Last night, Notre Dame played another bad game of basketball. Louisville led at halftime. Louisville spent the second half widening the gap. On the offensive end, Notre Dame quickly turtled, retreating into Markus Burton, who then struggled under heavy pressure. On the defensive end, Notre Dame had few answers for a well-rounded, capable attack. A bad shooting night from Louisville saved the Irish from a disastrous final score.
All of this is pretty normal for this year’s Notre Dame team. It’s hard to be mad about it, and it’d be hard to be mad about it even if this team was meeting expectations, hanging around the middle of NIT territory. No Notre Dame player played unusually badly. The Irish were overmatched, and their best player couldn’t make enough happen playing what felt like 1-on-2. Little was newsworthy about the game itself.
After the game, Micah Shrewsberry made more newsworthy comments (click into the video for the full two and a half minutes):
This has generated reactions, mostly neutral. For those who’ve followed this Notre Dame season, the reaction I’ve seen has been: “Wow. Shrewsberry was pretty upset there.” For those who haven’t, the reaction I’ve seen has been: “Wow. Notre Dame is worse than I realized.” A friend of mine who went to Wisconsin called the microphone toppling “really respectful, but not soft,” adding, “He was so composed.” My friend was right. Shrewsberry was composed. I think that’s part of why the so-called rant made ripples. It’s a little funny to see a naturally calm, collected, good-natured guy get angry on camera. The rant was very polite.
I really like Micah Shrewsberry. We’ve made no secret of that. I want him to do well. I’ve criticized his team this year, because—well, look at this team—but I hope he works out in South Bend. We don’t need to belabor all the things that make Micah Shrewsberry so promising, but I think the big one is that he loves South Bend. Everything else stems from that.
We also don’t need to belabor the context of these comments, though we’ll do a little bit of that as a reset, for those who clicked in here wondering what the hell is happening at the Joyce Center.
23 months ago, when he took this job, Shrewsberry accepted a terrible hand. His first season was promising. His second season has been disappointing. The biggest problem is still a lack of talent, a group of players that are clearly a second-year roster for a coach who 1) inherited an empty locker room and 2) lacked NIL support until recently. The second-biggest problem has been a tendency to blow second-half leads, with common explanations ranging from “the experienced guys aren’t composed” to “this team is too skinny” to “Micah Shrewsberry is drawing up bad plays.”
We subscribe to the first two of those explanations. This team would benefit from clearer heads and stronger bodies. With the third, we don’t believe Shrewsberry suddenly lost his fastball when it comes to x’s and o’s. More likely—and this seems the case based on more factors than just close losses—Shrewsberry has not figured out how to get this roster to run an effective offense. His players often look lost. That doesn’t mean they aren’t playing hard, and it doesn’t mean Shrewsberry’s lacking schematically. My best guess—and this is only a guess, an attempt at connecting the dots—is that something is going over these guys’ heads. That’s on Shrewsberry for not reaching them, but it also probably stems from the roster itself, which is only partly his fault.
With that covered. The seven things Micah Shrewsberry said, and responses to each.
1. This team won’t quit.
Good! We love that. Go pull off a couple upsets and freshen the taste in everyone’s mouth.
2. Criticizing Micah Shrewsberry is fair.
We like this too. It is fair, and it’s always good for a coach to take responsibility. That’s one of the many things we love about Marcus Freeman. He takes responsibility for everything, even when he doesn’t deserve all the blame.
3. Micah Shrewsberry still believes.
Again, good. Also, it’s good for the locker room to hear this. The thing is, though—they need to match their coach. Players need to take responsibility too. Players also need to express belief. Not to us, the public, but to each other. Hopefully, that’s happening.
4. The fans shouldn’t give up on these players.
I liked this. I liked all of it, but I thought this was a good message. Be angry, and take it out on me, and don’t hate these players. Leadership 101.
5. Micah Shrewsberry knows he has support at Notre Dame.
This is part of what made the “rant” seem so composed. It felt like Shrewsberry was saying, I know I’m not actually on the hot seat. This isn’t about that. Probably didn’t need to say it, but probably saved himself an awkward phone call to Pete Bevacqua later last night.
6. Attendance is bad.
This is what got the most attention, because it came with mentions of how many Louisville fans made the trip and a line telling the haters not to come back when the team starts winning again. Some thoughts on it:
My recollection is that Notre Dame had great student attendance for men’s basketball in the 2000’s. In the 2010’s and 2020’s, student attendance has directly correlated to how good the team is. It’s fair-weather now. It wasn’t that fair-weather before.
This is probably partly generational, straight-up sociology stuff where people do fewer things in person these days and more things online. It’s also probably a reflection of men’s college basketball’s diminished stature in the broader sports landscape. In an era where nearly every sport is growing its footprint, men’s college basketball’s leaders have managed to make its popularity stagnate.
That all said. The front-running is probably exacerbated by Notre Dame’s thinned-out middle class. We’ve talked about this a lot of times on this website, but Notre Dame’s gotten a lot nicer over the last twenty years, and with that, the student identity has changed. Turtle Creek doesn’t exist anymore. Eddy Street Commons exists and has grown quite large. Students are smarter than they used to be, which is good. Students are whiter-collar than they used to be, which I personally don’t prefer. Growth isn’t bad, but a complaint that I, at least, have with the Jenkins administration is that in certain areas, it let Notre Dame’s character get away. There are far worse manifestations of this than lackluster attendance for men’s hoops. (One example: A few years ago, the Center for Social Concerns decimated its off-campus service efforts.) That said, I wish more students went to men’s basketball games. Is the team bad? Yes. But front-running is nothing to be proud of.
It’s one thing for pro sports franchises to see attendance dip. When Bulls fans don’t show up to Bulls games, it at least faintly hurts Jerry Reinsdorf’s bank account. When Notre Dame students don’t show up to Notre Dame men’s basketball games, it only hurts Notre Dame. The fan–team relationship is different in college sports than in the pros. In the pros, there’s a social contract at play. With college, it’s more like a family.
Notre Dame is too big a sports school to not show up for men’s basketball. Respectable sports schools don’t leave arenas empty for sports that big. You can front-run the lacrosse teams. Don’t front-run hoops.
7. Micah Shrewsberry is turning this program around.
This was a bolder statement than most of the others, but I liked the conviction with which he said it. Go beat SMU on Wednesday, Coach. Hopefully it happens in front of a bigger crowd. (At the very least, we know SMU won’t travel like Louisville. No one in our basketball orbit travels like Louisville. I love them and hate them for that.)
**
