We don’t know who is going to come out the winner but we do know the timeline that’s about to set in place the future of Notre Dame football and rearrange the careers of a few high profile star athletes in South Bend. We’re just under a week away from the start of fall camp which means we’re roughly 3 weeks away from a starting quarterback being named by Brian Kelly.

There’s no doubt that from a viewpoint of 10,000 feet the Irish are sitting pretty at quarterback. There’s talent, depth, and enough experience to make most rest easy at night. In most ways, you can’t ask for more.

Still, I worry.

I know that seems crazy to some but if you’ve read anything from me on this subject in the past you’ll know I am deathly afraid of a quarterback controversy. And the reality of the situation is that some form of controversy is far more likely to occur rather than no controversy whatsoever.

The best-case scenario? One quarterback grabs the reigns early in fall camp making it an easy choice for Kelly and the QB goes on to have a great season both individually and as a team leader. The backup is never really needed, we feel guilty about it for a while, and we head into 2017 with one of the country’s top returning starters.

Yes, there are other permutations that can lead to success. For example, the named starter plays really well but gets hurt while the new starter plays equal or even better. Some might say that happened last year for Notre Dame.

Still, there are so many more avenues that can lead to a full-fledged quarterback controversy. For one, you need a quarterback to play at a very high level and that’s never easy. In addition, there has to be a consistency to that high level of play and the team has to keep winning. This is what bothers me. I have no doubt if the Irish are 7-2 in November with Kizer playing and Andrew Hendrix backing up that no one is calling for a new starter.

Can we say the same thing with Zaire potentially waiting on the sidelines?

Our friend Keith Arnold at Inside the Irish summarized an interview of Brian Kelly this past Friday while on the Jim Rome Show. Kelly stated:

“It would be great that whoever took the job over played so well that he’s going to be a Heisman contender. If that doesn’t happen, I can see both of them eventually playing.”

Kelly is a politician, there’s no doubt about that. Most of the time he dances around this subject while staying firmly anchored to the ideal that he’d like to start and play one quarterback. Occasionally, he’ll leave the door open to playing two quarterbacks. Mike Vorel from the South Bend Tribune had a story on Sunday titled “A How-to Guide for Selecting Notre Dame’s Starting Quarterback” with a pertinent quote from former Texas head coach Mack Brown:

“First, you have to handle the message to the fan base, because they will choose sides, period. They are going to have favorites, and it’s usually the one that hasn’t played as much, because (they think) he’s got fewer problems because they don’t know him as well.”

Prior to fall camp are we seeing Kelly trying to handle the message with the fan base? Kelly continued with Jim Rome:

“You’re going to need two quarterbacks in college football. You need two and we’ve got two very good ones. My expectation is that we need both of them to play.”

This is one of those Kelly interviews that leaves the door ajar. Yet, what is Kelly really saying? The desire of “needing” two quarterbacks sounds like an acceptance of the violence of the game and that injury is bound to happen. That’s not really playing two quarterbacks in a true sense. That situation happened back in 2009 at Cincinnati when Tony Pike was injured and Zach Collaros filled in–to this day people believe that was Kelly employing a two-quarterback system.

“I can see both of them playing” is a lot different when talking about injury versus switching quarterbacks when the starter isn’t playing at a high enough level or using both when each is playing really well.

All it takes is one game, one poor effort, one loss. In some drastic scenarios it might not even take more than a half of football. We’ve all seen the comments this off-season and the taking of sides.

What will it take for someone who thinks Kizer is better to sit quietly and completely support the decision to start Zaire?

Kelly continued on the Rome Show:

“I think it’s so important to have two quarterbacks, be engaged, keep them involved and as much as they can try to get them in the game if you can. It’s a lot more difficult if you can do that. But that’s the way it is in college football, with the quarterback being so actively involved in the running game.”

That’s a little more detail but still clinging to the injury possibilities. “Hey, we run the quarterback a lot and the backup needs to be ready in case there’s an injury” is what I’m getting from Kelly here.

Either way, it sounds like Kelly is, at minimum, politicking in the media to assuage the concerns of his quarterbacks. Remember, for as much as this is about managing the play on the field it’s about managing the egos and the delicate balance of leadership and teamwork behind the scenes. Neither quarterback is going to be happy sitting on the bench and before fall camp the best way to keep smiles on everyone’s face is to say you’re expecting to play two quarterbacks.

Will we truly really see both quarterbacks when not dealing with injuries? If we do, I’d imagine we’ll see Kizer win the job and be announced as the starter. If things go well, we’ll see Zaire in very limited reps, initially in lower pressure moments while leading by 10 or more points, and in very favorable situations conducive to success. That’s about as good of a balance as you can create.

“I’m not going to have a quarterback controversy. I think we can move forward knowing that both of them are going to play in some fashion.”

The problem is that you can’t just declare there won’t be a controversy. This situation can easily be mismanaged and that’s without taking into account player performance. If Kizer plays most of the snaps and plays well there will still be a vocal minority shouting that Zaire can play better. And that will seep into the media and affect the team.

Who knows what roads will need to be walked down if the starter doesn’t play well. It’s possible the backup comes in and plays amazing. However, with two talented quarterbacks with experience the odds are likely that eventually a controversy will develop. In the South Bend Tribune article Kelly once again seemed to move away from any notion of a two-quarterback system:

“I’d really like for this to be clearly defined. There will be a 1. There will be a 2. But it’s going to be a very competitive situation, because they’re both very good players, and they’re both guys that can lead us to a championship. One’s going to have to be the starter, and somebody is going to be unhappy. But I can’t keep them all happy.”

All we can do is pray that a controversy doesn’t happen, that both players are mature enough to handle being unhappy if they’re on the sidelines, and that the team is committed enough to their goals to persevere through the drama and not let the issues negatively consume the season.