Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1565th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• 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.
  Offense45.5%69th
  Defense44.3%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2361st
  Defense+1.1376th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1470th
  Defense+0.0365th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2263rd
  Defense+0.2816th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%60th
  Defense48.3%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%79th
  Defense32.8%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9851st
  Defense2.6580th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%91st
  Defense19.6%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense15.0%28th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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. L
   TEX
2. W
   NEV
3. L
   MSU
4. L
   DUKE
5. W
   SYR
6. L
   NCSU
7. L
   STAN
8. W
   MIA
9. L
   NAVY
10. W
    ARMY
11. L
    VT
12. L
    USC

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

Players, 2016

1. DeShone KizerQB432 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 10th of 218 QBs
   2.37WAR1.71 to 3.07
2. Josh AdamsRB165 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 28th of 347 RBs
   0.64WAR0.47 to 0.80
3. Equanimeous St. BrownWR74 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 23rd of 417 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.41
4. Torii Hunter Jr.WR54 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 161st of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Tarean FolstonRB65 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 232nd of 347 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
6. Justin YoonPK14 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 57th of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Tyler NewsomeP47 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 60th of 82 punters
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
8. Kevin StephersonWR34 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 248th of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84284210th of 128Roster talent: 842, 10th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25925912th of 128Recruiting: 259, 12th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%66th of 128Returning production: 66%, 66th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.7+15.718th of 128SP+ rating: +15.7, 18th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 TEXQ4 5:23 4th & 1 at ND 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.7 pts
2. at NCSUQ3 9:39 4th & 12 at NCSU 24, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal2.4 pts
3. vs MSUQ2 5:06 4th & 1 at ND 21, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
4. vs STANQ2 2:13 4th & 9 at STAN 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. vs MIAQ2 13:23 4th & 3 at MIA 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
6. at NCSUQ2 4:14 4th & 3 at ND 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. vs VTQ2 0:25 4th & 1 at ND 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. vs MSUQ4 3:30 4th & 7 at ND 32, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

128th of 128 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. L

   TEX
2. W

   NEV
3. L

   MSU
4. L

   DUKE
5. W

   SYR
6. L

   NCSU
7. L

   STAN
8. W

   MIA
9. L

   NAVY
10. W

    ARMY
11. L

    VT
12. L

    USC

What moved it, 2016

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−2.32
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.78

Game by game

• TEXL 47-50 at TEX52% → 15%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +23
• NEVW 39-10 vs NEV95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• MSUL 28-36 vs MSU72% → 2%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• DUKEL 35-38 vs DUKE90% → 6%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• SYRW 50-33 vs SYR78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• NCSUL 3-10 at NCSU61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• STANL 10-17 vs STAN63% → 10%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• MIAW 30-27 vs MIA52% → 85%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• NAVYL 27-28 vs NAVY50% → 17%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position −2
• ARMYW 44-6 vs ARMY82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• VTL 31-34 vs VT60% → 19%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• USCL 27-45 at USC14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19

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.