Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2995th
  Defense−0.0998th
• 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.
  Offense49.3%95th
  Defense34.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3173rd
  Defense+1.2169th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2087th
  Defense0.0082nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4290th
  Defense−0.0899th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.1%94th
  Defense40.4%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%87th
  Defense25.0%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3790th
  Defense2.8579th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%74th
  Defense21.1%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%89th
  Defense20.2%92nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   NAVY
2. W
   TNST
3. W
   NCSU
4. W
   CMU
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   DUKE
7. L
   LOU
8. W
   USC
9. W
   PITT
10. L
    CLEM
11. W
    WAKE
12. W
    STAN
13. W
    ORST

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

Players, 2023

1. Sam HartmanQB262 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 54th of 250 QBs
   1.42WAR0.91 to 2.00
2. Audric EstimeRB160 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 26th of 383 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.58
3. Mitchell EvansTE26 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 33rd of 212 TEs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
4. Spencer ShraderPK17 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 49th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. Chris TyreeWR28 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 311th of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.09
6. Holden StaesTE18 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 150th of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
7. Jayden ThomasWR17 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 323rd of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  87187111th of 130Roster talent: 871, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2672679th of 130Recruiting: 267, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%100th of 128Returning production: 35%, 100th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.1+20.18th of 130SP+ rating: +20.1, 8th 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, 2023

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 0.05 of the 0.10 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 LOUQ3 1:06 4th & 4 at LOU 36, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at DUKEQ4 13:44 4th & 3 at DUKE 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at LOUQ3 13:18 4th & 6 at LOU 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at DUKEQ4 0:41 4th & 16 at DUKE 47, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs USCQ4 3:40 4th & 1 at USC 5, up 19Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs USCQ2 12:19 4th & 2 at USC 18, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs PITTQ2 2:14 4th & 3 at PITT 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at LOUQ4 9:42 4th & 11 at ND 35, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

54th of 133 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

   NAVY
2. W

   TNST
3. W

   NCSU
4. W

   CMU
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   DUKE
7. L

   LOU
8. W

   USC
9. W

   PITT
10. L

    CLEM
11. W

    WAKE
12. W

    STAN
13. W

    ORST

What moved it, 2023

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+0.73
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.08
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.48

Game by game

• NAVYW 42-3 vs NAVY92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• TNSTW 56-3 vs TNST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NCSUW 45-24 at NCSU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• CMUW 41-17 vs CMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• OSUL 14-17 vs OSU37% → 15%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Clock −4
• DUKEW 21-14 at DUKE61% → 85%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −5
• LOUL 20-33 at LOU69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −2
• USCW 48-20 vs USC53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• PITTW 58-7 vs PITT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• CLEML 23-31 at CLEM54% → 3%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• WAKEW 45-7 vs WAKE94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• STANW 56-23 at STAN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• ORSTW 40-8 vs ORST66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34

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.