They took an early 3-0 lead -- interesting, all 10 of Stanford's points came off turnovers -- but ND went ahead 6-3 in the second and expanded that to 20-3 before Stanford scored their only TD late in the 3rd quarter.
Playing from behind often skews offensive statistics, especially passing statistics. See, e.g., the 1988 ND-USC game. Southern Cal led in first downs 21-8 and had a big advantage in yards gained, but nobody other than a hard-core Trojan partisan would dispute that ND dominated that game and demonstrably was the better team. Indeed, ND had a big statistical edge after the first quarter; most of USC's yards came after ND took a 14-0 lead.
For many years, the teams with the top-ranked passing offenses in the nation were losing teams who had to air it out while trailing. That's not as much the case now as it was as recently as the 1980s, but it remains a factor -- and a cautionary tale for stat geeks who undervalue the final numbers on the scoreboard.
"Dammit, we're running the ball. When you pass, three things can happen. And two of them are bad."
He started coaching at my HS in 1965, and I don't think his offense or philosophy changed one iota by the time I was playing in the late 90s/early 2000s. Which would've been great if I'd been a fullback.
the sum of the number completed, incompleted plus intercepted?
I could probably follow that up with how does Stanford have 2 more kickoffs than ND but the score was 27-10 ND....
Not that I am an accountant...ok,I am an accountant.....
Notre Dame attempted 10 passes. They completed 3, incompleted 4, and Stanford intercepted 3. This adds up to 10.
Meanwhile, Stanford attempted 21 passes. They completed 11, incompleted 5, and Notre Dame intercepted 5. This adds up to 21.
I have a recollection that that used to be the rule and was applied when scoring was not as common and a team would prefer a stop and punt for better field position. But I could've misheard the old Red Grange Sportscentury documentary.
Maybe they kicked off at the start of each quarter?