Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.3999th
  Defense−0.1598th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense53.9%99th
  Defense31.1%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1520th
  Defense+1.1577th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2791st
  Defense−0.2398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5393rd
  Defense−0.0589th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense61.6%99th
  Defense36.6%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%28th
  Defense21.6%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3479th
  Defense2.5286th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%90th
  Defense23.0%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.7%93rd
  Defense22.8%99th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Notre Dame allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   WIS
2. W
   RICE
3. W
   MSU
4. W
   PUR
5. W
   UNC
6. W
   STAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Notre Dame.

Players, 2026

1. CJ CarrQB78 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 82nd of 192 QBs
   0.24WAR0.11 to 0.35
2. Aneyas WilliamsRB35 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 139th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.06 to 0.09
3. Jordan FaisonWR19 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 106th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Spencer PorathPK3 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 61st of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
5. Nolan James Jr.RB6 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 285th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Notre Dame's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9539536th of 138Roster talent: 953, 6th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2792798th of 138Recruiting: 279, 8th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%54th of 136Returning production: 51%, 54th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +28.0+28.03rd of 138SP+ rating so far: +28.0, 3rd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Notre Dame's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at UNCQ4 0:07 4th & 13 at UNC 37, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
2. at UNCQ4 7:05 4th & 4 at UNC 13, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
3. vs MSUQ1 0:34 4th & 13 at ND 39, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs WISQ1 1:31 4th & 4 at WIS 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs MSUQ4 9:18 4th & 4 at MSU 21, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at PURQ3 7:45 4th & 1 at ND 13, up 35Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs STANQ3 11:44 4th & 3 at STAN 42, up 37Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs MSUQ1 12:06 4th & 3 at MSU 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

60th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Notre Dame's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WIS
2. W

   RICE
3. W

   MSU
4. W

   PUR
5. W

   UNC
6. W

   STAN

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Notre Dame's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.45
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• WISW 41-13 vs WIS93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• RICEW 52-0 vs RICE99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• MSUW 27-10 vs MSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• PURW 49-10 at PUR96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• UNCW 37-26 at UNC92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• STANW 58-7 vs STAN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2

Points of win probability, from Notre Dame's side.

Closest call

ND 32-29 VT (2021) - Notre Dame dropped to a 5.4% win probability before pulling it out.