[OutsiderFan]

I am not intending to take anything away from Stanford's play.  It is just a fact ND has been horrible in the red zone for a number of years now, regardless of the quality of opposition.  Let's suppose that Stanford is particularly strong on defense in the red zone.  Fair enough.  But that should mean they keep ND out of the end zone in perhaps 2 out of the 4 times.  Maybe, 3 out of 4.  But, when a college football team is only 1 out of 8 in the last 2 games, that team is just not playing well in the red zone.  Think about it; 2 losses by 4 points all because a very good football team can't play fundamental football inside the 20 yard line.  Stanford played a near perfect offensive game and beat ND by 2 points.  All ND had to do was score one more touchdown out of the four chances; they win the game.  Simply incredible.

Stanford also did a great job against ND on 3rd down, holding them to 3/9.  There tends to be a strong correlation between 3rd down efficiency and Red Zone efficiency.  David Shaw calls it situational football.  ND won the big play game, but Stanford dominated in situational football, 5-5 in Red Zone TDs, and 8/12 on 3rd down.  Win on 3rd down and in Red Zone, and you usually win the game.  And if you have no turnovers, it's virtually impossible to lose.  Stanford played Oregon a lot like ND.  The difference was Stanford turned the ball over against Oregon and didn't against ND.  Rather than seeing how close ND was to winning, consider how fortunate they were to be in a game they were so dominated on 3rd downs and in the Red Zone.

[OutsiderFan]

I am not intending to take anything away from Stanford's play.  It is just a fact ND has been horrible in the red zone for a number of years now, regardless of the quality of opposition.  Let's suppose that Stanford is particularly strong on defense in the red zone.  Fair enough.  But that should mean they keep ND out of the end zone in perhaps 2 out of the 4 times.  Maybe, 3 out of 4.  But, when a college football team is only 1 out of 8 in the last 2 games, that team is just not playing well in the red zone.  Think about it; 2 losses by 4 points all because a very good football team can't play fundamental football inside the 20 yard line.  Stanford played a near perfect offensive game and beat ND by 2 points.  All ND had to do was score one more touchdown out of the four chances; they win the game.  Simply incredible.

Stanford also did a great job against ND on 3rd down, holding them to 3/9.  There tends to be a strong correlation between 3rd down efficiency and Red Zone efficiency.  David Shaw calls it situational football.  ND won the big play game, but Stanford dominated in situational football, 5-5 in Red Zone TDs, and 8/12 on 3rd down.  Win on 3rd down and in Red Zone, and you usually win the game.  And if you have no turnovers, it's virtually impossible to lose.  Stanford played Oregon a lot like ND.  The difference was Stanford turned the ball over against Oregon and didn't against ND.  Rather than seeing how close ND was to winning, consider how fortunate they were to be in a game they were so dominated on 3rd downs and in the Red Zone.