Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2167th
  Defense+0.0390th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%53rd
  Defense38.8%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3683rd
  Defense+1.2172nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0835th
  Defense+0.0666th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3173rd
  Defense+0.0194th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%43rd
  Defense46.0%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%78th
  Defense25.4%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8725th
  Defense2.8768th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%14th
  Defense20.7%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%38th
  Defense17.3%62nd

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, 2021

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
   FSU
2. W
   TOL
3. W
   PUR
4. W
   WIS
5. L
   CIN
6. W
   VT
7. W
   USC
8. W
   UNC
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    UVA
11. W
    GT
12. W
    STAN
13. L
    OKST

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

Players, 2021

1. Jack CoanQB403 plays · +0.312 pts/play · 18th of 219 QBs
   2.35WAR1.48 to 3.14
2. Kyren WilliamsRB213 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 22nd of 387 RBs
   0.79WAR0.62 to 0.98
3. Kevin Austin Jr.WR70 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 28th of 474 WRs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.35
4. Jay BramblettP50 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 38th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
5. Braden LenzyWR56 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Avery DavisWR44 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 185th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Lorenzo Styles Jr.CB30 plays · +0.173 pts/play
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.12
8. Jonathan DoererPK17 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 77th of 128 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85385312th of 130Roster talent: 853, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26226211th of 130Recruiting: 262, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%117th of 128Returning production: 37%, 117th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.4+17.411th of 130SP+ rating: +17.4, 11th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 UNCQ4 11:52 4th & 2 at UNC 2, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs OKSTQ1 4:15 4th & 1 at ND 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs OKSTQ3 5:09 4th & 4 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs UNCQ4 1:37 4th & 2 at UNC 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs PURQ4 8:05 4th & 9 at PUR 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs USCQ2 13:24 4th & 3 at USC 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs PURQ4 2:06 4th & 1 at ND 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs PURQ2 8:45 4th & 3 at PUR 10, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

8th 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

   FSU
2. W

   TOL
3. W

   PUR
4. W

   WIS
5. L

   CIN
6. W

   VT
7. W

   USC
8. W

   UNC
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    UVA
11. W

    GT
12. W

    STAN
13. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2021

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+2.41
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.22
• Timeouts+0.23
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• FSUW 41-38 at FSU68% → 71%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +36, Clock −21
• TOLW 32-29 vs TOL86% → 96%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• PURW 27-13 vs PUR69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33
• WISW 41-13 at WIS31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +65, Other +1
• CINL 13-24 vs CIN44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• VTW 32-29 at VT49% → 85%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +3
• USCW 31-16 vs USC64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• UNCW 44-34 vs UNC59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• NAVYW 34-6 vs NAVY93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• UVAW 28-3 at UVA68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• GTW 55-0 vs GT87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• STANW 45-14 at STAN92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• OKSTL 35-37 vs OKST49% → 6%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3

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.