Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1666th
  Defense0.0084th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%54th
  Defense39.0%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2777th
  Defense+1.1084th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0330th
  Defense+0.0367th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3083rd
  Defense−0.0288th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%52nd
  Defense44.3%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%66th
  Defense28.5%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6218th
  Defense2.9938th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.2%4th
  Defense18.3%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%73rd
  Defense16.2%52nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   MICH
2. W
   BALL
3. W
   VAN
4. W
   WAKE
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   VT
7. W
   PITT
8. W
   NAVY
9. W
   NU
10. W
    FSU
11. W
    SYR
12. W
    USC
13. L
    CLEM

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

Players, 2018

1. Ian BookQB346 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 38th of 225 QBs
   1.69WAR1.14 to 2.29
2. Brandon WimbushQB122 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 115th of 225 QBs
   0.67WAR0.44 to 0.90
3. Dexter WilliamsRB132 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 67th of 351 RBs
   0.45WAR0.35 to 0.54
4. Tony Jones Jr.RB68 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 190th of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.18 to 0.28
5. Chase ClaypoolWR63 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 61st of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.26
6. Miles BoykinWR77 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 66th of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.27
7. Justin YoonPK18 plays · +0.436 pts/play · 21st of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
8. Chris FinkeWR64 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 113th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84884810th of 130Roster talent: 848, 10th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25925910th of 130Recruiting: 259, 10th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%55th of 129Returning production: 68%, 55th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.7+20.713th of 130SP+ rating: +20.7, 13th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 0.09 of the 0.16 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. vs VANQ4 3:39 4th & 1 at VAN 14, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 10:31 4th & 2 at PITT 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. vs VANQ3 4:47 4th & 1 at ND 10, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs STANQ3 8:07 4th & 2 at STAN 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at NUQ2 1:12 4th & 1 at ND 18, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at USCQ3 5:26 4th & 10 at USC 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at NUQ4 0:12 4th & 21 at NU 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs PITTQ2 4:34 4th & 4 at PITT 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

9th of 130 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

   MICH
2. W

   BALL
3. W

   VAN
4. W

   WAKE
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   VT
7. W

   PITT
8. W

   NAVY
9. W

   NU
10. W

    FSU
11. W

    SYR
12. W

    USC
13. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2018

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+2.75
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.82

Game by game

• MICHW 24-17 vs MICH44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• BALLW 24-16 vs BALL97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +7
• VANW 22-17 vs VAN84% → 91%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +2
• WAKEW 56-27 at WAKE72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• STANW 38-17 vs STAN64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −1
• VTW 45-23 at VT67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• PITTW 19-14 vs PITT93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• NAVYW 44-22 at NAVY94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13
• NUW 31-21 at NU79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• FSUW 42-13 vs FSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• SYRW 36-3 vs SYR79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• USCW 24-17 at USC84% → 95%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• CLEML 3-30 at CLEM21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24

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.