Notre Dame is leading Providence by 4 at halftime. The Irish must win, or they can pretty much kiss their Big East tournament hopes goodbye. (A loss might knock them off the NIT bubble, too.)

In a related story, Notre Dame alum John Chute has a letter to the editor in today’s Observer which explains brilliantly exactly why Mike Brey needs to be fired. Here’s the money paragraph, which points out many of the precise problems that Becky and I have noticed, and also effectively rebuts — in wonderfully sarcastic fashion — the fallacious counterargument, so often heard from defenders of Brey and other bad coaches, that people who aren’t players or coaches have no right to criticize the coach because they don’t know what they’re talking about:

Since I am not a professional basketball coach or player, I do not suggest that my two varsity letters in high school basketball qualify me to pass judgments on the coaching acumen of Notre Dame’s exceedingly well-compensated and well-connected head coach. For example, I am willing to admit that what appears to me to be a highly unconventional strategy of complete abandonment of a low post game, coupled with an alternative strategy of “have two guards dribble it around with no other motion or off-the-ball screening and then chuck up a three-ball from 35-feet with one second left on the shot clock and two hands in your face,” is a potentially more cutting-edge, sophisticated, winning strategy than the tried-and-true approach of feeding the low post for two to four-foot buckets or a foul shot every other time down the floor. I will also admit that it may be incredibly innovative to take the rarely pursued approach of recruiting only two college-caliber big men during six years as coach and combine that with a complete lack of attention to teaching those players how to play the low post so as to ensure no semblance of an inside game as an option for your offense for three straight seasons. Lastly, it may be the veritable future of the sport to state as your goal “if they shoot 48 percent, we’re gonna try to shoot 55 percent because that is who we are,” and combine that with the rarely-employed defensive philosophy that consists of “stand flat-footed, keep your hands at your side, play as passively as possible, never jump out on high screens even when we are ahead by three points with two seconds left in the game and never, ever, box out as if you intend to actually obtain the rebound.” These may be the mandates of a true visionary, and it is not for me to suggest that other programs, for example, Indiana and Duke, which have combined for seven national championships via total commitment to defense and fundamentals, know any better than the current Notre Dame coaches as to how to achieve success on the court.

Heh.

“The last time I checked, the men’s basketball coaching position at Notre Dame was indeed a ‘job,’ not a volunteer camp counselor position,” Chute adds. “In fact, I suspect it ranks as one of the most highly-compensated positions at the University. As such, there should be fundamental standards and milestones which are required to be met.” He concludes that “Notre Dame needs a basketball coach and athletic director who, recognizing Notre Dame’s own legacy in men’s basketball, will commit to bring the Irish back to the top of the rankings, not to a seat on the annual bubble.”

(Hat tip: Kristin.)