That question now hangs over Notre Dame following its painful encounter with BYU, a contest that exposed the narrow margins separating championship expectations from disappointment.
Defensive end Boubacar Traore was ejected during BYU’s opening possession, forcing the Fighting Irish to reorganize their pass rush almost immediately.
The moment was dramatic because Notre Dame had barely begun establishing its defensive identity before losing an important contributor.
For Marcus Freeman, the challenge was immediate. His team needed to maintain pressure, protect coverage assignments, and prevent one controversial moment from disrupting an entire afternoon.
The Irish continued fighting, eventually creating opportunities to win. But BYU’s late touchdown delivered the decisive blow and intensified questions about Notre Dame’s defensive resilience.
Was Traore’s absence the defining factor? Or did the Fighting Irish reveal weaknesses that should have been addressed regardless of who remained available?
The distinction matters because targeting penalties can alter personnel, but successful defenses must remain effective when injuries, ejections, or tactical adjustments create unexpected challenges.
Notre Dame’s response therefore deserves examination beyond the emotional impact of one officiating decision.
The Opening-Drive Shock
Targeting is among college football’s most consequential penalties because it can remove a player immediately while also producing significant field-position consequences.
The rule is intended to discourage dangerous contact, particularly actions involving forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless opponent.
It also addresses certain instances where a player initiates forcible contact using the crown of the helmet.
Not every forceful collision qualifies as targeting. Officials must evaluate the circumstances and apply the relevant rule criteria.
That distinction is important when discussing Traore’s ejection. Without reviewing the complete officiating explanation, it would be irresponsible to declare the ruling definitively correct or incorrect.
What matters competitively is that Notre Dame had to continue without a defensive player expected to contribute to its pressure packages.
Losing an edge defender during the opening possession creates challenges that extend beyond replacing one athlete on the field.
Defensive coordinators establish rotations to manage fatigue, preserve favorable matchups, and maintain pressure across four quarters.
An unexpected ejection can disrupt those plans before the coaching staff has gathered meaningful information about the opponent’s opening strategy.
Notre Dame’s remaining defenders suddenly faced additional responsibilities, while coaches needed to adjust personnel combinations without sacrificing defensive communication.
That process becomes especially demanding against a disciplined opponent capable of recognizing changes and attacking newly vulnerable areas.
BYU had an opportunity to test whether Notre Dame’s defensive structure remained intact after losing an important contributor.
The Irish, meanwhile, needed to demonstrate that their collective preparation could withstand an unexpected personnel setback.
Why Traore’s Absence Mattered
A productive edge defender influences far more than the number of sacks appearing beside his name.
Pass rushers can force quarterbacks to accelerate their decisions, alter passing angles, and abandon developing routes before receivers reach favorable positions.
They also affect offensive protection assignments, sometimes drawing additional blocking assistance that creates opportunities for teammates.
Traore’s presence offered Notre Dame another option for generating pressure without committing additional defenders to aggressive blitz packages.
When a defense loses such a player, opposing offenses may become more comfortable with their protection schemes.
However, the precise effect depends on how successfully the replacement defenders execute and whether the offense changes its approach.
Notre Dame’s coaching staff could respond by adjusting defensive alignments, increasing pressure from linebackers, or rotating additional edge defenders.
Each option presents potential benefits and risks.
Additional blitzes might disrupt BYU’s passing rhythm, but they could also expose coverage vulnerabilities if the quarterback recognizes pressure quickly.
Conservative rushing assignments might preserve defensive structure while allowing BYU more time to develop passing opportunities.
The most effective solution would balance pressure and coverage, ensuring Notre Dame remained aggressive without becoming vulnerable to explosive plays.
That challenge was complicated by the timing. The Irish had to make adjustments while the contest was already underway.
But championship-level defenses are expected to handle adversity, making the response to Traore’s absence just as important as the absence itself.
BYU Had to Earn Its Opportunity
The controversy surrounding Traore should not obscure BYU’s responsibility for creating its own offensive success.
An opponent’s personnel disadvantage does not automatically produce touchdowns. Offensive execution remains necessary, particularly against a program with Notre Dame’s defensive talent.
BYU needed effective protection, disciplined quarterback decisions, and receivers capable of exploiting opportunities against the Fighting Irish secondary.
The Cougars also had to recognize when Notre Dame changed its defensive approach following the ejection.
If the Irish increased pressure, BYU could potentially counter through quicker passing concepts and carefully designed protection adjustments.
If Notre Dame prioritized coverage, the Cougars could seek manageable rushing opportunities and shorter completions.
Those possibilities demonstrate why offensive preparation matters when an opponent experiences an unexpected personnel change.
The Cougars could not simply assume that Traore’s absence would guarantee favorable matchups throughout the game.
They still needed to convert third downs, protect possession, and execute under pressure when the contest became increasingly competitive.
Notre Dame’s comeback efforts further suggest that BYU did not enjoy uninterrupted control.
The Fighting Irish continued challenging the Cougars, creating a contest that ultimately required decisive execution during the closing stages.
That competitive response makes the outcome more complicated than a simple narrative about one early ejection.
Marcus Freeman’s Defense Under the Microscope
Freeman’s reputation is closely connected to defensive football, making any significant defensive breakdown particularly uncomfortable for Notre Dame supporters.
His coaching background includes substantial experience developing defensive systems and preparing players for demanding assignments against talented opponents.
That history creates expectations that Notre Dame should possess the flexibility necessary to overcome an unexpected personnel loss.
However, tactical flexibility is not the same as having unlimited depth.
A coach can adjust formations and responsibilities, but replacing a productive defender may still reduce the effectiveness of certain pressure packages.
Freeman must therefore evaluate whether Notre Dame’s problems resulted primarily from individual execution, structural weaknesses, or the absence of a particular player.
Each explanation requires a different response.
If replacement defenders struggled with assignments, additional preparation and communication may provide improvements.
If BYU exploited weaknesses in the defensive structure, the coaching staff may need to reconsider its approach against similar offensive concepts.
If Traore’s absence significantly reduced pressure, developing greater defensive depth becomes an important long-term priority.
These possibilities should be examined through actual game evidence rather than assumptions based solely on the final score.
Freeman also must prevent the targeting controversy from becoming an excuse that obscures correctable mistakes.
The strongest response involves acknowledging the disruption while demanding accountability for everything Notre Dame could still control.
That includes tackling, coverage communication, situational awareness, and execution during decisive possessions.
Those responsibilities remain essential regardless of which players are available.
The Scoreboard Reveals a More Complicated Story
The official result was BYU 28, Notre Dame 24, on October 17, 2026, at LaVell Edwards Stadium in Provo, Utah.
Notre Dame entered ranked second nationally with a 6–0 record, while eighth-ranked BYU arrived unbeaten at 5–0.
The matchup carried enormous significance for both programs, particularly because a victory could strengthen their respective College Football Playoff ambitions.
BYU opened with an eleven-play, 75-yard touchdown drive, during which Traore’s targeting penalty provided fifteen additional yards.
Quarterback Bear Bachmeier completed the possession with a five-yard rushing touchdown, giving the Cougars an early 7–0 advantage.
Notre Dame responded through a 46-yard field goal from Spencer Porath before Nolan James Jr. scored an eight-yard rushing touchdown.
That sequence gave the Irish a 10–7 advantage, demonstrating that Traore’s ejection had not immediately destroyed their ability to compete.
However, BYU answered with an imaginative trick play that resulted in Bachmeier catching a fifteen-yard touchdown pass from Kyler Kasper.
The Cougars added another rushing touchdown before halftime, establishing a 21–10 advantage and placing considerable pressure on Notre Dame’s offense.
Those developments illustrate why the targeting controversy cannot be separated from BYU’s effective offensive preparation.
The Cougars combined disciplined execution with creative play calling, forcing Notre Dame to respond to multiple offensive threats.
Traore’s absence may have influenced pressure opportunities, but BYU still needed to execute successfully against the defenders remaining on the field.
The Halftime Mistake That Cannot Be Ignored
Notre Dame’s most damaging first-half mistake occurred shortly before halftime, when the Irish appeared positioned to reduce their deficit.
CJ Carr drove the offense deep into BYU territory, creating an opportunity to score before entering the locker room.
With six seconds remaining, Carr attempted to spike the football and stop the clock.
Instead, he lost control of the ball, and officials determined that the play constituted a fumble.
The mistake eliminated an opportunity to attempt a field goal or score a touchdown, preserving BYU’s eleven-point halftime advantage.
That sequence had nothing to do with Traore’s absence, making it especially relevant when evaluating responsibility for the defeat.
Notre Dame could reasonably lament losing an important defender, but its offense also failed to capitalize on a valuable scoring opportunity.
Against highly ranked opponents, such mistakes frequently become decisive because they reduce the margin for error during the closing stages.
The incident also highlights the demanding responsibilities placed upon quarterbacks during high-pressure situations.
Carr had to manage the clock, communicate with teammates, and execute a simple-looking play under enormous competitive pressure.
His mistake proved costly, but it should be evaluated alongside his broader performance rather than defining his entire contribution.
The quarterback ultimately completed 27 of 49 passes for 261 yards, demonstrating persistence during Notre Dame’s comeback attempt.
The problem was not an absence of competitive determination. It was the failure to convert several promising opportunities into sufficient points.
Notre Dame’s Defense Actually Responded
Perhaps the strongest argument against blaming everything on Traore’s ejection comes from Notre Dame’s second-half defensive performance.
After allowing 21 points before halftime, the Irish prevented BYU from scoring throughout the third quarter.
Their defensive improvement created the opportunity for a remarkable comeback, allowing the offense to gradually reduce the deficit.
Porath connected on two third-quarter field goals, bringing Notre Dame within five points entering the final period.
The Irish then completed their comeback when Jonaz Walton scored on a three-yard rushing touchdown.
Walton added a successful two-point conversion, giving Notre Dame a 24–21 advantage with 9:31 remaining.
That comeback demonstrated meaningful defensive resilience despite Traore’s continued absence.
If the ejection had completely dismantled Notre Dame’s defense, such an extended stretch of effective play would have been difficult to explain.
Instead, the Irish showed they could adjust, limit BYU’s opportunities, and create conditions for their offense to regain control.
Luke Talich and Drayk Bowen each recorded eight tackles, illustrating the contributions of defenders who continued competing throughout the contest.
Their performances do not erase the importance of Traore, but they demonstrate that Notre Dame possessed other players capable of meaningful contributions.
The defensive response also complicates the argument that Freeman’s staff failed to adjust after the opening-drive ejection.
Adjustments clearly produced encouraging results during significant portions of the second half.
The remaining question is why those improvements did not prevent BYU’s decisive late possession.
The Final Drive That Broke Notre Dame
With Notre Dame leading 24–21, the Fighting Irish appeared positioned to escape Provo with their unbeaten record intact.
But BYU refused to surrender.
The Cougars assembled a ten-play, 55-yard touchdown drive, demonstrating composure when their championship ambitions appeared threatened.
Bachmeier ultimately connected with Walker Lyons for the go-ahead touchdown with 1:47 remaining.
The score restored BYU’s advantage at 28–24 and forced Notre Dame to pursue one final touchdown.
That possession represents the strongest evidence supporting criticism of Notre Dame’s late-game defensive execution.
The Irish had already recovered from their early struggles, established a lead, and created an opportunity to close out the contest.
They needed one decisive defensive stand.
Instead, BYU successfully moved downfield and produced the touchdown that ultimately determined the result.
Would Traore have changed that outcome?
Possibly. His presence could have improved Notre Dame’s pass rush or forced BYU to adjust its protection assignments.
But there is no reliable way to establish that he would have prevented the touchdown.
Football outcomes depend on multiple players executing interconnected responsibilities, and one additional defender cannot guarantee success against a well-designed offensive possession.
The more defensible conclusion is that Traore’s absence reduced Notre Dame’s available options, while BYU successfully exploited opportunities during the decisive moments.
Zero Sacks Tell an Important Story
One particularly revealing statistic emerged from the final defensive numbers: Notre Dame recorded no sacks against BYU.
That figure supports the argument that the Irish struggled to generate the quarterback disruption they would normally expect from their defensive front.
However, zero sacks do not automatically prove that Traore’s absence caused every pressure-related problem.
BYU’s offensive protection, passing rhythm, and quarterback decision-making also influenced the effectiveness of Notre Dame’s pass rush.
The Cougars’ ability to move the football efficiently on third down further complicated the defensive challenge.
BYU converted eight of twelve third-down opportunities, compared with Notre Dame’s eight conversions on nineteen attempts.
That difference helped the Cougars sustain possessions and reduce the number of opportunities available to the Irish offense.
BYU also scored on all four red-zone possessions, while Notre Dame scored on three of five.
Those numbers reveal a broader execution problem extending beyond the absence of one defensive lineman.
Notre Dame needed greater effectiveness on crucial downs and more consistent finishing ability near the opponent’s goal line.
The Irish actually gained 376 total yards compared with BYU’s 360, demonstrating how closely matched the teams were statistically.
Yet BYU converted its opportunities more effectively when the outcome depended on precise execution.
That distinction offers a more convincing explanation for the result than assigning responsibility exclusively to Traore’s targeting penalty.
CJ Carr Nearly Delivered an Extraordinary Escape
Notre Dame’s final offensive possession provided one last opportunity to reverse the result.
Carr led the Irish downfield through a demanding fifteen-play drive, repeatedly keeping their hopes alive against BYU’s defense.
The possession included crucial fourth-down conversions that demonstrated the quarterback’s determination and the offense’s refusal to surrender.
Notre Dame eventually reached the BYU seven-yard line, placing the potential winning touchdown within reach.
But Carr’s final pass toward Jaden Greathouse fell incomplete in the end zone as time expired.
BYU survived, securing its 28–24 victory and handing Notre Dame its first defeat of the season.
Greathouse finished with eight receptions for 125 yards, providing one of Notre Dame’s most productive offensive performances.
James contributed 77 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Carr continued battling despite the earlier fumble.
Their contributions demonstrated that Notre Dame retained considerable offensive talent and competitive resilience throughout the contest.
But individual production could not overcome the accumulation of missed opportunities.
The final possession reinforced the same lesson revealed by the decisive BYU touchdown: execution under pressure determines outcomes.
Notre Dame came close enough to make defeat especially painful, but proximity to victory does not change the final scoreboard.
Was the Targeting Call the Turning Point?
The answer depends on what qualifies as a turning point.
Traore’s ejection was undeniably significant because it occurred early and removed an important defensive contributor for virtually the entire contest.
It also provided BYU with fifteen penalty yards during a possession that produced the game’s opening touchdown.
Those consequences were immediate and measurable.
However, the game contained several other moments capable of influencing the result.
Carr’s halftime fumble eliminated a scoring opportunity.
Notre Dame settled for field goals during possessions when touchdowns could have changed the competitive situation.
BYU converted eight third downs and finished every red-zone opportunity with points.
The Irish also failed to prevent the decisive touchdown after taking a fourth-quarter lead.
Each event contributed to the final outcome, making it misleading to identify one penalty as the exclusive explanation.
Traore’s absence mattered, but the evidence does not support treating it as proof that Notre Dame would otherwise have won.
That distinction is essential when separating emotional reactions from responsible football analysis.
Marcus Freeman Must Find the Right Response
Freeman now faces a challenge extending beyond explaining the BYU defeat.
Notre Dame must demonstrate that its defensive identity remains reliable even when unexpected personnel changes disrupt preparation.
That requires developing depth, improving situational execution, and ensuring replacement defenders understand their responsibilities against sophisticated offensive systems.
The coaching staff must also examine why BYU converted critical third downs and produced the decisive late touchdown.
Those issues can be addressed through tactical adjustments, communication, and more effective preparation for high-pressure possessions.
Offensively, the Irish must improve their ability to convert promising drives into touchdowns rather than relying heavily on field goals.
Carr’s development remains central to that process, particularly because quarterback decision-making can determine whether close games become victories or defeats.
Freeman must maintain accountability without allowing one disappointing result to erase the competitive strengths his team demonstrated.
Notre Dame entered Provo unbeaten and ranked second nationally for legitimate reasons.
The defeat exposed weaknesses, but it did not establish that the Irish lack the talent necessary to compete against elite opposition.
The challenge is responding with improvements that become visible in future games rather than merely promising a stronger performance.
What Comes Next for the Fighting Irish?
Notre Dame’s first defeat creates additional pressure surrounding its remaining regular-season schedule.
The Fighting Irish must protect their postseason position while addressing the weaknesses exposed by BYU.
The College Football Playoff conversation will depend on future results and the performances of other contenders, not simply Notre Dame’s previous ranking.
That makes every remaining opportunity important.
The Irish must regain consistency on defense, improve offensive finishing, and prevent penalties from creating unnecessary disadvantages.
Traore’s return to the lineup would provide another defensive option, but Notre Dame cannot depend on one player’s availability to resolve every problem.
A strong response requires contributions throughout the roster and an understanding that championship football demands resilience under unpredictable circumstances.
The team must also avoid allowing frustration surrounding the targeting call to become a distraction from its broader objectives.
Successful programs acknowledge setbacks, evaluate their causes, and adjust before those problems become recurring weaknesses.
Notre Dame still has the opportunity to demonstrate that its performance against BYU represented a difficult lesson rather than the beginning of a larger decline.
The Final Verdict
Boubacar Traore’s targeting ejection changed Notre Dame’s defensive personnel almost immediately and removed a valuable pass-rushing option against an undefeated opponent.
The Irish finished without a sack, struggled on crucial third downs, and ultimately surrendered the touchdown that decided the game.
Those facts make his absence an important part of the story.
But Notre Dame also held BYU scoreless in the third quarter, recovered from an eleven-point halftime deficit, and took a late lead.
That resilience proves the defense was capable of responding even without Traore.
The loss therefore cannot be reduced to one officiating decision.
BYU deserves credit for executing its offense, converting important opportunities, and delivering the decisive touchdown when the pressure was greatest.
Notre Dame must accept responsibility for missed scoring opportunities, situational mistakes, and the failure to protect its fourth-quarter advantage.
The targeting penalty created adversity. The Fighting Irish’s challenge was overcoming it completely.
They nearly succeeded, but nearly was not enough.
One flag changed Notre Dame’s defense. But the inability to finish the game ultimately changed Notre Dame’s season.
