Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2283rd
  Defense+0.0669th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense39.4%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1818th
  Defense+1.3521st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1263rd
  Defense−0.0174th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3483rd
  Defense+0.1463rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.0%80th
  Defense44.7%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%75th
  Defense30.2%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2687th
  Defense2.4391st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%84th
  Defense28.1%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%91st
  Defense21.6%98th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   DUKE
2. W
   USF
3. W
   FSU
4. W
   LOU
5. W
   PITT
6. W
   GT
7. W
   CLEM
8. W
   BC
9. W
   UNC
10. W
    SYR
11. L
    CLEM
12. L
    ALA

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

Players, 2020

1. Ian BookQB352 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 10th of 212 QBs
   1.28WAR0.75 to 1.87
2. Kyren WilliamsRB198 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 7th of 338 RBs
   0.70WAR0.55 to 0.85
3. Javon McKinleyWR42 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 85th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
4. Bennett SkowronekWR30 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 156th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
5. Chris TyreeWR42 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
6. Avery DavisWR30 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 221st of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Jonathan DoererPK16 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 15th of 97 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Michael MayerTE37 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 14th of 191 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8668669th of 127Roster talent: 866, 9th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25825814th of 127Recruiting: 258, 14th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%77th of 127Returning production: 59%, 77th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +21.0+21.05th of 127SP+ rating: +21.0, 5th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.05 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 LOUQ2 0:43 4th & 9 at LOU 13, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs FSUQ3 10:21 4th & 5 at ND 32, up 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at UNCQ2 10:59 4th & 2 at ND 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs DUKEQ2 12:40 4th & 8 at ND 21, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at PITTQ3 7:34 4th & 3 at PITT 3, up 25Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at PITTQ2 14:37 4th & 7 at PITT 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs DUKEQ2 7:32 4th & 4 at DUKE 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at UNCQ2 5:50 4th & 9 at UNC 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

9th of 127 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

   DUKE
2. W

   USF
3. W

   FSU
4. W

   LOU
5. W

   PITT
6. W

   GT
7. W

   CLEM
8. W

   BC
9. W

   UNC
10. W

    SYR
11. L

    CLEM
12. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2020

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+1.76
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• DUKEW 27-13 vs DUKE93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• USFW 52-0 vs USF93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• FSUW 42-26 vs FSU91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15
• LOUW 12-7 vs LOU84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• PITTW 45-3 at PITT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• GTW 31-13 at GT89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• CLEMW 47-40 vs CLEM31% → 91%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −19
• BCW 45-31 at BC83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• UNCW 31-17 at UNC57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• SYRW 45-21 vs SYR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• CLEML 10-34 vs CLEM19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• ALAL 14-31 at ALA10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position +1

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.