Notre Dame

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.3098th
  Defense−0.0796th
• 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.
  Offense49.0%93rd
  Defense36.4%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4499th
  Defense+1.2741st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2193rd
  Defense0.0074th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3893rd
  Defense−0.0696th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%75th
  Defense42.0%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense44.0%99th
  Defense26.4%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0564th
  Defense2.7472nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%27th
  Defense18.3%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%73rd
  Defense18.4%86th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MIA
2. L
   TA&M
3. W
   PUR
4. W
   ARK
5. W
   BOIS
6. W
   NCSU
7. W
   USC
8. W
   BC
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    PITT
11. W
    SYR
12. W
    STAN

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

Players, 2025

1. CJ CarrQB228 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 85th of 231 QBs
   0.95WAR0.49 to 1.36
2. Jeremiyah LoveRB161 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 16th of 365 RBs
   0.40WAR0.30 to 0.51
3. Malachi FieldsWR45 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 137th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
4. Jadarian PriceRB69 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 206th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Jordan FaisonWR40 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 185th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Will PaulingWR27 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 264th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Eli RaridonTE34 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 76th of 213 TEs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12
8. James RendellP16 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 44th of 100 punters
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9129129th of 134Roster talent: 912, 9th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2732738th of 134Recruiting: 273, 8th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%64th of 132Returning production: 37%, 64th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.4+24.45th of 134SP+ rating: +24.4, 5th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 1 clear-cut one accounts for 0.02 of the 0.06 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 TA&MQ2 0:05 4th & 13 at TA&M 43, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.6 pts
2. vs USCQ4 2:35 4th & 15 at USC 28, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
3. vs USCQ4 2:35 4th & 15 at USC 28, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
4. vs USCQ4 12:44 4th & 4 at USC 13, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
5. at ARKQ3 13:30 4th & 10 at ND 25, up 29Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.4 pts
6. at STANQ2 14:33 4th & 9 at ND 16, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.3 pts
7. vs TA&MQ2 14:54 4th & 4 at TA&M 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
8. vs USCQ1 2:41 4th & 2 at ND 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

75th of 136 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

   MIA
2. L

   TA&M
3. W

   PUR
4. W

   ARK
5. W

   BOIS
6. W

   NCSU
7. W

   USC
8. W

   BC
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    PITT
11. W

    SYR
12. W

    STAN

What moved it, 2025

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+0.89
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• MIAL 24-27 at MIA60% → 11%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −3
• TA&ML 40-41 vs TA&M64% → 26%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• PURW 56-30 vs PUR95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• ARKW 56-13 at ARK65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• BOISW 28-7 vs BOIS91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• NCSUW 36-7 vs NCSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• USCW 34-24 vs USC77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• BCW 25-10 at BC97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Clock +1
• NAVYW 49-10 vs NAVY97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• PITTW 37-15 at PITT80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• SYRW 70-7 vs SYR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• STANW 49-20 at STAN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5

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.