Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1352nd
  Defense+0.0574th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%85th
  Defense38.8%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.117th
  Defense+1.3126th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0950th
  Defense+0.0941st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2041st
  Defense+0.0788th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%86th
  Defense45.1%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.
  Offense32.6%66th
  Defense26.0%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3283rd
  Defense2.9662nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.1%92nd
  Defense20.3%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%85th
  Defense14.6%27th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   OSU
2. L
   MRSH
3. W
   CAL
4. W
   UNC
5. W
   BYU
6. L
   STAN
7. W
   UNLV
8. W
   SYR
9. W
   CLEM
10. W
    NAVY
11. W
    BC
12. L
    USC
13. W
    SC

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

Players, 2022

1. Drew PyneQB246 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 72nd of 234 QBs
   1.02WAR0.45 to 1.59
2. Audric EstimeRB132 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 70th of 384 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.45
3. Logan DiggsRB123 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 85th of 384 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.43
4. Michael MayerTE72 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 2nd of 214 TEs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.42
5. Jon SotP46 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 28th of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. Jayden ThomasWR31 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 241st of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Lorenzo Styles Jr.CB35 plays · +0.107 pts/play
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Tyler BuchnerWR30 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 317th of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86686610th of 129Roster talent: 866, 10th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26426411th of 129Recruiting: 264, 11th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%91st of 128Returning production: 42%, 91st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.335th of 129SP+ rating: +10.3, 35th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 BYUQ4 6:07 4th & 2 at BYU 2, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs CLEMQ3 9:23 4th & 4 at CLEM 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at SCQ3 1:36 4th & 3 at ND 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at NAVYQ4 7:32 4th & 2 at NAVY 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at SCQ4 13:15 4th & 4 at ND 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
6. vs CLEMQ3 1:20 4th & 8 at CLEM 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs CALQ4 4:56 4th & 4 at ND 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at SYRQ4 1:58 4th & 2 at SYR 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

49th of 131 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

   OSU
2. L

   MRSH
3. W

   CAL
4. W

   UNC
5. W

   BYU
6. L

   STAN
7. W

   UNLV
8. W

   SYR
9. W

   CLEM
10. W

    NAVY
11. W

    BC
12. L

    USC
13. W

    SC

What moved it, 2022

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+1.18
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.00

Game by game

• OSUL 10-21 at OSU11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 21-26 vs MRSH90% → 3%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• CALW 24-17 vs CAL85% → 92%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +1
• UNCW 45-32 at UNC43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• BYUW 28-20 vs BYU61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• STANL 14-16 vs STAN85% → 5%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UNLVW 44-21 vs UNLV96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• SYRW 41-24 at SYR54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• CLEMW 35-14 vs CLEM40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• NAVYW 35-32 at NAVY91% → 94%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• BCW 44-0 vs BC90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• USCL 27-38 at USC46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• SCW 45-38 at SC64% → 80%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −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.