball first was absolutely the right decision.  Lucky for us we got the ball back and had a second chance to make that decision -- correctly.

When your offense is sputtering you don't do the high beta stuff.  How many times did we convert a 4th down last night?

Notre Dame’s offense was sputtering worse than ours; they converted 2/4 fourth downs.

BC

---

On luck… the fumble that McGill recovered rolled about 15 yards from the spot it was fumbled.  “Good luck” that we recovered it.  Bad luck that the recovery cost 15 yards.  Given that the subsequent Stanford drive stalled at the ND 38, it is not invonceivable that “all else being equal” (and of course, it never is) the roll cost us 3 points.

BC

Why stop there? Since the ball was basically knocked out of the runner's grasp, it could have gone towards the ND end zone and we could have recovered it at the 2 :-). Obviously, every play's outcome affects subsequent plays. If one "lucky" break hadn't happened, there is no way to know if the subsequent play with another "lucky" event would even exist. Many things about football are non-deterministic. Trying to describe some events as deterministic and other events as "luck" is pointless. They can't be separated.

I think that’s my point. Matt argues we were “lucky” in the game and that on fundamentals Notre Dame should have won. My point is that you can’t really separate luck or determine it’s contribution to the outcome of a game.

BC